Lets start out with the obvious. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't really go into if these are possibly fake charges or are just straight up "yes they did it but Canada is against the...
Exemplary
Lets start out with the obvious.
As far as I can tell, the article doesn't really go into if these are possibly fake charges or are just straight up "yes they did it but Canada is against the death penalty". I'm getting the vibe of more of the second, but again it's not that deep so I don't know (all the articles i can find seem to be the same, and the previous execution mentioned in the article appears to have been for producing ketamine illegally to sell). The following is only about if they actually did bring in/produce drugs illegally because yes, I am against faking charges against people so you can kill them. So with that said-
I'm always very mixed on these things. A large portion of the democratic world seems to want to both celebrate foreign countries and cultures, to the point of having groups who are very hostile about it, while simultaneously criticizing or ignoring the parts they find distasteful.
China is a sovereign nation with its own laws. If you go to that country, you are subject to its laws. Singapore is very infamous for this, and not at all shy about it, and yet you still see tourists getting in serious trouble. As much as people don't like the culture in various democratic nations, they are often still miles more liberal than much of the middle east, africa, and the vast majority of asia (by land or population).
From there it seems like you have two groups (again just ignoring the trumped up charges category as already discussed):
People who didn't think about it/didn't care. "oh it's just a vape pen" or "oh yeah it's illegal here lol my bad"
People who are flat out smuggling because it's super lucrative due to the absurd risk. And there's probably some sort of sub category there these days where someone is smuggling weed vs someone smuggling drugs poorly laced with fent that are going to OD and probably kill a bunch of people.
I don't think the death penalty is even close to ok for either of these scenarios(maybe the second sub category if egregious enough), but at the same time, 2 is a much more severe crime than 1, and yes if you're a foreigner flying to another country to smuggle in goods for profit, I think that country has a right to enforce their laws and give consequences within their borders. And yes, I do think they have a right to do so for 1 as well. You being a tourist does not mean you get to ignore their laws because you just don't agree with them? You can protest them if you want, but you do have to accept there can and will be consequences.
Yes there are ethical lines where things get murky, but in my eyes drugs just aren't it. And yes there are all sorts of issues with China and their government, and it's absolutely abused like it is everywhere else, but China also has very good historical reason to be extra cautious about drugs. I suppose my point is mostly that lacking more evidence, it's hard to tell how out of line China is here.
I say all of this as someone who's usually pointing out the other side of the argument to people that see China as "fine" by a disturbingly large group of people who fall somewhere between hardcore tankie and just so anti US government they assume everything is overblown.
I agree with you on all points. Especially because these are dual citizens and China doesn't recognize dual citizenship : to them they're straight up only Chinese and why shouldn't they be able to...
I agree with you on all points. Especially because these are dual citizens and China doesn't recognize dual citizenship : to them they're straight up only Chinese and why shouldn't they be able to execute their own laws on their soil using their standards. That's not to say these are bad guys so it's okay, or that every time some country intercedes a sovereign nation needs to give way. They absolutely have the right to do so. And yes tourists committing crimes in foreign soil and relying on the backing of home country should be gravely frowned upon as well.
But. Michael Kovrig, the Canadian diplomat who was detained and tortured in China, had this to say:
“It’s not surprising that China would execute people, but what is relatively unusual is that it would execute foreign citizens,” Kovrig told Power Play host Vassy Kapelos. “It hasn’t done that in recent years, to my knowledge.”
“So that is relatively extreme, particularly because the Chinese government is mindful of international perceptions of it,” he added. “It does care how other countries view it. So to take this step is, frankly, demonstrating what kind of China it wants the world to see.”
So while I agree with you that countries should be able to enact whatever laws they see fit and it's not really outsider's place to judge them too too harshly, it seems clear that this is out of the usual for them and comes at a time when relations are strained and we're at economic war with them. That people shouldn't be executed based on international politics reasons. Two other experts from the link agree that the timing, and how China wants the world to perceive these executions, aren't accidental.
To me that's hard to judge without knowing the details. What's the "usual" drug related crime that leads to execution in china for a non dual citizen? Did these 4 just assume canada will protect...
it seems clear that this is out of the usual for them and comes at a time when relations are strained and we're at economic war with them.
