Ask for action against Corp's that hurt kids? Illegal.

[weemadando]

...and amazingly, this wasn't in SPARTAFREEDOMERICA.

China jails father of toxic milk victim
Posted 57 minutes ago

A Chinese court has jailed a man who organised a website for parents of children who became ill from drinking tainted milk after his own son became sick.

The court found Zhao Lianhai guilty of "inciting social disorder", his wife Li Xuemei said.

"Of course we cannot accept this. We will appeal. This is something we have to do," Ms Li said after the verdict was read out in a Beijing court.

Zhao founded Kidney Stone Babies to provide information and resources for parents after about 300,000 Chinese infants were made ill - with some 50,000 hospitalised - in 2008 after drinking milk formula deliberately tainted with melamine.

At least six babies died.

Police arrested Zhao last December, charging him with the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.

He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years' jail.

"He has already been in jail almost a year. It's so unfair," Ms Li said.

Amnesty International condemned the sentence.

"We are appalled the authorities have imprisoned a man the Chinese public rightly view as a protector of children, not a criminal," Amnesty spokeswoman Catherine Baber said.

"Zhao Lianhai should never have been arrested for organising a self-help group and exercising his legal rights to seek compensation from a commercial firm."

After an initial cover-up during the Olympic Games in Beijing, China jailed or executed a handful of farmers, milk dealers and executives at Sanlu, the dairy firm that sold the tainted milk, but never announced the sentences for government officials detained after the scandal.

Farmers and dealers had put melamine, an ingredient in plastics and fertiliser, in poor quality milk so it would show higher protein levels in tests.

Sanlu executives said they reported the problem to the government in August 2008, but China took no public action until September when Sanlu's partner, dairy cooperative Fonterra, took the matter up with the New Zealand government.

China set up a compensation fund for children whose health had been seriously damaged, but the children of many of the parents who allied with Zhao were not eligible for compensation.

- Reuters

Stay classy China.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think it is an example of Chinese law par se, and hardly has much to do with legality. It is a sad example of China's common bureaucratic approach, a modus operandi that is more of an unwritten law, which works sometimes, and sometimes it leads to outcomes described above. The approach is that once a certain subset of people causes problems for the government (like e.g. the Sanlu execs), they are quickly dealt with. However, once they have been (in the eyes of the government) dealt an adequate punishment, pursuing further action is causing new problems, and then the government acts again to remove the source of the "new" problem.

In any case, this is sad and distressing, because events like these mean China is not able to deal with it's own oligarchy and corruption in this case, and chooses to solve the issue by putting an ordinary person in jail. This is more the kind of news I'd expect from Russia or, yes, America.

Well, at least he didn't get beaten into a coma and his fingers chopped off, like that Russian reporter who tried to take part in the green-left protests against the chopping down of the Khimki forest.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It isn't amazing at all that this wasn't the US. The US is the place to be if you want to sue somebody...

[Simon_Jester]

Yes.

There are a lot of institutional problems with the US. Being thrown in jail for organizing a consumer advocacy website calling for a lawsuit against a corporation isn't one of them, as far as I know. Your advocacy campaign is all too likely to not get anywhere, but you won't be subject to criminal penalties for starting it.

[PainRack]

I don't think it is an example of Chinese law par se, and hardly has much to do with legality. It is a sad example of China's common bureaucratic approach, a modus operandi that is more of an unwritten law, which works sometimes, and sometimes it leads to outcomes described above. The approach is that once a certain subset of people causes problems for the government (like e.g. the Sanlu execs), they are quickly dealt with. However, once they have been (in the eyes of the government) dealt an adequate punishment, pursuing further action is causing new problems, and then the government acts again to remove the source of the "new" problem.

The government isn't that happy with people taking vigilante action, what with the hoohaa over that factory girl. Amidst a backdrop of class action for increased wages/benefits, one can see why the government has reverted back to imprisonment to steal the winds of any other labour movement.

[weemadando]

The government isn't that happy with people taking vigilante action, what with the hoohaa over that factory girl. Amidst a backdrop of class action for increased wages/benefits, one can see why the government has reverted back to imprisonment to steal the winds of any other labour movement.

COMMUNISM!


I remember being unable to stop laughing after the first thing I saw when getting off a plane in the glorious PRC was an ad for Breitling watches, followed by another for Jaguar.

Can they at least drop the pretense of being Communist?

