MP: 3 Blog: 5
So, John was totally right about the Monks. I read on BBC that during the past year, more than twenty-five monks set themselves on fire in protest of religious repression and this is considered to be a large increase from past years. After the monk lit himself on fire, many other monks and people from the surrounding area went to protest China's rule in Tibet.
The monk is said to have survived, suffering from major burns and was hospitalized, but was shortly returned to the monastery by fellow monks "for his safety." Since the protest, troops have been sent to the area and China's Premier said that Tibet would remain an inseparable part of China and that the self-immolation demonstrations. Also,in light of the upcoming anniversary of the rioting in Lhasa in 2008, security has been severely tightened in Tibet and many military trucks have been reported to have arrived in the town. He seems to have no compassion for these monks or capability of understanding their distress.
The protest also included students who called for freedom to study in Tibet.
Does anyone thinks it's crazy to have severe security for a monastery? The monks are setting themselves on fire as a severe form of self-expression to show their complete contempt for and dissatisfaction with Chinese rule. The monks aren't harming others, they're harming themselves and it is their conscious decision. If the monks are willing to go to that extreme level to show their extreme unhappiness, shouldn't there be a red flag that goes up to the government that's like "Hey, monks are setting themselves on fire. Maybe we should listen to what they have to say"? Does China really need Tibet? Didn't Tibet have high levels of autonomy in the past? Why does China all of a sudden (relatively speaking, considering it's all relative) need Tibet?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Does anyone else think that the world has lost its mind?
MP: 3 Blog: 4
So I know we have barely started China, but I figured I would try to look for an article pertaining to China (which is actually much, MUCH easier than doing so for Russia).
I found an article on CNN that was talking about Chinese legislators passing a law, a monumental law considering it is the "first overhaul of the criminal code in fifteen years," that allows the police to hold suspects at secret, undisclosed locations for up to six months. I'm getting the sense that the police in China already have a lot of influence over things and this will only give them more power. Essentially, under this law, the police can hold anyone who is suspected as a terrorist, accepting bribes, or being a threat to national security - and that includes saying things against the Chinese government. On paper, the suspects are allowed to have a lawyer and any evidence gathered from torture methods will be discarded, but in execution, who knows if this will actually be enforced considering police do illegal things all the time.
Apparently an amendment to this law was passed recently in which it is required of the police to notify the suspect's family to tell them that the suspect is being detained. However, they will not tell the family how long they will have the suspect or where they are keeping the suspect. This amendment and the "right to a lawyer" business are apparently considered "human rights" and improvements.
This gives the police wayyyyy too much power. They can detain suspects for almost anything because the interpretation of the law can be so broad.
What I want to know is why China is doing this? Is there something they're afraid of? How will the Chinese people respond to this? Will they respond to this? How is this making China any more "democratic"? Do you think America has the right to criticize this? Does anyone else think this is vaguely like NDAA?
Link!
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/asia/china-criminal-law/?hpt=ias_c2
So I know we have barely started China, but I figured I would try to look for an article pertaining to China (which is actually much, MUCH easier than doing so for Russia).
I found an article on CNN that was talking about Chinese legislators passing a law, a monumental law considering it is the "first overhaul of the criminal code in fifteen years," that allows the police to hold suspects at secret, undisclosed locations for up to six months. I'm getting the sense that the police in China already have a lot of influence over things and this will only give them more power. Essentially, under this law, the police can hold anyone who is suspected as a terrorist, accepting bribes, or being a threat to national security - and that includes saying things against the Chinese government. On paper, the suspects are allowed to have a lawyer and any evidence gathered from torture methods will be discarded, but in execution, who knows if this will actually be enforced considering police do illegal things all the time.
Apparently an amendment to this law was passed recently in which it is required of the police to notify the suspect's family to tell them that the suspect is being detained. However, they will not tell the family how long they will have the suspect or where they are keeping the suspect. This amendment and the "right to a lawyer" business are apparently considered "human rights" and improvements.
This gives the police wayyyyy too much power. They can detain suspects for almost anything because the interpretation of the law can be so broad.
What I want to know is why China is doing this? Is there something they're afraid of? How will the Chinese people respond to this? Will they respond to this? How is this making China any more "democratic"? Do you think America has the right to criticize this? Does anyone else think this is vaguely like NDAA?
