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

all 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 61 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Explain to me how erasure of an ethic identity is not considered ethnic cleansing?

And when you realize you can't, then explain to me why I, as a citizen of another country, should uphold your law designed to ethnically cleanse your nation within my borders?

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

    Because ethnic cleansing is a shitty euphemism designed by people who wanted an excuse for inaction, not a real thing.

    Did you mean 'genocide'?

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

    When speaking to the oppressor, its best to do so in their language lest your intent be lost in translation or to a knee-jerk rejection based on the implications of a particular term.

    The question was not directed to Australians nor to fellow travelers such as yourself, rather to the various operatives of the CCP that are likely monitoring this post.

    They've yet to reply at the time of this writing... better hurry up Xinne the Pooh, my popcorn is getting cold.

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

    And this is why as a Chinese person I'm too scared to ever visit China. There's a nonzero chance I'd be detained for my online speech.

  • source
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

    How many of the people operating these unlicensed police stations have been charged and arrested for kidnapping or attempted kidnapping? The people working these are members of an organized crime outfit. They need to be treated as such. Yet whenever I hear of them being shut down, the thugs working them just seem to get deported.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    If you're gonna roll up to a Chinese embassy and start arresting people based on spurious BS and believing your own propaganda, I don't get why you don't just say to launch the nukes and try to get first strike. If you're gonna start WWIII for literally no reason, why not just do it instead of all this bizarre posturing?

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

    Maybe I should just start running a police station out of my house, arresting people on crimes I've invented, and imprison them in my basement.

    If you're doing law enforcement with no legal authority, you're literally just kidnapping people.

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

    I imagine that if you did that, there'd probably be, you know, evidence.

    Maybe my neighbor is doing exactly what you said. I guess I should just call in a SWAT team to kick in his door based on that possibility.

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

    For instance, Wang Jingyu, a dissident who fled China after being targeted for social media posts and was granted asylum in the Netherlands, claimed he had been threatened and sent harassing messages by the Rotterdam station to make him return to China, with his parents who remained in China being targeted.[6][12] Wang was later found to have fabricated the threats.[13]

    According to Yale legal scholar and China expert Jeremy Daum, the report contained several factual and context errors.[17] Safeguard Defenders subsequently published a revised report which it said corrected some of the mistakes Daum had indicated.[18]

    I just really feel like you haven't actually read the article, or at least applied any critical thought to it. The article doesn't contain even allegations of kidnapping and imprisonment, just harassment, and, well, I think the quote speaks for itself. This is what people mean when they say your sinophobia isn't actually based in any evidence, just fear mongering.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Republican is when anyone disagrees with you for literally any reason. There are two types of people on planet Earth: people who think exactly the same way as you, huff your farts, and agree with every single word that comes out of your mouth, and Republicans.

    God, y'all are insufferable.

    Meanwhile, you're out here actually falling for the same kind of obvious bullshit your Red MAGA counterparts do, but it's about the evil foreign CCP rather than Planned Parenthood or ACORN so that makes you totally different.

    fart noises

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago

    Inb4 the ml users start trying to tell me how this is actually very pro-democracy and the highest form of freedom

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "in a bid to not be outdone by Israel"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    It's very funny that the article goes out of it's way to say like, "The West never does things like this" because it means y'all don't get to accuse me of "whataboutism."

    The US literally asserts the jurisdiction to bomb any country on earth if a secret, unelected, totally unaccountable domestic court determinines the country is harboring "terrorists," a nebulus term which has now been expanded to mean anyone who doesn't like fascism or doesn't buy things from Israel. "Every western example rests on a defined wrong" is an absolutely insane sentence to write.

    The West is just pissy because they want every opportunity to do exactly what the law is restricting: to promote ethnic divisions to create dissent and instability. It's a pretty standard playbook at this point, though if you live in the kind of delusions where "every Western example rests on a defined wrong" I suppose it's easy enough to ignore historical examples of that.

    "If I don't have the right to promote racial divisions to undermine class solidarity, then what rights do I even have!?"

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    It's very funny that the article goes out of it's way to say like, "The West never does things like this" because it means y'all don't get to accuse me of "whataboutism."

    This motherfucker using a whataboutism to explain how HIS whataboutism is immune from being pointed out 🙄🤦🏻

    The US literally asserts the jurisdiction to bomb any country on earth if a secret, unelected, totally unaccountable domestic court determinines the country is harboring "terrorists," a nebulus term which has now been expanded to mean anyone who doesn't like fascism or doesn't buy things from Israel. "Every western example rests on a defined wrong" is an absolutely insane sentence to write.

    Absolutely correct.

    Still doesn't make the Chinese law just.

    to promote ethnic divisions to create dissent and instability.

    You know who worry about "dissent and instability" enough to make laws specifically against it?

