Pro-China bias?

[Sol Logos]

Those of you who still take the position that forced abortions in China is illegal need to check your facts and sources. My source is the official Chinese news, Xinhua. What's yours?

_http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-06/14/content_15503461.htm
Forced abortion probed amid outrage
Updated: 2012-06-14 21:54
(Xinhua)
"According to law, mothers who are not entitled to have a second baby are indeed required to terminate their pregnancy at an early stage," an anonymous official with the Shaanxi Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission said Thursday.

I don't know about anyone else but for me anyone who forces abortions on women have major mental problems, to do so would certainly lead me to suspect they might be psychopathic. But I don't believe that's the point being made.

Is the point that forcing abortions is protected by law in China today? A more recent article from the same source suggests it's not:

XI'AN - The city government of Ankang has announced punishments for officials involved in a forced abortion in northwest China's Shaanxi province.

Feng Jianmei, 23, was forced to terminate her pregnancy over seven months in a hospital in Zhenping county on June 2. That violated her rights late in her pregnancy, according to the investigation report released by the Ankang municipal government on Tuesday.

Several government officials in Zhenping, which is administrated by Ankang, and its Zengjia township violated the laws of central and local government on population and family planning, said the report.

_http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-06/27/content_15524501.htm

To make a stronger point, what you'd probably need to do is dive more deeply into laws to do with family planning and the laws to do with civil rights in China, how these laws interact and look at prior cases and how they have been dealt with. So far it doesn't look clear cut that forced abortion is protected by law in China. It's clearly a big issue in China still however.

My personal view is that governments, all governments by the nature of what they stand for are primed to attract psychopaths. But that's a given. As to comparing how psychopathic one government is to another - that's no simple task, needs a lot of research to make a sound argument. Highlighting one act on it's own to make a point, won't cut it, at least from my viewpoint.

 

[hlat]

Below again are the 3 articles from Xinhua. These articles are the official writings of the Chinese government. It is clear from these articles that forced late pregnancy abortions are illegal and forced non-late pregnancy abortions are legal in China.

Even though it is clear from these articles that forced non-late pregnancy abortions are legal in China, people like Niall continue to deny this fact. This makes direct debate impossible, and shows that his demand for sources was just a tactic to deflect.

However, this debate is not a total waste. Everyone else reading who is open to facts, truth, and reality is now faced with an irrefutable aspect of psychopathic China.

I think some people may not realize how difficult it is to get smoking gun evidence as good as these articles. Most of the time the government just lies and denies and lies some more, and you can see examples of those kinds of lies even in these 3 articles. This one case is just the visible tip of a giant iceberg.

Another quite visible aspect of psychopathic China is the decades-old and ongoing massive pollution. When psychopaths exploit people, they will frequently say the exploitation is for the victims benefit. With that in mind, I cannot accept the argument that the forced abortions and the massive pollution is for the benefit of the Chinese people.

Yet another visible aspect of psychopathic China is complete corruption of the government at all levels. You get one look at it with these officials trying to extort a giant fortune from the victim.

--

_http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-06/14/content_15503461.htm
Forced abortion probed amid outrage
Updated: 2012-06-14 21:54
(Xinhua)

XI'AN - Authorities in Northwest China's Shaanxi province have launched an investigation into an instance of forced abortion, pledging that anyone found responsible will be punished according to relevant laws and regulations.

Feng Jianmei, 27, was forced to terminate her pregnancy at seven months in a hospital in Zhenping county on June 2. Details of the case, including several photos showing the remains of the fetus lying next to the mother on her hospital bed, were posted on online forums and have since shocked and angered many nationwide.

"It is brutal to end a new life that will soon come into the world. It breaks my heart to see such a thing," netizen "Fen Hong Shan Hu Hai" said in a post on Sina's Weibo.com, the country's largest microblogging website.

Many netizens described the case as outrageous and tragic. However, it has yet to be confirmed if the photos are genuine, and the photographer has yet to be identified.

