On 14 May 2006 at 00:08, "Prasad J" prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
As, I said by allowing Chinese Wikipedians (who are probably just kids who aren't aware of what exactly their government does to "dissidents") will do them more harm than good. You wouldn't be breaking any laws, you would just be getting some Chinese teenager shot for being a "traitor". America tried to bring democracy to Iraq and only succeeded in instigating a civil war.Americans were not put on this planet for the express purpose of preserving democracy-why don't you give it a rest for a while?
It's interesting that you first proclaim that China is not "some Nazi- like, fascist regime" (thus invoking [[Godwin's Law]] by making comparisons with Nazis), but then seem to believe that a Chinese teenager who exercises free speech is likely to be shot by the government.
At any rate, I don't think anybody here is suggesting that the Wikimedia Foundation officially support people in any country breaking the law or engaging in anti-government activity; Wikimedia / Wikipedia is committed to its policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, which precludes taking a stand on political issues. If individuals, in and out of China, provide means of evading the Chinese firewall, that's their own business and their own responsibility if they should happen to get arrested, shot, or whatever.
Helping people circumvent the Chinese firewall is tantamount to abetting a crime-and thereby unethical, unless a competent international body (like the U.N) officially makes a statement to the effect that China is a fascist state where citizens are brutally oppressed by the Government and denied any human right whatsoever. If a competent body were to make such an assessment of the situation in China, then by helping people in that country to evade the firewall, the Wikimedia foundation (since the persons involved are, apparently, Wikimedians-whose primary goal is to make Wikipedia available to Chinese users) would indeed be serving the cause of freedom, liberty etc. However since no international body has officially deemed the situation in China to be as bad as that in N.Korea or some such place, the abetting of such a crime cannot be justified. Secondly, the fact that (as Anthony said) the U.S government is likely to give grants to those who help bring down the firewall itself proves that America wants the firewall brought down so that it (the U.S) may achieve it's geo-political objectives in China. In that sense aiding criminals (as indeed those who violate Chinese law are) will be unethical-even if those criminals (to us) seem to have reasonable intentions. And going by (only) the U.S assessment of China is unfair-there is an international machinery in place to pass judgement on human rights violations in various countries. Now for the Wikimedia Foundation or those who are acting on it's behalf (even though they may deny doing so) would be highly unethical. Now as for the U.S Government supporting you guys, please consider which is more important to the American Government- the rights of the Chinese people to access a website or diplomatic relations with China.
As for Dan: If a teenager who "exercises his right to free speech" is shot, yes the regime in that country is a fascist one. However if a teenager breaks the law of his country, willingly (assuming this law is not a violation of any Human Rights) he can be punished as his country deems fit. In this case the firewall-law does not seem to be violating any human rights-if it is then the UNHRC would've certainly made an issue of it. So, if a Chinese citizen violates this law he will probably be tried for treason-a crime punishable by death in almost every country which still allows capital punishment. Let me illustrate with an example-in India homosexuality is an offence punishable by incarceration. Does this mean that any gay person who is jailed in India is being deprived of his fundamental rights? No. Because no competent body has claimed that Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is a violation of International Human Rights laws. The case with China is the same. Unless some international organization declares officialy that the Chinese firewall is a serious violation of human rights we cannot presume that we are doing the ight thing by "upholding the rights of the (what we call) oppressed Chinese people".
Please can we have this thread moderated. Charles
Why, because some people are raising arguements against it, in a sensible, decent manner? As far as I can see, neither I nor anyone else has used profanities etc. which could be seen as reaons to moderate this thread. Nontheless go ahead if that is what you deem right.
For the record I am against this sort of censorship but I am also against helping people circumvent it in an unethical manner.
"Prasad J" wrote
Why, because some people are raising arguements against it, in a sensible, decent manner? As far as I can see, neither I nor anyone else has used profanities etc. which could be seen as reaons to moderate this thread. Nontheless go ahead if that is what you deem right.
