Should the Olympics be boycotted?

Both the libertarian blog Pacific Empire and semi-libertarian blog Mulholland Drive are endorsing a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Blair Mulholland explains why:
.

• Free speech and freedom of the press is severely restricted and censored;
• Religion must be sanctioned by the state or adherents are persecuted; and
• Huge numbers of political and religious dissidents languish in Chinese prisons

He calls for China to simply release all prisoners of conscience and to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press. All perfectly reasonable. The boycott he calls for is for athletes to choose themselves, not for government to impose it.
.
So should they? It has been a while since an Olympic Games has suffered from widespread boycotts. Athens, Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona were all games held in free liberal democracies with all such rights, as will London.
.
The Seoul Olympics in 1988 were the last games during the Cold War, but partly catalysed the democratisation of South Korea. When South Korea won the right to the games in 1981, it was under a military dictatorship, but in 1987 it had its first fully democratic presidential elections and despite North Korea demanding a boycott, only Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua joined the boycott. Since the Seoul Olympics, freedom of the press and vigorous democratic elections have been the hallmark of South Korea. However, China is not on the cusp of becoming free, it is not South Korea 20 years ago.
.
The LA Olympics in 1984 were boycotted by the Warsaw Pact, but the 1980 Moscow Olympics were meant to be a propaganda triumph. This failed miserably not least because of the almost universal Western boycott in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

.

Now in 2008, the Olympic torch ceremony has been a focus for protests in London and Paris. Disturbingly though, the coverage has talked about "anti-China" and "pro-Tibet" protests - I doubt they are either.

.

Who is anti-China? Well besides many in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and others from neighbouring states who harbour the fear and the latent racism that is widespread outside Western civilisation, few indeed. I am not. I am pleased China is growing, pleased that freedoms in China have grown with it and would like nothing less than for the people of China to simply have some fundamental freedoms.

.

Simply being able to criticise the government, have a free and open press, and a state that is accountable, rather than being an extension of the Communist Party. I care less about China being a liberal democracy than I care about the right to free speech, for political prisoners to be freed, and for those who govern China being accountable before the law. It is about China growing up.

.

However, those who govern China are fomenting nationalist hatred that is seen on the China Daily forums that what the protests are about are about criticising and humiliating China. They are not - they are about rejecting the bloodshed, the repression and the unwillingness of China's one party state to be accountable or even honest about what it does. To me China is not what the Communist Party, which in its darkest period was responsible for tens of millions of Chinese starving and being slaughtered, says it is - it is about a people who are resourceful, hard working and creative.

.

Tibet is almost a sideshow, but represents what is wrong with the Chinese regime - it tolerates no dissent, it doesn't allow free and frank debate about government in Tibet, or criticism of what it does. Sadly this means that when Tibetans riot, and attack innocent local Chinese, it becomes a "them and us" story - some choose to unquestionably support the Tibetan protestors, others the Chinese - the truth is that neither are angels, but it is encumbent upon the Chinese Communist Party led regime to not suppress information and not suppress free speech there. i see no reason to be "pro-Tibet" anymore than being "anti-China", and don't believe that a Tibetan Buddhist theocracy is where it should be heading.

.

China has a better model. It's called Hong Kong.

.

You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world with more individual freedom than Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, there is a lively free press, with private property rights, independent judiciary and freedom to do business. Art and culture thrive in diversity, and this is all in spite of over ten years of oversight from Beijing. Hong Kong doesn't have liberal democracy, but it is a free society, has low levels of corruption and reasonably high accountability for politicians and bureaucracy. Most importantly, Beijing has left it pretty much well alone. The truth is that in the last ten years Mainland China has been slowly moving towards the freedoms of Hong Kong, not Hong Kong moving backwards - albeit that China has a long long way to go.

.

The key questions are this - is it positive for freedom and individual rights in China for the Olympics to be hosted there and a spotlight to be turned on China? and are the Olympics a celebration of China's economic and technological modernisation or a celebration of its one party authoritarian state?

.

The answer to the first question is yes. It is yes because the Chinese regime can't turn the screws too much while the world watches, for fear that it encourages more protests, more scrutiny and more attention about what it doesn't do well. It is already hurting and straining relations. If it were not for the Olympics then Chinese human rights abuses would be ignored, as they largely have been since Tiananmen Square. Unfortunately the day after the Olympics is likely to be painful for those who dare to express dissent in China in the run up to it. However in the lead up, and at the time Chinese officials will be confronted with questions.