The Shaanxi Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission, which oversees the family planning work in the province, announced Thursday it has dispatched an investigatory team to Zhenping and ordered the local government to punish any officials who are found to be responsible for the forced abortion.

"What the authorities did in Zhenping represents a serious violation of national and provincial policies and regulations on population and family planning, has undermined the reputation of our work and negatively impacted society," the commission said.

The commission said most of the descriptions of Feng's case found in online posts were factual. But investigators are still looking into allegations that Feng was illegally detained before the abortion was performed.

Authorities in Zhenping said Feng consented to the abortion, adding that Feng was not legally entitled to have a second child. Feng previously gave birth to a girl in 2007.

"Feng is not entitled to have a second child, according to policies on family planning. Therefore, local officials brought her to the hospital to receive the abortion," Su Huaichun, a publicity official in Zhenping, said Thursday.

However, Feng's abortion took place late in her pregnancy, a practice that is prohibited by China's laws on population and family planning.

"According to law, mothers who are not entitled to have a second baby are indeed required to terminate their pregnancy at an early stage," an anonymous official with the Shaanxi Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission said Thursday.

"But in Feng's case, she was in the late phase of her pregnancy and an abortion could cause physical injury to her. The correct way to deal with the case would have been for local officials to allow her to deliver the baby first, and then mete out punishment according to regulations," the official said.

"We have ordered local governments in Shaanxi to prevent such things from happening again," he said.

While rural residents and ethnic minorities are permitted to have more than one child, urban residents like Feng are limited to a single child, according to family planning policies introduced in the 1970s to rein in China's surging population.

Local officials and doctors insisted that the abortion was carried out with Feng's consent, a claim that Feng and her family have denied, according to a report in the Thursday edition of the Huangshangbao Daily, an influential newspaper in Shaanxi.

Deng Jiyuan, Feng's husband, told the newspaper that the forced abortion took place because the family refused to pay a deposit of 40,000 yuan ($6,349) to the township government.

"I don't know what the deposit was for," Deng said.

Yuan Fang, a population and family planning official from the township government, said Feng's urban "hukou," or household registration permit, prevents her from having more than one child.

"She would need to transfer her 'hukou' to our township first before having the baby. The money was charged as a deposit for the transfer and would have been paid back if her family had done so," Yuan said.

--

_http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-06/27/content_15524501.htm
Officials punished for NW China forced abortion
Updated: 2012-06-27 02:41
(Xinhua)

XI'AN - The city government of Ankang has announced punishments for officials involved in a forced abortion in northwest China's Shaanxi province.

Feng Jianmei, 23, was forced to terminate her pregnancy over seven months in a hospital in Zhenping county on June 2. That violated her rights late in her pregnancy, according to the investigation report released by the Ankang municipal government on Tuesday.

Several government officials in Zhenping, which is administrated by Ankang, and its Zengjia township violated the laws of central and local government on population and family planning, said the report.

The government said its has decided to subject Yu Yanmei, deputy county magistrate of Zhenping in charging of family planning, with administrative demerits according to national and provincial policies and regulation.

Jiang Nenghai, head of the family planning bureau of Zhenping, has been removed from his post. Some other officials of the township, county government and the county hospital that aborted Feng's pregnancy, were also punished.

According to the investigation, while persuading Feng to receive the abortion, some staff of the township government used crude means to violate her intentions.

There was also no legal basis for the township government's demand that Feng and her family pay a deposit of 40,000 yuan (about 6,228 U.S. dollars) for a certificate allowing her to have her second child.

Feng, a non-agricultural resident born on December 25, 1989, gave birth to a girl in 2007 while she was 17, said the report.

Under family planning laws, Feng was not legally entitled to have a second child.

The investigation showed that Feng lied in claiming to be an agricultural resident and entered her birth date as January 21, 1985, on the marriage registration.

In March 2012, local family planning authorities found Feng had entered her third month of pregnancy and asked her to migrate her 'hukou' -- household registration certificate -- to her husband's account and obtain the necessary certificate for a second child.

