Let's make sure our new Chinese residents don't think they can tell us who is allowed to visit NZ
Chinese seek to ban Dalai Lama from NZ
An umbrella group representing 28 local Chinese organisations wants the Government to follow South Africa's lead in refusing to grant the Dalai Lama a visa to visit. The 73-year-old Tibetan exiled spiritual leader is scheduled to visit Auckland on December 6. He will speak at the Vector Arena and plans to meet Prime Minister John Key. Mr Key has said he will meet the Buddhist leader when he comes, calling the Dalai Lama a "significant visitor". The Dalai Lama was to visit South Africa last week after being invited to attend a peace conference of Nobel laureates, but was refused a visa. The United Chinese Association of New Zealand will be writing to the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister requesting that New Zealand does the same. The South African government admitted its decision was taken to avoid harming relations with China.
Hmmm - I think the words are 'get fucked' - just because South Africa are gutless wonders dependent on aid handouts from the Chinese, doesn’t mean we in NZ should bow to these demands. This is NZ, this is not the largest totalitarian communist dictatorship on the face of the planet and the Dalai Lama should be welcome here whenever he turns up. These Chinese residents need to understand that in their new home we allow people free speech and only ban them on the most serious of issues, and the Dalai Lama pointing out the brutal repression of his homeland certainly doesn’t get anywhere near those levels.
posted by Bomber @ 7:03 am
12 comments
12 Comments:
Nice to see the kinds of new residents we seem to be letting live here
Anyone know the names of these 28 groups..be good to see their structure, and reasoning for this infraction of our sovereignty!!
"The Dalai Lama is just a stirrer and everywhere he goes, he spreads lies and destroys relationships," said association chairman Steven Wong.
Lol..yeah that's kind of the impression I got from his last talk at Vector.
Get fucked kind of covers it I reckon.
Nice to see the PM meeting him btw.
Yes let the Dalai Lama return to Tibet so he can liberate his people from the communist yoke into the greatful arms of feudal servitude.
Yep, anon 2/4/09 there is a lot of mythologising about Tibet. I went there expecting to be impressed by the monks and the tibetan people. Instead, I saw a nation of lazy beggars. And those who do work hard for a pittance give any spare money they have to the monks. Most monks are monks so they can laze around and not work. Many will admit that to you.
But we should still tell China to fuck off Bomber, I agree with you there.
I hate how those Chinese people (not all) who want to ban the Dalai lama from coming have brought their ignorant and uneducated views to NZ.
Have they forgotten (or not known)that New Zealand is a multi-cultural society that is accepting of everyone.
Bomber: interesting place - first time I have come across this site. Your views on Tibet are rooted though. Facts are there is not one nation in the world (all Western ones included) which do not recognize the fact that Tibet is part of China. This was in fact the position of even the US government well before 1949, when China was ruled by the same political party which now rules Taiwan.
Of course the other thing is the Dalai Lama is a fucken phony. He lived an opulent lifestyle, served hand and foot by slaves, and ran one of the most vicious feudal systems known to the world(he use to walk around accoutred like some medieval prince - now he has changed to sackcloth the friggin phony). The CCP implemented land reform in the 50s, the Tibetan aristocrats, including the DL, did not like this, and with CIA support carried out an insurrection in the late 50s. That is why apologists for that evil regime - people like Thuten Kesang, were all members of the old aristocracy. So all his stuff about him being some sort of buddhist peace lover is just bollocks.
Seems self-styled leftists like Bomber are as much suckers for imperialist propaganda as your typical talk-back caller.
Enchante: I looked at your profile - as I suspected you are a typical asian running dog.
The fact is China is the least imperialistic of all major civilizations. The most imperialistic and aggressive are of course the Anglo Saxons.
So Anglo Saxons should shut the fuck up about so called Chinese 'imperialism.' Because there is no such thing.
China does not currently occupy, or even claim, any territory which is not recognized by all nations in the world as legitimately hers. New Zealand, in fact, has more troops serving overseas, than does China. China does not even have an aircraft carrier, and spends less on her military than France or Britain.
In fact far from being an imperialist power, China was in fact the victim of gross imperialist outrages for 100 years from the same people who would now lecture her on Tibet or Taiwan.
But now China is getting more and more powerful. That is why Hillary had to crawl on hands and knees to Premier Wen just a few months ago. No mention of so-called human rights, or Tibet. Just please please please spend more.
Sorry, the world is changing. Old wrongs will be requited, and the Third World will decide its own path of development - free of meddling Trotskyite wannabes turned neoconservative and playschool neo-Marxists like Bomber.
LOL - Wow such pop psychology 101, how dreary.
I do aknowledge some of your points, let’s go through them…
Your views on Tibet are rooted though. Facts are there is not one nation in the world (all Western ones included) which do not recognize the fact that Tibet is part of China.Isn’t it how the Tibetans feel that matters? Isn’t that always the legitimate question to ask first, do they have a real case regarding individual cultural identity and self determination and are there human rights abuses to repress any expression of those desires?