To me that's hard to judge without knowing the details. What's the "usual" drug related crime that leads to execution in china for a non dual citizen? Did these 4 just assume canada will protect them and try to throw up a drug empire, because then...yeah, that would be normal by the standards of China. Or are they 4 people who normally would do time in China but getting extra punished so China can make a statement.
Without any knowledge of the actual charges and crimes (which, of course, is the whole other problem with China) its basically impossible to detail. It's possible Canada doesn't know the specifics, or doesn't believe them, but if they do have them and aren't going into detail, that's kinda important information.
I'm worried that I may have lost track of who is really saying what in this thread, but it bothers me to read arguments like: And: I don't view the power of authoritarian regimes as legitimate...
Exemplary
I'm worried that I may have lost track of who is really saying what in this thread, but it bothers me to read arguments like:
A large portion of the democratic world seems to want to both celebrate foreign countries and cultures, to the point of having groups who are very hostile about it, while simultaneously criticizing or ignoring the parts they find distasteful.
And:
countries should be able to enact whatever laws they see fit and it's not really outsider's place to judge them too too harshly
I don't view the power of authoritarian regimes as legitimate and, so, all the laws written and enforced by authoritarian governments should be subject to harsher scrutiny than the laws of liberal democracies with good election integrity, respect for human rights, and the freedoms required for democracy to function well, such as freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. If a tourist breaks a law in Iceland and is punished, then at least that law reflects, indirectly and imperfectly, "the will of the people". In China, that is not true.
I also take seriously the view of groups like the UN Human Rights Office and Amnesty International that the death penalty is itself a human rights violation. Even if it were Iceland (or the United States) executing law-breaking tourists, I would still see that as illegitimate and wrong. And so too for what a country does to its own citizens.
The world struggle is not fundamentally East vs. West, U.S. vs. China, or Russia vs. Europe. It's fundamentally democracy vs. authoritarianism. I'm not making an argument one way or the other whether the U.S. or Europe should be friendly or tough with China or other authoritarian countries. That's a more granular question than what I'm getting at. I just want to reinforce the idea that authoritarianism is fundamentally illegitimate and should never receive the cover of multiculturalist or pluralist arguments.
You can hardly even call the U.S. government the same thing as "Americans" or "the American people". You can especially not call the Chinese government the same thing as "the Chinese" or "the Chinese people" and chastise people on multiculturalist grounds when they object morally to the Chinese government's actions.
This is why I'll never set foot in their territory again*, not even for a layover. Their processes are opaque and representation is deeply lacking, not to mention people are used as political...
"These shocking and inhumane executions of Canadian citizens by Chinese authorities should be a wake-up call for Canada," said Ketty Nivyabandi, from Amnesty International Canada. "We are devastated for the families of the victims, and we hold them in our hearts as they try to process the unimaginable.
This is why I'll never set foot in their territory again*, not even for a layover. Their processes are opaque and representation is deeply lacking, not to mention people are used as political bargaining chips to be tortured or executed based on something completely unrelated to their supposed crime. I'm a nobody and wont be targeted, but still.
The updated advisory warned that Canadians should exercise “a high degree of caution” in China, [...] “Our ability to provide consular assistance in China is limited due to the level of transparency in China’s judicial system,” the advisory said. “It may also impact your ability to obtain effective legal assistance.”
This paragraph is arguing with itself. According to China these were not foreigners. I wasn't able to find out for sure in my brief searching but statistically they were very likely born in China...
China does not recognise dual citizenship and takes a tough stance on drug crimes. However, it's rare for the death penalty to be carried out on foreigners.
This paragraph is arguing with itself. According to China these were not foreigners. I wasn't able to find out for sure in my brief searching but statistically they were very likely born in China and become citizens of Canada later. If that's the case, having been born in China they understood that China would forever consider them Chinese.
Is it unusual for China to execute people it considers Chinese nationals? Not even a little bit, by some accounts China executes more people per year than the rest of the world combined. Which is fucked up and also too interesting a part of the story to leave out entirely. It feels disingenuous.