Feng and her family offered no response to the township government's request and did not pay the deposit.

Details of the case, including several photos showing the remains of the fetus lying next to the mother on her hospital bed, were posted on online forums and have shocked and angered many people nationwide.

Ankang municipal government had already ordered the Zhenping county government to offer Feng's family compensation.

--

_http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-07/11/content_15569665.htm
Forced abortion case settled after family is paid
Updated: 2012-07-11 14:42
(Xinhua)

XI'AN - The family of a young Chinese woman forced to have a late-term abortion has agreed to settle the case out of court after local government offered a compensation of about 70,000 yuan ($11,023), officials said Wednesday.

Feng Jianmei and her husband Deng Jiyuan signed an agreement with the township government of Zenjia, Northwest China's Shaanxi province, late Tuesday to close the case, township officials told Xinhua.

Beijing-based lawyer Zhang Kai, who represents the Deng family, told Xinhua that as the agreement was signed, the family dropped a lawsuit seeking state compensation in court.

"The signing of the agreement means neither party should raise any question related to the issue again," said an official who declined to be named. "The money has been paid."

Zhang said Deng sought legal support from him on June 28 but on Monday said he wanted to settle the case outside the courtroom with the government after visiting his sick mother in Nanjing.

The official said the government is committed to provide needed support to Deng's family in future should they encounter difficulties in life and at work. The government will also provide assistance to medical treatment of Deng's mother, the official added.

Feng, 23, was forced to abort her baby seven months into her pregnancy at a local hospital on June 2 as the family refused to pay 40,000 yuan demanded by local family planning officials as guarantee for clearing the legal ground for her to have a second child.

The ordeal of the family sparked controversy and a government probe later found that the guarantee claim was illegal and officials had violated a ban stipulated in national and provincial family planning rules on late pregnancy abortion.

 

[Sol Logos]

However, this debate is not a total waste. Everyone else reading who is open to facts, truth, and reality is now faced with an irrefutable aspect of psychopathic China.

Actually reading through those articles it looks as if government officials are being reprimanded for being involved in forced abortions and the manner that they do it too. So it's not that clear cut as you say. More to the point seems to me like you're flogging a dead horse, I don't believe anyone disagrees that forced abortions early or later are wrong, what's wrong is how you equate this with foregone conclusion of "psychopathic China".

Why not look for other wrongs by any other government and say something like "psychopathic Ireland", "psychopathic Russia" etc. - for me that's a childish approach to viewing the world in black and white and it's worth looking at why - on a personal level.

For me, as I said earlier forcing abortion on anyone is messed up, it's also a violation of international law. Torturing terror "suspects" is also messed up and also a violation of international law. Going to war based on spurious claims that are not subject to impartial investigations is messed up also a violation of international law.

From that perspective most governments especially lately could be branded psychopathic. Do you see the issue with your argument? Also the way laws are implemented aren't consistent, aren't impartial, aren't free of financial interests attached and aren't free of prejudice either. By definition that actually means they are not law, international or otherwise but that's off the topic.

 

[Esote]

... I don't believe anyone disagrees that forced abortions early or later are wrong, what's wrong is how you equate this with foregone conclusion of "psychopathic China".

Why not look for other wrongs by any other government and say something like "psychopathic Ireland", "psychopathic Russia" etc. - for me that's a childish approach to viewing the world in black and white and it's worth looking at why - on a personal level.

For me, as I said earlier forcing abortion on anyone is messed up, it's also a violation of international law. Torturing terror "suspects" is also messed up and also a violation of international law. Going to war based on spurious claims that are not subject to impartial investigations is messed up also a violation of international law.

From that perspective most governments especially lately could be branded psychopathic. Do you see the issue with your argument? Also the way laws are implemented aren't consistent, aren't impartial, aren't free of financial interests attached and aren't free of prejudice either. By definition that actually means they are not law, international or otherwise but that's off the topic.