Of course the other thing is the Dalai Lama is a fucken phony. He lived an opulent lifestyle, served hand and foot by slaves, and ran one of the most vicious feudal systems known to the world(he use to walk around accoutred like some medieval prince - now he has changed to sackcloth the friggin phony). I’m no great fan of theocratic feudal regimes either, but he is their leader and representative who is willing to talk in peaceful terms, denying him and denigrating him is an attitude that shuts off legitimate talks, and it pretends that there is no issue within Tibet.
The CCP implemented land reform in the 50s, the Tibetan aristocrats, including the DL, did not like this, and with CIA support carried out an insurrection in the late 50s. That is why apologists for that evil regime - people like Thuten Kesang, were all members of the old aristocracy. So all his stuff about him being some sort of buddhist peace lover is just bollocks. The CIA have a lot to answer for in many places and I’m no defender of their interventions, but that doesn’t rob legitimacy from Tibetan self determination.
The fact is China is the least imperialistic of all major civilizations. The most imperialistic and aggressive are of course the Anglo Saxons. We both agree on that.
So Anglo Saxons should shut the fuck up about so called Chinese 'imperialism.' The West must do more for Human rights and the hypocracy is choking when listen to the West talk about human rights and then look at the brutal regimes the West prop up around the planet.
Because there is no such thing.And that’s where we stop agreeing, because your fervrant card carrying party member apologist whitewash of China as some pure continent of equality doesn’t cut the mustard. Yes the West has a hell of a lot of sin to account for but America’s corporate fascism is almost gentle compared to the abuse China mets out daily to their billion citizens. A brutal and corrupt justice system that harvests body organs to repress any internal dissent overseen by a communist totalitarian regime is hardly much to boast in terms of alternatives Wayne.
China does not currently occupy, or even claim, any territory which is not recognized by all nations in the world as legitimately hers. New Zealand, in fact, has more troops serving overseas, than does China. China does not even have an aircraft carrier, and spends less on her military than France or Britain.And China also sells weapons and military aid to and props up some of the worlds worst regimes from Robert Mugabe to Kim Jong-il, from Burma to Sudan. China is currently funding a genocide, a famine, a military dictatorship and a nuclear armed rogue state, so lets dump the bullshit shall we?
In fact far from being an imperialist power, China was in fact the victim of gross imperialist outrages for 100 years from the same people who would now lecture her on Tibet or Taiwan.Correct, China has been abused by the West for many centuries, the opium wars were a despicable low for Britain. But the abuse the West has handed out to China in the past is no justification for the support China currently gives the worst abusers on the planet or the repressive internal structures that abuse human rights.
But now China is getting more and more powerful. That is why Hillary had to crawl on hands and knees to Premier Wen just a few months ago. No mention of so-called human rights, or Tibet. Just please please please spend more. Again you are right about the boot licking American position of pleased don’t default us rather than demanding accountability for state repression, but I think your crowing over the economic power of China is as misplaced as any faith in the Western version. I think a lot of that money the Chinese Banks have been betting with which has prompted yesterdays warning for the Chinese banking sector and the deep social unrest caused by unemployment and corrupt party officials is creating intense social friction that will go beyond what the state can possibly contain.
While much of your criticism of the west is valid Wayne, your blindness to the abuse China commits ends up making you sound silly.
Isn’t it how the Tibetans feel that matters? Isn’t that always the legitimate question to ask first, do they have a real case regarding individual cultural identity and self determination and are there human rights abuses to repress any expression of those desires?The facts are the Tibetans (and other minority groups in China) have been treated a lot better than the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. First of all Tibetans form a majority of the population of the TAR (about 80 to 90percent), have the option of being schooled completely in Tibetan or Mandarin - their choice, have television, print media, and radio in their own language. Likewise if you go to Inner Mongolia you will see an enforced policy of bilingualism, and my brothers travelling through Xinjian in 1993 saw the British cop show 'the Professionals' on TV in the Uighur language. Compare this with NZ where only in 2004 I think was there a Maori TV channel, and even then a lot of the white population was bitching about it. I have never heard Chinese complaining of the fact that minority groups in China get affirmative action in housing, schooling, and university places. Most importantly of all Tibetans can have as many children as they want - but Han are limited to one.
Tibetans in fact have a higher life expectancy (61) than Australian Aborigines (59). Given that China is still a developing country these figures quite impressive.
Now you may argue that in spite of any material improvement to the lives of Tibetan people, the point is their desire for self-determination should be recognized.
But to China, the status of Tibet, as with Taiwan, is an issue that is of interest to all Chinese everywhere - not just those people who live in those respective places. It is completely ludicrous that the future of Tibet, as indisputably a part of China, and one quarter of her landmass, should only be decided by the two or three million people who live in that region. Would Australia be happy to grant independence to the Northern Territories if the few sparse aboriginal tribes wanted it - or would they consider it an issue that impacts on the welfare of all Australians?
Would America be willing to cede California to Mexico on account of the large Hispanic population in Mexico? Of course not.
So why should China relinquish one quarter of her land mass when no similar demand is made on any other country in the world?
