Tibet

[John Long]

HisSelf says: "...Tibetans are very unhappy living under a government run by another ethnic group and in which they have absolutely no say.

Anti-government protest is a basic human right. The Chinese have a lot at stake in the Olympics, or at least they think they do."

You are saying something general like "white ants are very unhappy living under the control of another specie such as red ants". Which ethnic group in the world is happy to be run by another ethnic group? Just look around you -- you have the Red Indians in the United States, the racial issue between whites and blacks in the United States, the Basque separatists in Spain and France, the protesting Muslim immigrants in Denmark, the divided Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq, the Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka, the Malay Muslim separatists in southern Thailand, the Muslim separatists in the Philippines, the Kashmir separatists in India, the aborigines in Australia, .... There is a long list of such examples in numerous trouble spots around the world.

On your comment that "the Chinese have a lot at stake in the Olympics, or at least they think they do", I have this to say to you: "When you are faced with the options of either losing a chicken or an ox, I am sure you do not need to go back to school to learn how to make your choice."

[HisSelf]

Duh. OK. Let's talk issues.

The Tibetans have a number of issues on which they diverge from their Chinese rulers, and they no say on those issues. Mining of the Sacred Mountain. Constant (hours a week) manadatory indoctrination lectures - imagine the public response here were we all to suddenly be forced to attend a 3 hour lecture every week about the Conservative Party (All other parties having been outlawed). Sinofication of Tibet by the import of Chinese national immigrants in huge numbers. Exile of the Dalai Lama and large number of Tibetans.

You have to be amused at the latest developments though. The Chinese invited a busfull of foreign correspondents to Tibet to see for themselves that Tibet had been returned to "harmony". They toured various sites and at a temple, a sudden demonstration of Buddhist monks broke out. The monks were kicked and beaten in front of the foreign journalists. It's all on CNN as I write.

The Chinese might have gotten away with this had they restricted their invitations to "favoured" journalists - say the Singapore Straits Times, Le Kinshasa Potentiel, the Nova Srpska Politicka Misao, but they actually had the balls to invite the Wall Street Journal! Good heavens. Even Wall Street is afraid of the Wall Street Journal! Put this in the d'Oh! column, guys.

And now it's featured front page all over the world.

You gotta love it.

[mcqueen625]

China says that they want to negotiate with the Dalai Lama but on under the precondition that; "China's position that it is open to talks with the Dalai Lama if he gives up his desire for independence, and acknowledges that Tibet and Taiwan are inseparable from China." I was always taught that to negotiate means "to communicate in search of mutual agreement." There can be negotiations as long as one party predetermines what the end result will be.

China invaded Tibet in the 1950's and seized control of a sovereign country, and now China wants for these people to give up all hopes of someday returning their country to independence? The same applies to Taiwan, where the people have lived with freedom of choice for decades, and now the communists want Taiwan to give up the many freedoms they have come to expect, and become a society with no freedoms, no rights and a standard of life that is one of the worst in the world, and where the government allows their own people to starve, while they spend untold amounts of money to build a military which is basically being used to supress their own people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Tibetan statehood is a curious matter...it is not clear to me that Tibet was ever an "independent" state. What was Tibet's international status as of 1950? Was Tibet recognized as an independent sovereign? If so, why wasn't action taken by the UN?

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/mistake...he-century.html

http://www.heartibet.org/Referendum/Guests/ayers2.html

[From another nation in Canada]

Tibetan statehood is a curious matter...it is not clear to me that Tibet was ever an "independent" state. What was Tibet's international status as of 1950? Was Tibet recognized as an independent sovereign? If so, why wasn't action taken by the UN?

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/mistake...he-century.html

http://www.heartibet.org/Referendum/Guests/ayers2.html

Tibetan was semi-independent from China since around 1911, when the Last Dynasty of China - Qing dynasty transferred power to its successor - Republic of China.

