Boycotting the Olympics does not make any sense

Yes your correct, capitalism does not mean that you absolutely must treat your people like shit and violate human rights, it simply considers money as top priority. But, when greedy people want more capital they do anything and everything in there power to get the most for the least. There are so many loop holes and ways to get around laws by taking advantage of other laws. They they will do everything in their power in order to get to the top.

Corporations don't give a shit about you, the product they are selling, or your family. If you will buy shit, they will sell you shit. They will push the price higher and higher as long as you're willing to pay. People believe it is not a problem in the world and it is just fair. But, when one person possesses more money than 20% of the countries in the world combined, that might be a problem. When 5% of the population owns 95% of the worlds land, leaving 95% of the people on 5% of the land, that might be a problem. When our corporations produce enough products and food to provide for 133% the world population, yet almost half of the world is still hungry and in poverty; that might be a problem. Exploiting workers in other countries paying them 17 cents per shirt made, then turning around and selling it to us for a %1,000 inflation rate, that might be a problem. When the average CEO in most of western Europe makes between 13 and 18 times the amount of the average employee, and the average CEO in AMERICA makes 416 times the amount as the average employee, for sitting on there asses, yes. That is labor exploitation in our OWN country. (Sorry for the rant right there, just needed to get a point across.)

This is slavery.
Going into countries where they are willing to do absolutely do the max amount of labor, for just the minimum amount to feed their families. Just enough pay to get their families through the day, after a full day of work. Then the corporations come back here, and tell US that they are benefiting THEM. When in reality, if they could legally pay them absolutely nothing, they would. This is the corruption we have. This is the fucked up world we live in. This is what capitalism causes. Don't say that China is not as bad as the U.S. The only difference is china does it more to its own people, and we do it more to theirs and others like them.

 

Thing is human rights violations happen in every form of government...
so why are we protesting capitalism? Isn't China communist? The human rights abuses in this case are connected to the displacing of poor people because of the olympics. It's like if you decided to hold the olympics in Louisiana and decided to build the stadiums over the 9th ward and told the residents to get bent.

 

Well i didnt know that the displacement of civilians was involved in this issue. As far as i have heard (i'm sorry if it was mentioned in the thread, i didnt read every post.) is that it was for the simple fact of human right violations as a whole in the country.

Either way, boycotting the olympics would be no use. Nothing would be accomplished as almost every country takes part, and it would take a majority of the countries to not be involved in order for it to not take place. And even then, it would already be too late.

Does anybody know if these people were relocated by the government? Or just thrown on the streets. And is it a permanent movement or just temporary?

 

There have been plenty of human rights violations in the US, throughout its History if you happen to be unshore or uneducated. The Chines just have to follow its enlightened example, and they are. Why, Not its proven to be successful who could blame them.

 

I think there are some links throughout this thread...:cheers2: a good video from the BBC too...

 

Yes they were relocated by the government. And their homes and properties have been absorbed by the government, so it would seem permanent. Go back and read the links I listed that outline this.

Another question I have is what impact climate manipulation has had on world climate, such as the floodings in Iowa etc. and drought in the western US, with the Chinese government performing climate modification to clear the air for the Olympics.

After all when a butterfly dies doesn't that affect the world and the rainforests, but their chemical cleaning of the air hasn't had an impact. Every vehicle we drive, every plastifc bag we use kills another polar bear according to Gore.

It may not accomplish a lot right now, but turning a blind eye does nothing.

 

OMG gardener you again, collected another bad news of CHina which never happen in China I mean absorbed by goverment
if you want to be professional Chinese bad news seeker, I highly suggest you learn some Chinese first so you can not be misleaded by some pictures and English words anymore.

By the way I 'd like to share some my opinion about protest
any change (eg industry revolution) may need sacrifice of some people, but without changes, the society can never develope.
so before we protest for human right, let's just consider what is right what is wrong first, what can make most people benefit
this just like we should consider how to be alive before thinking anything else.
a Japanese man killed several people in Tokyo and arrested by police, he should be sentanced to death although the murder motivation of him is nothing but want to kill people. Shall we protest his right of killing people?
to some extent, that's his human right, no doubt the "human right" should be "violated". This is just a conspicous example

 

Well since your glorious country seems to want to prohibit all politicitization of the Olympics why did they find it necessary to use the torch ceremony to further their propaganda against Tibet? Why allow one side a voice while silencing the other?

http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1329

 

Maybe it's time for you to learn better English then, because what Gardner was referring to by "absorbed" was the act of taking the homes and property of people so that they can knock it down to build the Olympic Stadium. That's a documented fact that we have been talking about the for the entirety of this thread.
...and, why would I want to learn Chinese to read the Chinese stories about the news? China doesn't have freedom of the press does it?

