8 ms·

China pressured London police to arrest Tiananmen protester, says watchdog

188 points by danskeren 7y ago

chvid 7y ago
There was a parallel story in Denmark where the Danish police prevented free Tibet demonstrators demonstrating during the visit of the Chinese president in 2012. It led to an official inquiry but the trail ended blind where the leading police officers giving orders to detain the demonstrators could not remember where their instructions came from and the electronic paper trail had been deleted. To me the Danish story was less a story about Chinese influence and more about our democracy's separation of powers or lack thereof. How our most powerful politicians and their minions basically can have our police do anything even if it is obviously wrong.
- Tinfoilhat666 7y ago
  I've read similar stories about lost police documents. A public blockchain could be useful to prevent that.
  - rienbdj 7y ago
    how?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    A public anything would be helpful; you don’t need a blockchain because there’s a single publisher.
  - yoavm 7y ago
    Or, instead of blockchain, a simple API.
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    Being able to lose the paper trail is a feature, not a bug, so a system like that would never be implemented. The police exist to protect the property and station of those in power. It's why New York City was able to function without a police department until the 1840s while the New York Fire Department can trace its history back to the 1640s.
    - MagnumOpus 7y ago
      New York had 180 police officers (marshals and local policemen, and before that, night watchmen) way before the NYPD was established - they were just not organised in one big hierarchy because most crime was local before the mid-19th century immigration wave.
  - chvid 7y ago
    The issue was not the internal communication within the police. For that there was a complete paper trail. But the top police officers got their instructions from somewhere; probably high ranking civil servants, spin doctors or maybe even politicians in the then government. Those communications were gone.
    - drtillberg 7y ago
      > “no officer had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.” Pretty suggestive that in this case, the police were able to demonstrate a binding order from someone who was not an 'officer'.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Really for cases like this the only way through is the Nuremberg one: "only following orders" is not a defence, especially if you can't or won't say who gave the order.
  - bleh123 7y ago
    That'll drive them to use encrypted channels without oversight. The functioning of many a government agency isn't a derivation of the official processes. The official processes and record keeping are something that needs to be "Worked around" in many of these agencies. The foundation of America as a country was based upon the Founding Fathers deep mistrust of the concentration of power. They used the word "Government" to describe this back then, but today, the influence of governmental agencies, private corporations and large unions with outsize decision making powers all threaten regularly the exercise of individual liberty as this case shows. The answer is to return power to the people. The default scenario shouldn't be that someone gets arrested for whatever reason an unelected bureaucrat decides. Government or their agencies should have to request express permission to breach an individuals liberties and not the rubber stamp BS they follow now with warrants that require a threshold that's more likely than not to be granted on a mere suspicion. Transparency in this process is much more key to the honest functioning of Government than many others. Much too often, for the sake of brevity or to just follow a routine, judges and the people entrusted with safeguarding these liberties and acting as a check tend to obfuscate much of the process or worse, leave it up without the possibility of contesting the decision until after severe actions such as remand are carried out. We need to reinforce individual liberties.
- matonias 7y ago
  This reminds me of how China uses their panda’s for diplomatic reasons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_diplomacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_diplomacy
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    "If, as you say, it is no crime to be a panda, then why were we arrested?" Best New Yorker cartoon ever.
a012 7y ago
> Police watchdog investigators then found evidence that the Met’s treatment of Shao, one of the last protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, was influenced by pressure from Beijing to ensure Xi was not “embarrassed” by protests during his visit. I'd say no countries dare to not please China. Blatantly attacks the people who risk their lives to say.
- jammygit 7y ago
  Canada upset China recently and China reacted by arresting some of our people for espionage and executing a suspected Canadian drug dealer. I imagine our next election will have some cyber attacks against the liberals but we’ll see
  - oska 7y ago
    If you are referring to Canada's arrest of Huawei's CFO for potential extradition to the US then that is a very different matter.
  - T-A 7y ago
    > executing a suspected Canadian drug dealer I don't think he's been executed yet? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/08/asia-pacific/canadian-drug-smuggler-robert-lloyd-schellenberg-appeal-death-sentence-china/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/08/asia-pacific/ca...
devoply 7y ago
Someone in the Home Office needs to be kicked out... rather than this false narrative of China strong arming the UK, to create manufactured consent against China. Someone in the Home Office bent over backwards to appease autocracy.
- gpm 7y ago
  > Someone in the Home Office bent over backwards to appease autocracy. That sounds like a different spin on the exact same narrative to me. Which would appear to contradict your claim about this being a false narrative.