Under Qing dynasty, Tibet was a distinct region under Central Government, who presided the religious ritual of selecting reborn Dalai Lama, deployed army in Tibet and appointed Federal Government Official in Tibet. Tibetans had autonomy on interior affaris.

In 1911, the Emperor of Qing Dynasty resigned and the republicans took the control of China. After that, China had experienced years of internal wars between warlords and invasion from Japan. During this time, the Central government had virtual no power on Tibet. Tibetans then gained control of Tiibet and China had only symbolic sovereignty over Tibet.

In 1949, the ruling KMT was ousted to Taiwan by Chinese Communist Party, who then defeated the local Tibetan army and Dalai Lama surrendered to Chinese army in 1951. Ever since then, China regain control to Tibet.

Edited March 31, 2008 by From another nation in Canada

[eyeball]

Is it just me or are does anyone else get the sense that conservatives everywhere are pretty cozy with the idea of giving China's authoritarianism a free pass on Tibet and human rights abuses in general? Of course if Cuba were to put in a bid for the Olympics it would be a completely different story.

I guess it must be due to China's embrace of capitalism and putting economics ahead of virtue.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In 1911, the Emperor of Qing Dynasty resigned and the republicans took the control of China. After that, China had experienced years of internal wars between warlords and invasion from Japan. During this time, the Central government had virtual no power on Tibet. Tibetans then gained control of Tiibet and China had only symbolic sovereignty over Tibet.

Ahhh...the smoke clears. Thank you for filling in the gaps...this makes a lot more sense than a sovereign Tibet since time in memorial. China didn't just wake up one morning and decide to annex Tibet!

[bush_cheney2004]

Is it just me or are does anyone else get the sense that conservatives everywhere are pretty cozy with the idea of giving China's authoritarianism a free pass on Tibet and human rights abuses in general? Of course if Cuba were to put in a bid for the Olympics it would be a completely different story.

No more than getting cozy with the same circumstances eleswhere...like Canada or the USA.

I guess it must be due to China's embrace of capitalism and putting economics ahead of virtue.

Indeed...a better reason doesn't exist. Olympics = $$$

[xul]

In my comprehension, the concept of a country was defineded by historical factors, such as treaties between nations and the results of wars, not by people's votes, races or ideologies.

Canada for one. Everyone knows Canada was found by British and French immigrants, of course and so-called First Nation, American Indians. But the foundation did not due to all these people's willing and wasn't by a peaceful vote. I guess for a long time, the conquerors were happy and some of them are still happy meanwhile the people who were conquered were unhappy and some of them are still unhappy.

If we adopt the principle of countries could be defineded by races or cultures, why couldn't we agree South Africa's apartheid policy was better? ---everyone knows Negro majority was unhappy under the white minority rule in the country and I guess white minority is unhappy now under the Negro majority rule. If a country could be defined by religions or ideologies, why there wasn't a liberal-Canada, a conservative-Canada, a NDP-Canada, a Islamic-Canada or a Lamaism-Canada?

Why this kind of vote-establishing countries shoud not be encouraged? Let's presume there is a country, have two regions of A and B, and two races of A_a and B_b. The race A_a is majority in the country and mainly lived in region A, and B_b is minority and mainly lives in region B. B_b is unhappy under race A_a's majority rule so they want separating from the country and build their own country in region B.

But the problem is, when the race B_b is happy for their majority rule of region B, those people of race A_a residing in region B will become minority and will be unhappy for their ruled by majority race B_b, so they will also have rights of independence----this was exactly happend in Kosovo now.

Perhaps vote-deciding-all believers would allow these guys making another independence. But the new country will also have various religions, ideologies, parties, men, women and kids....and liberals will be unhappy if conservatives are government , or converservatives will be unhappy if liberals are government ...perhaps eventually everyone have to build his own single-person-only country, so everyone will be all happy and harmonious country would become reality.

Edited April 3, 2008 by xul

[xul]

Maybe there is another thread on Tibet. It's not on the first page.

