Valid Protest?

So this lady gets an invite to carry the Olympic torch for a wee bit in the U.S.A. Fine, whatever. So she hides a Tibetan flag in her sleeve, whips it out once she has the torch. Good idea? Who knows. Poor taste? Maybe. Protected political speech in the U.S.A.? You betcha.

Here's where it gets dicey: "A Chinese paramilitary squad escorting the torch quickly snatched it from her, and cops pushed her into the crowd." I'm not sure I understand why that's fair or legal. This ain't China, and if a law-abiding citizen wants to wave a flag, it's allowed. Why are private security details allowed to stop her? Why are our own police helping? Can someone make a cogent argument for why this is okay, and not a sad episode of toadying on the part of our government?

Yeah, I get it that the torch is not public property, that there are restrictions on how it's handled, etc. But if an invited torchbearer wants to make a small gesture that is well within the legal rights of a citizen in good standing, who's got the legal standing to hustle her away and kick her out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But if an invited torchbearer wants to make a small gesture that is well within the legal rights of a citizen in good standing, who's got the legal standing to hustle her away and kick her out?

---

Dictators do.

Good for her. Shame on Newsome (SF mayor) for changing the route like a coward and the police for touching her. I bet that SF mayor likes to chat with his upper crust friends upper how Tibet should be freed, but lacks the balls to stand up to some real badness in our world.

CR

Nobody has managed to point out to me how the occupation of Tibet is worse than, say, the occupation of Iraq.

Ah, I've got it. It's because one side is a dictatorship. Sorry. :rolleyes:

Rather disgusting really, pretty sad also.
Oh well, the Olympics are rubbish anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Nobody has managed to point out to me how the occupation of Tibet is worse than, say, the occupation of Iraq.

---

Do you just run around, derailing threads for your own amusement? Is that more or less fun than crushing kittens?

However, I will play. The U.S.A. does not consider Iraq part of its natural territory. The U.S.A. does not intend to integrate Iraq into its homeland. The U.S.A. wants to get out of Iraq as soon as it reasonably can, and all of the hullabaloo you hear between political candidates over here is about when and how fast. Nobody who wants to stay or get in office is talking about an infinite occupation.

The parallels just keep ... not happening. Why do the two seem comparable to you, anyway? Is there any serious, interesting observation you can make about the congruency of the two occupations, or are you just shooting from the hip, seeing if you hit anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So this lady gets an invite to carry the Olympic torch for a wee bit in the U.S.A. Fine, whatever. So she hides a Tibetan flag in her sleeve, whips it out once she has the torch. Good idea? Who knows. Poor taste? Maybe. Protected political speech in the U.S.A.? You betcha.

Here's where it gets dicey: "A Chinese paramilitary squad escorting the torch quickly snatched it from her, and cops pushed her into the crowd." I'm not sure I understand why that's fair or legal. This ain't China, and if a law-abiding citizen wants to wave a flag, it's allowed. Why are private security details allowed to stop her? Why are our own police helping? Can someone make a cogent argument for why this is okay, and not a sad episode of toadying on the part of our government?

Yeah, I get it that the torch is not public property, that there are restrictions on how it's handled, etc. But if an invited torchbearer wants to make a small gesture that is well within the legal rights of a citizen in good standing, who's got the legal standing to hustle her away and kick her out?

---

Despicable. People should assault those security guards with some paint or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Do you just run around, derailing threads for your own amusement? Is that more or less fun than crushing kittens?

---

Derailing threads? Really? Perhaps you'd like to point out an example? :inquisitive:

As I see it, not only do Backroom threads generally get more derailed than this on a regular basis, but I am in the vast majority of cases not the instigator of this, and we're still talking about Tibet.

I'll presume you're tired or something, as you're usually very polite.

EDIT: Now I'm confused as to if your comments were in jest or not. By your comment below, I presume so.

Quote:

---

The parallels just keep ... not happening. Why do the two seem comparable to you, anyway? Is there any serious, interesting observation you can make about the congruency of the two occupations, or are you just shooting from the hip, seeing if you hit anything?

---

Three agendas, to be honest.

1) To get a rise out of people, of course. Not strictly amusing in it's own right, but it generally sparks some excellent debate.

2) Both were invaded and occupied by powers who shouldn't be there in the first place. In this case, you can argue that China has more right to be in Tibet than America does in Iraq. Inhumane treatment and civilian casualties are commonplace in both places. Civilians were abducted by the occupiers and taken to places where their human rights were ripped to shreds. So on and so forth.

