Back in 2001 Toronto lost its bid for the 2008 Olympics to Beijing.

Many blamed the loss on Mel Lastman’s clowning. Like when Mel, before visiting Kenya to promote Toronto's Olympic bid, joculated, “I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me.” Which, despite Mel’s abject apologizing, prompted Olympic Committee member Alpha Ibrahim Diallo of Guinea to raise concerns about fundamental respect for human rights in Canada.

Mel’s clowning entirely aside, the bond linking Olympic Games to protest and human rights is no joke. Never has been, never will be. Yes, it’s a fundamental principle of the Olympic Games that politics play no part whatsoever in them. But we know far better. Just how fundamentally that principle is not practiced.

Can we remember anything about the 1968 games more vividly than Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ gloved fists raised at the podium? Should we remember anything about the 1972 Munich Olympics but terrorism – when murdering innocent civilians was introduced to the world stage? The 1976 Montreal Olympics were boycotted by African nations protesting a New Zealand rugby team’s visit to South Africa. Jimmy Carter got Machiavellian and kept the United States out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics – protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then, in 1984, the Soviet Union got Orwellian and forced Eastern European nations away in boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

Everybody knows, remembers and keeps Olympic protest scoring. The Olympic Committee knew all about the link to human rights when, after awarding the 2008 Games to Beijing, Committee member Gerhard Heiberg of Norway said, “The message was clear: We wanted to see the Olympic Games in China. We think this will open up China.” And while so passionately seeking to be awarded the 2008 Games, of course China knew there were bonds linking Olympics particularly with human rights protest. On having the 2008 Games awarded, Chinese sports minister Weimen Yuan even mentioned, “..not least, progress in the human rights cause.” Almost sounded like he was making promises, when he said “.. we will continue to open ourselves wider to the outside world and carry out more reforms.”

Terrific. Minister Yuan wasn’t lying. China, at however glacial pace, does continue to open and carry out more reforms. Apace, reforming does proceed. For instance, after the dramatic “FREE TIBET” banner unfurling at the Great Wall of China, the two Canadian and four accomplice members of Students for a Free Tibet were only interrogated for 36 hours prior getting deported. Only interrogated. Not tortured. Not shot. Not disappeared – no longer than 36 hours, anyway. Just interrogated – not permanently disappeared. And that’s huge progress from past decades. Progress so huge, one might feel a little glad for Toronto losing its 2008 Olympic bid to Beijing. Glad for Megacity Mel’s clowning, for Toronto’s loss – for the contribution to China’s glacial opening and reforming.

It really is terrific. How the Chinese government hasn’t over-reacted. What’s absurd – not in the least terrific – is how Globe readers over-reacted. How the great majority of readers reacted in rage. Makes no sense how ninety percent of readers commenting the Globe’s August 9th article – Tibet protesters cut off from Canada for 36 hours - seemed so enraged. Like Dr. G Mobile, who wrote: “Why do the Chinese let these folks in their country? Frankly I find the whole thing embarrassing.” Or Bill M, who wrote, “Did they expect luxury accomodations [sic] after the arrests?” Or Just a Lucky So-and-So, who wrote, “Cut off for 36 hours, you say? Lucky that was all that was cut off!” And those were just the first three. Got worse from there.

Peter Li, commenting on a related Globe article – Tech-savvy pro-Tibet protesters get message across - wrote:

.. this dirty game of yours of trying to protest China. But you never think that if you do a stunt like this, China won't do the same thing to you? They can say they want Quebec to separate from you and your country will literally collapse.

Perhaps Mr. Li has never heard of Quebec referenda. When the people of Quebec get together and vote whether to separate or to remain Canadian. And certainly – should Quebec ever choose to separate, it would be a sad day for what remains of Canada. Sad indeed. Not a bloody massacre, though.

And Tibet, unlike Quebec, used to be a sovereign nation until 50 years back. What if Tibetans continue to identify as a distinct people? Since Mr. Li – and so many other readers commenting at the Globe – have drawn the comparison to Canada. How about seriously considering the Canadian example? All the examples of Quebec referenda.