My only issue is with the journalistic choices, which I found echoed by other western publications. I completely agree with the sentiment that killing people for drug crimes is wrong.
Not inherently? Just because the Chinese government doesn't formally, legally recognize dual citizenship doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the international perception of executing someone...
This paragraph is arguing with itself. According to China these were not foreigners.
Not inherently? Just because the Chinese government doesn't formally, legally recognize dual citizenship doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the international perception of executing someone who has citizenship elsewhere, and might have treated those cases differently in the past. @chocobean discusses this above in the thread as well, with some cited sources
I think throughout a lot of this discussion, as well as in the articles, there's a lot of confusion around the term foreigner. Obtaining an additional citizenship does not make one a foreigner....
I think throughout a lot of this discussion, as well as in the articles, there's a lot of confusion around the term foreigner. Obtaining an additional citizenship does not make one a foreigner. Like if I got Canadian citizenship I'm not suddenly a foreigner in the US and it would be pretty weird if I was treated as such.
I don't know the state of these people though. The identities weren't released, but it's very possible that none of the 4 are people that would generally be considered foreigners. For example, they could have been born and raised in China, moved to Canada for University, and then later moved back to China.
Someone replied to my comment and argued that what I said was the same as the United States’ justifications for its military interventions in the Middle East. I wrote a response, but by the time I...
Someone replied to my comment and argued that what I said was the same as the United States’ justifications for its military interventions in the Middle East.
I wrote a response, but by the time I hit the reply button, that person’s comment was deleted. I’m annoyed at the idea of having written so much in reply maybe as a complete waste, so I’m going to post my comment here anyway.
So, are the only two options to support authoritarianism and oppose the U.S. invading countries in the Middle East or to oppose authoritarianism and support the U.S. invading countries in the Middle East?
In my comment, I explicitly said I wasn’t taking a position on how democratic countries should interact with authoritarian countries:
I'm not making an argument one way or the other whether the U.S. or Europe should be friendly or tough with China or other authoritarian countries. That's a more granular question than what I'm getting at.
The context I was considering in my comment was the discussion above my comment about whether it is morally right or reasonable for people in Western, democratic countries to voice criticism of the Chinese government for executing these four people.
What I thought I saw in two of those comments was the value of multiculturalism or pluralism being invoked to argue that voicing criticism of the Chinese government for these executions is wrong or unreasonable.
Nobody was discussing Canada invading China or anything like that.
I don’t think arguments along the lines of “you either believe X and Y or you believe not-X and not-Y” are usually helpful. In this case, it seems like all you’re doing is pointing out that some people believe (or have believed) both X and Y. But X and Y don’t seem to logically entail each other and there seem to be lots of people who believe one and not the other.
Concluding that two facially similar arguments (i.e. arguments that kinda sound the same on the surface) are actually the same argument just ends up making it impossible to have nuance and complexity in discussions.
Kind of like George W. Bush’s statement that “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”, which I will now make you responsible for either defending or distancing yourself from, since what you’re saying sure sounds a lot like that. How the tables have turned!
Yeah apologies- that's why I deleted the comment. In short, you're correct, I was conflating the two very commonly held pair of views together, primarily because most people really do share both...
Yeah apologies- that's why I deleted the comment. In short, you're correct, I was conflating the two very commonly held pair of views together, primarily because most people really do share both views uncritically. I would like to see less of that if possible but I just realized that well, this is a niche link-sharing forum and I'd be stirring up a lot of discord for a near zero chance of convincing anybody.
Lets start out with the obvious.
As far as I can tell, the article doesn't really go into if these are possibly fake charges or are just straight up "yes they did it but Canada is against the death penalty". I'm getting the vibe of more of the second, but again it's not that deep so I don't know (all the articles i can find seem to be the same, and the previous execution mentioned in the article appears to have been for producing ketamine illegally to sell). The following is only about if they actually did bring in/produce drugs illegally because yes, I am against faking charges against people so you can kill them. So with that said-
I'm always very mixed on these things. A large portion of the democratic world seems to want to both celebrate foreign countries and cultures, to the point of having groups who are very hostile about it, while simultaneously criticizing or ignoring the parts they find distasteful.