3) I don't believe the Tibet protests make sense, just as much as I don't believe Iraq protests make sense - though for two completely different reasons. I believe that people have the right to protest, but the Chinese have the right to keep the flame in a secure, peaceful environment. They can protest from the sidelines, but the second someone moves to damage (put out) or disrupt the actual event, it becomes unacceptable. I'm not aware of the laws on this type of event in America, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Derailing threads? Really? Perhaps you'd like to point out an example? :inquisitive:

---

I will only answer this question when you explain whether or not you prefer crushing kittens to the aforementioned activity. I asked a perfectly straightforward question about kitten crushing, and dang it, I deserve an answer!

And since you've "dodged" my kitten-death question, you still owe me an answer, to a question which I will formulate any minute now. It's going to be something along the lines of "Why do you hate freedom?" but maybe more topical. I'll get to it presently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I will only answer this question when you explain whether or not you prefer crushing kittens to the aforementioned activity. I asked a perfectly straightforward question about kitten crushing, and dang it, I deserve an answer!

---

On the contrary, I am a great fan of cats. Stomping on kittens gives me little pleasure. Shooting puppies? Still no.

Chipmunks?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

May they rot in the fires of doom.

I'll say again that these kinds of protests are counterproductive, if their objective is to secure better conditions for Tibet. However, if their objective is to make the protestors feel good about themselves in upholding some moral good, then they're certainly effective.

What do you think?

Photos from the protest in SF:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/zombie-...san-francisco/

Everyone with a grudge against China turned out; anti-Darfur genocide, Burma, Vietnam, and of course Tibet.

CR

Well I'm glad Mr. Smug Rudd has grown some balls and said that the Chinese paramilitaries will not be allowed off the Chinese bus and the torch will be protected by Aussie security.

I hope someone extinguishes it.

What jurisdiction do the Chinese Parmilitary forces have in this case to stop teh person from this legitimate protest? Absolutely shocking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

What jurisdiction do the Chinese Parmilitary forces have in this case to stop teh person from this legitimate protest? Absolutely shocking.

---

I'm guessing they use the same as Blackwater does to shoot civilians and get away with it.

In other words, none.

Not protesting what the Chinese are doing in Tibet is one thing. Understandably there are plenty of opinions on the matter, so disagreement is not surprising.

But allowing the Chinese to abuse the Olympic Games as spectacle, and not drawing a line when they do things like this? It's beyond their sovereignty and jurisdiction and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm all for keeping politics out of the Olympics, but if the Chinese can't resist the gloves should come off.

Modern Olympics aren't about sports. Anyone who thinks so needs his head examined. It's a circus in the original sense. And anyone who protests and ridicules these games is entitled to feel good. Cause they did good.

This torch thingy has become the best anti-Chinese propaganda train in quite a while. Most amusing. In London it was nearly snatched by protesters, in France it had to be doused despite the presence of 3000 police, in San Francisco it was paraded through empty warehouses and alleyways at break-neck speed. Teh redicule. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Not protesting what the Chinese are doing in Tibet is one thing. Understandably there are plenty of opinions on the matter, so disagreement is not surprising.

But allowing the Chinese to abuse the Olympic Games as spectacle, and not drawing a line when they do things like this? It's beyond their sovereignty and jurisdiction and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm all for keeping politics out of the Olympics, but if the Chinese can't resist the gloves should come off.

---

I personally think the Olympics are inconsequential, but if the Chinese want to make much of it, then smart politicans will extract some concessions for it. If people really wanted to help Tibet, they'd have agreed to let the Chinese parade their flame in a blaze of glory, in return for movement towards the cultural autonomy and Beijing government political position the Dalai Lama is pushing for. Instead, people have protected the purity of the Olympic ideal, which is a load of nonsense anyway, while ensuring that no concessions will be made for Tibet, and the Tibetans will suffer Beijing's anger once the games are over. And after all this is over, people will preen themselves on how they stood up for the forces of good against the forces of evil, oblivious to the opportunity they had ignored to actually do some practical good.

Shakes head at the idiocy of it all.

Whoever had the idea to award the games to a one party state should be sacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If people really wanted to help Tibet, they'd have agreed to let the Chinese parade their flame in a blaze of glory, in return for movement towards the cultural autonomy and Beijing government political position the Dalai Lama is pushing for.

---

You are confusing cause and effect. If it were not for these (and previous, similar) international protests the Chinese wouldn't even acknowledge that the Dalai Lama exists.

Apart from that, the protests show the Chinese government that we may have diplomatic relations, trade ties and other exchanges with them, but that we are no dupes to their dictatorial propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Whoever had the idea to award the games to a one party state should be sacked.

