Dispatches from the State Ministry of Truth

[Monoriu]

There are calls among Mainlanders to "Occupy Tian An Men" this weekend.  They also forecast rainfall, so organisers have advised people to bring umbrellas

I think we are running out of time. 

[Martinus]

There are calls among Mainlanders to "Occupy Tian An Men" this weekend.  They also forecast rainfall, so organisers have advised people to bring umbrellas

I think we are running out of time.

Who is "we"?

[Monoriu]

There are calls among Mainlanders to "Occupy Tian An Men" this weekend.  They also forecast rainfall, so organisers have advised people to bring umbrellas

I think we are running out of time.

Who is "we"?

Hong Kong.  We are running out of time to wait and whittle this down.  We maybe forced to take action to clear the camps to avoid spreading the movement to the mainland. 

[Monoriu]

The Government and the Federation of Students are supposed to meet tomorrow for the first time.  The government has now called off the talks, and has basically said that as long as they occupy the roads, there'll be no talks. 

I think the writing is on the wall.  The last political exit is now firmly shut.  It is politically difficult to clear the camps as long as the talks are going on (the Federation specifically said that the talks must be multi-round).  Now that the talks are called off, the only ways to break the stalemate are (a) police/military action or (b) the rioters go home voluntarily. 

This is the biggest challenge for the communists since Tian An Men.  They will not hold back. 

[crazy canuck]

Thank you.  I take defending fundamental rights fairly seriously - despite what Berkut might assert.

Berkut never accused you of being opposed to rights - only liberties. These are similar but different concepts.

That is an interesting quibble.


In Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms many "rights" are expressed as fundamental freedoms.  For example:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)  freedom of conscience and religion; 
(b)  freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
(c)  freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
(d)  freedom of association. 


I am not sure what meaningful distinction there is between freedom and liberty in this context.

[frunk]

The Government and the Federation of Students are supposed to meet tomorrow for the first time.  The government has now called off the talks, and has basically said that as long as they occupy the roads, there'll be no talks. 

I think the writing is on the wall.  The last political exit is now firmly shut.  It is politically difficult to clear the camps as long as the talks are going on (the Federation specifically said that the talks must be multi-round).  Now that the talks are called off, the only ways to break the stalemate are (a) police/military action or (b) the rioters go home voluntarily. 

This is the biggest challenge for the communists since Tian An Men.  They will not hold back.

I'm always shocked by how fragile authoritarian regimes are.  Do a few protesters in a single city really threaten the whole communist government?

[Monoriu]

The Government and the Federation of Students are supposed to meet tomorrow for the first time.  The government has now called off the talks, and has basically said that as long as they occupy the roads, there'll be no talks. 

I think the writing is on the wall.  The last political exit is now firmly shut.  It is politically difficult to clear the camps as long as the talks are going on (the Federation specifically said that the talks must be multi-round).  Now that the talks are called off, the only ways to break the stalemate are (a) police/military action or (b) the rioters go home voluntarily. 

This is the biggest challenge for the communists since Tian An Men.  They will not hold back.

I'm always shocked by how fragile authoritarian regimes are.  Do a few protesters in a single city really threaten the whole communist government?

Yes, they do.  A few hundred protesters may inspire a few thousand, and they in turn will inspire more, and so on.  1989 almost ended the Party. 

[Eddie Teach]

Guess you really dodged a bullet there.

[Martinus]

Thank you.  I take defending fundamental rights fairly seriously - despite what Berkut might assert.

Berkut never accused you of being opposed to rights - only liberties. These are similar but different concepts.

That is an interesting quibble.


In Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms many "rights" are expressed as fundamental freedoms.  For example:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)  freedom of conscience and religion; 
(b)  freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
(c)  freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
(d)  freedom of association. 


I am not sure what meaningful distinction there is between freedom and liberty in this context.

I did not say there is a distinction between freedom and liberty but between a right and liberty.

To me rights are positive and liberties are negative. I would further define a right as something that is almost always exercised in the public sphere and something that correlates with a positive obligation of the state or another person to do something.

Conversely, a liberty is usually (but not always - e.g. freedom of speech, religion or assembly) exercised in a private sphere and is not correlated with any obligation of another person (except, perhaps an obligation to "tolerate") - essentially a liberty means noone has a right to stop you from doing something.

