NGO wars: China has 'serious challenges,' too (original) (raw)

Skip to Content

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

  1. FP Comment

NGO wars: China has 'serious challenges,' too

Lawrence Solomon debates with PEN Canada and U of T’s International Human Rights Program on freedom of expression in China vs India

Published Jun 01, 2015 • 5 minute read

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

AP Photo/Ng Han Guan

AP Photo/Ng Han Guan

We agree with Lawrence Solomon (Pussyfooting in China, 21 May 2015) that there are serious challenges to freedom of expression in China. That’s why, the same day that we released our report on free speech in India, PEN America released a report on politically motivated censorship in China, the second PEN report on China in two years. We endorse the findings of these reports; but surely Solomon cannot be suggesting that, because the situation may be worse in China, India should get a free pass on its dismal record regarding free expression.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Financial Post

THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Sign In or Create an Account

Solomon treats the Indian government’s muzzling of Greenpeace India as analogous to what our own government has done with Greenpeace in Canada. It is not. The Indian government not only prevented Greenpeace India from receiving foreign funding, but, when it discovered that the organization enjoyed significant domestic financial support, it also went on to freeze their bank accounts entirely. Greenpeace India faces imminent closure.

  1. Lawrence Solomon: Pussyfooting with China
  2. Lawrence Solomon: The worldwide crackdown on NGOs

Our research indicates that the Modi government continues to use laws to silence dissent, just as previous governments have done consistently since Partition. Modi campaigned on battling corruption and spurring development. The report outlines reforms that would promote the free expression needed to achieve those goals. Many of them would be relatively easy to implement, including repealing and amending outdated laws that unnecessarily restrict free speech.

We document numerous instances where governments and private citizens use these laws to silence others. The state of India’s administration of justice makes things worse; once charges are laid, it takes years for cases to be heard in court, making the process unbearable. We also outline reforms needed to address endemic corruption within the police force and legal system, which add to the problem. Clearly it is in India’s interests to address corruption and ensure a free press – this is also something its trading partners, including Canada, should encourage.

Top Stories

Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Renu J. Mandhane, Executive Director, International Human Rights Program, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law and Tasleem Thawar, Executive Director, PEN Canada

Lawrence Solomon responds: They’re still pussyfooting

PEN Canada and U of T’s International Human Rights Program (IHRP) do not agree with me in portraying China merely as having “serious challenges to freedom of expression in China.” In its campaigns, PEN Canada does not shy away from using clear, explicit language to describe abuses. The vague pussyfooting term “serious challenges” in no way describes the imprisonment, disappearances, blanket censorship and other totalitarian excesses that today face Chinese citizens who would dare to so much as write an analysis of the Chinese tax system or suggest an educational reform. In China, lawyers who would defend such citizens are themselves imprisoned. China is a tyranny when it comes to freedom of expression. Instead of speaking truth to power, these two organizations — with a mandate to protect free speech in the case of PEN, and to protect human rights in the case of IHRP —mealy-mouth one of the world’s worst violators.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I am also unimpressed with their rebuttal to my criticism of their case against freedom of expression in India. Rather than dissembling and attempting to change the subject, they should stop the spin and stick to the facts.

FACT: These two organizations are inexplicably silent on China’s ongoing crackdown, failing to so much as write a public letter of protest to China’s government or to Canadian politicians. At the same time, they did complain in a letter to Prime Minister Harper over Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to Canada last month, and did produce a sizable study excoriating India — the world’s largest democracy with one of the world’s freest presses — for alleged limitations on freedom of expression.

FACT: PEN America is not PEN Canada or the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program, and its recent study does not absolve PEN Canada and IHRP for poor judgment in pursuing a non-issue. But even if PEN Canada and IHRP had been parties to PEN America’s study, it would have had vanishingly little to do with the Chinese Communist Party crackdown on the freedom of expression of Chinese citizens. The PEN America study — entitled “Censorship and Conscience: Foreign Authors and the Challenges of Chinese Censorship” — is entirely directed at authors outside China whose work is altered by Chinese authorities, some of whom go along with the Chinese regime for fear of losing royalties. It is spin to suggest otherwise.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

FACT: I do not agree that India has a dismal record on freedom of expression. I also don’t equate freedom of expression with the corruption, poor policing and other red herrings that they raise. Canada has corruption scandals, courts plagued by interminable delays, police forces charged with questionable conduct. No one I’m aware of has interpreted those failings as evidence that Canada curtails freedom of expression.

FACT: Contrary to their portrayal, India’s judicial system has generally been held in high regard, as has the freedom of its citizens to express themselves and of their NGOs to participate in their communities. According to a 2012 Human Rights Watch report, India has “a respected judiciary” as well as “a vibrant media [and] an active civil society.” Ironically, the independence of India’s judiciary has been demonstrated recently in the case of Greenpeace India, which saw the Delhi High Court order the Indian government to unlock Greenpeace India’s domestic bank accounts, so that it could continue to operate with domestic funds. That same court in January also sided with Greenpeace India against another government attempt to curb Greenpeace’s activities.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

FACT: The Indian government has treated Greenpeace India with kid gloves compared to the Canadian government’s treatment of Greenpeace Canada. Greenpeace Canada permanently lost its charitable status; Greenpeace India retains its status, and is able to continue to fundraise within India, which provides it with 60 per cent of its budget. Moreover, the Indian government’s charges against Greenpeace are serious. These include failing to account for some 60 million rupees (about $1.2 million) and engaging in non-charitable functions such as financing a former Greenpeace consultant’s campaign for political office and paying villagers to obstruct development projects. These are far more egregious than the lesser charges that cost Greenpeace Canada its charitable status.

India does have human rights failings, though nothing on the scale seen in China. India’s record on “freedom of expression” is not one of them.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

  1. The Canada Revenue Agency headquarters' Connaught Building in Ottawa.
    Taxes
  2. house for sale
    News
  3. Houses and townhouses in Langley, B.C.
    Banking
  4. Condo under construction
    Real Estate
  5. Banking towers in Toronto
    Banking

Notice for the Postmedia Network

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.