---

That would be the Olympic Committee. And you have my full support. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You are confusing cause and effect. If it were not for these (and previous, similar) international protests the Chinese wouldn't even acknowledge that the Dalai Lama exists.

Apart from that, the protests show the Chinese government that we may have diplomatic relations, trade ties and other exchanges with them, but that we are no dupes to their dictatorial propaganda.

---

The Dalai Lama doesn't exist, he is an imposter rather than the real Dalai Lama whom Beijing backs, and his legitimacy threatens the integration of Tibet into China, all at the same time. Do you really think that you've decisively undermined the strength of the Chinese position by forcing them into a position that shows up the contradictions in their case? The fact is, there is no contradiction at all, in all of these arguments. The Chinese are in possession of Tibet, they have the strength and willingness to do whatever they like with it, and there is nothing any outsiders can do to force them to do otherwise. Those are the bare facts that arguments about the Dalai Lama's legitimacy and the abuse of democratic principles and human rights cannot disguise.

The Dalai Lama recognises this, which is why he's attempting to push for an arrangement that is good for Beijing as well as for Tibet, independent of whether or not he is the legitimate Dalai Lama. Unlike the protestors, he's actually attempting to achieve some practical good for Tibet. If Beijing can agree to some kind of solution that is acceptable in practice to both sides (and they don't actually need to recognise the Dalai Lama to do so), then all these arguments about legitimacy can be waived away in a wash of doubletalk. Diplomacy can begin with workable arrangements, through to more permanent structures, before ending in formal recognition. Recognition without substance means nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Modern Olympics aren't about sports. Anyone who thinks so needs his head examined. It's a circus in the original sense. And anyone who protests and ridicules these games is entitled to feel good. Cause they did good.

This torch thingy has become the best anti-Chinese propaganda train in quite a while. Most amusing. In London it was nearly snatched by protesters, in France it had to be doused despite the presence of 3000 police, in San Francisco it was paraded through empty warehouses and alleyways at break-neck speed. Teh redicule. :beam:

---

I agree. The more people are reminded of how awful China is, the less anti-American they will be. For a short period of time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Dalai Lama doesn't exist [..]

---

Ancient ancestor say: 'Words can not cook rice.' https://img247.imageshack.us/img247/...liechanfb8.gif

I wonder if the Chinese think they're really getting to host the greatest spectacle on earth.:laugh4:

That is obviously the (football) World Cup. Nobody I know has even mentioned the Olympics, at least not the sporting side. But when the World Cup comes around....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Ancient ancestor say: 'Words can not cook rice.' https://img247.imageshack.us/img247/...liechanfb8.gif

---

Explain? Preferably with reference to my post or yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I agree. The more people are reminded of how awful China is, the less anti-American they will be. For a short period of time

---

if the US was chosen to hold an Olympic event right now I think there would be protests too...and with good reason...no wear near near the same level...and rightfully so...but it would exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Explain? Preferably with reference to my post or yours.

---

Dear God, isn't that obvious? Look at your post (#22).

First you say that the DL doesn't exist, next you say that he is an imposter, and finally you say that he is on the right track.

I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel such confusion. You'll probably do a better job yourself. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Whoever had the idea to award the games to a one party state should be sacked.

---

In my opinion, they should be complimented. I mean, I would prefer they weren't in China (I despise communism, for one), but by doing that they showed that they would award the games to the most deserving, regardless of politics. That being said, when accepting the Olympics there should be a clause that limits the use of propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Dear God, isn't that obvious? Look at your post (#22).

First you say that the DL doesn't exist, next you say that he is an imposter, and finally you say that he is on the right track.

I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel such confusion. You'll probably do a better job yourself. :bow:

---

Erm, it was supposed to be confusing. I was showing that the Chinese government can maintain all of these contradictory positions at the same time, for there is no contradiction in the facts that really matter - their possession of Tibet. Adding yet another contradiction to their fictions, as you're arguing for, makes no practical difference, as long as the nature of the Chinese possession of Tibet remains unaddressed. I then pointed out that, if those facts on the ground are dealt with, the diplomatic niceties will naturally follow.

There are many examples of factions who are ostensibly at war with each other, or who refuse to recognise each other, who somehow find some kind of accommodation with each other, and eventually reach a more permanent solution. Eg. Sinn Fein and the DUP co-governed in many councils in Northern Ireland, long before they dropped the pretence of absolute non-cooperation with each other. I'm sure there are examples of that in Israel's history, where there were understandings concerning certain border issues even while they were at war with their neighbouring states. Looking back at Chinese history, IIRC Zhou Enlai was the main conduit of the Communists' ententes with the Nationalists, which culminated in the Xi'an incident.