DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**grubnismarl** · 07-11-2009, 04:29 PM

Wezil (concerning the Kashgar article, three posts up): This reminds me that the Quebecois issue has been another keystone case for international normative law. IIRC, the significance of Quebec is that secession had been held unreasonable, based on the level of cultural allowances given to the region (not least that the whole nation is largely Anglo-French bilingual) and also that the Quebecois cannot qualify as "politically repressed" by any stretch of the definition (it's had at least one Canadian prime minister represented among its number). Given these metrics, the case I studied concluded that there was no undue hardship to the individual minority, and thus the overriding concern of national integrity was still the prevailing consideration.

Yes, the level of freedoms enjoyed by the minority is another one of those variables. I'm not sure of the specific example you are referring to but yes, that issue was important. It is why our government and courts went the way they did with the Clarity Act. As the Int Law on this is so murky it is believed a sensible and reasonable approach to the issue would be more likely to be respected by the international community than a position of intransigence.

I cannot recall which body handed down this opinion. It could have been a domestic Canadian court, or it's possible it made it up into the UN appellate structure. I faintly recall it was a human rights case, which may explain the rather severe level of proof of hardship they had to prove (and could not meet).

I think it was UN HRC but I can't be arsed looking for it. Your summary is essentially correct.

In China, clearly the political participation branch cannot be met. Given the Communist party's authoritarian nature, it's hard enough for even ethnic Han to take part in their government. Also, as you point out, the typical socialist government's march towards "progress and development" tends to hold historical sites as low in value. (During the worst of the Red Guard actions in 1966-1976, the Communist Party had to call out the army to stand guard near the Forbidden City and Lingyin Temple in Hangzhou and other UNESCO heritage sites, otherwise the ultra-radicals would have razed them.) You can see much of the same "tear down and rebuild" mentality in Beijing, where the historic city walls and hutongs are either already gone or fast disappearing.

Agreed wrt radicals however I point out ethnic Han pulling down their own history is one thing, destroying the history of others is the problem the article addresses. I have not yet been convinced the Uyghurs are Chinese.

The article you quote is further indication of this. I don't think it crosses the line into racially targeting Uighurs because they're Uighurs - but it definitely shows the CCP's insensitivity to local sentiment. It's a parallel to the dismantling of the historic Qing dynasty Manchu hutongs in Beijing and elsewhere, so in an administrative sense it's an apparently even-handed policy (even if rather heavy-handed uniformly). But looking at the actual on-the-ground effects, it's clearly not good policy and may well have uneven disparate effects. Something similar can be said about arresting the demonstrators: that can very easily be seen as an anti-Uighur measure, even if the CCP's policy is generally to make arrests at each large-scale protest of late (Han or not).

No, it isn't the same (see above).

The last paragraph of the story is actually a little amusing, in a sad sort of way. The Chinese government has typically shown little regard for historical buildings, viewing them as something redundant and linked to a backwards past. But the moment that a foreign body recognizes the given site as worthwhile (as happened with several Chinese areas that were slated for redevelopment) the government reassessed it and backpedaled. This has given rise to accusations that the Chinese government either has purely mercenary grounds for deciding the fates of the sites, or they're manifesting some inferiority complex to foreign tastes, depending on who you ask. I think it shows how bad this government actually is.

07-11-2009, 04:29 PM	#36
grubnismarl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	Wezil (concerning the Kashgar article, three posts up): This reminds me that the Quebecois issue has been another keystone case for international normative law. IIRC, the significance of Quebec is that secession had been held unreasonable, based on the level of cultural allowances given to the region (not least that the whole nation is largely Anglo-French bilingual) and also that the Quebecois cannot qualify as "politically repressed" by any stretch of the definition (it's had at least one Canadian prime minister represented among its number). Given these metrics, the case I studied concluded that there was no undue hardship to the individual minority, and thus the overriding concern of national integrity was still the prevailing consideration. Yes, the level of freedoms enjoyed by the minority is another one of those variables. I'm not sure of the specific example you are referring to but yes, that issue was important. It is why our government and courts went the way they did with the Clarity Act. As the Int Law on this is so murky it is believed a sensible and reasonable approach to the issue would be more likely to be respected by the international community than a position of intransigence. I cannot recall which body handed down this opinion. It could have been a domestic Canadian court, or it's possible it made it up into the UN appellate structure. I faintly recall it was a human rights case, which may explain the rather severe level of proof of hardship they had to prove (and could not meet). I think it was UN HRC but I can't be arsed looking for it. Your summary is essentially correct. In China, clearly the political participation branch cannot be met. Given the Communist party's authoritarian nature, it's hard enough for even ethnic Han to take part in their government. Also, as you point out, the typical socialist government's march towards "progress and development" tends to hold historical sites as low in value. (During the worst of the Red Guard actions in 1966-1976, the Communist Party had to call out the army to stand guard near the Forbidden City and Lingyin Temple in Hangzhou and other UNESCO heritage sites, otherwise the ultra-radicals would have razed them.) You can see much of the same "tear down and rebuild" mentality in Beijing, where the historic city walls and hutongs are either already gone or fast disappearing. Agreed wrt radicals however I point out ethnic Han pulling down their own history is one thing, destroying the history of others is the problem the article addresses. I have not yet been convinced the Uyghurs are Chinese. The article you quote is further indication of this. I don't think it crosses the line into racially targeting Uighurs because they're Uighurs - but it definitely shows the CCP's insensitivity to local sentiment. It's a parallel to the dismantling of the historic Qing dynasty Manchu hutongs in Beijing and elsewhere, so in an administrative sense it's an apparently even-handed policy (even if rather heavy-handed uniformly). But looking at the actual on-the-ground effects, it's clearly not good policy and may well have uneven disparate effects. Something similar can be said about arresting the demonstrators: that can very easily be seen as an anti-Uighur measure, even if the CCP's policy is generally to make arrests at each large-scale protest of late (Han or not). No, it isn't the same (see above). The last paragraph of the story is actually a little amusing, in a sad sort of way. The Chinese government has typically shown little regard for historical buildings, viewing them as something redundant and linked to a backwards past. But the moment that a foreign body recognizes the given site as worthwhile (as happened with several Chinese areas that were slated for redevelopment) the government reassessed it and backpedaled. This has given rise to accusations that the Chinese government either has purely mercenary grounds for deciding the fates of the sites, or they're manifesting some inferiority complex to foreign tastes, depending on who you ask. I think it shows how bad this government actually is.
	Quote