"... Wang and her husband, human rights attorney Bao Longjun, were detained July 9 and accused of inciting subversion of state power. In early January, they were formally arrested, their lawyer told the New York Times on Jan. 13. The pair have been incommunicado since July, when they began languishing under “residential surveillance”—a status sometimes interpreted to be the equivalent of house arrest but that is actually akin to a “black jail.” There, detainees are held in solitary confinement and subjected to extreme interrogation, forced confessions and even torture. Family members, friends and colleagues have been denied access or even knowledge of their whereabouts.
In April 2015, three months before she disappeared, human rights lawyer Wang protested against expropriations of farmland and properties in Suzhou, northwest of Shanghai.
The arrests of Wang and Bao are just the tip of the iceberg. By mid-November, more than 300 people had been swept up in what human rights monitors describe as an unprecedented crackdown on Chinese lawyers. Those detained or questioned include not only some of the most active rights lawyers but also their support staff, associates and even family members. At least three have seen their children’s passports confiscated and their movements curtailed."
But again. They do things differently. There is unjust percsecution of Lawyers in China (I am not surprised). There are are unjust invasions of countries by "The West" (also, not surprised).
My point is, there is no moral superiority, just political agendas and sides to be chosen/avoided. I think reading news about china (especially if it's in english) is to realise that fact. (Same advice goes to chinese reading news about anything if it's in chinese ;) ).
Crying hypocracy is a substitute for an arguement.
When someone says "spreading human rights" they are appealing to a moral superiority. I'm pointing out there isn't one. But if the sand is comfortable by all means keep your head in there.
Topics like this are not black and white. It is just a waste of time (unless one is a politician making noises to get elected) talking about these topics without solid proof and even then it should be case by case basis, instead of broad generalizations.
Al Gore conceded the election. You can watch his speech on YouTube. If that's not a "win" for his opponent, I don't know what is.