Sorry alkhemst but I am not really sure about what you say : It would be childish to consider that most governments are more or less psychopathic and it would be mature to state that the ruling class from China isn't (so much) psychopathic ? That's somehow what I understand from your previous post and I'd like to know what I might have missed. Thank you for your patience if you and others explained it again and again...

 

[Sol Logos]

...It would be childish to consider that most governments are more or less psychopathic and it would be mature to state that the ruling class from China isn't (so much) psychopathic..

I don't mean that at all. I'm really talking about black and white thinking, and the tendency to look at one detail, apply it globally and put the world into buckets of either good or bad for example. The way I see it is that's a sign of where one's thinking is probably held back, for whatever reason that might be.

 

[Joe]

This thread has been interesting, not so much for the information it has imparted about China, but for what it has revealed about "black and white" thinking and someone being caught in the grip of an "idee fixe". It has also provided a good example of a straw man argument.

The original thesis was an alleged "pro China bias" on Sott where Sott either actively or passively supports all policies of the Chinese government. I hope now that that thesis has been exposed as bogus.

As mentioned already on this thread, Sott.net primarily offers a look at the world and the forces that govern it from a broad, macrocosmic perspective. From that perspective, we hold that the Chinese government, in its recent alliance with Russia and other BRICS nations, is a positive development, and our articles and analysis generally promote that idea. It is from this POV that Sott has a "pro China bias".

Some people have been consistently unable to understand that point, and repeatedly attempted to drag us down into single issues about life within China and imply, in a straw man argument way, that Sott's broad support for China is also an endorsement of all Chinese policies. This is disingenuous. Sott is simply not going to openly take a side on any single issue within any country that is not directly linked to or indicative of the broad geopolitical or social movement of the nation itself and in its relationship to the rest of the word. To do so would take too much time and be a waste of precious resources.

So for the benefit of some who haven't been able to grasp this concept, I'll make it clear. Sott does not publicly discuss the "forced abortions in China" topic and therefore has no official position on it. Anyone is entitled to infer from that what they like. They can ascribe beliefs or intentions to us till the cows come home, but it makes no difference, because such musings are so much hot air.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Putting it all in a nutshell (again) may be what's needed for some reading the forum who are trying to get the big picture. Thanks for the to-the-point summary, Perceval. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[luc]

This thread has been interesting, not so much for the information it has imparted about China, but for what it has revealed about "black and white" thinking and someone being caught in the grip of an "idee fixe". It has also provided a good example of a straw man argument.

The original thesis was an alleged "pro China bias" on Sott where Sott either actively or passively supports all policies of the Chinese government. I hope now that that thesis has been exposed as bogus.

As mentioned already on this thread, Sott.net primarily offers a look at the world and the forces that govern it from a broad, macrocosmic perspective. From that perspective, we hold that the Chinese government, in its recent alliance with Russia and other BRICS nations, is a positive development, and our articles and analysis generally promote that idea. It is from this POV that Sott has a "pro China bias".

Some people have been consistently unable to understand that point, and repeatedly attempted to drag us down into single issues about life within China and imply, in a straw man argument way, that Sott's broad support for China is also an endorsement of all Chinese policies. This is disingenuous. Sott is simply not going to openly take a side on any single issue within any country that is not directly linked to or indicative of the broad geopolitical or social movement of the nation itself and in its relationship to the rest of the word. To do so would take too much time and be a waste of precious resources.

So for the benefit of some who haven't been able to grasp this concept, I'll make it clear. Sott does publicly discuss the "forced abortions in China" topic and therefore has no official position on it. Anyone is entitled to infer from that what they like. They can ascribe beliefs or intentions to us till the cows come home, but it makes no difference, because such musings are so much hot air.

I think the bold part is very important and true. I mean, we can have endless discussions about moral values, or whether this or that behavior/policy/action is good or bad, when the truth is that there is no "good" or "bad" intrinsic to a certain action or value. There is good, there is bad and there is the situation which determines which is which. And the situation, in this case, is the "broad geopolitical or social movement", and it is that which should be our reference point, osit, not some single moral rule perceived to be set in stone, or some action we deem "unmoral". This concept is really hard to grasp I think, since we are so used to think of moral behavior as following a fixed set of rules, so it's good to be reminded of that trap again.

 

[Mr.Cyan]

Perceval, i fully agree, and you have summarised it well. The Russia & China alliance, & their leadership of BRICS is certainly a very positive development, and about the only thing keeping this world in some form of balance now, and sane. Othwerwise extreme chaos would have ensued long ago - and Sott is definitely taking a right stand on this.

 

[Esote]

Thank you alkhemst and Perceval, your answers make it crystal clear now. Not easy concepts to grab though...

 

[Mal7]

This thread has been interesting, not so much for the information it has imparted about China, but for what it has revealed about "black and white" thinking and someone being caught in the grip of an "idee fixe". It has also provided a good example of a straw man argument.

The original thesis was an alleged "pro China bias" on Sott where Sott either actively or passively supports all policies of the Chinese government. I hope now that that thesis has been exposed as bogus.

As mentioned already on this thread, Sott.net primarily offers a look at the world and the forces that govern it from a broad, macrocosmic perspective. From that perspective, we hold that the Chinese government, in its recent alliance with Russia and other BRICS nations, is a positive development, and our articles and analysis generally promote that idea. It is from this POV that Sott has a "pro China bias".

Some people have been consistently unable to understand that point, and repeatedly attempted to drag us down into single issues about life within China and imply, in a straw man argument way, that Sott's broad support for China is also an endorsement of all Chinese policies. This is disingenuous. Sott is simply not going to openly take a side on any single issue within any country that is not directly linked to or indicative of the broad geopolitical or social movement of the nation itself and in its relationship to the rest of the word. To do so would take too much time and be a waste of precious resources.

So for the benefit of some who haven't been able to grasp this concept, I'll make it clear. Sott does not publicly discuss the "forced abortions in China" topic and therefore has no official position on it. Anyone is entitled to infer from that what they like. They can ascribe beliefs or intentions to us till the cows come home, but it makes no difference, because such musings are so much hot air.

I am reasonably happy with that summation (not that it is the forum's job to make me "happy" :) ), but thought I would add a few more rambling thoughts in response. I will keep my thoughts fairly general rather than getting too much into historical minutiae, in the interests of saving time for everyone.

1. With regard to Sott taking a "macrocosmic perspective" and not openly taking a side on single issues: This is of course fine, but I think single issues can still be discussed on the forum here if people think they are of relevance to their understanding of the world. There might be some confusion here about whether the thread is about "What Sott thinks" (as Sott as referenced in the original thread title), or just a forum discussion about various subjects. I think it would be good if single issues that are relevant to the forum's interests can still be discussed in the forum here, without expecting an official Sott position on each of them. Also the macrocosmic perspective and smaller "microcosmic" issues are interlinked, e.g. if you want to explain in a compelling way a big question like why is the USA bad, the best method would be a long list of relatively smaller items e.g. they did this in Country A, this in Country B, this in Country Y, poisoned your food, killed JFK, etc. etc. While China may be relatively good in comparison, I don't think the forum should be considered something like the propaganda office in a war on the USA, where faults of the USA's opponents cannot be mentioned in case they strengthen the enemy.

2. Regarding black-and-white thinking, to be blunt it still seems to me like some there is degree of black-and-white thinking can also be found in Niall's defence of "official" Chinese positions on policy and history. There is an objective truth to 20th century history, though finding that truth is a difficult and perhaps an ongoing process (and I make no claims to have found it.) What portions of the infinity of facts and relations of that objective history one considers important for in their personalized account of the world will also depend on what one's own subjective situation is, e.g. as a Tibetan "serf" born in 1920, a Uyghur Muslim merchant, or whoever one may happen to be. I think that truth is more complex than the view that "Western" views of China are propaganda serving western imperial interests, and the "official" Chinese view of history is substantially correct. I still think Charles Bell's information on Tibet is of value, despite his being a member of the British colonial elite and cosy with the Tibetan priestly elite, as he was a political representative in Lhasa during a period (1912-1933) when all Chinese government officials had been expelled from Lhasa. In a slightly different parallel universe, with different instructions from the British Home Office, Tibet could even have ended up becoming part of the British colonial empire during the first half of the 20th Century.