How about it, Mr. Li? What would happen if the people of Tibet had themselves a referendum whether they wanted to be Chinese or not? Are not all distinct peoples entitled to independent nations? Are not the people of Tibet entitled to some say in the matter?

More like crystal than finest China what would happen. Wouldn’t get nowhere near any referendum whether to be or not to be Chinese. Wouldn’t even get to calling for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet. Just as reported on August 3rd in the Globe – Scores of ethnic Tibetans arrested in China: reports. When literally scores of people got arrested in one Tibetan area for daring to call a return of the Dalai Lama.

Never mind. Most deranging about readers’ comments was how misdirected their rage grew not only at the Canadian protesters – but at all Canadians and Canada as a whole. As Mr. Li put it,

You people have no respect for other type of people and you're actually the worst country for human rights… Now you people are talking about how other countries have no human rights? This is why I don't like Canadians. They keep on trying to pretend their like the king of the world and trying to get attention from China while China don't care about you at all. They don't want to do any business with you and you're nothing but trouble like this situation. This is why I'm saying China should just cut diplomatic relationship with your country cuz your nothing but trouble… Regardless of you people doing this, it ain't gonna benefit one thing cuz it ain't gonna stop China from rising and there's nothing you people can do about it.

Hopefully, Mr. Li and the apparently many others enraged at Canada will take note – as the Chinese government no doubt has – of the traditional bond linking human rights protesting with the Olympics. More importantly, Canadians neither resent nor fear China. We recognize both the increasing economic ascendancy and the continuing – however glacial – reforming of China.

The real trouble when it comes to the Tibet issue is not that we look down on China. We totally don’t. The trouble is how everyone – not just Canadians – looks up to Tibet. We look up to Tibetan culture. Beyond even issues of rights to which distinct peoples are entitled, we can’t forget Tibet. Because Tibetan culture has long since come to represent an ideal. It stands for how understanding, perspective and wisdom may transcend the materialism into which so much of our world has fallen.

That’s why we can’t forget what Tibet stood and continues to stand for. Why we keep hoping for Tibet to stand once again.

[Peter Fruchter is a part-time faculty member in the Division of Humanities at York University. He writes about the nature of truth (and truths of nature). His Culture and Multiculture series appears regularly here at Reading Toronto.]

Image of International Day of Action for Tibet march in Toronto, August 2007. This photograph was taken by Gavatron and is used via Creative Commons license.

1. Peter, you can thank Prime Minister Harper and his trusted advisor Tenzin Khangsar for the Tibet Indpendence flag:

   http://www.google.com/search?q=Tenzin+Khangsar+Student+For+Free+Tibet

   http://www.google.com/search?q=Stephen+Harper+Tenzin+Khangsar

   Posted by  on  08/11  at  01:06 AM

2. Professor Fruchter, does Canadians look up to the First People? Enough to reliniquish Canada’s “established statehood” and “existing sovereignty” towards First Nation Independence?

   Yet, Harper and Khangsar’s shills would demand this of China.

   People living in glass house should not throw stones.

   Posted by Charles Liu  on  08/11  at  01:12 AM
4. Hi Charles -- please, just call me Peter. There was some native protesting recently. Couple months ago. And this protesting involved blockading some principal highways (i.e., 401) and rail lines. No doubt some in Toronto got pretty angry about the blockading. Especially those personally affected. Even native protest leader Shawn Brant recognized this was a bit much. Like when he said that "People were concerned that it may be too much of an imposition and erode any support that there might be for First Nations' issues". But, at least from what I've seen and heard, there was less anger over blockading than the "FREE TIBET" banner. And, if so -- isn't that a little crazy? Look. Negotiating in good faith is not the end of the world. Not even the end of the state. We're already "two nations -- one state" here in Canada. Far as (not only) I am concerned, why not eight nations? Why not recognize the Six Nations officially? Never mind Canada so much. No one can forget Tibet -- what Tibet stood for. The entire world hopes for China to negotiate the issue of Tibet in better faith. And now, with the Beijing Olympics - the world is watching. Chinese officials must have known the scrutiny and potential for human rights protesting Olympic Games entail. Yet China absolutely sought these Olympic Games. Good for China for not having over-reacted (too much) to this protest. Personally, I very much hope that will remain Chinese policy -- since it is likely there will be quite a bit more protesting to come. Perhaps more than at most previous Olympic Games. Thank you for commenting, Charles. I'd just like to stress that none of this is against Chinese ascendancy on the world stage. It is simply that there's no forgetting Tibet. Not in 50 years -- not even in 500.
   
   Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  08/11  at  10:55 AM

5. Peter, please take a look at the falg that was hung – it didn’t say “two nations one state” – it said “Tibet Independence” and demanded the Chinese to decimante their established statehood and existing sovereignty.

   It’s very dishnoest of you to ignore that.

   Also, was the protest in Canada you mentioned a grassroots/local action, or was it some foreign group connection with foreign government? Did some kids connected with upper echelons of the Chinese do it?

   That is the case with Students for a free Tibet, and I’ve given you the connection.

   Again, very dishonest of you.

   The question is simple – are we willing to decimate our own American/Canadian stateood, and return the stolen land for “Native American Independence”, “First Nation Independence”?

   Proverb says “those living in glass house should not throw stones”, “charity begins at home” – what right do we have to demand others, when we don’t have the heart to measure ourselves?

   Posted by  on  08/12  at  11:25 PM
7. "No one can forget Tibet—what Tibet stood for." Yet you seem to have perfectly rationalized and forgotten our own "Tibet". Hypocrisy.
   
   Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  08/12  at  11:29 PM

8. Charles, it’s because we don’t forget “our own” Tibet that negotiating in good faith can take place. It’s because we don’t forget “our own” Tibet that negotiations eventually lead to such good will. Such good will that we can even conceive solutions like “two nations—one state”.

   First, some responsibility. Then, over many years, attempts to negotiate. Finally, if enough good faith, friendship.

   See? Of course it can not begin with friendship. Like, two friends—one house. Two nations—one state. Friendship is the finish line. Not the first step.

   The first step is some responsibility.

   Posted by  on  08/13  at  12:21 AM
10. Go figure. Response to Charles posted at 12:21 a.m. last night. At 1:48 a.m. last night, the following article appeared in the Globe & Mail: Quebec Inuit to sign historic self-governance agreement Greetings to the (future? already?) self-governing people of Inavik. Canada will be many nations -- one state. Pretty much happening only in Canada. Pity. Almost everywhere but Canada, they blow each other up until they manage figuring out who's in charge. But in Canada, it's like many friends in one house. Increasingly, it's like many nations -- one state. How? What's the secret? Friendship, of course. But friendship like that isn't cheap. Doesn't come from hating. Doesn't even come from wishing. Comes from stepping right and smart. First step first: taking some responsibility. And that, Charles, means that when banners are raised reminding how an entire people have been subjugated by (not only) violence. When an action so non-violent as raising a "FREE TIBET" banner takes place. What taking some responsibility means is NOT saying anything like: How dare they say anything against us! They want to destroy us! They want to "decimate established statehood and existing sovereignty" of China! We must destroy them first. No, Charles. Taking smallest first baby-step of responsibility means listening. Listening enough to realize how "FREE TIBET" does not mean "decimate" China.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  08/13  at  10:22 AM

11. Peter, that’s where you’ve fallen victim to Harper/Khangsar’s propaganda.

    Look at the flag again – I bet you saw the “Free Tibte” in English, but didn’t notice the Chinese writing didn’t say “Free Tibet” – it says “Tibet Independence”.

    That’s quite a difference isn’t it? Again you argue with dishonesty – “self-governing” under existing Canadian statehood is very different than what Khansar’s shills were asking.

    Again hypocrisy abound.

    And remember it was the British who armed the Tibetans, it was the British who violently annexed Tibet from China.

    And now the Chinese had the guns to reclaim their land, you have forgotten all about the violence from the colonial legacy?

    Tibet had been part of China for 600 years before the colonialists showed up.

    Posted by  on  08/13  at  01:25 PM

12. Charles, I don’t see how any of that matters. Tibetans are a people. Right now. Today. And all distinct peoples constituting distinct societies are entitled to their own political self-determination and territorial integrity.

