Australians, human rights, China

[Saren]

I couldn't fit what I wanted to say in the title.
Anyway I just read this and I'm kind of pissed off, why do western countries have to act like world police? And why do Australians think this is any of their business? In fact this isn't even the US's business but I'm fairly sure we realized some time after George Bush's presidency that we aren't the fucking world police

I think this shit doesn't concern us and we shouldn't rub our glorious human rights in their faces (even if they are good)

Also Australia's president/leader person is an ugly pale bitch lol

[Earfetish]

They're not being world police by diplomatically talking about human rights in China. Everyone trades with them and no-one has any intention of using even a slight bit of military force against them.

I kinda think that not torturing people and having open justice is a good thing internationally and we should aim for this. I'm not a moral relativist or anything. No-one in the other country gives a shit if the West says to them 'how about you stop hanging 16 year old girls for 'fornication'' and I think it's a good thing that we do. Because I think what happens in some other countries is terrible, and we're right and they're wrong.

As far as Australia preaching about human rights tho - don't they want to sink immigrant ships, put immigrants in terrible conditions for ages in detention centres, that kind of thing? And aren't they the only place, other than China itself, to put a lot of effort into policing the internet and stopping their citizens from looking at web pages that do not conform to Western Politically Correct standards? I don't like Britain's sloppy record on human rights but Australia seems far worse.

[Warforger]

At 4/25/11 09:09 AM, Saren wrote: I couldn't fit what I wanted to say in the title.
Anyway I just read this and I'm kind of pissed off, why do western countries have to act like world police?

Other then like that being the definition of NATO, SATO and the UN?

[lapis]

At 4/25/11 01:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Other then like that being the definition of NATO, SATO and the UN?

SATO? Is that the treaty organisation located 90 degrees counter-clockwise from the WATO?

[Warforger]

At 4/25/11 02:14 PM, lapis wrote:

At 4/25/11 01:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Other then like that being the definition of NATO, SATO and the UN?

SATO? Is that the treaty organisation located 90 degrees counter-clockwise from the WATO?

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

SATO (techniclly SEATO)

South-East Asian Treaty Organization.

Pretty much made in response to the growing support of Communism in South-east Asia.

[gmercerd]

At 4/25/11 09:09 AM, Saren wrote: I couldn't fit what I wanted to say in the title.
Anyway I just read this and I'm kind of pissed off, why do western countries have to act like world police? And why do Australians think this is any of their business?

Australians do business with the chinese; they can say whatever the heck they want if they feel like it.

In fact this isn't even the US's business but I'm fairly sure we realized some time after George Bush's presidency that we aren't the fucking world police

Obama would disagree

I think this shit doesn't concern us and we shouldn't rub our glorious human rights in their faces (even if they are good)

If they don't have a positive example to follow, they won't ever wise up

Also Australia's president/leader person is an ugly pale bitch lol

Honestly? insults aren't helping anything.

[Cootie]

We are just talking to them rationally and trying to get them to see that being so brutal to their people is making China look bad and also plain wrong. I don't think we should stop waving the finger of shame until they stop locking up journalist (China is #1 in this) and also they need to allow something remotely resembling free speech.

[Graduation]

At 4/26/11 12:24 AM, Cootie wrote: Ignorance

It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

[joe9320]

We Australians are pretty good when it comes to human rights standards and quality of life. We have national health care and we are the rated as sixth highest standard of living. But I think Australia has the duty to do this. So does the US, but at least we don't use force.

[Graduation]

At 4/29/11 07:43 AM, joe9320 wrote: We Australians are pretty good when it comes to human rights standards and quality of life. We have national health care and we are the rated as sixth highest standard of living. But I think Australia has the duty to do this. So does the US, but at least we don't use force.

Would you consider freedom of speech and public information to be a human right's violation?

[Graduation]

At 4/29/11 07:51 AM, JohnnyDamon wrote:
Would you consider freedom of speech and public information to be a human right's violation?

I'm sorry, restriction of freedom of speech and public information.

[SolInvictus]

this whole world police thing drives me mad; we actively set up organizations to act as "world police" (or policy keepers), fail to give them the power they need and then complain both when they do act (within whatever limited means they have) and when they don't act (due to the limited means they were given access to).

angry faic.

[joe9320]

At 4/29/11 10:40 AM, JohnnyDamon wrote:
I'm sorry, restriction of freedom of speech and public information.

That's a human rights violation. We should have a right to call our prime minister "Mrs. Dumass".

[Richard]

At 5/2/11 07:29 AM, joe9320 wrote:

At 4/29/11 10:40 AM, JohnnyDamon wrote:
I'm sorry, restriction of freedom of speech and public information.

That's a human rights violation. We should have a right to call our prime minister "Mrs. Dumass".

Indeed. Seeing as australia is well known for their censoring of information (internet filter) and ideas (mortal kombat) these are easily seen and rightly too as limiting freedom of speech. Spend millions of dollars on filtering the internet, only to have a kid hack it in less than a week, then outright declare that female ejaculation is a myth even though its been medically proven.