Prasad J wrote:
Ray, You cannot compare Gandhiji's Civil Disobedience Movement (a part of which was producing salt illegally) with the present scenarion, because the Chinese do not plan (since that would be stupidity) to openly admit to their Government that they are breaking this law. Under the Civil Disobedience Movement, Gandhiji and his followers openly broke the law, after announcing to the British that they would be doing so . It was not done in a secretive way, which is the manner in which the Chinese would evade the firewall.
But then the Chinese goverment also acts secretly, and looking for explanations and understanding is akin to approaching Kafka's castle. Has there been a clear decree that downloading Wikipedia in China is illegal? Perhaps our Chinese colleagues would admit that their actions were a breach of the law if the law were clearly stated. Which side is acting more sercretively?
Again, if two homosexuals in India defied the Indian Penal Code, they would not be treated as if they were fighting for a just cause (or following Gandhian principles)-infact they would be jailed. This is because Indian society is still against the concept of gays.So does that mean that the U.N can intervene? No. Because mass public opinion is against homosexuals-although this opinion may not be all that justified. So again, you cannot compare this issue with the one in China (where, I'm assuming most oppose the firewall)since the majority of Indians do support this law-even though the gays may term it a violation of their human rights.
Rights of homosexuals in India would not have crossed my imagination if you had not raised the issue. Our own former prime minister once said that "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The activities of two adult consenting individuals is a private act; if they choose to make a public display of their homosexuality that may be another matter. Following the Gandhian principle of announcing that they are breaking the law would have the paradoxical effect of turning a private act into a public matter. Justifying the restriction of gay rights on the basis of majority opinion is an imposition of the Tyranny of the Majority.
It's conceivable that the UN could make pronouncements on this, but it would not be likely to consider the issue important enough for intervention even in a country much smaller than India. I rather suspect that the vast majority of Chinese citizens are unaware of what firewalls are.
Ec