I don't mean that Charles Bell's information should be accepted at face value, but that one should always be trying to read between the lines and not accept one position or the other in a black-and-white way. If the "western" view is wrong in some ways, that does not mean the "official" Chinese history is propaganda-free and correct. The truth will OSIT be more complex, harder to find, and somewhere in the middle. I think it is also relevant to acknowledge that there have been, and no doubt still are, western propagandists for "official" Chinese positions, e.g. the western "Communist sympathisers" who were invited to China, or well-treated there by the Chinese Communist Party and wrote glowing reports of the abundance of food and lack of famine during the 1960s. [Edited to add: e.g. Felix Greene and his 1964 book, A Curtain of Ignorance - China: How America is Deceived]

As an example of current possible Chinese propaganda, I think there may be some truth to the reports by Western liberals that China is using the increase in anti-terrorism hysteria after 9/11 to unite the three concepts of separatism, extremism, and fundamentalism. (e.g. if you are advocating any form of separatism, you are also and extremist and a fundamentalist, and you need to be "quashed" in order to preserve the nice-sounding "harmonious" goals spoken of in party manifestoes.

On the Uyghur issue, this is a substantial population that lives across China's borders (e.g. like the Kurds live across the borders of Iraq and Turkey). Within the present generation, Uyghur's living within China have according to some sources become a minority in their homelands due to internal migrations of Han Chinese. So I don't think Uyghur unrest, whether expressed in violent or non-violent forms of activism, should be principally thought of as US creation, though it might be in the US interest to "stoke the flames".

On the Tibet issue, Niall describes this as "One absorbed its related neighbor". This terminology to me seems overly lenient towards China, perhaps because I have a greater subjective interest in the particular smallish subject of Tibet. I wonder though if Niall would use the same terms to describe e.g. the British-Irish wars over the last 1,000 years?

Even Noam Chomsky takes some time out from pointing out America's many egregious faults to mention that China has a poor human rights record and poor workers' conditions.

 

[Mal7]

Just one other point on the economic front. China is putting great sums of money into development projects throughout the world. That in itself is a good thing. But I think it is still fair to ask if there might be a hidden cost to this abundance of development money. Since economically the world seems to run on the mode of corporate capitalism, in which corporations source their labour from the countries where worker conditions come the closest to legalized slavery, I think it at least up for debate whether this development money could best be described as coming from the just rewards of hard-working citizens putting in a good days work in a well-governed and equitable society, or from a divided society where a great number of people's opportunities are limited to working in poor working conditions for low wages, while a smaller proportion of the population gain most of the economic benefit.

(On a side note, I wonder if the best thing that could happen for Nepal after the recent earthquakes would be for China to become heavily involved in redeveloping it? Nepal itself does not seem to have the resources, being one of the poorest countries in the world.)

 

[SeekinTruth]

This is an interesting interview by Saker of Jeff J. Brown, an American expat who lived and worked in China for years over two periods, that would fit well in this thread:

http://thesaker.is/saker-interview-with-jeff-j-brown/

 

[SeekinTruth]

Another interesting view on China from someone who's visited often and has family there:
http://thesaker.is/voices-from-the-middle-kingdom/

 

[sitting]

Another interesting view on China from someone who's visited often and has family there:
http://thesaker.is/voices-from-the-middle-kingdom/

Hi SeekinTruth,

Thank you for the article. I read it and I'm in basic agreement with it.

Those NGO's are really a nasty bunch. I think both China and Russia have taken firm stands--tossing them out. A cancer really, but always wielding pretty and fancy words. Soros is the worst. Guys like Maurice Strong too. Rothschild agent underneath.