    How much self-determination is debatable. Negotiable. What isn’t debatable is when. Like, right now. If negotiations get delayed until tomorrow, then today becomes a day of injustice. And what a drag—if the Beijing Olympics wind up standing for injustice.

    That’s it for today. Case closed.

    Maybe you don’t want to talk about today. Only about yesterday. Ok, fine. How did we get to where we are today? Well, what else. Probably the fault of the British. But.. come on. After the post-partitioning troubles between Israel and Jordan; between India and Pakistan; between the Sinhala and Tamils in Sri Lanka; between Irish Catholics and Protestants. After all those troubles—you want to make Tibetans’ efforts at self-determination out as unreasonable? Criminal? Terrorist?

    Come on, Charles. What does it matter if the banner read “FREE TIBET” or “Tibet Independence”? Hell. What stands out is proceeding by banner rather than by bomb. That’s what stands out. How Tibetans get voted least likely to kill innocent civilians. Maybe not never. But so much less than anyone else anywhere.

    Has any resistance, ever, been less violent than Tibetans’? And here (not only) you are getting so outraged.

    Probably the Chinese government is nowhere near ready to negotiate in good faith with Tibetans. Not yet. Not today. But already, the Chinese government is probably much less outraged by the “FREE TIBET” banner than you are, Charles. Could have done much worse than interrogating protesters for 36 hours. And that’s good as far as justice goes. That’s going forward, at least.

    Just my impression from this exchange, Charles—doesn’t seem you want to go forward. Seems to me you’re more “colonialist” minded than what I’ve heard the British used to be like. When it comes to Tibet, anyhow.

    Posted by  on  08/13  at  02:32 PM
14. Who is the one brought up what happened 50 years ago? Not me. Peter, if you want to talk about today, let me tell you what is happening today: - Tibet SAR is one large contiguous territory following its historical boundries (in US/Canada reservations are tiny, fragmented, nearly uninhabitable land the white people don't desire.) - Tibetan's life expectancy is about the same as rest of China (not sure about Canada, but in US Native Americans live 20 years less than rest of us.) So who is the one not negotiating in good faith? We continue to sit on broken promises to the Native Americans, genocidally eliminating their culture and identity (after the phyical genocide failed.) - If "when" is not debatable, right now we are treating the Native Americans worse than the Chinese treat the Tibetans. Where's the outrage and giant flags? And to Khangsar's shills, "how much self-determination" is not even negotiable - they are demanding the Chinese to decimate their existing statehood for Tibet independence. Again, hypocrisy abound. - Of course it doesn't matter to you weither the banner says “FREE TIBET” or “Tibet Independence” - the demand is not to decimate your/our existing statehood, so who care. Well, if you are honest enough to see this word-weasling from Khangsar's shills - from the Chinese POV, perhaps you'll see the difference.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  08/13  at  07:46 PM
16. Charles, You say you didn't bring up the past. Even though, one post earlier, you had written "And remember it was the British who armed the Tibetans, it was the British who violently annexed Tibet from China." You claim "We continue to sit on broken promises to the Native Americans, genocidally eliminating their culture and identity (after the phyical genocide failed.)" Even though, in post 7 I provided spectacular evidence to the contrary. The link to Globe article about how northern half of Quebec is to become self-governing Inavik. With respect to Native protest, you ask "Where’s the outrage and giant flags?" Completely ignoring what I've pointed out in post 3 -- that blockading rail lines and principal highways is a tad more serious than unfurling a "giant flag". And that Canadians nevertheless get less flipped out about blockading than you seem to about unfurling. And you suggest Tibetans haven't got it so bad (".. we are treating the Native Americans worse than the Chinese treat the Tibetans..."}. Despite the link in my article to the Globe report detailing how scores of Tibetans just got arrested for daring to call the return of the Dalai Lama. You know what, Charles? I'm glad to reason with you. Also debate with you. Hell -- we might even both learn something. But just contradicting? No thanks. Nothing to be gained -- nevermind learned. Not for participants nor for the audience.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  08/13  at  08:42 PM

17. Peter, where was your “why bring up the past” when Students for a free Tibet brought up what happened 50 years ago?

    If you insists on debating with dishonesty, maybe I should not take you so seriousely.