The Globe and Mail frontpaged an article yesterday quoting the Dalai Lama saying he would resign if things do not calm down; he thinks it is important to have good relations with China. Today, the Chinese are saying that if things let up in Tibet, all might be good.

So China to Dalai Lama.... "Get this thing under control and welcome home!"

So does Tibet want to be a country or does it want to be a "distinct society" part of China

What can we say? Rene liked to smoke too. There should be another Olympic medal: The political push.

I am completely serious.

I'm sorry I have never directly responding your thread.

I think you were too trusting in those political figures' orally declarations. Orally, both Bush and Fidel Castro were talking democracy, but we could not expect them to sit in the same table to talk about how to build democracy in the world. I think the vital deviation between Dalai Lama and China government is:

China government: you give up your political power and only to be a "spirit leader" of Lamaism

Dalai Lama: you give up your political power and only to be a "spirit leader" of sovereignty

Just as Mr.Bush's democracy is Mr.Castro to power down and Mr.Castro's democray is Mr.Bush to power down. Who may belive them would have willing to talk democracy seriously?

[eyeball]

I guess it must be due to China's embrace of capitalism and putting economics ahead of virtue.

Indeed...a better reason doesn't exist. Olympics = $$$

What a sphincter.

[xul]

I guess it must be due to China's embrace of capitalism and putting economics ahead of virtue.

I doubt Serbians' fate in Kosovo was due to that their incumbent government reufused to embrace capitalism or democracy.

[Rue]

Is it just me or are does anyone else get the sense that conservatives everywhere are pretty cozy with the idea of giving China's authoritarianism a free pass on Tibet and human rights abuses in general? Of course if Cuba were to put in a bid for the Olympics it would be a completely different story.

I guess it must be due to China's embrace of capitalism and putting economics ahead of virtue.

With due respect Eyeball and everyone knows I am not a Conservative, you are way off base. Stephen Harper was the first Canadian PM, Liberal or Conservative to speak out against China since the Korean war and it was my ehro Trudea who made a point of sucking up to Mao not the Conservatives. Fair is fair. This Liberal aint about to pretend otherwise. Bill Clinton enabled China to create the most powerful and influential lobby on Capital Hill and took millions in support from them and basically sold out the US economy to them.

The people who suck up to China are from all political stripes. If anything in Canada, Jean Chretiens went their on his hands and knees and performed oral sex like a yapping seal on a trade junket.

Fair is fair. Some of the biggest opponents of China are US Republicans who support Taiwan. In Canada, Jack Layton is consipicuously silent on China for a baboon that yammers on about evil Canada in Afghanistan.

The point is, China's economic fangs have a lot of people of all political ideologies by the balls and its precisely why they protect Sudan and enable a mass continuing genocide in that country, keep Iran from collapsing, and run roughshod not just over Tibet, but the world with their human rights autrocities and predatory pricing practices.

Where were you when the Liberals and NDP were badmouthing Fatboy Steve for having the nerve to criticize China?

Edited April 3, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

Ambassafor Xul of China it is I the Ambassador from the Land of Wiseguys, allow me to respond to your nations latest remarks stated through your office;

"In my comprehension, the concept of a country was defineded by historical factors, such as treaties between nations and the results of wars, not by people's votes, races or ideologies."

Not all countries have been defined by wars although I would concede it sure as hell seems that way.

"Everyone knows Canada was found by British and French immigrants, of course and so-called First Nation, American Indians."

The aboriginal peoples of Canada are not "so-called". I am not sure if you meant it that way or its just the syntax because English may not be your original language, but "so-called" in the context you used it, means you are questioning whether the aboriginal people are just that, aboriginal. Well they are the last time I looked. Last time I looked they were here for many years before anyone from Britain or France set foot on North American soil.

.

"But the foundation did not due to all these people's willing and wasn't by a peaceful vote."

