The Institutionalizing of a Chinese Whistleblower*

I just saw this in the New York Times: Whistle-Blowers in Chinese City Sent to Mental Hospital. Not so shocking; almost expected, even. What is odd is that it was even published. The story originated in a state-owned Chinese regional newspaper. Then it was picked up by the major state-owned media: People's Daily and Xinhua, which is astounding. People's Daily offers these headlines for today (not exactly critical stuff):

China registers historic progress in human rights
Chinese maritime patrol near Diaoyu Islands irreproachable
Economic stimulus package to improve people's livelihood

I did some research a few years ago that had me reading Chinese newspapers (translated). I was looking for articles about energy and East Asian relations, but you can glean quite a bit just from the tone and style of news stories. This story would never have been published five years ago.

And maybe not much has changed. The story has been picked up by media outlets from Tasmania to Croatia, but one day after it was published I couldn't find the story on any Chinese site, though I did find this unrelated story: Whistle-blowers given protection. A quick search for Xintai (the name of the city and mental hospital) on the English version of Xinhua returned this lovely picture:

My Mandarin is a little rusty, but I'm going to guess it reads "Sorry, your search has returned no results, but look at these cute cats... so cute".


* with apologies to John Cassavetes.

"During I arrived..."

Watching the Daily Show today I had the pleasure of seeing clips from this interview of George W. Bush by Charlie Gibson of ABC. When asked about his part in the Wall Street financial meltdown, President Bush had this to say:

W: You know, I been the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written people will realize that a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over, y'know, uh, a decade or so before I arrived at President, during I arrived at President.*

Are you kidding me? "...during I arrived at President."? They're giving this man a library? He's thinking of going on the lecture circuit?

* may be "in President", not "at President".

Au revoir, mon cowboy?

Has Stephen Harper given up on Quebec? Has Quebec said au revoir to the cowboy from Calgary? My friend Rob at the Tyee wrote a good piece about just that possibility (snipped below). Thanks, Stephen Harper, for fomenting separatist feeling in Quebec, just when it seemed to be slowly fading.... and good luck in the next federal election. His Quebec MPs were just thrown under the bus (apologies for being trite, but apparently it's the political phrase of the year).

Has Harper Hurt National Unity? :: News :: thetyee.ca

After years of courting Quebec voters in the hopes of winning that elusive parliamentary majority, Stephen Harper made it clear this week he was done playing nice with la belle province.
...
If there needs to be a time out, Milner says, the prime minister and his baffling attacks on "the separatists" bear much of the blame.
...
In any case, the events of the last few days suggest Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, a Quebec native whose financial statement kicked off the political/constitutional/national unity chain of events, may have overstated things when he told a reporter earlier this year "the whole Quebec secession issue is gone."
...
"Indirectly you're saying that half the French Canadians in Quebec are devil-worshippers. It's not something that goes over well," he said, adding that the prime minister's "incendiary" comments suggest he may have written Quebec off.

thetyee.ca

Web diversion

Sick of the Parliamentary crisis? Take a break and have a dorky chuckle at the webcomics at xkcd. Like this one:


or this one:

How is this all playing in Quebec?

globeandmail.com: Harper plays patriot game

...risks angering Quebec voters, many of whom have voted for the Bloc Québécois in the past and may resent the suggestion that BQ support is illegitimate...

He did not, however, use the word “separatist” in the French version of his speech, preferring the less-inflammatory term, “souverainistes.”

In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest said after hearing Mr. Harper's televised address that Quebec doesn't need anti-sovereigntist rhetoric from the federal government while it copes with the global economic crisis.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Quebecers say ‘Good riddance!’ to Harper: poll | Jerad Gallinger

The poll, conducted by CROP for La Presse, found that 76 percent of respondants would favour a coalition should the Conservative government be defeated. 62 percent thought that the Bloc Québécois should be a part of the coalition and have seats at the cabinet table, while 70 percent felt that the Bloc should support the new government even if they are not an official part of the coalition.

j-rad.ca

Adam M On The Front Page:

Once again, nothing is stoking the flames of the hitherto recently sleeping separatist movement as Stephen Harper's constant insults to Quebec's elected MP's. This is an insult and citizens of Quebec are taking it as such.

The separatist sentiment that this insanity is bringing out in people in Quebec risks reviving the PQ's polls in the ongoing Quebec election. Stephen Harper is giving something for the Quebecois to be indignant about: suggesting that their members are illegitimate and that their vote don't count.

adammonthefrontpage.blogspot.com

Federal polling VI - coalition numbers

CTV released polling numbers on the coalition.

Do Canadians think the government should remain in power?

"Canadians are deeply divided on whether the Conservatives deserve to stay in power, with 35 per cent saying the party should continue to govern and 40 per cent wanting change..."

Hmmmm....35% is about what the Conservatives got in the last election, which is within the poll's margin of error. So, no more divided than before this "crisis".*

If the coalition falls, Canadians would want:
- Opposition coalition: 37 per cent
- Holding a federal election: 32 per cent
- No sure: 24 per cent
- Allowing the opposition to run by accord: 7 per cent

"A full 75 per cent thought the government should implement a stimulus package as soon as possible, while 17 per cent disagreed."

* Yes, I realize that 25% of respondents weren't sure, and some of those will be more likely to support the current government while others will be more likely to support a new coalition government. For the record, I'm in the "don't think the coalition is a great idea but I can't imagine Harper continuing as PM after he steered his party into this debacle so something has to change and I voted for a coalition party so I may as well support their bid for forming a not-batshit-crazy government" group.

Now they're getting desperate

Have you read about the flag issue today? Holy desperate, Batman. Stephen Harper had this to say in the House today:

Macleans.ca - UPDATED: On second thought, I think I prefer him wrapping himself in the flag …

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as part of the culmination of the machinations of the leader of the NDP, we had these three parties together forming this agreement, signing a document, and they would not even have the Canadian flag behind them. They had to be photographed without it.

blog.macleans.ca

It turns out to be a complete falsehood. Either it was a deliberate lie or a horrible oversight, given the prominence of the flags in the background at the announcement of the accord yesterday.

blog.macleans.ca

Harper's hypocrisy

Now, I try to remain relatively non-partisan on here, but at times partisan criticism is unavoidable. And I don't mean to suggest with this post that the other parties and leaders are above hypocrisy, forgetting history or going back on their word. But this is getting to be a bit much. Here are three blatant cases of hypocrisy from Stephen Harper and the Conservatives:

1) Making it law that elections would happen on fixed dates, and stating that they shouldn't be called for purely political reasons. This was standard Chretien procedure that the Conservatives decried and then made illegal. "Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage," our PM said. Then he went ahead and did it anyway.

2) Decrying the proposed Liberal-NDP-(Bloc) coalition as undemocratic, decrying the two parties for jumping in bed with the "separatists", and crying foul because the NDP and Bloc discussed the possibility of a coalition before the current crisis. Um, Sept. 9th, 2004, anyone? A letter was sent to then G-G Adrienne Clarkson asking her to consider dissolving Parliament (Martin's minority government was about to take power) before it had even started, and that the opposition parties had been "in close consultation"; this letter was signed by Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and...wait for it....Stephen Harper! And Mr. Harper, it's part of our democratic system.

3) Mocking the NDP's association with the Liberals. From today in the House: “Why should anybody have confidence in the leader of a party who would agree to fold his own party into another party?” Can he be serious? Is he just mocking Peter McKay outright? Doesn't he remember being intimately involved in the formation of his own party?

Does this man have no sense of history? Or does he think we just don't remember any of it? Bizarre.

Parliament to be prorogued?

From a Conservative press conference today with Jim Prentice and James Moore:

Macleans.ca - Not with a bang but a press conference

5:58:39PM Question from CanWest: Is proroguing “on the table”? The government will consider “all options” - but Keith Boag wonders what other options there *are*, exactly.

Does the government have any precedent for *its* position, wonders another reporter. The precedence is “common sense”, according to Prentice. Which isn’t actually precedence.

blog.macleans.ca

And this from a completely unreliable source:

A supposed Conservative staffer in Ottawa just wrote to my friend (a journalist) that they just concluded a meeting where they (some MPs and staff) were informed that Parliament would in fact be prorogued this week.

I say supposed because my friend doesn't know who it is he is emailing with. He was trying to find out what the story was with the Draft John Baird website, and in his email exchange with the anonymous contact person they mentioned the above tidbit.

So, totally unsubstantiated and most likely a piece of propaganda from an opposition party. Still, pretty fun.

Our next PM?

John Ivison: Michael Ignatieff would be PM in a Liberal-led coalition - Full Comment

Michael Ignatieff will become Prime Minister in a Liberal-led coalition government if the opposition parties succeed in bringing down the Conservatives in a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons next week and if the Governor-General deems it to be a viable alternative, sources said late last night.

It is understood that the plan will be presented to the Liberal caucus Monday at 1 p.m.

network.nationalpost.com

It will be interesting to see if this (the presentation to caucus) comes to pass, and whether it will get leaked to the media.

Edit: Guess Ivison was a bit off on this one. The CBC is reporting that Dion will be lead the coalition. So he might not go down in Canadian political history as the only Liberal leader to not be Prime Minister.