China is a sovereign nation with its own laws. If you go to that country, you are subject to its laws. Singapore is very infamous for this, and not at all shy about it, and yet you still see tourists getting in serious trouble. As much as people don't like the culture in various democratic nations, they are often still miles more liberal than much of the middle east, africa, and the vast majority of asia (by land or population).
From there it seems like you have two groups (again just ignoring the trumped up charges category as already discussed):
People who didn't think about it/didn't care. "oh it's just a vape pen" or "oh yeah it's illegal here lol my bad"
People who are flat out smuggling because it's super lucrative due to the absurd risk. And there's probably some sort of sub category there these days where someone is smuggling weed vs someone smuggling drugs poorly laced with fent that are going to OD and probably kill a bunch of people.
I don't think the death penalty is even close to ok for either of these scenarios(maybe the second sub category if egregious enough), but at the same time, 2 is a much more severe crime than 1, and yes if you're a foreigner flying to another country to smuggle in goods for profit, I think that country has a right to enforce their laws and give consequences within their borders. And yes, I do think they have a right to do so for 1 as well. You being a tourist does not mean you get to ignore their laws because you just don't agree with them? You can protest them if you want, but you do have to accept there can and will be consequences.
Yes there are ethical lines where things get murky, but in my eyes drugs just aren't it. And yes there are all sorts of issues with China and their government, and it's absolutely abused like it is everywhere else, but China also has very good historical reason to be extra cautious about drugs. I suppose my point is mostly that lacking more evidence, it's hard to tell how out of line China is here.
I say all of this as someone who's usually pointing out the other side of the argument to people that see China as "fine" by a disturbingly large group of people who fall somewhere between hardcore tankie and just so anti US government they assume everything is overblown.
I agree with you on all points. Especially because these are dual citizens and China doesn't recognize dual citizenship : to them they're straight up only Chinese and why shouldn't they be able to execute their own laws on their soil using their standards. That's not to say these are bad guys so it's okay, or that every time some country intercedes a sovereign nation needs to give way. They absolutely have the right to do so. And yes tourists committing crimes in foreign soil and relying on the backing of home country should be gravely frowned upon as well.
But. Michael Kovrig, the Canadian diplomat who was detained and tortured in China, had this to say:
So while I agree with you that countries should be able to enact whatever laws they see fit and it's not really outsider's place to judge them too too harshly, it seems clear that this is out of the usual for them and comes at a time when relations are strained and we're at economic war with them. That people shouldn't be executed based on international politics reasons. Two other experts from the link agree that the timing, and how China wants the world to perceive these executions, aren't accidental.
To me that's hard to judge without knowing the details. What's the "usual" drug related crime that leads to execution in china for a non dual citizen? Did these 4 just assume canada will protect them and try to throw up a drug empire, because then...yeah, that would be normal by the standards of China. Or are they 4 people who normally would do time in China but getting extra punished so China can make a statement.
Without any knowledge of the actual charges and crimes (which, of course, is the whole other problem with China) its basically impossible to detail. It's possible Canada doesn't know the specifics, or doesn't believe them, but if they do have them and aren't going into detail, that's kinda important information.
I'm worried that I may have lost track of who is really saying what in this thread, but it bothers me to read arguments like:
And:
I don't view the power of authoritarian regimes as legitimate and, so, all the laws written and enforced by authoritarian governments should be subject to harsher scrutiny than the laws of liberal democracies with good election integrity, respect for human rights, and the freedoms required for democracy to function well, such as freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. If a tourist breaks a law in Iceland and is punished, then at least that law reflects, indirectly and imperfectly, "the will of the people". In China, that is not true.
I also take seriously the view of groups like the UN Human Rights Office and Amnesty International that the death penalty is itself a human rights violation. Even if it were Iceland (or the United States) executing law-breaking tourists, I would still see that as illegitimate and wrong. And so too for what a country does to its own citizens.
