Don't get me wrong, the recent treatment of refugees entering the US has been appalling. In my books, no supporter of the current US administration gets to claim they are pro-family or support traditional values, after the deliberate rending of children from their parents, as a terror tactic to scare other migrants away. "Don't come here, look what we will do to your children". Despicable. China can rightly use that as a counterpoint to their actions. The point is, it doesn't get them off the hook though.
These cases in the West are subject to public scrutiny. Journalists and opposition politicians have access to the facilities and to detainees and access to the courts to ensure judicial review. It is absolutely reasonable and fair to expect China to meet the same standards.
[1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete... this is not
This point! According the the link in practise they do not have the ability to leave. So I guess that's the standard "we" should hold "them" to?
> The point is, it doesn't get them off the hook though.
I very much agree, but at the end of the day these choices were made by people - they should be held accountable. Don't hold a politicial system accountable.
That's a rally weird and kind of irrelevant technical point. In that specific case 'leave' means pay for their own flight back to their own country, instead of being deported there by the US government. It does not mean simply walk out of the detention centre. They are in violation of US law and in US custody. The argument is about their humane and fair treatment.
I'm in no way saying the western system is perfect, it's been terribly abused, and still is. My point is that independent journalism, an informed public and independent judicial review are powerful things and do make a difference. It is entirely morally consistent to both argue for fair treatment of people in the west, and advocate it for people in China.
As for political systems, they are created by people. When I say 'China' or 'The Chinese Government' I mean the individuals in power in the Chinese government. They are accountable.
> Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse.
Which you didn't type but deogeo.
> It is entirely morally consistent to both argue for fair treatment of people in the west, and advocate it for people in China.
Agreed with this and everything else you say. My initial point was shifting the conversation away from "pro democratic or anti democratic" into holding people accounting for human right violations. If a political system makes it hard to hold people accountable than that's what we should talk about.
Which one is worse is a bikeshedding discussion which I didn't intend to start with my initial comment.
That's just because the people care now. If people in mainland China start caring for that minority we'll see change as well. There might be outside pressure as well like sanctions (or tariffs I guess) of course.
Maybe I shouldn't have picked immigrants. As I said in another comment: How about how black people are treated in the US (many are in jail for "crimes" that are now legal), how Muslims are treated everywhere in the west? I can come up with many examples of minorities being treated terrible in western democratic countries.
People in China generally have no opinion on it, because they have no idea what is happening. Their media is thoroughly censored and controlled by the government and independent journalism is effectively illegal.
In almost every case the law and public opinion has stopped or prevented the worst mistreatment. The Australian detention centres are winding down, the separation of children from their families ordered by Trump was successfully challenged in court. Massive public protests and press coverage worked.
Therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to hold China to the same standards of public accountability and legal due process that other countries are held to.