Well yes Louis Riel might agree with you and so would many aboriginal people, but many other aboriginal people and most of us would concede no Canada has not been racked by civil war nor was there any violent war that created our country. In fact our bi-federalism, our constitution, or parliamentary traditions and all our laws have been designed to do exactly what they have done, assure the peoples' popular will has been followed and through peaceful means. Our country continues to evolve and peacefully through its political and legal processes define its identity and in particular its aboriginal and French components. The point is your classification of Canada as a violent result is not accurate.

"I guess for a long time, the conquerors were happy and some of them are still happy meanwhile the people who were conquered were unhappy and some of them are still unhappy."

This is the key point you have missed and I think you are being snide and disingenuine about. As much as our legal history with aboriginals is lacking and full of mistakes, our Supreme Court and our legal process recognizes them as equals and autonomous something China will not do with its Tibetans. Nice try though trying to use the arguement that Canada is evil to aboriginals so China can be evil to Tibetans. Not only is your arguement based on a fallacy and defective comparisons but its illogical-even if it could be shown Canada is as evil to its aboriginal peoples as China is to its Tibetans how would that morally make either acceptable?

"If we adopt the principle of countries could be defineded by races or cultures, why couldn't we agree South Africa's apartheid policy was better? "

Tibet is not South Africa and to suggest it is the equivalent of South Africa and an apartheid state is as absurd as your trying to suggest Canada was created by violence and we treat our citizens no differently then the citizens within China. Again nice try but its nonsense.

The desire of Tibet to be autonomous is absolutely no different then what the Supreme Court of Canada has already recognized for Francophones and aboriginals and for that matter all minority groups in Canada.

Say now does China have a human rights code. No didn't think so.

"---everyone knows Negro majority was unhappy under the white minority rule in the country and I guess white minority is unhappy now under the Negro majority rule. "

Say now someone still uses the word negro. Haven't heard that word in awhile.In Canada we call them folks black people or if you really want to get smart ass, Lt. Ohoura's bruthas and sistahs but not negro. Er not unless you want a big negro to hurt you. Try calling them blacks. Safer. That said, your attempt to compare the Tibetans desire for cultural and spiritual autonomy with South African caucasians is disingenuine.

"If a country could be defined by religions or ideologies, why there wasn't a liberal-Canada, a conservative-Canada, a NDP-Canada, a Islamic-Canada or a Lamaism-Canada?"

See you really missed the boat on the above comment. Canada was founded on a Christian ideology and it remains an integral part of our legal system. Christian and Jewish legal principles are very much implemented in our legal doctrines and we now embrace aboriginal principals as well. Absolutely. The point is the country was created as a Christian nation and it will always remain an integral part of the nation's psyche. All Western democracies were created as Christian nations. for that matter all Muslim nations based on Sharia law were created as and remain Muslim nations. India is a Hindu nation. Israel is a Jewish nation. Your point?

What has happened is as we have evolved and embraced democracy and freedom of individuality and the right to think freely and have different religions is that our governments have become religiously neutral so as to allow many cultures, religions and ideologies to peacefully co-exist. It may seem to some we have rejected Christian ideology but I would argue we have not and should not but are simply adding others because that is precisely what democracies allow. The freeedom to choose.

Think how absurd your question is. The very reason China is trying to suffocate the Tibetans is precisely because of its need to impose by its state religion and ideology. China's religion and ideology is the state is the only organ allowed, and what it says must be and you know that. That state organ consists of layers of elitists who get their power by marching in step with the central organ of the Communist Party of China . Question the state's control and people like XUL will ex-communicate you no different then what the Roman Catholic Church will do. The only difference between the Vatican and China is one calls the head the Pope the other the Chairman of the Communist Party. They both are old farts surrounded by layers of cronies who punish those who do not follow the imposed dogma.

That is the problem XUL and the essence of the issue. You follow a vision where all must conform to the state's needs and put their own interests to the side. That's nice XUL and I must admit when you have over a billion people it probably is a practical necessity but it doesn't change what it is- an organized faith system-the fact that one may use Latin and sign songs of Jesus and the other talks about the collective needs of the state is just words-the purpose and function is the same-control the masses.