.

The second question is more delicate, as the truth is it will be both. China has much to celebrate in its modernisation, the long journey from the murderous Maoist state which starved and shouted at its people, to the market based authoritarian state where, by and large, people can get on with their lives as long as they don't challenge the state, or get in the way of the groaning leviathan. Standards of living have soared enormously, all because of free market capitalism - although China's legal and banking systems are at best shaky and antiquated.

.

Meanwhile, political power continues to come from a barrel of a gun. The Communist Party's sphere of influence has steadily eroded. China is not the starving Police State of North Korea, but is no bastion of open debate. Political dissension in China is expressed behind closed doors within the Communist Party, and to a limited extent at the local level where some criticism is allowed. Meanwhile some within the Party use its siamese twin like linkage with the state to enrich themselves - with little accountability, except from enemies who dob them in for whatever reason. Let's face it, the Chinese state is authoritarian, corrupt and brutal.

.

The Chinese regime would use the Olympics to showcase China, and undoubtedly many Chinese in China would be proud to be in the Olympic host country. One argument is that this would solidify support for Communist party rule, but what if there was a boycott, would this weaken such rule?

.

A state boycott would not - the Chinese regime would turn in on itself, would make racist claims that countries boycotting are "anti-Chinese". If China does not engage in a brutal suppression of dissent in the run up to the games (and the situation in Tibet is not of the scale of Tiananmen Square), then states should not now announce a boycott. A boycott should have been clear when China won the rights to host the games. To posture now in the final year, in the absence of any major change in circumstances is simply to posture.

.

Yes I know some think Tibet represents that - but it doesn't. None of the countries posturing about Tibet recognise it has any right to independence. Tibet has been subject to far more repression in the past, yet the world was largely silent. China is under pressure to be restrained in Tibet, but how it acts there is little different to how it acts elsewhere - it's just that the Dalai Lama exists for Tibet, no similar spokesperson exists for people oppressed in other provinces.

.

However, none of this should hinder the absolute right of individual athletes and politicians to boycott the games to express opposition to China's lack of individual freedom. My own view is that athletes that value such freedoms should not go (with the added benefit that they avoid breathing the toxic swill of Beijing smog), and neither should politicians. Those politicians who do go should take the chance to express concern about China's lack of political freedom.

.

In that sense if the Olympics is held, has some politicians boycotting loudly, some attending and expressing support for individual rights and many athletes boycotting, then two things will have happened. China will be in the spotlight - much of what is good will be seen, and some of what is wrong will be seen too - and those in charge know this. So for that I support those who individually choose to boycott the games purely to support the rights to free speech and political dissent, and for freedom for those arrested and imprisoned for such offences. I don't support those who simply call for "Free Tibet", as all of China should be free.

.

In fact a better campaign would be to extend the freedoms of Hong Kong to all of China - but since there isn't liberal democracy in Hong Kong, many of those protesting wont see the value in that. However, the longer Hong Kong succeeds and is seen to succeed, the more the rest of China can appreciate that it is the way to go - because the most important thing isn't elections, it is freedom.

White trash family make innocent girl a victim

So the case of Shannon Matthews might be all a fake - it seems like her appalling mother, who at 32, is widely quoted as having seven children by five fathers (and I'm no prude, but this does seem to indicate a reckless disregard for life or her own kids), may have set it all up.

.

While she was missing, it was a cause celebre for those comparing the case with Madeleine McCann, whose parents are wealthier, and whose cute images are well known. The Times reported how "she was too poor for us to care". The Guardian and Independent had great fun accusing the UK of oppressing the poor. Shannon Matthews was meant to make many of us feel bad that her family didn't have money to wage a media campaign - except there was one key difference - it seems Shannon never went "missing" at all.

.

Of course she was "found" 24 days later, and there were scenes of the neighbourhood pouring cheap bubbly down their throats to "party hard" at the girl being found. No doubt most of them sincerely believed she had gone missing - now the truth appears more opaque.

.