  - devoply 7y ago
    The difference is China made me do it vs. I chose to do it.
pimmen 7y ago
Appeasing autocracy to not jeopardize trade is like going to debt to pay your old debt. Democracy is what made our countries innovative, powerful and rich, backtracking on that is going to be to the detriment of us in the long term. How did appeasing Hitler work out for you again, the UK?
- jothezero 7y ago
  Pretty sure it will cause chaos when a certain line will be crossed.
- yoavm 7y ago
  Excuse my ignorance but in what way was the UK trying to appease Hitler? I only ever knew they fought Nazi Germany.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    Short version from: German occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia#Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslo...
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement > The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British governments of Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy between 1935 and 1939.
allemagne 7y ago
If liberalism, democratic values, multilaterialism, cultural open-mindedness, and compromise aren't at the very forefront of the foreign policy of Western countries, then this is what they will have to look forward to in the next century and beyond. This is why projects like the EU, NATO, & NAFTA that require compromise for the sake of mutually beneficial cooperation should be supported. This is why continuing any policy of exploitation in the developing world is unacceptable. This is why countries must be actively engaged in the rest of the world, instead of selfishly retreating inwards. This is why making sacrifices in good faith, with no expectation that rivals will reciprocate, is necessary. Otherwise, these previously powerful countries will quickly discover that when the shoe is on the other foot, there's no reason to believe that China, Russia, or even India will treat them any better than Westerners treated those at their mercy during their own centuries of supremacy.
- cjfd 7y ago
  There is a bit of a problem considering that the organizations that you name are also in blatant violoation of the principles that you name. As the EU is growing, it has incorporated countries with not very strong liberal values, so liberalism may not have a majority in the decision making process. Also, the EU is a very non-democratic organization. The executive power of the countries ends up in the lawgiver seat when they go visit Brussels and the power of the European parliament pales in comparison to that. Also, it is very convenient for the large companies that they mostly can just lobby in Brussels instead of in every indivudal country. What the people want is in the mean time an unasked question. Also, these trade agreements tend to come with 'intellectual property' agreements which is the government handing out monopolies to the large companies. Also, when trade is governed by treaties of 10000 pages length this is quite the opposite of free trade.
  - krageon 7y ago
    > Also, the EU is a very non-democratic organization. Can you more concisely (or just differently) elaborate on why you think this is the case? I'm not sure I got it from what you said.
godelski 7y ago
Coming from a free speech country I'm kinda curious about this. In the UK can they arrest you for peacefully protesting? I'm looking at the law the paper cites that he was arrested under[0][1]. 1) I'm ASTOUNDED that "insulting" was in there from 1986-2014. 2) This is extremely vague and seems like it could be used to arrest any protestor. > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], > within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. Seriously? Causing people distress is a crime? Distress with words? We're not allowed to make direct threats of violence either, but this seems like a substantially lower bar. So from [1] the lawyer has to argue that the conduct was reasonable? This is extremely subjective too. This just seems weird to me, coming from a country where freedom of speech is so highly regarded (and here it has been a little controversial lately). It just feels undemocratic to me. I understand my neighbors across the pond may not feel that way and I'd be curious about their thoughts. Is this just an abuse of that law? Does that law also feel undemocratic? Other more nuanced position? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_198... [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
- deogeo 7y ago
  > I understand my neighbors across the pond may not feel that way and I'd be curious about their thoughts. Is this just an abuse of that law? Does that law also feel undemocratic? Other more nuanced position? I'm from Europe, though not from the UK. That law feels abhorrent. You'll often hear the claim that "other countries have a more nuanced view of free speech". It's certainly true free speech protections are weaker elsewhere, but using that to imply all the citizens agree with that is extremely misleading. Plenty of us subscribe to a more 1st Amendment style view on free speech.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    I think article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights is much more like the first amendment that what the UK has. How they can have the laws they do while still pretending to follow them makes me wonder though. >Article 19. >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
mLuby 7y ago
{China,USA} pressured London police to arrest political enemy, says watchdog The first time you compromise your principles is hard. Extraordinary circumstances, a special request in a special relationship, etc. The second time is easier…
- xodice 7y ago
  I genuinely would like sources that the US was involved in the original articles information. I've yet to see such an accusation besides your single comment. Edit: Oh... after reading your post history it all makes sense. ;)
quotz 7y ago
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” The more the West is condemning China without any results, the more we normalise this kind of behaviour, which in turn makes Westerners tolerate unfreedom.