You Sir subscribe to a collective and when you see anyone not wishing to be part of that collective you condemn them and want them brought under control. We like to call people like you in North America, Borgs. It comes from Star Trek a t.v. show. Please go find out who the Borg are. If you really want to understand the Western world's concerns about Chinas' ideology and how we perceive your collective find out about the Borg.

By the way there is a character called 7 of 9. She was a Borg but escaped the collective. Please check her out. When she was created she was meant as a visual comment. Part of our fascination with China is we hate your collective ideology but we find your women beautiful. So 7 of 9 was symbolic of that-a beautiful woman representing the women of China-but none the less someone whose character we see flawed by its lack of individuality.

Now Xul you went on about A and B but it made no quantitative or calculated sense. The formula is actually quite simple is it not? China is X. A very large X just like your name. So we start, CHINA = X.

Along comes Tibet. Tibet says, Tibet = T. I could use the letter B since it is the first letter of Budda's name. I could have used M, but that is the first letter of Mao's name but I use T since it is the first letter of Tit one of my favourite words.

So you follow, China = X. Tibet = T. Now Xul comes by and says no, Tibet = X not T.

Either China recognizes Tibert or it does not. China can recognize Tibert through an autonomous relationship where the borders and government administration remain part of the Chinese government but the spiritual practice of the Tibetans and their historic traditions are honoured, as we now do with our aboriginals in Canada and French in Quebec and across the country, or you can crush the Tibetans just like some Canadians want all aboriginals and French crushed and hey anyone who doesn't speak English or who has a tan.

By the way XUL, maybe you want to go back before you criticize Canada too much and explain China's human rights record since 1949. My favourite is when Mao wiped out millions who failed to rehabilitate themselves. Do you still own the little Red Book or did you replace it with a book on predatory pricing?

If you make toys or tires come clean and tell us.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Rue

[xul]

Ambassafor Xul of China it is I the Ambassador from the Land of Wiseguys, allow me to respond to your nations latest remarks stated through your office;

I remember I have ever watched a film about 15 years ago. It was about a Jewish family lived in Germany in 1930s. At first of the film, their life was not different with other German. But one day Nazi took the power and tagged each Jew with a yellow star on their chest. Then everything had been changed since then. Wherever they came, people might say,"Look these guys with yellow tag. They are Jews so whatever they did are always for Jewish interests."

Perhaps they were not very unlucky for Israel was not a country then so people could not tag them as agents of Israeli embassy.

Not all countries have been defined by wars although I would concede it sure as hell seems that way.

Countries was defined by wars because countries were formed in the age of wars and conquers were fashion, far earlier than the time of people had learned to solve their problem by vote.

"Everyone knows Canada was found by British and French immigrants, of course and so-called First Nation, American Indians."

The aboriginal peoples of Canada are not "so-called". I am not sure if you meant it that way or its just the syntax because English may not be your original language, but "so-called" in the context you used it, means you are questioning whether the aboriginal people are just that, aboriginal. Well they are the last time I looked. Last time I looked they were here for many years before anyone from Britain or France set foot on North American soil.

I'm not sure if my sentence were syntax wrong. Of course I know American Indian are aboriginal people of Canada. I just meant the term of First Nation, which I supposed was created by politicians, was a so-called term.

"But the foundation did not due to all these people's willing and wasn't by a peaceful vote."

Well yes Louis Riel might agree with you and so would many aboriginal people, but many other aboriginal people and most of us would concede no Canada has not been racked by civil war nor was there any violent war that created our country. In fact our bi-federalism, our constitution, or parliamentary traditions and all our laws have been designed to do exactly what they have done, assure the peoples' popular will has been followed and through peaceful means. Our country continues to evolve and peacefully through its political and legal processes define its identity and in particular its aboriginal and French components. The point is your classification of Canada as a violent result is not accurate.

