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

**JacomoR** · 04-07-2008, 05:42 PM

I could not disagree with you more. The simple act of providing that level of intimadatory protection for what was and is a blatant propaganda tool for the Chinese government is in and of itself an aggressive act. The inclusion and protection of, by the Met, the Chinese government's own thugs in the farce was simply disgraceful.

The British police were trying to preserve the peace, the Chinese forces are killing desenters. Rather different I think. Our country has a proud tradition of allowing peaceful demonstration, from the million who marched agains the war in Iraq in 2003, to the anti-Aparteid and CND demonstrations of the 80s, the anti-Vietnam demonstrations of the 60s, to the Chartists and female suffrage campaigners. Your cynicism is toxic, the British government has frequently criticised China's human rights policy and David Miliband, in his most famous speech, warned against the damage China was doing to worldwide democracy.

One does get the impression things did get a little out of hand, but when the anti-China protestors were effectively attacking the torch-bearers, I think a degree of sympathy should be shown for the police. I don't know about the specific examples you've listed. The only policy of the police's I do disagree with was not recognising the fact that there were effectively two demonstrations; pro-Chinese and an anti-Chinese and instead treating the Chinese as "supporters" and so not policing them properly.

It's better that this torch relay gets continually disrupted across the civilised world than western leaders opportunistically boycott when our countries trade billions with China. A sporting boycott would only be justifiable, as in Aparteid South Africa, if accompanied with an economic blockade.

04-07-2008, 05:42 PM	#11
JacomoR Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 481 Senior Member	I could not disagree with you more. The simple act of providing that level of intimadatory protection for what was and is a blatant propaganda tool for the Chinese government is in and of itself an aggressive act. The inclusion and protection of, by the Met, the Chinese government's own thugs in the farce was simply disgraceful. The British police were trying to preserve the peace, the Chinese forces are killing desenters. Rather different I think. Our country has a proud tradition of allowing peaceful demonstration, from the million who marched agains the war in Iraq in 2003, to the anti-Aparteid and CND demonstrations of the 80s, the anti-Vietnam demonstrations of the 60s, to the Chartists and female suffrage campaigners. Your cynicism is toxic, the British government has frequently criticised China's human rights policy and David Miliband, in his most famous speech, warned against the damage China was doing to worldwide democracy. One does get the impression things did get a little out of hand, but when the anti-China protestors were effectively attacking the torch-bearers, I think a degree of sympathy should be shown for the police. I don't know about the specific examples you've listed. The only policy of the police's I do disagree with was not recognising the fact that there were effectively two demonstrations; pro-Chinese and an anti-Chinese and instead treating the Chinese as "supporters" and so not policing them properly. It's better that this torch relay gets continually disrupted across the civilised world than western leaders opportunistically boycott when our countries trade billions with China. A sporting boycott would only be justifiable, as in Aparteid South Africa, if accompanied with an economic blockade.
	Quote