[Samuel]

This would never have happened in the US. The first amendment covers speech, press and assembly which is what this man is guily of. As for "things hurting children" we have the anti-vaccine people who have managed to get pretty far despite being nuts and completely detached from real science.

Some additional information that may be helpful:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 473662.htm
So Zhao Lianhai was complaining over a year ago. I think the government just got tired of him and tossed him in prison.

I don't think it is an example of Chinese law par se, and hardly has much to do with legality. It is a sad example of China's common bureaucratic approach, a modus operandi that is more of an unwritten law, which works sometimes, and sometimes it leads to outcomes described above. The approach is that once a certain subset of people causes problems for the government (like e.g. the Sanlu execs), they are quickly dealt with. However, once they have been (in the eyes of the government) dealt an adequate punishment, pursuing further action is causing new problems, and then the government acts again to remove the source of the "new" problem.

That sounds almost exactly like complaining is illegal. And not just the government, leadership or organs of the state, but people who are important (aka companies and their executives).

[PainRack]

I remember being unable to stop laughing after the first thing I saw when getting off a plane in the glorious PRC was an ad for Breitling watches, followed by another for Jaguar.

Can they at least drop the pretense of being Communist?

There's a quote in Newsweek around.....7-10 years back which has village farmers bemoaning that if only Mao was around, these evil corrupt businessmen/officials would have been shot.

Then again, there's also the niggling argument that the pressure for democracy in 1989-1991 was a result of inflation and unemployment, the capitalist transition which cut off both traditional social ties and government support for the workers as migrant workers and labour became more "mobile"(translates as transient). Democracy was hence a means for the people to fight back against what was viewed as illegal and immoral acts, but essentially an economy transiting from communism to capitalism.

The Tiananmen leaders would argue otherwise, but its interesting to note that as the Chinese people became more prosperous and prices for staple such as food stabilised, purchasing power and discretionary income increased, the pressure for democracy subsided and was replaced by nationalism.

Which brings us to now. China is a society in transition again, moving to a great power. There's huge social and economic upheavals, as seen in Chinese movies about how the new society has made people lost or worried about the future/society. You have movies protraying the people upset at the rate of change in society, rap songs about the disparity between Hutongs and skyscrapers.....

Add in an increasing nationalistic generation which can be translated into agitation for social/political reform and you could see why the government is uneasy.

That sounds almost exactly like complaining is illegal. And not just the government, leadership or organs of the state, but people who are important (aka companies and their executives).

It depends....... There are areas where complaints are... tolerated but areas where they aren't. In general, if you agitate against foreigners, you're going to be tolerated better than those who agitate against domestic elements, especially since Sanlu involves government officials.

[K. A. Pital]

I remember being unable to stop laughing after the first thing I saw when getting off a plane in the glorious PRC was an ad for Breitling watches, followed by another for Jaguar.

Can they at least drop the pretense of being Communist?

There's a quote in Newsweek around.....7-10 years back which has village farmers bemoaning that if only Mao was around, these evil corrupt businessmen/officials would have been shot.

There were (and I guess, still are) Mao rallies in one of the cities and the government couldn't really stop them because they were like "memorial Mao rallies" or something. But people essentially spoke of the rich-poor gap and current injustice. Not sure which city, I've read it a while ago when I was still on Hainan.

You have movies protraying the people upset at the rate of change in society, rap songs about the disparity between Hutongs and skyscrapers...

I don't think people are "upset" with the rate of change. They are upset with the character of change. BTW, some Chinese alternative music (e.g. Xin) and rap, as well as some of the new hyperrealist school directors (e.g. Jia Zhangke with his Sanxia Haoren and City 24) are excellent in portraying the problems (as well as achievements) of the modern Chinese society. I'd heavily recommend watching Sanxia Haoren and City 24 to people who want to understand what modern China looks like. Zhangke's vision of China largely corresponds to our own. We haven't been here long enough, only half a year, but we have seen many cities on our endless trips. Most of the urban people are content with the general situation in China, but discontent with certain tendencies.