What great development of society exactly does the Olympics entail?
Um.. this is getting ridiculous, it is not his "human right" to kill someone...

Please look it up first before we have to go over this goofy shit again..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights


"It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta."[6] Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[7] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central component of international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries.[8] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
“ ...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[9] Canadian law professor John Humprey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.[9] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:[9]
“ Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. ”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.[10] The inclusion of both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights[9][11] was predicated on the assumption that basic human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously, with the abstention of the Eastern Bloc, Apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia), however this principle was later subject to significant challenges.[11]
The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into two distinct and different covenants, a Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and another Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Over the objection of the more developed states [Capitalist], which questioned the relevance and propriety of such provisions in covenants on human rights, both begin with the right of people to self-determinaiton and to sovereignty over their natural resources. Then the two covenants go different ways (see, Louis Henkin, The International Bill of Rights: The Universal Declaration and the Covenants, in International Enforcement of Human Rights 6-9, Bernhardt and Jolowicz, eds, (1987))
The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were added early. Western States then fought for, and obtained, a division into two covenants. They insisted that economic and social right were essentially aspirations or plans, not rights, since their realization depended on availability of resources and on controversial economic theory and ideology. These, they said, were not appropriate subjects for binding obligations and should not be allowed to dilute the legal character of provisions honoring political-civil rights; states prepared to assume obligations to respect political-civil rights should not be mitments. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for civil-political rights. See Louis Henkin, Introduction, The International Bill of Rights 9-10 (1981).
Because of the divisions over which rights to include, and because some states declined to ratify any treaties including certain specific interpretations of human rights, and despite the Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries arguing strongly for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity Resolution, the rights enshrined in the UDHR were split into two separate covenants, allowing states to adopt some rights and derogate others.[citation needed] Though this allowed the covenants to be created, one commentator has written that it denied the proposed principle that all rights are linked which was central to some interpretations of the UDHR.[12][13]

 

Oh yea and in addition to gardner's article here's one from CNN so you know it isn't a biased tibetan organization's article...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/26/olympics.politics.ap/


there's one on every newswire too...

 

the united states is known to torture some of it's prisoners. yet you don't see large amounts of protestors saying america should be boycoted whenever it hosts the olympic games.

 

I guess thats because we don't torture our prisoners on the site where the Olympics are taking place...
or maybe its because we aren't currently trying to suppress a religion and entire group of peaceful monks...


I'll tell you were you do see large groups of protesters... our capital, our white house, our state buildings...

 

suppression of which religion exactly? christianity? christians have done this more times throughout history to countless others. they are merely reaping that which they have sown.

 

Dear duckandmiss
of course I know what "absorbed" means, do you think our goverment will take the property of people without any negotiation and compensation
is our goverment a rascal just as some American media discribed? that's funny
of cousre we Chinese have freedom to express our personal opinions we also have our own forum like this one, but unfortunately you can not understand Chinese, you read news from CNN MSN which are just American political voices which may even different with this forum. so why not some Chinese political voices? before you make any decision, pls hear voices from all aspects, pls learn the whole story

 

hei man, most of your citation is just the history of human right, I can hardly understand this complicate thing according to these. actually I have asked the question--what is human right?????
before maybe in this thread or the other thread about boycotte Olympics
but no one reply me, now you resort to wikipedia to explain this, hey man to be flank, have you ever try to make this clear before?

now let's investigate human rights carefully
asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."
freedom, does America take freedom to Iraq or Afghanistan?
justice, do you think it is justice to sentance the pre-leader of other country (Iraq) to death without consider the thinking of all of Iraqi??
peace, ooh yes, America makes the world more peaceful
The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.
you see at first the declaration trys to limit the behavior of states, countries, so does it limit the hehavior of America?
maybe you protest for Iraq war, but dose it make any sense?