The Daily Telegraph reports that some of those associated with Shannon Matthews asked for money from the Find Madeleine Fund, but that the plot is based upon a storyline from the TV show Shameless, which was shown nearly a month before Shannon was reported gone. In the meantime, the Police found Shannon in the base of a bed at her stepfather's uncle's place. Meanwhile, her stepfather was arrested for possession of child pornography, and her mother is allegedly was trying to leave him, and had been "offered a place to stay" by his uncle. Now her mother has been arrested for perverting the cause of justice.

.

Sadly, Shannon Matthews is the key victim in this, a tool for the sad losers around her to engage in fraud. No wonder she has been taken from this family, no wonder the Police didn't return her when she was found - she has to live with the shame of those adults who should have loved and cared for her, not the trash who scurry about in the gutters sucking welfare cheques and looking for ways to rip people off. Hopefully she (and her siblings) can be found more loving homes that are not occupied by possible fraudsters and perverts. I also hope that the donations collected for her search can be placed in a trust fund for her education - the least the girl deserves is a chance out of the disturbing chavtrap she has sadly been raised in.

When bureaucrats and politicians are out of touch

you get the most inane ideas proposed, agreed and implemented.
.
Surely the latest one in the UK - to require registered sex offenders to reveal their email addresses and for these to be forwarded to social networking websites like Bebo, Myspace and Facebook has been put through by people with only a banal understanding of the internet.
.
According to the Daily Telegraph:

"Under new guidance to improve internet safety, (police) officers will pass on the details to social networking sites in the hope that they will remove the profiles of anyone caught preying on children. Offenders who refuse to hand over their details, or supply false email addresses, will face a five-year prison sentence"

Now think about that, why would you refuse to hand over the details? How would they know they are false? What would happen? Presumably perv@uknet.com gets a nice email from PC Plod saying "Hello Mr Perv just confirming it's your email address" and he says "Yes officer thank you", before he logs on to Myspace using perv2@hotmail.com or whatever.

I have lost count of the number of email addresses I have had. I have had hotmail, yahoo, netscape, usa.net, netaddress and several other email addresses almost all of which have expired - after all they are free and easy to get. It's not as if it's your home address or phone number, though I don't doubt that some of the bureaucrats and politicians involved think it is!

The scaremongering and nonsense surrounding this issue is palpable. The same report says "Officials estimate that as many as one child in 12 who makes contact with someone online goes on to meet them." Well yes, perhaps. How many of these people are adults they meet? How many do they meet with parents or in groups or in public places? In other words, what are the actual crime statistics attached to this?
.
There are really only a few sensible approaches to this. Firstly, parents have to control net access in sensible ways. Most importantly by listening to (properly) their children, talking to them and knowing how they are. Inculcate dignity, pride and confidence to them so they look after themselves. Place the computer in a public room. Have some strict rules about meeting people online that includes insisting on meeting them with a parent, responsible adult or a couple of friends. There is only so much you can do of course. If you can't control your 15 year old drinking on a Saturday night then you'll hardly stop them meeting strangers over the internet.
.
Secondly, sentencing of sex offenders (and violent offenders) has to be proportionate to risk. Those who are clearly dangerous should have long custodial sentences. If there are truly dangerous people out there, then why are they free?
.
Finally, there needs to be a cultural change that stop making the care of children a matter for the state. If children are reaching out outline for company isn't this a particularly sad set of affairs? When I was a child, the neighbours in my street knew who I was and where I belonged, and I had no reason to fear any of them -women or men. It felt safe and almost certainly was. Nowadays adults are more fearful of any friendly contact with someone elses' kids for fear of being branded as perverts or predators - when we know this is highly unlikely. It's time to be realistic - despite the tabloid media - there aren't perverts under every corner. In fact the situations where kids are most at risk are either large extended families where parental supervision is lax, or single mothers who have questionable male partners (and daughters desperately seeking male attention). That is the sad tragedy about it all - the real issue being why are people's kids meeting strangers they meet on the internet in the first place? and if they are, how many of these cases are really a problem? The truth is nobody knows the answer to the latter question.
.

Telecommunications nationalisation

Not PC has said much of what I want to say, and I have said much in the past about the absurdity of local loop unbundling, and the de facto decision by the state to decimate investment in competing telecommunications networks by granting property rights over Telecom's network by its competitors.

There is a story about the success of deregulating telecommunications from 1989 through to 2001, the time that getting a phone line installed became quick and easy, when national and international call prices plummeted, as did cellphone calls. This is the time that a company came in and built, from scratch a duplicate nationwide telecommunications network - it was BellSouth at first, but Vodafone built the bulk of it. It is the time that Saturn (later Telstra Saturn and then Telstra Clear) built a hybrid fibre/coax telecommunications network to homes and businesses on the Kapiti Coast, Wellington City, Lower and Upper Hutt, Christchurch city - and planned to do the same in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Dunedin - yet, funnily enough, decided not to when the government started granting property rights over Telecom's network.

Now the very same people who wanted Telecom's network to be everyone's to use, but not anyone's to make an investment out of - decry that there might not be the incentives to build a next generation network of fibre optic capacity to the kerb. Funnily enough, when dialup internet was king in the late 1990s there WAS the incentive for two firms to do it - Telstra Clear as I mentioned, but Telecom did so also in parts of Auckland and Wellington, until it decided ADSL was cheaper to roll out in the meantime.

So what has been created in the last eight years of Labour government reforms has been to incentivise usage of Telecom's existing network - which is all very well if you believe that is the beginning and the end of telecommunications - except most don't. Some believe that fibre to the kerb is the next step - some believe it is wireless, some may argue that satellites can offer a solution. The state wont of course know best - in fact not one company will. Telecom got it wrong on mobile phone standards, and got it wrong on hybrid fibre coax in the late 1990s. The Post Office got in wrong in the 1970s by having triple twisted copper wire lines installed in parts of Wellington. How can the state get it right now?

and no. The arguments that "we'll all benefit" and it's "like the roads" are just fatuous. Those who will benefit from state subsidised investment (which all state investment) are those who will be internet intensive businesses. They aren't special any more than energy intensive, labour intensive or land intensive businesses. Remember how the great state folly in the late 1970s, early 1980s was replacing foreign oil - when all those "investments" were written off, as the price of oil plummeted and energy was no longer a problem (funny how most of those are irrelevant now when oil prices ARE high).

and roads? Well let's remember how roads are managed. When most people want to use them, they queue for them and get appalling service, some are in excellent condition, others are barely usable, there has been a massive backlog of deferred investment, except in politically driven projects which have dubious benefits. It takes years to get any extra capacity built, and there are plenty who lobby against it - and if you don't like the service, you generally don't have a competitor (except the railways, which may be akin to the postal service competing with email).

NZ First racism... again

Winston Peters built part of his career on race baiting ignorant white and Maori New Zealanders, scaring them about a so-calld "yellow peril", so it is hardly a surprise that with low poll ratings, NZ First is being blatantly racist - this time according to Stuff, Peter Brown is doing the job.

Brown is, himself, a foreigner. Although British is ok of course. He claims that "Asian immigration", funnily not Pacific Island, European, South African or American immigration is "pushing Maori further down the pile".

What complete utter vile racist nonsense. Not only is it racist, but it plays into the hands of those who think the living standards of Maori people depend upon others - they don't. It implies that Asian immigrants actively suppress the success of Maori. How different is that fin principle, if not degree, from the anti-semitic bile that the Nazis distributed in the 1930s claiming that Jews kept "Aryan" Germans down?

He is also reported as saying that "Asians would form "mini-societies" that led to division, friction and resentment". So unlike Maori iwi, or small villages, or gangs, or suburbs, or religions? The only person breeding resentment is Peter Brown - why be resentful, unless it is the repulsive New Zealand tendency to chop down tall poppies. You know the types - the semi-literate talkback calling envy dripping bigots who don't like the new family next door with the big car, nice clothes, who have spent money on the house, but speak some "foreign" language, and don't mix with us, don't like rugby, don't like drinking Tui's and whose kids are brighter than theirs.

Peter Brown is scratching this underbelly - a combination of racism, tall poppy syndrome and dependency - those who think the government owes them something, and resent when others do better than they.

Labour Party supporters might ask why they continue to support a government which relies on this racist party for confidence and supply, but even more inexplicably appointed its leader to be, of all things, Minister of Foreign Affairs. National supporters shouldn't gloat though. National made Winston Treasurer and Deputy PM, and would be sycophants to NZ First again for power (as would Labour).

So that's the test. Will the PM terminate the confidence and supply agreement of NZ First because Labour doesn't want to be reliant on racists for power, and will John Key say he wont do a deal with NZ First to win power for the same reason?

Of course not - both don't want to give Winston the monopoly on the racist vote.