Because it is rambling, off-topic, and not properly threaded. For example, this mail is a reply but contains no clue to what it is replying to. Please note that this mailing list has a specific purpose.
Charles
This is a reply to the last e-mail sent by charles matthews: As I said, go ahead with what you deem correct.
On May 14, 2006, at 6:05 AM, Prasad J wrote:
Helping people circumvent the Chinese firewall is tantamount to abetting a crime-and thereby unethical, unless a competent international body (like the U.N) officially makes a statement to the effect that China is a fascist state where citizens are brutally oppressed by the Government and denied any human right whatsoever.
I simply cannot understand this standpoint. First off with describing the UN as "competent", but let's move past that.
The determining factor to you about whether to (non-violently!) resist an oppressive government isn't whether it is, in fact, oppressive, but rather whether or not it's officially designated "oppressive" by the UN?
Did Gandhi wait for the British colonization of India to be designated "oppressive" by foreigners before he began his resistance?
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
As for Dan: If a teenager who "exercises his right to free speech" is shot, yes the regime in that country is a fascist one. However if a teenager breaks the law of his country, willingly (assuming this law is not a violation of any Human Rights) he can be punished as his country deems fit. In this case the firewall-law does not seem to be violating any human rights-if it is then the UNHRC would've certainly made an issue of it.
*Article 19. Universal declaration of human rights *
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
'nough said.
Garion
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. 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.
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
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Prasad J wrote:
<snip>
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.
"What's another country? What do you mean, there are places apart from China?"
(Oceania is at war with Eurasia and East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and East Asia. We love Big Brother.)
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Prasad J wrote:
<snip>
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.
"What's another country? What do you mean, there are places apart from China?"
(Oceania is at war with Eurasia and East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and East Asia. We love Big Brother.)
It would not have surprised me if the US government of the day had used homosexuality as a justification for its war against Grenada. :-)
Ec
As a side note, I really do suspect that George Orwell was referring to the U.S when he wrote 1984!
On May 16, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Prasad J wrote:
As a side note, I really do suspect that George Orwell was referring to the U.S when he wrote 1984!
He wasn't.
He was referring to Stalin, his work at the BBC during World War II, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, etc.
Although if you want to go ahead and waste everyone's time with anti- American trolling, I'm sure many Wikipedians will welcome you.
http://www.derfcity.com/n/newtoon.html
Thought of this thread reading this.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
Although if you want to go ahead and waste everyone's time with anti- American trolling, I'm sure many Wikipedians will welcome you.
-- Philip L. Welch
I'm not sure how my views about America have anything to do with how the Wikipedia Community treats me as long as those views are not stated on the latter website. Also the excalamation mark (!) at the end of my statement was meant to indicate that my observation had been made in a sarcastic manner.
On May 16, 2006, at 9:36 PM, Prasad J wrote:
Although if you want to go ahead and waste everyone's time with anti- American trolling, I'm sure many Wikipedians will welcome you.
I'm not sure how my views about America have anything to do with how the Wikipedia Community treats me as long as those views are not stated on the latter website.
I was just remarking that anti-American sentiment isn't uncommon among some Wikipedians :)
Also the excalamation mark (!) at the end of my statement was meant to indicate that my observation had been made in a sarcastic manner.
Good to know. I had not interpreted it that way.
On 17/05/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Prasad J wrote:
As a side note, I really do suspect that George Orwell was referring to the U.S when he wrote 1984!
He wasn't.
He was referring to Stalin, his work at the BBC during World War II, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, etc.
And the US didn't enter his mind at any point? Can't believe that, myself, although I'm not going to push the issue. WikiEN-l isn't the place for that sort of intellectual debate.
I'll echo the sentiments of the respondent, though. This is a mailing list about Wikipedia; regardless of how much of a tosser you personally think George Bush is, or how much you disagree with the US, the UK or any of those countries, *don't post it*; it's off-topic and, due to the geographical and political alignment of a lot of subscribers, could be considered mindless trolling.
Rob Church
Rob Church