Op-ed by Reza Hasmath, Professor in Political Science, University of Alberta, Canada.

On July 1, China brought into force its Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, converting a decade of Xi Jinping’s doctrine of “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” into binding law.

Most attention has gone to its domestic machinery: entrenching Mandarin over minority languages, unified state textbooks and “inter-embedded” neighbourhoods engineered to dilute concentrations of Uyghurs and Tibetans among the Han majority. In other words, this is an assimilationist project that’s already far advanced.

The provision that matters most to the world outside China is buried near the end. Article 63 declares that organizations and individuals outside Chinese territory who “undermine ethnic unity” or “create ethnic division” shall be pursued for legal liability.

The Chinese government is therefore asserting, in statute, that its authority follows its critics across oceans into other countries, including Canada, home to some of the world’s largest Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diaspora communities. The danger is not that the law reaches across borders. It is what it criminalizes, whom it targets and how it’s enforced.

...

The intimidation inherent in the new law already violates many domestic harassment and foreign interference laws in jurisdictions around the world. Prosecutors, here, should use them against the agents carrying out the coercion, not the exiles who are its victims.

Governments should shut the unlicensed “police stations,” and press Interpol to reject politically motivated notices aimed at diaspora activists.

Governments can also build dedicated channels for those targeted: a clear law enforcement contact, protective guidance for Chinese and minority diaspora communities and training for officers who could mistake transnational repression for an ordinary domestic dispute.

Finally, asylum systems should treat Article 63 as evidence: a statute in which China announces that diaspora advocacy invites retaliation is close to proof of persecution for those seeking to flee.

China has every right to legislate for its own territory and citizens. What it cannot legitimately do, however warmly it speaks of unity, is disregard borders. The task for all nations, Canada included, is to insist, in law and in practice, that borders still exist.

...

Web Archive link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 3 months ago (23 children)

But I thought China was a bastion of free speech and other personal freedoms? By how a large portion of people on Lemmy behave you may believe it's a communist utopia.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Who said that China is free speech?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Pro China advocates will more so claim that any negative news about china is western fear mongering and incorrect. They won't ever say directly that China has free speech. They'll just dance around such subjects with nonsense endlessly and then call in all their buddies to downvote you to hell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    I though the west was the bastion of free speech yet they abuse terrorist laws to suppress anti colonization activists and groups or when the protest threaten the system itself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    This is the other popular tactic that is used. Instead of staying on topic we bring up issues in other countries or regions. It's like when a kid gets in trouble and they go "mom Sally was stealing cookies yesterday". It's even more disheartening to watch adults try and play those childhood games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Don't expect me to stay on the topic when your comment is off topic in relation to this post. Like usual exposing hypocrisy is treated as whataboutism by bad faith users like you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Then finally the classic "it's not me it's you". I was talking about China, you're talking about whatever else. I believe your comment is more descriptive of your behaviors than my own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I am talking about your flagrant hypocrisy it is badnwhen china pretend to care about human rights, it also bad when the west does it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, that's you being a hypocrite here because everybody else acknowledges it's bad when the west does it too, but you can't be happy until nothing but bad things western countries have done are in focus and there's silence around the countries you favor. You don't think equal criticism is fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    A comment about China's stance on free speech is off topic from an article about China looking to persecute for speech it doesn't like?

    What would be an example of an on topic comment then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The article does not mention any Chinese officials claiming China is respecting free speech. It mentions some western selective care about it, though. And the user I am replying to is just rage baiting

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    I'm not asking who was quoted as saying what in the article, I'm asking how that comment is off-topic from the article.

    This article seems to be about China and it punishing speech. So how does that comment get away from the article so much that it's off-topic?

    Also you may want to re-read what it mentions about Western countries because it's not talking about their respect of free speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Again it is not and it is even more relevant to the comment i replied to.

    This article seems to be about China and it punishing speech. So how does that comment get away from the article so much that it’s off-topic?

    Why so many idiots keep reading my comments partially. I explained it in my previous comment how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago*

    And I explained how you didn't. Suddenly saying it's more relevant doesn't magically make it an accepted explanation, or "more relevant".

    According to you, any comment is off-topic if it's not about something a Chinese official explicitly said. If you had actually read this article properly, you'd have noticed that there are no statements from any Chinese officials. Following your logic, any comment would then be off-topic. And we know you didn't read the article properly since the assertions you made about what the article said about Western states in your last "more relevant" comment were demonstrably wrong.

    This makes sense to you? Really? But hey, declare that this is always what being "on-topic" was defined as, maybe it'll magically become true too.

    Everyone else are going to seem like idiots when you live in a fantasyland and can't understand why nobody else is abiding by your moon logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    This article and discussion are about China. If you want to discuss the behavior of a different country, start a new post for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    If you don't like what i say fuck off. The article mention europe so yes i think my comment is relevant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Nice whataboutism you got there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments