Octopus Overlords

Almost exactly five years ago, a newly anointed President Xi Jinping met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and declared they shared similar “personalities.”

The comments, reported by the Kremlin news service but not by Chinese state media, went largely unnoticed at the time. But on Sunday, the parallels between the two leaders were too stark to ignore.

China’s Communist Party is to abolish a two-term limit on the presidency, state media announced, potentially opening the door for Xi to rule for life.

In that simple step, the Communist Party showed that it has forgotten one of the main lessons of the despotic rule of Mao Zedong, wrote Chinese legal expert and New York University professor Jerome Cohen in a blog post.

The two-term limit was inserted into the constitution after the brutal and chaotic Cultural Revolution to prevent a return of one-man dictatorship. “Its abolition signals the likelihood of another long period of severe repression,” Cohen wrote.

Earlier this week the Communist Party Council announced (a day before it actually met) that the limit of two five-year presidential terms will be abolished and Xi Jinping’s guiding philosophy would be written into the constitution.

Immediately, Beijing’s censors set to work.

They’ve attacked the very words people would need to use to express discontent.

“Emperor”’

“Two term limit”.

“Control”.

These top a long list of terms now blocked by China’s state controlled social media platform, Weibo, as well as the search engine Baidu.

And while you cannot burn electronic books, Beijing’s done the next best thing.

Animal Farm.

1984.

Brave New World.

Simply mentioning the names of novels and authors which paint dystopian pictures of worlds under authoritarian leadership is no longer permitted.



So cartoons featuring the character have been exploited to indirectly mock their leader.

Shortly after the announcement earlier this week, Weibo users started circulating an innocent post from Disney’s official account.

It showed Winnie Pooh hugging a large pot of honey.

Beneath was the caption “find the thing you love and stick with it.”

It — along with every other Pooh reference they can find — has been exterminated by the censors.

Perched atop massive cement pillars that tower above Montenegro's picturesque Moraca river canyon, scores of Chinese workers are building a state-of-the-art highway through some of the roughest terrain in southern Europe.

The government has described the 165 km (103 mile) highway, with its imposing bridges and deep-cut tunnels, as the construction of the century and a pathway to the modern world.

It is designed to link the port of Bar on Montenegro's Adriatic coast to landlocked neighbour Serbia. But once the first, challenging 41 km stretch through mountains north of the capital is completed, the government faces a difficult choice.

A Chinese loan for the first phase has sent Montenegro's debt soaring and forced the government to raise taxes, partially freeze public sector wages and end a benefit for mothers to get its finances in order.

Despite those measures, Montenegro's debt is expected to approach 80 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year and the International Monetary Fund says the country cannot afford to take on any more debt to finish its ambitious project.

"There is a big question about how they complete it," said an EU official who requested anonymity. "Their fiscal space has shrunk enormously. They have strangled themselves. And for the time being this is a highway to nowhere."

The road is at the heart of an intense debate about Chinese influence in Europe, both within EU member states and countries aspiring to join the bloc such as Montenegro and its Western Balkan neighbours Serbia, Macedonia and Albania.

As Beijing extends its economic reach under the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), poor countries across Asia and Africa have seized on attractive Chinese loans and the promise of transformative infrastructure projects.

This has allowed them to develop in ways that may not have been possible without access to China's vast foreign exchange reserves. But some countries, such as Sri Lanka, Djibouti and Mongolia, have found themselves weighed down by debt and ever more reliant on Beijing's largesse.

Top UK security officials say they can only provide "limited assurance" that telecom equipment provided by Huawei poses no threat to national security.

The Chinese company, which sells smartphones and telecommunications equipment around the world, is monitored in the United Kingdom by a government oversight panel called the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre.

In an annual report published on Thursday, the panel warned that "shortcomings in Huawei's engineering processes have exposed new risks in the UK telecommunication networks."

"The Oversight Board can provide only limited assurance that any risks to UK national security from Huawei's involvement in the UK's critical networks have been sufficiently mitigated," it added.

A Chinese writer could spend the next 10 years behind bars for publishing books that include descriptions of gay sex. Why such a harsh sentence? Apparently, she sold too many copies of her books.

The book that apparently caught authorities' attention is titled Occupy (or Occupation, depending on which outlet's translation you prefer). Chinese state media reports that it "obscenely and in detail described gay male-male acts." The book's homoeroticism reportedly involves a relationship between a male student and his teacher.

Pornography is illegal in China, so it's not surprising that the writer, known by her surname Liu as well as well as her internet alias Tianyi, was convicted. But even given that, the length of her sentence is jarring.

A member of the Uighur minority on Monday detailed torture and abuse she says she experienced in one of the internment camps where the Chinese government has detained hundreds of thousands of religious minorities.

Human rights groups say China has detained up to 2 million Uighurs to promote what the government calls "ethnic unity" in the country's far west. On Monday, over 270 scholars from 26 countries released a statement drawing attention to "mass human rights abuses and deliberate attacks on indigenous cultures" taking place in China.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:37 pm Canadian sentenced to 15 years in China in 2014 for drug smuggling, now sentenced to death when his case was "re-evaluated".

They are really, really unhappy Meng Wanzhou is under arrest.

This is so stupid. The only thing keeping us from murdering her arbitrarily like they are doing is the rule of law, which is the same thing that compelled us to arrest her in the first place. Trying to force us into ignoring our laws could just as easily result in things getting worse for Meng.

If we thought as the Chinese did, who would come out of this worse? Canada, who has a nobody drug smuggler in Chinese hands, or China, who has Chinese "royalty" in Canadian hands?

At least this reminds us that the Chinese civility is just a charade. Murdering your own people for political reasons is pretty much the antithesis of western society. Murdering foreigners for geopolitical reasons is barbarism.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:09 pm Dude, I'd answer you seriously if you took the situation seriously.

He was convicted 4 years ago.

Somehow 4 years into his 15 year sentence the same crime is worth the death penalty on appeal?

This is on top of multiple politically motivated arrests.

I'm more than willing to look at the facts. Are you?

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:12 pm It is normal for an appeal to result in higher sentence. Maybe not in US but in China and Indonesia, an appeal doesn't always result in same or lesser sentence.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:12 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:09 pm Dude, I'd answer you seriously if you took the situation seriously.

He was convicted 4 years ago.

Somehow 4 years into his 15 year sentence the same crime is worth the death penalty on appeal?

This is on top of multiple politically motivated arrests.

I'm more than willing to look at the facts. Are you?

It is normal for an appeal to result in higher sentence. Maybe not in US but in China and Indonesia, an appeal doesn't always result in same or lesser sentence.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:15 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:12 pm It is normal for an appeal to result in higher sentence. Maybe not in US but in China and Indonesia, an appeal doesn't always result in same or lesser sentence.

Well, you've convinced me. Everything seems to be in order here. I have every confidence in the Chinese rule of law and the very idea that this is politically motivated is absurd.

China doesn't think we're this stupid, why do you?

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:18 pm Do you have any proof that the death sentence was caused by the Huawei case?

Did China tell Canada that the death sentence was a payback?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:37 am

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:18 pm Do you have any proof that the death sentence was caused by the Huawei case?

Did China tell Canada that the death sentence was a payback?

Dude. The west follows the rule of law. That doesn't make us idiots.

If it helps, this isn't a single, isolated event. China has made a point of targeting and arresting Canadians that began the moment Meng was arrested.

Why am I bothering with this? You (global you) either understand what is happening or you attempt to provide cover for it. There is no confusion over what is happening.

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:48 amI have no idea why we haven't just handed Meng over to the US and be done with it. I should probably find out.

If China wants to put drug smugglers to death, have at it. I'm opposed to the death penalty everywhere, not just repressive regimes, but whatever. If they want to start assassinating Canadians with their "legal" system, that's something else entirely. No new evidence was introduced, and without knew evidence even China's legal system doesn't allow for increased sentencing. Magically the result is different this time.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:02 pm Seem like increase sentence on appeal is also something that can happen in US:

https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentenci ... -lwop.html

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

I'm not anti west. Just anti hypocrisy where it is okay to use rule of law excuse for one side but not the other side.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

I'm not anti west. Just anti hypocrisy where it is okay to use rule of law excuse for one side but not the other side.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:36 pm Simple, when one side is twisting its rule of law to fit the needs of its geopolitical aims rather than the merits of the case. China had no legal need to reexamine the case. They had a political one. Feel free to point out when the US has done similar, I don't know of any cases but it certainly wouldn't shock me to learn we had.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

I'm not anti west. Just anti hypocrisy where it is okay to use rule of law excuse for one side but not the other side.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:40 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:02 pm Seem like increase sentence on appeal is also something that can happen in US:

https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentenci ... -lwop.html

I don't know how to say this any other way. Dude, Canadian citizens are being murdered because Meng is a criminal. That they are using the legal system to do it doesn't change anything. You're starting to seriously offend me. I don't believe for a second that you're arguing in good faith, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't continue to tell me how China arresting and killing Canadians is justified because "legal system". Attempting to provide cover for this is insulting to both our intelligence. Please stop.

China can go back to killing its own citizens.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:34 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

I'm not anti west. Just anti hypocrisy where it is okay to use rule of law excuse for one side but not the other side.

Then you're a troll. You're an Alex Jones/Steve Bannon type that draws false equivalency, ignores nuance, ignores infractions by your side, and exaggerates conflict. You've been doing it since you arrived and I'm glad you post so little.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:36 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

I'm not anti west. Just anti hypocrisy where it is okay to use rule of law excuse for one side but not the other side.

Simple, when one side is twisting its rule of law to fit the needs of its geopolitical aims rather than the merits of the case. China had no legal need to reexamine the case. They had a political one. Feel free to point out when the US has done similar, I don't know of any cases but it certainly wouldn't shock me to learn we had.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:57 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:34 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:13 am

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:30 am VR, I really can't decide if you are naive or trolling. You've continued to completely ignore the points being made. You seem to have a specific ax to grind that isn't even what is being discussed.

Both. He's been anti-west from day 1.

I'm not anti west. Just anti hypocrisy where it is okay to use rule of law excuse for one side but not the other side.

Then you're a troll. You're an Alex Jones/Steve Bannon type that draws false equivalency, ignores nuance, ignores infractions by your side, and exaggerates conflict. You've been doing it since you arrived and I'm glad you post so little.

Seem like you don't like opinion that is against yours.

I thought we're supposed to discuss or hear each other opinions here. Maybe I am wrong, OO is supposed to be an echo chamber that people that agree with each other echo each other's opinions.

Anyone that dare to have a different opinion is a troll to you.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:51 am You don't want other countries to interfere or force your country to do something like freeing Meng but you want to interfere with China's justice.