So there have ever been Hitler and Nazi, I still regard german are a honest and responsible nation for they have never told everyone, "Hitler is a citizen of the Third Reith not a German."

"I guess for a long time, the conquerors were happy and some of them are still happy meanwhile the people who were conquered were unhappy and some of them are still unhappy."

This is the key point you have missed and I think you are being snide and disingenuine about. As much as our legal history with aboriginals is lacking and full of mistakes, our Supreme Court and our legal process recognizes them as equals and autonomous something China will not do with its Tibetans. Nice try though trying to use the arguement that Canada is evil to aboriginals so China can be evil to Tibetans. Not only is your arguement based on a fallacy and defective comparisons but its illogical-even if it could be shown Canada is as evil to its aboriginal peoples as China is to its Tibetans how would that morally make either acceptable?

I know your stand. I agree it's legally correct that those immigrants I mentioned were British and French, not Canadian.

Say now someone still uses the word negro.

I appologize to everyone for my ignorance of the mean of the word. And thank you for reminding me.

Rue, I wish to answer each part of your post. But I think there have a huge divarication between us about how to comprehend the history of Canada, which is supposed as your legally perfect nation, far perfect than China and British, for "your nation" was found by peace, election, humanrights and multiculturalism when it was established, and "our nation" were found by wars, conquerors of Kings and Emperors thousands years ago. I could not plead for "my nation" when I was facing on a such perfect nation. So I give up.

About some fault of China, I have stated my opinion of that ideology can not be considered as the cause for independence. I am also dislike these faults, so I applied to migrate to Canada, without bring away any China territory such as my courtyard.

Nevertheless if you really concern about Tibetan and their opinion, I suggest you should make a tour to Tibet soon, I suppose the tourism will resume some months later, observe them, talk to them. I also suggest you make a tour to India, to visit the town of DaLai Lama's headquarter, talke to them, observe which kind of Tibetan they are. You would find the reality is far more different than the imagine you watched on TV.

Edited April 4, 2008 by xul

[eyeball]

With due respect Eyeball and everyone knows I am not a Conservative, you are way off base. Stephen Harper was the first Canadian PM, Liberal or Conservative to speak out against China since the Korean war and it was my ehro Trudea who made a point of sucking up to Mao not the Conservatives. Fair is fair. This Liberal aint about to pretend otherwise. Bill Clinton enabled China to create the most powerful and influential lobby on Capital Hill and took millions in support from them and basically sold out the US economy to them.

The people who suck up to China are from all political stripes. If anything in Canada, Jean Chretiens went their on his hands and knees and performed oral sex like a yapping seal on a trade junket.

Fair is fair. Some of the biggest opponents of China are US Republicans who support Taiwan. In Canada, Jack Layton is consipicuously silent on China for a baboon that yammers on about evil Canada in Afghanistan.

The point is, China's economic fangs have a lot of people of all political ideologies by the balls and its precisely why they protect Sudan and enable a mass continuing genocide in that country, keep Iran from collapsing, and run roughshod not just over Tibet, but the world with their human rights autrocities and predatory pricing practices.

Where were you when the Liberals and NDP were badmouthing Fatboy Steve for having the nerve to criticize China?

I did say conservatives not the Conservative Party, but I agree Harper has sounded better than most regarding China and you're perfectly correct that politicians of just about every stripe from most countries have suckholed to China. You're certainly right about China's economic fangs. I've long feared the development of closer economic ties with China and especially the assumption that our interaction would spur China to become more democratic - in a world that's largely locked in a race to the bottom the opposite is occuring.

[xul]

I did say conservatives not the Conservative Party, but I agree Harper has sounded better than most regarding China and you're perfectly correct that politicians of just about every stripe from most countries have suckholed to China. You're certainly right about China's economic fangs. I've long feared the development of closer economic ties with China and especially the assumption that our interaction would spur China to become more democratic - in a world that's largely locked in a race to the bottom the opposite is occuring.