188 points by danskeren 7y ago

There was a parallel story in Denmark where the Danish police prevented free Tibet demonstrators demonstrating during the visit of the Chinese president in 2012. It led to an official inquiry but the trail ended blind where the leading police officers giving orders to detain the demonstrators could not remember where their instructions came from and the electronic paper trail had been deleted. To me the Danish story was less a story about Chinese influence and more about our democracy's separation of powers or lack thereof. How our most powerful politicians and their minions basically can have our police do anything even if it is obviously wrong.

Tinfoilhat666 7y ago
I've read similar stories about lost police documents. A public blockchain could be useful to prevent that.
- rienbdj 7y ago
  how?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  A public anything would be helpful; you don’t need a blockchain because there’s a single publisher.
- yoavm 7y ago
  Or, instead of blockchain, a simple API.
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  Being able to lose the paper trail is a feature, not a bug, so a system like that would never be implemented. The police exist to protect the property and station of those in power. It's why New York City was able to function without a police department until the 1840s while the New York Fire Department can trace its history back to the 1640s.
  - MagnumOpus 7y ago
    New York had 180 police officers (marshals and local policemen, and before that, night watchmen) way before the NYPD was established - they were just not organised in one big hierarchy because most crime was local before the mid-19th century immigration wave.
- chvid 7y ago
  The issue was not the internal communication within the police. For that there was a complete paper trail. But the top police officers got their instructions from somewhere; probably high ranking civil servants, spin doctors or maybe even politicians in the then government. Those communications were gone.
  - drtillberg 7y ago
    > “no officer had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.” Pretty suggestive that in this case, the police were able to demonstrate a binding order from someone who was not an 'officer'.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Really for cases like this the only way through is the Nuremberg one: "only following orders" is not a defence, especially if you can't or won't say who gave the order.
- bleh123 7y ago
  That'll drive them to use encrypted channels without oversight. The functioning of many a government agency isn't a derivation of the official processes. The official processes and record keeping are something that needs to be "Worked around" in many of these agencies. The foundation of America as a country was based upon the Founding Fathers deep mistrust of the concentration of power. They used the word "Government" to describe this back then, but today, the influence of governmental agencies, private corporations and large unions with outsize decision making powers all threaten regularly the exercise of individual liberty as this case shows. The answer is to return power to the people. The default scenario shouldn't be that someone gets arrested for whatever reason an unelected bureaucrat decides. Government or their agencies should have to request express permission to breach an individuals liberties and not the rubber stamp BS they follow now with warrants that require a threshold that's more likely than not to be granted on a mere suspicion. Transparency in this process is much more key to the honest functioning of Government than many others. Much too often, for the sake of brevity or to just follow a routine, judges and the people entrusted with safeguarding these liberties and acting as a check tend to obfuscate much of the process or worse, leave it up without the possibility of contesting the decision until after severe actions such as remand are carried out. We need to reinforce individual liberties.
matonias 7y ago
This reminds me of how China uses their panda’s for diplomatic reasons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_diplomacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panda_diplomacy
- ncmncm 7y ago
  "If, as you say, it is no crime to be a panda, then why were we arrested?" Best New Yorker cartoon ever.

a012 7y ago

> Police watchdog investigators then found evidence that the Met’s treatment of Shao, one of the last protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, was influenced by pressure from Beijing to ensure Xi was not “embarrassed” by protests during his visit. I'd say no countries dare to not please China. Blatantly attacks the people who risk their lives to say.

jammygit 7y ago
Canada upset China recently and China reacted by arresting some of our people for espionage and executing a suspected Canadian drug dealer. I imagine our next election will have some cyber attacks against the liberals but we’ll see
- oska 7y ago
  If you are referring to Canada's arrest of Huawei's CFO for potential extradition to the US then that is a very different matter.
- T-A 7y ago
  > executing a suspected Canadian drug dealer I don't think he's been executed yet? https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/08/asia-pacific/canadian-drug-smuggler-robert-lloyd-schellenberg-appeal-death-sentence-china/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/08/asia-pacific/ca...

devoply 7y ago

Someone in the Home Office needs to be kicked out... rather than this false narrative of China strong arming the UK, to create manufactured consent against China. Someone in the Home Office bent over backwards to appease autocracy.

gpm 7y ago
> Someone in the Home Office bent over backwards to appease autocracy. That sounds like a different spin on the exact same narrative to me. Which would appear to contradict your claim about this being a false narrative.
- devoply 7y ago
  The difference is China made me do it vs. I chose to do it.

pimmen 7y ago

Appeasing autocracy to not jeopardize trade is like going to debt to pay your old debt. Democracy is what made our countries innovative, powerful and rich, backtracking on that is going to be to the detriment of us in the long term. How did appeasing Hitler work out for you again, the UK?

jothezero 7y ago
Pretty sure it will cause chaos when a certain line will be crossed.
yoavm 7y ago
Excuse my ignorance but in what way was the UK trying to appease Hitler? I only ever knew they fought Nazi Germany.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gus_massa 7y ago
  Short version from: German occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia#Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslo...
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement > The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British governments of Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy between 1935 and 1939.

allemagne 7y ago

If liberalism, democratic values, multilaterialism, cultural open-mindedness, and compromise aren't at the very forefront of the foreign policy of Western countries, then this is what they will have to look forward to in the next century and beyond. This is why projects like the EU, NATO, & NAFTA that require compromise for the sake of mutually beneficial cooperation should be supported. This is why continuing any policy of exploitation in the developing world is unacceptable. This is why countries must be actively engaged in the rest of the world, instead of selfishly retreating inwards. This is why making sacrifices in good faith, with no expectation that rivals will reciprocate, is necessary. Otherwise, these previously powerful countries will quickly discover that when the shoe is on the other foot, there's no reason to believe that China, Russia, or even India will treat them any better than Westerners treated those at their mercy during their own centuries of supremacy.

cjfd 7y ago
There is a bit of a problem considering that the organizations that you name are also in blatant violoation of the principles that you name. As the EU is growing, it has incorporated countries with not very strong liberal values, so liberalism may not have a majority in the decision making process. Also, the EU is a very non-democratic organization. The executive power of the countries ends up in the lawgiver seat when they go visit Brussels and the power of the European parliament pales in comparison to that. Also, it is very convenient for the large companies that they mostly can just lobby in Brussels instead of in every indivudal country. What the people want is in the mean time an unasked question. Also, these trade agreements tend to come with 'intellectual property' agreements which is the government handing out monopolies to the large companies. Also, when trade is governed by treaties of 10000 pages length this is quite the opposite of free trade.
- krageon 7y ago
  > Also, the EU is a very non-democratic organization. Can you more concisely (or just differently) elaborate on why you think this is the case? I'm not sure I got it from what you said.

godelski 7y ago

Coming from a free speech country I'm kinda curious about this. In the UK can they arrest you for peacefully protesting? I'm looking at the law the paper cites that he was arrested under[0][1]. 1) I'm ASTOUNDED that "insulting" was in there from 1986-2014. 2) This is extremely vague and seems like it could be used to arrest any protestor. > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], > within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. Seriously? Causing people distress is a crime? Distress with words? We're not allowed to make direct threats of violence either, but this seems like a substantially lower bar. So from [1] the lawyer has to argue that the conduct was reasonable? This is extremely subjective too. This just seems weird to me, coming from a country where freedom of speech is so highly regarded (and here it has been a little controversial lately). It just feels undemocratic to me. I understand my neighbors across the pond may not feel that way and I'd be curious about their thoughts. Is this just an abuse of that law? Does that law also feel undemocratic? Other more nuanced position? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_198... [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

deogeo 7y ago
> I understand my neighbors across the pond may not feel that way and I'd be curious about their thoughts. Is this just an abuse of that law? Does that law also feel undemocratic? Other more nuanced position? I'm from Europe, though not from the UK. That law feels abhorrent. You'll often hear the claim that "other countries have a more nuanced view of free speech". It's certainly true free speech protections are weaker elsewhere, but using that to imply all the citizens agree with that is extremely misleading. Plenty of us subscribe to a more 1st Amendment style view on free speech.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I think article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights is much more like the first amendment that what the UK has. How they can have the laws they do while still pretending to follow them makes me wonder though. >Article 19. >Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

mLuby 7y ago

{China,USA} pressured London police to arrest political enemy, says watchdog The first time you compromise your principles is hard. Extraordinary circumstances, a special request in a special relationship, etc. The second time is easier…

xodice 7y ago
I genuinely would like sources that the US was involved in the original articles information. I've yet to see such an accusation besides your single comment. Edit: Oh... after reading your post history it all makes sense. ;)

quotz 7y ago

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” The more the West is condemning China without any results, the more we normalise this kind of behaviour, which in turn makes Westerners tolerate unfreedom.