The world struggle is not fundamentally East vs. West, U.S. vs. China, or Russia vs. Europe. It's fundamentally democracy vs. authoritarianism. I'm not making an argument one way or the other whether the U.S. or Europe should be friendly or tough with China or other authoritarian countries. That's a more granular question than what I'm getting at. I just want to reinforce the idea that authoritarianism is fundamentally illegitimate and should never receive the cover of multiculturalist or pluralist arguments.
You can hardly even call the U.S. government the same thing as "Americans" or "the American people". You can especially not call the Chinese government the same thing as "the Chinese" or "the Chinese people" and chastise people on multiculturalist grounds when they object morally to the Chinese government's actions.
This is why I'll never set foot in their territory again*, not even for a layover. Their processes are opaque and representation is deeply lacking, not to mention people are used as political bargaining chips to be tortured or executed based on something completely unrelated to their supposed crime. I'm a nobody and wont be targeted, but still.
/* Until their regime topples of course
Update:
Canada updates travel advisories for U.S., China (globe and mail)
This paragraph is arguing with itself. According to China these were not foreigners. I wasn't able to find out for sure in my brief searching but statistically they were very likely born in China and become citizens of Canada later. If that's the case, having been born in China they understood that China would forever consider them Chinese.
Is it unusual for China to execute people it considers Chinese nationals? Not even a little bit, by some accounts China executes more people per year than the rest of the world combined. Which is fucked up and also too interesting a part of the story to leave out entirely. It feels disingenuous.
My only issue is with the journalistic choices, which I found echoed by other western publications. I completely agree with the sentiment that killing people for drug crimes is wrong.
Not inherently? Just because the Chinese government doesn't formally, legally recognize dual citizenship doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the international perception of executing someone who has citizenship elsewhere, and might have treated those cases differently in the past. @chocobean discusses this above in the thread as well, with some cited sources
I think throughout a lot of this discussion, as well as in the articles, there's a lot of confusion around the term foreigner. Obtaining an additional citizenship does not make one a foreigner. Like if I got Canadian citizenship I'm not suddenly a foreigner in the US and it would be pretty weird if I was treated as such.
I don't know the state of these people though. The identities weren't released, but it's very possible that none of the 4 are people that would generally be considered foreigners. For example, they could have been born and raised in China, moved to Canada for University, and then later moved back to China.
Someone replied to my comment and argued that what I said was the same as the United States’ justifications for its military interventions in the Middle East.
I wrote a response, but by the time I hit the reply button, that person’s comment was deleted. I’m annoyed at the idea of having written so much in reply maybe as a complete waste, so I’m going to post my comment here anyway.
So, are the only two options to support authoritarianism and oppose the U.S. invading countries in the Middle East or to oppose authoritarianism and support the U.S. invading countries in the Middle East?
In my comment, I explicitly said I wasn’t taking a position on how democratic countries should interact with authoritarian countries:
The context I was considering in my comment was the discussion above my comment about whether it is morally right or reasonable for people in Western, democratic countries to voice criticism of the Chinese government for executing these four people.
What I thought I saw in two of those comments was the value of multiculturalism or pluralism being invoked to argue that voicing criticism of the Chinese government for these executions is wrong or unreasonable.
Nobody was discussing Canada invading China or anything like that.
I don’t think arguments along the lines of “you either believe X and Y or you believe not-X and not-Y” are usually helpful. In this case, it seems like all you’re doing is pointing out that some people believe (or have believed) both X and Y. But X and Y don’t seem to logically entail each other and there seem to be lots of people who believe one and not the other.
Concluding that two facially similar arguments (i.e. arguments that kinda sound the same on the surface) are actually the same argument just ends up making it impossible to have nuance and complexity in discussions.
Kind of like George W. Bush’s statement that “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”, which I will now make you responsible for either defending or distancing yourself from, since what you’re saying sure sounds a lot like that. How the tables have turned!
Yeah apologies- that's why I deleted the comment. In short, you're correct, I was conflating the two very commonly held pair of views together, primarily because most people really do share both views uncritically. I would like to see less of that if possible but I just realized that well, this is a niche link-sharing forum and I'd be stirring up a lot of discord for a near zero chance of convincing anybody.