I remember there was a actor's line in film STAR WARS:

"Fear is the path to the dark side.

Fear leds to anger. Anger leds to hate. Hate leds to suffering."

Edited April 4, 2008 by xul

[myata]

...I applied to migrate to Canada, without bring away any China territory such as my courtyard.

Tibetians who protest don't ask for any China territory; only their own.

Nevertheless if you really concern about Tibetan and their opinion, I suggest you should make a tour to Tibet soon ....

There's another, easier and clearer way of finding out what Tibetans want. It's called a free election and / or referendum. Any chance of that happening, anytime soon?

[xul]

Tibetians who protest don't ask for any China territory; only their own.

Did you mean China should deny Quebec is Canada territory?

Or have British ever recognized the Confederate State of American in American Civil War?

There's another, easier and clearer way of finding out what Tibetans want. It's called a free election and / or referendum. Any chance of that happening, anytime soon?

China communist government banned these in all China territory, not only in Tibet. This is a problem of their ideology, not racial repression.

The south states had held a free election for themself, but America federal government just refused to recognize it and sent troops to cancel the result of the election. And of course, British have never allowed American had a election for their independence. And I have never rememberd Israel or Canada supported Hamas for them won the election of Palestine in 2006.

And the Parliament of Canada have actually canceled the rights of holding independence referendum of Quebec since 1999, by the Clarity Act.

Quebec sovereignty movement

In 1999, the Parliament of Canada, inspired by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, passed the Clarity Act, a law that, amongst other things, set out the conditions under which the federal government would recognize a vote by any province to leave Canada.

Perhaps Canadian politicians should lecture Chinese communist politicians to adopt some Canadian political brightness. I said these seriously.

Edited April 5, 2008 by xul

[myata]

Did you mean China should deny Quebec is Canada territory?

Of course, and ultimately it's up to the people of Quebec to decide. As they did, in three free referenda (and counting). Would you like to bet on China allowing such referendum in Tibet, or maybe, Taiwan?

Or have British ever recognized the Confederate State of American in American Civil War?

OK, their motives aren't any different then from imperial ambitions of Britain in America then? Nothing to do with "liberation"?

China communist government banned these in all China territory, not only in Tibet. This is a problem of their ideology, not racial repression.

Yet without those, how does one know that "racial repression" isn't taking place? From your communist paper? Or maybe, state controlled TV?

And the Parliament of Canada have actually canceled the rights of holding independence referendum of Quebec since 1999, by the Clarity Act.

...

Perhaps Canadian politicians should lecture Chinese communist politicians to adopt some Canadian political brightness. I said these seriously.

Then surely, China would agree to "cancel" the rights of Tibetans (Taiwanese, etc) in a similar way, i.e. by letting them hold a referendum on the same conditions?

Not only Canada, but the whole world would gladly accept the will of people expressed freely in a clear majority and answering a clear question.

Again: any chance of that happening, anytime soon?

Edited April 5, 2008 by myata

[xul]

Of course, and ultimately it's up to the people of Quebec to decide. As they did, in three free referenda (and counting). Would you like to bet on China allowing such referendum in Tibet, or maybe, Taiwan?

Quebecan not only allowed French Canadian to vote in these referenda, but also allowed all people who lived in quebec to vote. If China was as what as it was accused by Dalai Lama that have immigrated a lot of Han people into Tibet, I doubt how Dalai Lama could win the vote.

About Taiwan, if Quebec had been occupied by Japan for 50 years and all patriots was killed and pupil was forcefully tought they were Japanese not Canadian before the end of WW2, then it have been "protected" by America force from Canada control for another 50 years and reading Canada newspaper, watching Canada TV, advocating Canada government's policy were illegal, the result of the referendum would be far different.

OK, their motives aren't any different then from imperial ambitions of Britain in America then? Nothing to do with "liberation"?

Liberate who? Those people who was denied the rights of seating in the same row in a cinema or bus with white guys nearly one hundred years after the war ended?