The only reason why there still are problems in areas like Tibet and Xinjiang, is the Central government, far from destroying the culture of those places, actually encouraged these people to maintain their language, their culture, and obviously their sense of ethnic distinctiveness. If China had done to her minority groups what Australia, the US, and New Zealand had done hers, then I suppose things would be a lot more settled, and on the face of it China could then claim no human rights issues with minorities - but only because they have largely been eliminated. But that would go against not the historically tolerant grain of Chinese culture, but also any standard of universal morality.
Link below (from US State Dept) describes how the Chinese encouragement of bilingualism, while maintaining Tibetan culture, hampers their integration into the job market.
http://tinyurl.com/c24gdo
but America’s corporate fascism is almost gentle compared to the abuse China mets out daily to their billion citizens What kind of abuse?
China is in fact the biggest promoter of human rights in the world. Never have people been lifted out of poverty in so short a period as has happened in China since 1949 and especially over the past 20 years. China's statistics in terms of literacy, life expectancy, infant and early childhood nutrition, access to clean water, and economic opportunity way exceeds that of 'democratic' India's. China's life expectancy was 35 in 1949. At the time of Chairman Mao's death in 1976 it was pushing 70.
As for abuses these are inevitable in a country which is hungry to develop, a society in the midst of frantic industrial development. I will put to you that abuses the West committed when at a similar stage of economic and social development were far worse than anything China does today.
Furthermore, the abuses we read about are exceptions, and not the rule (but of course the Western media tries and blows things out of all proportion). And even more importantly they are completely illegal, even if the laws are inadequately enforced because of lack of resources and widespread corruption.
And they are certainly no worse than any that occur in those 'democratic' paradises of India, Phillipines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Indonesia.
Chinese openly admit to problems and the situation is improving yearly. The aim of the CCP is eventually to provide a good living standard for the entire country. And so far they are doing a better job than any other developing country in the world towards achieving this aim.
A brutal and corrupt justice system that harvests body organs to repress any internal dissent overseen by a communist totalitarian regimeAgain abuses have occurred in respect of body organs - but again these practices are illegal. China has recently tightened up death penalty procedure with all cases being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The fact is though, regardless of one's personal opinion of the death penalty, it is an effective deterrent to crime, and its use is in fact popular among the people. Even in countries such as the UK a majority would support the return of hanging. And a majority of Australians supported the hanging of Nguyen Van Tuong. Many NZrs would also be happy with drug laws similar to Singapores.
So in respect of law and order, it could be argued the CCP is more responsive to public opinion, more democratic than many Western countries. After all not many Chinese in China go round moaning that the government is not strict enough with crims. Can you say the same for NZ?
But in the end executing people is unbecoming of a civilized people - and there has in fact been quite a lot of debate about this in China - and even officials agree that it should be abolished when China reaches a stage of social development which makes this possible.
Describing China as 'totalitarian' is just engaging in mindless rhetoric. Certainly 'authoritarian', but one feels no more constricted in China, in fact more free, than in any part of the West. You can do, say, think what you want - as long as you don't engage in activities that could destabilize the country.
And China also sells weapons and military aid to and props up some of the worlds worst regimes from Robert Mugabe to Kim Jong-il, from Burma to Sudan. All big countries have strategic relations with small countries. And perhaps some of these small countries have unsavoury regimes. But in the end, as long as those regimes were not imposed from the outside, then it is not for China, or anyone else for that matter to interfere in the domestic issues of small countries. That is hegemony, something the Chinese have generally eschewed.
In fact China maintaining relations with Zimbabwe, with North Korea, with Burma, and Sudan have actually been beneficial. By completely embargoing and boycotting those places, as the West would have everyone do, the suffering of the ordinary people would be even greater.
As for China's role in Africa, it seems to be viewed very favorably by a majority of Africans: "China's fans are most prevalent in the neighboring Asian countries of Malaysia (83% favorable), Pakistan (79%), Bangladesh (74%), Indonesia (65%), as well as in most African countries (92% favorable in both Ivory Coast and Mali and between 67% and 81% in Kenya, Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania and Ethiopia)."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/656/how-the-world-sees-china
Africans obviously appreciate the fact that China does not go round lecturing them on how to run their own countries. The fact is Western so called 'democracy' has nothing in fact to do with real democracy, and is just a way for the West to foment chaos in developing countries and thus continue and maintain the hegemony over the Third World established during the era of open imperialism.
No matter how bad the Burmese regime, they are vastly preferable to the traitoress Aung Sang Su Qi. No proud people would ever permit themselves to be ruled by a woman married to a foreigner, especially one of a different race.
Now if we consider the case of Sudan, it is completely obvious that the Zionist interest groups in the US find the Islamic government a threat to their own interests - hence the bullshit thrown at China over the so called genocide in Darfur. And surely even if the regime in Sudan is not to everyone's taste, it was not installed by China. And if it can be shown that China does in fact support apparent abuses for oil - surely that is not as bad as the illegal outright invasion and occupation of a sovereign state resulting in up to one million civilian casaulties - as was carried out by Britain and the US.
So why not similar outrage over the London games, as there was for the Beijing games?
It is hypocrisies such as these which have stoked the virulent (but positive) nationalism of the Chinese people in recent years.
Post a Comment
<< Home