Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong lay into the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo. This is the man imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for speaking out against the Chinese government; a prisoner of conscience. Our brave Guardian hacks are not interested in the whys and wherefores – the issue of free speech and freedom of conscience. Oh, no, this man speaks the wrong things, apparently. Understanding as he does, what it is like to live under an oppressive totalitarian regime, he is generally in favour of the western system, flawed though it is. He supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and although I disagree with his stance, I understand why he did. All of this, for the Guardian, is very, very naughty. It is not approved thinking. He is clearly not a Decent Person.
If Liu’s politics were well-known, most people would not favour him for a prize, because he is a champion of war, not peace. He has endorsed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he applauded the Vietnam and Korean wars retrospectively in a 2001 essay. All these conflicts have entailed massive violations of human rights. Yet in his article Lessons from the Cold War, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu warmly praised George Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US’s wars:
Worse, much worse, he dares to criticise the Palestinians and praised Israel.
Liu has also one-sidedly praised Israel’s stance in the Middle East conflict. He places the blame for the Israel/Palestine conflict on Palestinians, who he regards as “often the provocateurs”.
Yes? And? So? They are hardly saints, after all.
Also, he would like to see a westernisation of China. Seems reasonable to me…
Liu has also advocated the total westernisation of China. In a 1988 interview he stated that “to choose westernisation is to choose to be human“. He also faulted a television documentary, He Shang, or River Elegy, for not thoroughly criticising Chinese culture and not advocating westernisation enthusiastically enough:
There you have it, a very naughty man who shouldn’t have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because he thinks the wrong thoughts. Perhaps he should be locked away until he changes his mind, eh? Oh… Right.
Every time I see the Guardian stoop to a new low, I think to myself that they cannot possibly get worse. This time, it’s a puff piece attacking a prisoner of conscience, who cannot defend himself, on behalf of a nasty oppressive regime with the usual knee-jerk anti-Israel and anti-America sound-bites thrown in for good measure. But each time I think this; how low? How low can these people go? Surely, this time they’ve reached a nadir. Every bloody time, they manage to prove me wrong.
Well, it’s Liu’s own fault for not being born twenty years earlier so he could get himself jailed in Chile. I’m sure the Groan-nads would have loved him then.
“Every time I see the Guardian stoop to a new low, I think to myself that they cannot possibly get worse. “
Be patient. I give it two weeks…
I correctly described islam as:” Medieaval, intolerant and cruel” (the last referring to the statues of women) in discussion.
I am now banned form that paper as a “racist” – erm – islam is a RELIGION (and all of those are as described above).
Rationality does not seem to be their strong point.
Well, yes, Pinochet was right wing which makes all the difference…
I give it two weeks…That long?
Indeed. Islam is medieval, intolerant and cruel and it doesn’t take a great deal of analysis to work it out and only a fool would conflate a religion with race – but, the, this is the Guardian we are talking about.
All that said, below the line this article is being eviscerated, so it’s not all bad.
You do realise, don’t you, what CIF stands for? It stands for ‘Comment is Free’, which means that a variety of comment is aired on the site. Saying that this is a ‘new low’ for the Guardian means that you think that every article posted there must reflect the editorial view of the Guardian. This is a naive and somewhat totalitarian point of view. Would you have preferred the article had been suppressed? As it happens, I think that the article is nasty and stupid but that doesn’t make it wrong for the Guardian to have hosted it on its site. There are plenty of other articles that are equally idiotic.
And before someonet takes me to task because CIF won’t host articles by overt Nazis or the Paedophile Information Exchange, I’ll just say this. Obviously grown-ups know that there is no such thing as absolute free speech. But CIF does host a pretty wide set of viewpoints, both above and below the comment line and the moderation, although not always logical or fair, is less obtrusive than in the right-wing press. E.g. the heavy handed pre-moderation on the Daily Mail’s site.
I should also add that the authors of this piece have sweet FA to do with the Guardian. They are couple of academics working in Hong Kong, probably toadying to Beijing.
I think that the article is nasty and stupid but that doesn’t make it wrong for the Guardian to have hosted it on its site. There are plenty of other articles that are equally idiotic
And quite possibly a deliberate piece of pro-Chinese government propaganda. It would be interesting to research what links Yan Hairong and Barry Sautman have to the regime there. I am sure that a robust response to the article will be published fairly soon.
CiF is published by the Guardian. The Guardian commissions and pays for the content. Therefore, as they have seen fit to publish it, it must abide by their editorial policy. That this is nothing more than a nasty little smear piece attacking a man who is incapable of proffering a defence, is a pretty low piece of behaviour and pointing that out is neither naive nor authoritarian. Do I believe it should be suppressed? No. I do, however, believe that a mainstream paper that is prepared to offer a platform to apologists for a totalitarian regime is worthy of the opprobrium I have heaped upon it. My point, therefore stands in its entirety. This really is the gutter press at its worst. A mirror image of the Daily Mail, frankly.
CiF is published by the Guardian. The Guardian commissions and pays for the content. Therefore, as they have seen fit to publish it, it must abide by their editorial policy
Ah, you said ‘editorial policy‘ and I said editorial view, quite different things. The Guardian publishes on CIF articles for and against drugs prohibition, for and against the Iraq War, for and against the extreme porn ban. Self evidently these abide by its editorial policy, which is to stir up debate and to host controversial viewpoints, but they cannot reflect a coherent editorial view, for they contradict each other.
That this is nothing more than a nasty little smear piece attacking a man who is incapable of proffering a defence
Well I happen to agree with you, so why didn’t you logon to CiF and demolish the piece in a comment below the line, instead of attacking the Guardian for daring to publish an article you disagree with? And his reputation most certainly is capable of being defended and has been defended by responses to the article.
I do, however, believe that a mainstream paper that is prepared to offer a platform to apologists for a totalitarian regime is worthy of the opprobrium I have heaped upon it
I am pretty certain I’ve seen you dismiss that argument when made by opponents of the BNP when seeking to deny a platform to it.
My point, therefore stands in its entirety. This really is the gutter press at its worst. A mirror image of the Daily Mail, frankly
Rubbish. This is not a news story. This is an opinion piece and quite clearly advertised as such. When a paper mixes comment and news, as the Mail always does, then it deserves to be called the gutter press. This article is not an example of that.
There is nothing wrong with publishing contrary opinions – for or against drug prohibition or for or against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. This is legitimate debate. There is a problem with publishing PRC propaganda and allowing it to be presented as an opinion piece. I have no desire to join CiF and comment below the line as my comments would fail their moderation policy. And, frankly, I have no time for their moderation policy, so am not prepared to put up with it. Attacking it here is practising what I preach – exercising my freedom of speech using my own platform.
Well, given that the PRC is okay, then perhaps they should provide a platform for the BNP. After all, it is a legal UK political party. However, what I have always been consistent about is the “my place, my rules” argument. If the Groan wishes to deny the BNP a platform, they may do so. If they wish to publish propaganda for a nasty regime, they may do so. However, I am perfectly entitled to point out that their behaviour in doing so is pretty despicable as a consequence and that is what I am doing here.
It is not rubbish. The Guardian is little more than a mouthpiece of the leftist propaganda machine presenting their latest “research” into whatever scare story of the day is as news; be it prohibitionists on passive smoking bollocks, climate change nonsense or the latests dietary fad. Gutter press is precisely what they are. My comparison with the Mail is entirely appropriate – they merely pander to a different audience. There was a time when they could be held apart. Not any more.