    Again you bring up “self-governing” while ignoring the fact Khangsar/Harper’s shills were demanding “Independence” – completely different.

    When will you recognize this disparaging sentiments are apples and organges, and the fact we will never decimate our own statehood for Native American Independence?

    Then what right do we have to demand others?

    As to the Native protest/blocking rail lines, you need to address the fact while it is grassroots, Students for a free Tibet is a quasi-government organization connected to the Canadian government thru Harper’s advisor Tenzin Khangsar.

    Again, completely different scenarios you ignore because it proves to the world there exist systemic animosity and hatred for China.

    And the larger question of why us foreigners seems prefor animosity than constructive criticism when they talking about Beijing Olympic?

    None of CA, UK or US can be a guard of human rights.

    What we could do is just to try our best, but DO NOT finding faults with China.

    Posted by Charles Liu  on  08/14  at  02:01 PM
19. "You say you didn’t bring up the past." Peter, I said I wasn't the one who brought up what happened 50 years ago. Please don't put words in my mouth, it's very dishonest of you.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  08/14  at  02:10 PM

20. Charles.. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. Just thought 50 years ago was in the past.

    No matter. Thank you for commenting, Charles.

    Posted by  on  08/14  at  08:28 PM
22. It's a waste of time to engage with Charles Liu (or "Bobby Fletcher," an alias Liu also posts under). He is a troll who apparently spends countless hours surfing for any bit of negative reporting on China's human rights record, posting pro-China comments. That he seemingly has limitless time to do this – his comments appear at the bottom of every blog post I've come across about Students for a Free Tibet's recent Olympics protests in Beijng – has led many to accuse him of being a Chinese spy. Spy or not, he is a first-rate apologist and provocateur. He is also a liar, as he has consistently spread the rumor that SFT is connected to the Harper government despite my correcting him several times (see: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/08/09/china-one-olympics-one-voice/). He is infamous for his annoying blog comment-board tantrums and you can even read a story about him in Alberta's Western Standard called "Sowing Confusion:" http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=2436 [Note: you may have to register to read the article, it's free] So don't waste your time as I'm wasting mine now!
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  09/11  at  10:58 AM
24. So I'm merely a "sympathizer" now? What happened to your accusation that I'm paid? I deny your accusation of being paid. If you have proof let’s see it, I sure can use the money – unlike y’all have the resouce to book all they way to China. And who are you trying to kid? Tenzin Khangsar has been part of SFT and Tibet Independence long before he hooked up with Harper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/elections/fed2005/candidates/generated/24011_CON.html
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  09/11  at  11:53 AM

25. lmao… Charles, you just proved Han right by immediately responding to him…

    Nobody else is reading this anymore…

    Posted by  on  09/11  at  12:50 PM

26. Charles: I have better things to do than argue with you (as I just advised others) but for the record, nowhere in your linked article about Tenzin Khangsar does it mention Students for a Free Tibet. That’s because you’ve got the WRONG Tenzin Khangsar. As I’ve tried to explain to you before, it’s a quite common name for a Tibetan. Yes, there is a Tenzin Khangsar in Canada affiliated with Students for a Free Tibet. He is a 22-year old recent college grad who interned this summer in an MP’s constituent office http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=17255&t=1
    (I assume the source of your confusion). He’s NOT the person referred to in your linked article (read it again and you’ll hopefully realize that it’s unlikely that the then 14-year old SFT-affiliated Tenzin Khangsar founded a $10 million dollar technology company in 1999 after working for another company for several years prior, right?) So drop it already. It only weakens your already questionable credibility.

    Posted by  on  09/11  at  02:14 PM

27. Peter, your blog send comment notifications – that’s how I knew Han Shan posted.

    Not any special effort or spy craft.

    Han Shan, you are not fooling anybody. Tenzin Khangsar’s leadership position with the Tibet Committee is proven, and so is Tibet Committee’s association with SFT:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Students+For+Free+Tibet,+Tibet+Committee

    See for yourself.

    Posted by  on  09/11  at  04:31 PM

<< Back to main