    Tyrants and nobody else.

    Do you know which people applaud such laws in spite of not being amongst the powerful people they're designed to protect?

    Tankies, fascists, and other idiots prone to cheer their own oppression. Nobody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    This motherfucker using a whataboutism to explain how HIS whataboutism is immune from being pointed out 🙄🤦🏻

    Lol what?

    "Elon Musk is a shithead, that's why Albania's space program is the best in the world!"

    "But Albania doesn't have a space program?"

    "Whataboutism!"

    That's not how anything works dude lmao. When the author says something blatantly false I'm allowed to call them on it.

    You know who worry about “dissent and instability” enough to make laws specifically against it?

    Every single government that has ever existed since the dawn of time?

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

    When the author says something blatantly false I'm allowed to call them on it.

    Sure. It doesn't entitle you to whitewash whatever the tyrants you prefer is doing, though.

    THAT'S what you did and THAT'S textbook whataboutism.

    Then again, it's pretty naive of me to expect a tankie to not defend the indefensible via a "but the west!" whataboutism deflection.

    You guys are just as ridiculous as American Republicans.

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

    Sure. It doesn’t entitle you to whitewash whatever the tyrants you prefer is doing, though.

    It kinda does though? The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things, and the reality is that the West does worse things, so it is a pretty spurious criticism.

    "Whataboutism" isn't even a real thing. Random internet people just started saying it one day but it has no logical basis. When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it's relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.

    For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is "tyrannical" by your standards, or whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted? What exactly have they done that is "indefensible," or do you just mean that government in general is indefensible?

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

    The author admits that his criticism would fall apart as hypocritical if the West did similar things

    That's false, though.

    The West committing an injustice doesn't entitle China to commit the same injustice or another.

    "Whataboutism" isn't even a real thing

    Someone relying on whataboutisms to deflect attention away from the misdeeds of their favorite tyrants WOULD say that, yes.

    Whataboutism is a real thing and that real thing is a logical fallacy of avoidance of accountability via deflection.

    Random internet people just started saying it one day

    Nope. That's grade A horseshit.

    The term originated in 1970s Northern Ireland:

    1974 letter by history teacher Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about "the Whatabouts", people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy

    Hardly "random internet people

    but it has no logical basis

    That's the thing: logical is exactly what pointing a whataboutism is.

    It's a tu quoque fallacy used to manipulate the conversation away from a place that makes you uncomfortable by changing the subject to something you're more comfortable talking about, but which doesn't justify the thing you're trying to defend.

    When looking at criticism of a particular country, obviously it's relevant whether other countries are doing similar things while only one country gets singled out for it.

    Not relevant to whether or not the particular country is wrong in doing so.

    If I was on trial for embezzlement, tax fraud, and defrauding a charity, pointing out that Donald Trump has done all of those things would not be a viable legal defense.

    For the sake of clarity, would you mind answering whether every government that has ever existed is "tyrannical" by your standards

    Nope, that would require me to take it as a given that your ridiculous strawman argument has merit.

    whether you think China is in some way exceptional based on something relavent to the article posted?

    This law, which is a Chinese law, is exceptionally oppressive against Uyghurs, Tibetans, Chinese people who speak any of the 9 other Chinese language groups that aren't Mandarin, and rightfully criticize the Chinese government for anything ever.

    The above paragraph is true whether or not any Western nation has passed any similarly oppressive laws.

    As for your "singling out" claim, it's an article about a specific law that's recently passed and currently being enacted.

    That's not singling out, that's reporting on current events.

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

    Alright help me out here. Let's use an example.

    A black man comes to a crosswalk and, after checking the road is clear, starts crossing even though he doesn't have the light. Suddenly, a cop rolls up, sirens blaring, and starts arresting him for jaywalking. While the arrest is ongoing, a white man starts walking across the street without the light and the cop does nothing. The man being arrested says, "This is bullshit! You're not doing anything about it when he does it!" The cop slams his face against the car and says, "Nice whataboutism, perp. You just committed a tu quoque fallacy. Just because someone else does something bad doesn't justify your own actions. In fact, I don't necessarily approve of what he's doing either. Now let's get you down to the station, punk."

    Either "whataboutism" is just complete bullshit, or the vast majority of times it's invoked it's bullshit. The fact that a rule or criticism is applied selectively is extremely relevant. It's obvious in my example that the cop is just using the jaywalking as a pretext, but I'm not sure what the victim is supposed to say in that case in response that wouldn't make him an evil authoritarian tankie fascist, but whatever it is, just assume I said it to you because it's the same bullshit in both cases.

    If I was on trial for embezzlement, tax fraud, and defrauding a charity, pointing out that Donald Trump has done all of those things would not be a viable legal defense.