[Rogue 9]

Okay, I have to ask. Why the fuck is it amazing that this didn't happen in the United States? For all its flaws, the US, unlike China, isn't a tyrannical oligarchy that gets to exercise arbitrary power over its subjects citizens; it's not surprising at all that this happened in China, and expecting it of the United States is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

[K. A. Pital]

Okay, I have to ask. Why the fuck is it amazing that this didn't happen in the United States? For all its flaws, the US, unlike China, isn't a tyrannical oligarchy that gets to exercise arbitrary power over its subjects citizens; it's not surprising at all that this happened in China, and expecting it of the United States is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Why is it stupid? In nations which more or less correspond to the term oligarchy, individuals can get thrown in jail on false charges (say, planting pot inside an activist's backpack, happens lots of time in Russia and does not, really, require anything but a few corrupt policemen and a bunch of hired goons - and zero interference from the state itself). Like it or not, for many, including myself, the US is an oligarchy - even if not exactly "tyrannical".

[Broomstick]

While such actions are not now happening in the US, there are examples in history where those who opposed or exposed corporations in the US were ruthlessly crushed. So not only could it happen, it has happened. Just not recently (that we know about).

[Rogue 9]

Okay, I have to ask. Why the fuck is it amazing that this didn't happen in the United States? For all its flaws, the US, unlike China, isn't a tyrannical oligarchy that gets to exercise arbitrary power over its subjects citizens; it's not surprising at all that this happened in China, and expecting it of the United States is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Why is it stupid? In nations which more or less correspond to the term oligarchy, individuals can get thrown in jail on false charges (say, planting pot inside an activist's backpack, happens lots of time in Russia and does not, really, require anything but a few corrupt policemen and a bunch of hired goons - and zero interference from the state itself). Like it or not, for many, including myself, the US is an oligarchy - even if not exactly "tyrannical".

I'm sure someone could get thrown in jail on false charges in the United States as well; all it would take is some local-scale corruption involving the DA and possibly a county judge. But that's not what happened here; Zhao Lianhai was thrown in prison explicitly for "inciting social disorder" by putting up a website. Presumably there's nothing false about it; China's system legitimately (for certain values of "legitimate," at any rate) allows the government to toss someone in the clink for simply putting words to paper, or webspace as the case may be, whether the actual charge be inciting disorder, subverting state power, or what have you. This simply could not happen in the United States; if a DA hauled someone before a court and tried to get the judge to sentence him to prison for publishing a website that wasn't doing anything overtly criminal (peddling child pornography, disseminating state secrets, or direct incitements to violence, for instance) he'd be laughed out of the courthouse and more likely than not impeached. There certainly wouldn't be criminal punishment for simply advocating lawsuits against a company that deliberately poisoned the food supply; quite the contrary, there would already be a huge class action or three going. That is why it's stupid; if nothing else the United States is ridiculously lawsuit-happy. Expecting criminal punishment for engaging in one is absurd.

While such actions are not now happening in the US, there are examples in history where those who opposed or exposed corporations in the US were ruthlessly crushed. So not only could it happen, it has happened. Just not recently (that we know about).

If nothing else, court proceedings are a matter of public record. If it happened (legally), somebody would know about it and I doubt it would stay quiet for very long. As I said, trumping up charges to get at someone for advocating against a company could happen, but there's a large difference between that and the case this thread is about.

[K. A. Pital]

Presumably there's nothing false about it; China's system legitimately (for certain values of "legitimate," at any rate) allows the government to toss someone in the clink for simply putting words to paper, or webspace as the case may be, whether the actual charge be inciting disorder, subverting state power, or what have you.

Oh, I see. Thing is, it wouldn't be unexpected for China if he'd be thrown in jail for something obviously political, but he was trying to campaign against Sanlu, which itself was the target of Chinese penal system for the melamine case. That is why I said this is unexpected - that is basically shooting your own effort in the foot. So it is not unexpected for China to throw people in jail for "inciting social disorder" - what is peculiar about this case is that the Chinese state has come to basically protect a private entity (Sanlu) from consequences of their misdeeds by putting an anti-corporate activist in jail. Which is hardly a case of self-protection by the Chinese government.

And when a government basically puts people into jail for opposing a private company, this means the thin line between the government and the oligarchy, at that point, ceases to exist.

[ray245]

The question is why would china have a sudden shift in stance now?

[Broomstick]

It seems to me that China's current rulers dislike anyone organizing people to any degree unless that organization is wholly owned and controlled by the Party. Independent organizations, no matter how benign, seem to be viewed as a potential threat. So maybe it's not so much that he opposed Sanlu but that he was bringing people together without the express approval of the Party?