4 ms·

> The UK Foreign Office told the BBC it was "closely monitoring reports that members of the Uyghur diaspora in the UK have been harassed by the Chinese authorit

> The UK Foreign Office told the BBC it was "closely monitoring reports that members of the Uyghur diaspora in the UK have been harassed by the Chinese authorities", and that it had "raised our concerns directly with the Chinese embassy in London". I've always wondered, how is it not against the law to act on a foreign government's orders to harass citizens? We know that certain academics are getting arrested, but mainly for spying, IP theft and lying, at least in the US. But I've never seen reports of arrests made on those grounds. It's a well known fact that "students" will show up at universities to check on other Chinese citizens and dissidents. Yet nothing happens.

adventured 6y ago
Primarily because very light harrassment isn't generally illegal and won't typically get you arrested. You'll be hard-pressed to get someone to care about that. The Beijing reps are surely careful about the extent of it, about not going too far, in most cases. Since the target likely knows who they represent, they don't have to press too far, they just have to make their presence known and it's enough to terrify without any specific act of violence or threat occurring (which limits what the police & co. can or will do). And last but not least, does the target want to ramp things up further with Beijing by pursuing it criminally, trying to get a restraining order, and so on. If the target succeeds, Beijing can just send more. It's lose, lose, lose, every direction you turn when a superpower has marked you and you lack any consequential power. Much like the IRS trying to battle the Church of Scientology, they have an army of followers willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. How do you fight that, other than for the Feds to get involved and start removing these people from the US by the hundreds. It wouldn't surprise me if the Feds just follow & watch on purpose for intel acquisition purposes.
thereare5lights 6y ago
> how is it not against the law to act on a foreign government's orders to harass citizens? When you consider that until very recently, it was legal for NYPD officers to have sex with people in their custody, and indeed, in many places it is still legal for police to coerce sex from people in their custody, you'll realize that law is reactionary and until it becomes a problem that catches a politician's eye, it won't be illegal.
- TeeMassive 6y ago
  > When you consider that until very recently, it was legal for NYPD officers to have sex with people in their custody That has nothing to do with the subject.
  - thereare5lights 6y ago
    On the contrary, they're both things that should obviously be illegal. The question is why aren't things that should obviously be illegal not actually illegal. I answered that question. However, it seems like some people reflexively support the police so they don't read past the surface.
    - TeeMassive 6y ago
      Your example is a glitch, of law, the other is obvious on its face.
      - thereare5lights 6y ago
        > Your example is a glitch, of law, No it's not. In the past, it was lumped in with the right of cops to have sex with suspect, thus it was intentional to allow cops to catch sex workers. Calling it a glitch only shows how little people care about that particular problem and in fact reinforces my argument.

adventured 6y ago

Primarily because very light harrassment isn't generally illegal and won't typically get you arrested. You'll be hard-pressed to get someone to care about that. The Beijing reps are surely careful about the extent of it, about not going too far, in most cases. Since the target likely knows who they represent, they don't have to press too far, they just have to make their presence known and it's enough to terrify without any specific act of violence or threat occurring (which limits what the police & co. can or will do). And last but not least, does the target want to ramp things up further with Beijing by pursuing it criminally, trying to get a restraining order, and so on. If the target succeeds, Beijing can just send more. It's lose, lose, lose, every direction you turn when a superpower has marked you and you lack any consequential power. Much like the IRS trying to battle the Church of Scientology, they have an army of followers willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. How do you fight that, other than for the Feds to get involved and start removing these people from the US by the hundreds. It wouldn't surprise me if the Feds just follow & watch on purpose for intel acquisition purposes.

thereare5lights 6y ago

> how is it not against the law to act on a foreign government's orders to harass citizens? When you consider that until very recently, it was legal for NYPD officers to have sex with people in their custody, and indeed, in many places it is still legal for police to coerce sex from people in their custody, you'll realize that law is reactionary and until it becomes a problem that catches a politician's eye, it won't be illegal.

TeeMassive 6y ago
> When you consider that until very recently, it was legal for NYPD officers to have sex with people in their custody That has nothing to do with the subject.
- thereare5lights 6y ago
  On the contrary, they're both things that should obviously be illegal. The question is why aren't things that should obviously be illegal not actually illegal. I answered that question. However, it seems like some people reflexively support the police so they don't read past the surface.
  - TeeMassive 6y ago
    Your example is a glitch, of law, the other is obvious on its face.
    - thereare5lights 6y ago
      > Your example is a glitch, of law, No it's not. In the past, it was lumped in with the right of cops to have sex with suspect, thus it was intentional to allow cops to catch sex workers. Calling it a glitch only shows how little people care about that particular problem and in fact reinforces my argument.