now let's refer to wikipedia,
Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
life, how many people died in Iraq war?
freedom of expression, I don't think our goverment can be entitled this right in America. I am recently considering to translate a interview of Pre-leader of my country, only very little part of which was published on western websites. Some media are very good at "cut" and "past", then appendix some discription to illustrate a new story which may be very different from truth.
education, this is the thing which Dalailama is afraid of. Because if all the Tibetan learn enough scientific knowledge, the "spiritual leader"(Dalailama)will become a spiritual thing. Our goverment always engage to building schools in Tibet although it is a very cost and difficult thing. our goerment hopes more and more Tibetan Children go to school but not sent to temples, to be "peaceful monks". And we just build schools, there is no any compelling rules. we understand that changes should be taken gradually.
you may say we are distroying the cultrure of Tibetan, the Tibetan trandition should be reserved. but we can recognite what is culture and what is trandition, and what is the bad part of trandition. Actually we pay many many money to preserve the temple, to support monks' living. For Tibetan we have made many many special laws to pretect their rights. But what is more, we also try to make Tibet develop but not keep stastic in the developing history of human-beings. We know what may happen, if a nation, a race is behind others, we had experinced Qing dynasty when we Chinese were still living in fuedlism, and westerns have finished many many revolutions, when our army was still equiped by bows, and western soldiers using guns. we were aggressived by many many countries, now we should visit British museum to appreciate treatures left by our ancestors, but which was the fault of ourselves, because we kept our "human right" very well, no changes, no developments.
now some people, they just want to limit the development of others under the name of human right!

 

I for one would love to boycott all things made in China, I try but the profit hungry multinationals here in the states through influence buying of our legislation have made it almost impossible to do.

I am so tired of the Chinese sympathists that bring up the atrocities of others while never really addressing the ones China is responsible for. Resorting to a Japanese murderer and his possible right to murder....that's just a bit of a stretch for any rational person to swallow. But knowing China's great hatred and resentment for the Japanese, it's understandable that you would make that argument.

We once hated the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, we imprisoned many, and confiscated there property. But I think, I hope we've learned that that was wrong. We once hated the North Vietnamese, we once would not grant China Most Favored Nation status. People learn. There are some that want all of us to hate all things Islam, but that's not all of us and many of us are standing up against it.

I personally think granting China MFN was a mistake.

What you tend to forget ybb is that many in the western world don't agree with what their corporate owned governments and politicians have done, and we do protest and try to make change. We don't just point our fingers at everyone else, but neither do we turn a blind eye in the interest of only corporate profit, at the expense or respect for the individual, the environment or human society.

As for reading Chinese news stories they are available through translation on the internet. I find most of them to be biased propaganda, like the statements made during the torch relay in Tibet.

I love how all of you following the Chinese national spiel love to denegrate the Dalai Lama. But none of the athletes or visitors at your wonderful venue are allowed to speak out differently?

Just what sort of development are you espousing. ... stealing homes and property, denegration and slander of individuals without them having the ability to respond? Or are you only interested in money? Hasn't worked out for us in the western world. Want to follow our example?

 

.............................................................................................

The United States puts people in jail for growing marajanna in thier homes.
Many of them.

What you are refering to is three AlQueda got waterboarded. Are these sympathetic people? Do they bear any scars of thier ordeal?

Talk about some young dumb pot grower being annaly raped in prison, that is a problem. Thats torture.

Al Queda and thier sympathizers can get fucked for all I care.

 

It's American's like Piney that give the US a bad name and corrupt rational discussions.

And there are many US citizens that protest both the use of torture by this administration in it's war on terror and the overzealous convictions of petty criminals, neither instance proves that any other government should follow our example in fact quite the contrary.

 

nono gardener, it is just a example,
most people of my generation do not hate Japanese anymore, we buy Japanese commodities, we love Japanese cartoon, my gf and I even want to learn some Japanese, revenge is always a evil thing, this point I had allustrated on other thread, although it is true some people still hate Japanese and there are many bifucations between China and Japan, most of them are about territory. But Japan is better than America who always act as the world police nagging anything they disagree, other than foreigners and foreign goverments, people should be more trust in their native people and goverment. I think this is the common sense.