In the context of gay "rights", gay marriage would be a right - as it is exercised in a public sphere and creates an obligation of the state to recognise the married couple as legal spouses, with all legal consequences etc.; similarly anti-discrimination at work place legislation would create a right of an employee as it creates a positive obligation of your employer not to discriminate against you.

On the other hand, an ability to have sex with a partner of the same gender would be a liberty - i.e. it is exercised in the private sphere and simply means neither the state nor another person can stop you and your partner from doing so - but there is no correlating obligation of another person or the state to do something about it.

It is also frequently posited that while the ideological left is more concerned with rights, the ideological (libertarian) right is more concerned with liberties. There was even an interesting article in the Economist on that recently.

[DontSayBanana]

Yes, they do.  A few hundred protesters may inspire a few thousand, and they in turn will inspire more, and so on.  1989 almost ended the Party. 

Devil's advocate: if the environment's that toxic, why is the health of the CCP so important to you, knowing that pretty much every government has a need for functionaries to file the paperwork?

[crazy canuck]

Thank you.  I take defending fundamental rights fairly seriously - despite what Berkut might assert.

Berkut never accused you of being opposed to rights - only liberties. These are similar but different concepts.

That is an interesting quibble.


In Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms many "rights" are expressed as fundamental freedoms.  For example:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)  freedom of conscience and religion; 
(b)  freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
(c)  freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
(d)  freedom of association. 


I am not sure what meaningful distinction there is between freedom and liberty in this context.

I did not say there is a distinction between freedom and liberty but between a right and liberty.

re-read my post.  Rights can be and are expressed as freedoms.  If you agree there is no distinction between freedom and liberty then your quibble disappears.

To me rights are positive and liberties are negative.

I am not sure there is a lot of support for that restricted view of rights and liberties.

For example, what is the meaningful difference between saying a person has a "right" to free speech and the freedom of expression?

In the context of gay "rights", gay marriage would be a right - as it is exercised in a public sphere and creates an obligation of the state to recognise the married couple as legal spouses, with all legal consequences etc.; similarly a right to not be discriminated at a work place would be a right as it creates a positive obligation of your employer not to discriminate.

There is also a freedom (liberty) from discrimination.

On the other hand, an ability to have sex with a partner of the same gender would be a liberty - i.e. it is exercised in the private sphere and simply means neither the state nor another person can stop you and your partner from doing so - but there is no correlating obligation of another person or the state to do something about it.

partners are also exercising their right to freedom of association etc etc etc.  There is certainly a correlated obligation for people not to discriminate against gay people.  ie the reason they can have sex without sanction is because they have the right to do so. 

It is also frequently posited that while the ideological left is more concerned with rights, the ideological (libertarian) right is more concerned with liberties. There was even an interesting article in the Economist on that recently.

But liberty isnt the absence of rights.  A good argument can be made to the contrary and, as noted above, our Charter expressly provides that freedoms are rights.

[frunk]

I find it funny that despite authoritarian regimes supposedly being good at keeping order, they are constantly being threatened by small groups of peaceful protesters.

[crazy canuck]

I find it funny that despite authoritarian regimes supposedly being good at keeping order, they are constantly being threatened by small groups of peaceful protesters.

/mono/ you mean violent rioters /mono/

[DGuller]

The Government and the Federation of Students are supposed to meet tomorrow for the first time.  The government has now called off the talks, and has basically said that as long as they occupy the roads, there'll be no talks. 

I think the writing is on the wall.  The last political exit is now firmly shut.  It is politically difficult to clear the camps as long as the talks are going on (the Federation specifically said that the talks must be multi-round).  Now that the talks are called off, the only ways to break the stalemate are (a) police/military action or (b) the rioters go home voluntarily. 

This is the biggest challenge for the communists since Tian An Men.  They will not hold back.

I'm always shocked by how fragile authoritarian regimes are.  Do a few protesters in a single city really threaten the whole communist government?

Authoritarian regimes lives by the laws of the jungle.  When it comes to weakness, perception is reality.  When that perception of weakness is coupled with general dissatisfaction, fearsome tyrants can fall overnight.

[Monoriu]

Yes, they do.  A few hundred protesters may inspire a few thousand, and they in turn will inspire more, and so on.  1989 almost ended the Party. 

Devil's advocate: if the environment's that toxic, why is the health of the CCP so important to you, knowing that pretty much every government has a need for functionaries to file the paperwork?

I don't really understand the question