    Yeah, because telling the court it's full of shit generally isn't the best legal defense. However, it would demonstrate that the court is not upholding it's principles consistently. It would be a valid logical and political argument to challenge the court as biased, it's just not the most practical when the court is the one making the arbitration.

    That’s not singling out, that’s reporting on current events.

    You might be right. It wouldn't be singling out, except for the fact that the author specifically does single out China and claim that the West is innocent of similar crimes, which is why I said that calling me out on "whataboutism" would be even more spurious than usual in this case.

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

    China will punish racism as a crime.

    But at what cost?!?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    being Uyghur is racist? that's probably the dumbest fucking thing you've ever said, and that's a high bar.

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

    Well given that it's a thing you said and not a thing I said, the utter stupidity of it isn't surprising.

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

    China will punish racism as a crime.

    the article is about China suppressing ethnic minorities. not only did you not read the article, you fucking baboon, but China is literally enshrining racism into law, exactly the opposite of your attempt at a pithy comment. you aren't just campist filth, you're dumb as a fucking brick as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    you're dumb as a fucking brick

    That's fucking hilarious coming from someone uncritically accepting the US State Department's analysis of a law in an AES country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    I'm surprised you know that word, considering you've never once thought critically about anything you've read online. not that I believe you've done much reading, mind. everything you know of theory, you read in your ML Matrix circlejerks. your first experience with working class solidarity is going to be when the mob tears you to pieces for being a jack-booted thug of whatever the closest fascist government LARPing as communist is to you. and it'll be good riddance, because the only good campists like yourself will ever do for the world is to leave it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Aww, the Anarkiddie hurt itself in its confusion.

    Don't worry kiddo, the real revolutionaries aren't going to let you and your playmates hand the world right back over to the bourgeoisie before the smoke clears. And another generation of kids who think homework and bedtime are the epitome of authoritarianism will mald over that for another few decades.

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

    real revolutionaries

    lol yeah ok. look at you, mr. hard commie revolutionary lmao.

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

    Compared to an Anarkiddie? That's not a hard thing to be.

    Get back to me when your ideology manages to hold ground against the capitalists when that ground is somewhere anybody the fuck else actually wants.

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

    come back to me when you manage a revolution without depending on anarchists. for that matter, come see me when you get off the keyboard and attend your first protest, big guy. let's start with baby steps lmao. you're gonna love it when you touch some grass for the very first time.

    what a joke, but thanks for the laughs.

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

    come see me when you get off the keyboard and attend your first protest, big guy.

    Lol, does your birth year start with a 2?

    Then my first protest was before you were even conceived. Lol, have you ever been tear gassed?

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

    what the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bougie bitch? i graduated top of my class at the frunze military academy, not some american community college, for putins's sake, and i've been involved in numerous secret raids against nato. i have three hundred confirmed kills. i trained in deep-penetration guerrilla warfare and am the top tank commander in the entire soviet armed forces. you are nothing to me but just another imperialist target. i will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this earth, mark my fucking words. you think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the internet? think again, fashist. i'm contacting my secret network of gru operatives across the west right now and your ip is being traced so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. the storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your liberal democracy. your fucking dead, kid. i can be anywhere, anytime, and can kill you in over seven hundred ways, just with my bare hands, no weapons needed. i'm extensively trained in unarmed combat, sambo, boxing, choking men to death with their own scarves, and i have access to the entire arsenal of the soviet military-industrial complex and will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of eurasia, you little shit. if only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe would have held your fucking tongue. but you couldn't, didn't, and now your paying the price, you goddamn idiot. i will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. your fucking dead, kiddo. glory to the motherland.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    These newsites are going manic over china all of a sudden

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago*
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Ok so obviously this sounds like a really bad law and based on what has been reported it's hard to feel like there's any justification. I will point out that nobody has actually printed the text of the law or the internal logic of why they felt that this law is necessary or beneficial. I will also point out that there isn't a single unbiased news source out there. Most Western news outlets are owned by billionaires who obviously have a vested interest in delegitimizing the Chinese system because they see communism as a threat. I haven't seen a pro Chinese source try to justify this law either.

    Personally the way it's been depicted feels alarmist, but it's hard to tell whether the alarm is actually justified. They've lied about Chinese policy before. I don't trust the US media ecosystem to be honest about China.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    I will point out that nobody has actually printed the text of the law or the internal logic of why they felt that this law is necessary or beneficial.

    Here is an English translation of China's Ethnic Unity and Progress Law, passed on March 12, 2026.

    Most relevant to the article is Article 63:

    Organizations and individuals outside the [mainland] territory of the P.R.C. that commit acts aimed at the P.R.C. that undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division are to be pursued for legal responsibility in accordance with law. [Emphasis mine.]

    So it effectively extends Chinese law to foreign countries.

