cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/56159234
Op-ed by Reza Hasmath, Professor in Political Science, University of Alberta, Canada.
On July 1, China brought into force its Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, converting a decade of Xi Jinping’s doctrine of “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” into binding law.
Most attention has gone to its domestic machinery: entrenching Mandarin over minority languages, unified state textbooks and “inter-embedded” neighbourhoods engineered to dilute concentrations of Uyghurs and Tibetans among the Han majority. In other words, this is an assimilationist project that’s already far advanced.
The provision that matters most to the world outside China is buried near the end. Article 63 declares that organizations and individuals outside Chinese territory who “undermine ethnic unity” or “create ethnic division” shall be pursued for legal liability.
The Chinese government is therefore asserting, in statute, that its authority follows its critics across oceans into other countries, including Canada, home to some of the world’s largest Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diaspora communities. The danger is not that the law reaches across borders. It is what it criminalizes, whom it targets and how it’s enforced.
...
The intimidation inherent in the new law already violates many domestic harassment and foreign interference laws in jurisdictions around the world. Prosecutors, here, should use them against the agents carrying out the coercion, not the exiles who are its victims.
Governments should shut the unlicensed “police stations,” and press Interpol to reject politically motivated notices aimed at diaspora activists.
Governments can also build dedicated channels for those targeted: a clear law enforcement contact, protective guidance for Chinese and minority diaspora communities and training for officers who could mistake transnational repression for an ordinary domestic dispute.
Finally, asylum systems should treat Article 63 as evidence: a statute in which China announces that diaspora advocacy invites retaliation is close to proof of persecution for those seeking to flee.
China has every right to legislate for its own territory and citizens. What it cannot legitimately do, however warmly it speaks of unity, is disregard borders. The task for all nations, Canada included, is to insist, in law and in practice, that borders still exist.
...
This motherfucker using a whataboutism to explain how HIS whataboutism is immune from being pointed out 🙄🤦🏻
Absolutely correct.
Still doesn't make the Chinese law just.
You know who worry about "dissent and instability" enough to make laws specifically against it?
Tyrants and nobody else.
Do you know which people applaud such laws in spite of not being amongst the powerful people they're designed to protect?
Tankies, fascists, and other idiots prone to cheer their own oppression. Nobody else.
Lol what?
"Elon Musk is a shithead, that's why Albania's space program is the best in the world!"
"But Albania doesn't have a space program?"
"Whataboutism!"
That's not how anything works dude lmao. When the author says something blatantly false I'm allowed to call them on it.
Every single government that has ever existed since the dawn of time?
Sure. It doesn't entitle you to whitewash whatever the tyrants you prefer is doing, though.
THAT'S what you did and THAT'S textbook whataboutism.
Then again, it's pretty naive of me to expect a tankie to not defend the indefensible via a "but the west!" whataboutism deflection.
You guys are just as ridiculous as American Republicans.
It kinda does though? The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things, and the reality is that the West does worse things, so it is a pretty spurious criticism.
"Whataboutism" isn't even a real thing. Random internet people just started saying it one day but it has no logical basis. When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it's relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.
For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is "tyrannical" by your standards, or whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted? What exactly have they done that is "indefensible," or do you just mean that government in general is indefensible?
That's false, though.
The West committing an injustice doesn't entitle China to commit the same injustice or another.
Someone relying on whataboutisms to deflect attention away from the misdeeds of their favorite tyrants WOULD say that, yes.
Whataboutism is a real thing and that real thing is a logical fallacy of avoidance of accountability via deflection.
Nope. That's grade A horseshit.
The term originated in 1970s Northern Ireland:
Hardly "random internet people
That's the thing: logical is exactly what pointing a whataboutism is.
It's a tu quoque fallacy used to manipulate the conversation away from a place that makes you uncomfortable by changing the subject to something you're more comfortable talking about, but which doesn't justify the thing you're trying to defend.
Not relevant to whether or not the particular country is wrong in doing so.
If I was on trial for embezzlement, tax fraud, and defrauding a charity, pointing out that Donald Trump has done all of those things would not be a viable legal defense.
Nope, that would require me to take it as a given that your ridiculous strawman argument has merit.
This law, which is a Chinese law, is exceptionally oppressive against Uyghurs, Tibetans, Chinese people who speak any of the 9 other Chinese language groups that aren't Mandarin, and rightfully criticize the Chinese government for anything ever.
The above paragraph is true whether or not any Western nation has passed any similarly oppressive laws.
As for your "singling out" claim, it's an article about a specific law that's recently passed and currently being enacted.
That's not singling out, that's reporting on current events.
A lot of western disinformation being regurgitated here.
A lot that has been proven to be false quite awhile ago.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/430738-egyptian-media-delegates-provide-a-detailed-insight-of-the-situation-in-xinjiang
https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Friendly_feudalism%3A_the_Tibet_myth
Alright help me out here. Let's use an example.
A black man comes to a crosswalk and, after checking the road is clear, starts crossing even though he doesn't have the light. Suddenly, a cop rolls up, sirens blaring, and starts arresting him for jaywalking. While the arrest is ongoing, a white man starts walking across the street without the light and the cop does nothing. The man being arrested says, "This is bullshit! You're not doing anything about it when he does it!" The cop slams his face against the car and says, "Nice whataboutism, perp. You just committed a tu quoque fallacy. Just because someone else does something bad doesn't justify your own actions. In fact, I don't necessarily approve of what he's doing either. Now let's get you down to the station, punk."
Either "whataboutism" is just complete bullshit, or the vast majority of times it's invoked it's bullshit. The fact that a rule or criticism is applied selectively is extremely relevant. It's obvious in my example that the cop is just using the jaywalking as a pretext, but I'm not sure what the victim is supposed to say in that case in response that wouldn't make him an evil authoritarian tankie fascist, but whatever it is, just assume I said it to you because it's the same bullshit in both cases.
Yeah, because telling the court it's full of shit generally isn't the best legal defense. However, it would demonstrate that the court is not upholding it's principles consistently. It would be a valid logical and political argument to challenge the court as biased, it's just not the most practical when the court is the one making the arbitration.
You might be right. It wouldn't be singling out, except for the fact that the author specifically does single out China and claim that the West is innocent of similar crimes, which is why I said that calling me out on "whataboutism" would be even more spurious than usual in this case.