Yet without those, how does one know that "racial repression" isn't taking place? From your communist paper? Or maybe, state controlled TV?

A TV controlled by state does not mean everything it told us are lies. And those so-called objective weatern medias are not alway objective, or else one newspaper is enough.

For one. I am just a common Chinese engineer who applied immigration to Canada and my family, include my parents and grandparents have never had a communist member. I have join this forum for nearly a year and have show a lot of my knowledge of western. The western tourists witness of event I quoted to back my opinion was from TheStar and CNN websites not Chinese media. But this forum still have a lot of people believe or insinuate my brain was manipulated by "my" communist paper or state controlled TV.

And Rue actually belived I was vulnerable of these kind of manipulation because my education was based on Confucianism ---sounds like she was talking my grandfather----meanwhile she believes Lamas and living buddha believers were immune from any kind of manipulating.

If manipulation could be defined as "to be banned or self baned to read opposote opinion ", why people here would not like bother themselves to look into this China state controll newspaper website Lhasa riot reports show media bias in West to read some opposite opinion?

Then surely, China would agree to "cancel" the rights of Tibetans (Taiwanese, etc) in a similar way, i.e. by letting them hold a referendum on the same conditions?

Before Mr. Harper was elected as Canada PM, Liberal has come into power for 13 years and the Canadian Parliament did not cancel the right of conservative could be elected for Liberal have been elected several times by Canadian.

If the independence referendum was the certain right, the parliament would have no right to cancel it.

Not only Canada, but the whole world would gladly accept the will of people expressed freely in a clear majority and answering a clear question.

Really? If you was a Palestinian and lived in Gaza, would you gladly accept you kids to be a suicide bomb because the majority of the residents agreed this way?

Edited April 5, 2008 by xul

[HisSelf]

A couple of interesting developments on this front...

Harper has announced he won't be attending the opening ceremonies. Good man.

The IOC has released a statement saying that because of the high level of polution in Beijing, athletes may not be able to perform at their best.

The latter is really interesting because it is an attack on more than one level. Tibet. The environment. Depending on how it came about, the value of the Yuan/Renminbi. I'd love to see the diplomatic tale behind this move.

It's getting interestinger and interestinger....

Edited April 5, 2008 by HisSelf

[eyeball]

Our focus should remain fixed squarely on human rights. How can any human without rights be expected to press the case for better environment and economic policies and justice?

Forcing our politicians to focus on human rights abroad of course has the added value of causing others to point their fingers at human right abuses here. We need all the help we can get to force our politicians to listen and losing face abroad seems to be even worse than losing it at home for both China and Canada.

[xul]

Harper has announced he won't be attending the opening ceremonies. Good man.

"My" communist chairman have never attended Sudanese King's inaugural ceremony but only keeps the economic ties with Sudan for benefiting China national interests, so he is also a good guy.

The IOC has released a statement saying that because of the high level of polution in Beijing, athletes may not be able to perform at their best.

I guess what you mentioned are from CNN's website: Rogge reassurances over Beijing pollution

"The health of the athletes is absolutely not in any danger," Rogge said Saturday.

"It might be that some will have to have a slightly reduced performance, but nothing will harm the health of the athletes. The IOC will take care of that."

The latter is really interesting because it is an attack on more than one level. Tibet. The environment. Depending on how it came about, the value of the Yuan/Renminbi. I'd love to see the diplomatic tale behind this move.

It's getting interestinger and interestinger....

It would be geting far interestinger if CPChina chairman needed to be elected by westerners....

Edited April 6, 2008 by xul

[xul]

Forcing our politicians to focus on human rights abroad

Why did you want to force the politicians who was elected by Canadian to act according your value and ideology?

Do you think that an elected politician's policy needs depending on media moguls's and human rights activists' will and interests not on his voter's will and interests is a good thing?

If politicians was manipulated by medias, it would be no different from medias was manipulated by politicians.

Edited April 6, 2008 by xul