    You'll find numerous reports and statements published by non-U.S. media outlets, legal scholars, human rights organizations, and other experts from around the world.

    Edit: Btw, the article is written by a Canadian researcher.

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

    So I read through about half of it and skimmed the rest. Idk I guess the most problematic thing I found was this.

    Article 15: The state is to fully promote the spread of the nation’s common language and script. Citizens’ learning and use of the nation’s common language and script must not be obstructed by any organization or individual.

    Schools and other educational institutions are to use the nation’s common language and script as the basic language and script for education and teaching. The state is to promote preschool students’ learning of Mandarin, so that youth who have completed compulsory education have a basic understanding of the nation’s common language and script.

    State organs are to use the nation’s common language and script as the official language and script. Where it is necessary to use minority languages and scripts to issue documents in accordance with laws and regulations, a version in the state’s common language and script shall be concurrently provided with the minority language version.

    Where state organs, social groups, enterprises, public institutions, and other social organizations need to concurrently use the national common language and minority languages, they shall highlight the national common language in terms of position, order, and so forth.****

    The state respects and protects the learning and use of minority languages and scripts, promotes the regulation, standardization, and digitalization of minority languages, and supports the protection, organization, research, and use of old ethnic minority books.

    The rest of it reads like this

    Article 5: All citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law.

    All ethnicities in the People’s Republic of China are equal. Discrimination against or oppression of any ethnicity is prohibited.

    Article 29: The state is to promote mutual learning and integration between ethnic cultures, encouraging all ethnic groups to appreciate each others’ exeptional traditional cultures, and learn each other’s languages and scripts. All levels of people’s government shall support cultural workers and related units to create and display literary and artistic works that are rooted in Chinese culture and embody the interaction, exchange, and integration of all ethnic groups.

    All levels of people’s government shall support public cultural service units, such as libraries, museums, cultural relics depositories, memorials, art museums, science museums, workers’ cultural centers, and youth cultural centers.

    So as far as I can gather the only thing is they're making the official state language Mandarin and expecting minorities to be functional in Mandarin in order to deal with the state. And yeah that's certainly not a great position for a government to take. The rest of it reads like "we want all ethnicities to get along and be respected within the family of China"

  • source
  • parent
  • 17 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 23 points 3 months ago

    In International Relations, a key concept is reciprocity. If China says it can disregard sovereign borders, well, it goes both ways.

    Enjoy the shitshow.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    FUCK THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT

    They are actively manipulating Canada to their own benefit. Their electronics are riddled with backdoors and security holes, most of their domestically 'developed' products are lower quality ripoffs of a foreign product. We should be doing everything we can to cut down reliance on their slave driven manufacturing sector.

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

    Carney will pander to them in order to appease his banker employers. He has done anything BUT oppose Trump. Trudeau did more than he did.

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

    Trudeau was a haircut and a shirt. I suspect that he has had every decision fed to him since he was weened.

    Carney is doing exactly what you would expect from a banker. maximizing profits for businesses and the ruling class. But the alternative was a spineless fuck who would have sold your blood to Trump for a pat on the head, so we have what we have.

    Vote with your wallet, don't buy chinese made trash, whether it is routers, or cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    Hmmm... Maybe China a little bad

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    Hey Lemmy.ml, you suck that dick. Tell us why you still do? Can’t wait. 🍿🥤🤡👋👋✋👋👋

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

    The gist of it is pretty much just campism. To them, "the West" is worse than any of the alternatives, so they go with the latter. No room for nuance with those people.

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

    Yes but, most of them are living in the west.

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

    Great article. The MAGA Americans have a similar plan, couched under the pretext of "left wing" and "antifa" terror, but theirs is more embryonic as they have still to undermine all democratic checks... Scary times.

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

    This policy by China, as much as I dislike it, is just a response to what the US already does, and the US anti-left policies are a response to what the US perceives as weaknesses to be exploited in their own power and authority. China sees ethnic fault lines as the target of US and Western attempts to cause divisions in Chinese society. The US sees class fault lines as the target of Chinese, Russian, Iranian etc attempts to cause divisions in American society. But, to say the US plan is less developed I think massively undersells what the US has been doing for ages with secondary sanctions and SDN lists. The US is way ahead of China in this and has been building their architecture since the early 2000's.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This reminds me of how the UK tried to impose its own censorship laws on 4CHAN and other US companies...

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

    Not really, these laws only apply to services that serve traffic to Britain.

    Block all British IP addresses, like Imgur did, and you adhere to the law.

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

    So that makes it work. Almost like Google's deal with China is backfiring badly. Google initially refused to work with China, finding their terms authoritarian and unreasonable, but when China basically became the only real global economic superpower left they didn't make counter offers, they just fully accepted China's original terms.

  • source
  • parent