Link!
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/asia/china-criminal-law/?hpt=ias_c2
Sunday, March 4, 2012
If you're Putin, one DOES simply win an election before votes are counted
MP:3 Blog: 3
According to exit poles, Putin is being congratulated on his victory of taking the presidency yet again in Russia. Not that the real votes have officially been counted, but he is expected to have a 60% majority of the votes. This is also assuming that the "real votes" even have any legitimacy. Many people, including opposing presidential candidates, are saying this election has no validity and Putin is a fraud. There are many rumors of "merry-go-round" voters who went around to many different polling places and voted many times under made-up names and if that didn't occur, there was surely rigging that occurred behind closed doors. There are also rumors that the crowd that was congratulating him on his victory was asked/forced to be there.
Is any of this true? Could any of this even be proved? Wouldn't it take a long time to prove? Would it even make a difference if it was ascertained that this was a fraudulent election? Are some people being paranoid? Is Putin trying to have control of Russia until he dies?
Additionally, it seems like there are people in Russia who do like Putin. Couldn't there be a lot of them? Are people just being sore losers? Also, is it just me or is it weird that Putin just always gets to be in charge of everything? But don't Russians kind of like when someone takes initiative to take care of things for them?
Anyway, there is an opposition protest that is planned to occur on Monday. The people making up the opposition are still mad about allegations of election fraud concerning parliamentary elections that so happened to end up in favor of Putin's United Russia. I don't think this protest will have any effect. Obviously if Putin took the lengths to rig an entire election in his favor, as well as work around the constitution to gain power over the country as prime minister, why would a single protest mean anything to him? I think they will be ignored and the protest will dissolve shortly, especially if the opposition doesn't gain any supporters (cause, you know, Russians feel kind of weird about gathering and working together on stuff).
All in all, I don't think this election has changed or will change anything in Russia. Putin is still in power and some people are still upset about it, but Putin is going to do what Putin wants to do--and to be honest, I know the whole one-party, one-ruler thing isn't ideal for anyone, but it is not like he's mistreating the Russian people or going all dictatorship on anyone. I guess I'm not really sure if I know what Russia wants...or if Russia even knows what Russia wants.
According to exit poles, Putin is being congratulated on his victory of taking the presidency yet again in Russia. Not that the real votes have officially been counted, but he is expected to have a 60% majority of the votes. This is also assuming that the "real votes" even have any legitimacy. Many people, including opposing presidential candidates, are saying this election has no validity and Putin is a fraud. There are many rumors of "merry-go-round" voters who went around to many different polling places and voted many times under made-up names and if that didn't occur, there was surely rigging that occurred behind closed doors. There are also rumors that the crowd that was congratulating him on his victory was asked/forced to be there.
Is any of this true? Could any of this even be proved? Wouldn't it take a long time to prove? Would it even make a difference if it was ascertained that this was a fraudulent election? Are some people being paranoid? Is Putin trying to have control of Russia until he dies?
Additionally, it seems like there are people in Russia who do like Putin. Couldn't there be a lot of them? Are people just being sore losers? Also, is it just me or is it weird that Putin just always gets to be in charge of everything? But don't Russians kind of like when someone takes initiative to take care of things for them?
Anyway, there is an opposition protest that is planned to occur on Monday. The people making up the opposition are still mad about allegations of election fraud concerning parliamentary elections that so happened to end up in favor of Putin's United Russia. I don't think this protest will have any effect. Obviously if Putin took the lengths to rig an entire election in his favor, as well as work around the constitution to gain power over the country as prime minister, why would a single protest mean anything to him? I think they will be ignored and the protest will dissolve shortly, especially if the opposition doesn't gain any supporters (cause, you know, Russians feel kind of weird about gathering and working together on stuff).
All in all, I don't think this election has changed or will change anything in Russia. Putin is still in power and some people are still upset about it, but Putin is going to do what Putin wants to do--and to be honest, I know the whole one-party, one-ruler thing isn't ideal for anyone, but it is not like he's mistreating the Russian people or going all dictatorship on anyone. I guess I'm not really sure if I know what Russia wants...or if Russia even knows what Russia wants.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)