The host nation stands condemned, on the eve of the XXIX Olympic Games, of internet censorship. Reporters in Beijing cite the blocking of sites such as Amnesty International's and that of the banned spiritual movement, Falun Gong.
But if there is condemnation of the Chinese, there should also be condemnation of the International Olympic Committee, for they have conspired and colluded in this censorship.
The world's media has come to China under false pretences, believing it would have unfettered internet access. Media freedom was a condition of the Games having been awarded to China. So much for the IOC's belief the Games would be "a catalyst for constructive dialogue".
Naively, we hoped the IOC would ensure media freedom was secure, but Kevan Gosper, chairman of the IOC's press commission, who previously said access for 21,500 media would be "open", has backed off. "I regret that it now appears BOCOG Beijing organising committee of the Olympic Games has announced that there will be limitations on website access during Games time," Gosper told reporters.
"And, while I understand that sensitive material not related to the Olympic Games continues to be a matter for the Chinese, I believe BOCOG and the IOC should have conveyed a clear message to the international media . . . at an earlier stage."
BOCOG spokesman Sun Weide reminded media: "Falun Gong is an evil fake religion which has been banned by the Chinese government. According to Chinese law, the internet cannot be used to transmit information that is illegal, such as that promoting the evil cult Falun Gong. Nothing can appear which threatens the national Internet."
The internet is a basic modern communications tool. It is right that pornographic sites, and those encouraging criminal activity should be blocked, but anything else is to deny basic freedom. Liu Binjie, the head of China's Ministry of Press and Publications, told a Chinese news agency on Wednesday that criticisms defamed China "with stereotypes constructed from hearsay and prejudice in their mind, regardless of the reality."
An Amnesty spokesman said: "This blatant media censorship adds one more broken promise that undermines the claim that the Games would help improve human rights in China."
It's suggested that two thirds of all labour camp detainees are Falun Gong.
We cannot claim fully to know all about Falun Gong, or China's issues with it. However it is hard to understand how a 16-year-old group which says it is not anti-government, and believes in "truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance" can represent a threat to the world's biggest nation.
In banning the movement in 1999, the government said they were not registered according to law and had been engaged in illegal activities. They were said to be "opposed to the Communist Party of China and the central government," and that they preached, "idealism, theism and feudal superstition".
Western academics suggest the Chinese Communist Party's need for societal control is threatened by any group capable of independent action. It's also been suggested Falun Gong adherents "make party members look like grubby careerists by comparison."
Its supporters claim that declaring Falun Gong illegal breaches articles 35 and 36 of China's constitution. The first promises citizens "freedom of speech, the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration". The second promises "freedom of religious belief" and bans any state organ from "discriminating against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion".
When China was awarded the 2008 Olympics, it promised to improve civil liberties and human rights. There's little evidence of that, despite the assertion of IOC president Jaques Rogge that the Games would be a significant "force for good" and that it would be "absolutely legitimate" for human rights groups to highlight issues during the Games.
By the IOC's actions in agreeing to internet restrictions, he is helping the Chinese deny that right. Although while we remain in Macau, there is no blocking. The sites of Amnesty and Falun Gong were freely accessible here.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article