Sure. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rcmp-chinese-police-st...

Thank you! Reading this, it seems to be unclear/unspecified in the text exactly who or what group was involved in this or whether there was affiliation to the Chinese state. That's the part I'm really interested in though.

It was very clear.

I read through the linked text twice. Where?

One was shut down in Glasgow, Scotland and other UK cities:

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/chinese-secret-police-stati...

Here you go, you can pick one of the several hundred articles written about the topic over the past 3-4 years from the world's oldest, more reputable and foremost news gathering/journalism organizations.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&channel=ent...

What's a primary source in this context? The Chinese government?

I didn't know this before searching for it, but there's a wikipedia article with a list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_servic...

Very interesting, thank you!

This isn't some obscure conspiracy. This an open and known practice of the CCP.

Which should make it easier to provide a source. Other comments have already done so, I was able to read up on it.

This is one of those things that's so well known, with plenty of sources, it's kind of odd to have to ask for one. Any search should have been full of these results.

I don't think it is odd and I disagree with you. First, if you find too many search results, that is just as bad as not finding any. Secondly, when it comes to this specific issue, the quality of information can range from unusable to thorough based on what article about it you read. Given that "Secret overseas Chinese police force" is such a good headline, there are many many websites and lower tier news sites publishing about this. There seems to be no one catalyst publication that broke this story first. This makes it hard to establish any objective facts about it (for me). On top of all this, there may also be personal bias involved when reporting about it.

Given all this, why is it so odd for me to ask for more information here? Like, instead of discouraging me from asking for more information in the future, you could have listed the sources you feel are usable.

people seem downvote you, but I think this is a good example of how discussions SHOULD work.

> A: makes a strong claim, suggesting it to be well known

> B: doubts

> [100 people provide credible sources]

Also congrats for being 1 of 10000 today i guess https://xkcd.com/1053/

I didn't downvote the comment, but I would have done so. If we want to talk about how discussions should work then the commenter should have first spent two minutes researching and/or explained why sources like the Associated Press (my first result when copying and pasting the comment in DuckDuckGo) aren't reliable.

"I don't understand" is a good way to foment discussion. "I don't believe you" usually isn't.

I believe the Associated Press is a reliable source, I'm not sure where I stated otherwise...

I just want to state for the record that I didn't claim to disagree with the comment nor am I a conspiracy theorist, nor a Chinese spy... I only asked for more information (which other comments have then provided).

Yes. I didn't doubt the claim. But I was able to read a lot about the topic and inform myself better by visiting the links in some of the responses.

One may call me lazy but I think it was a valid request and I also believe that informing oneself is not quite as easy as it perhaps seems. I certainly don't think it's as simple as "googling the issue" when it comes to something like this.

> B: doubts

It's weird to doubt something that's been in the news a bunch and is reported on by reputable sources though. Instead of expecting 100 people to do a basic search for them, they should have done their own search and only doubted if they didn't find anything.

You may have read a different comment then. I didn't doubt this claim, I only asked for more information about it. And no, one should never be discouraged from doing so, even if a "basic search" (not exactly well defined either) leads to many results.

This whole "do your own research" attitude is not good. It's easy to make any claim whatsoever without any basis of truth in this manner. Good for you if that is enough for you but for me that is not enough, logically speaking.

Primary sources exist(ed?) on Chinese web, i.e. provincial gov websites advertising these "overseas service centres" used for diaphora services like renew PRC drivers license, which western western MSM regurgitating "Safeguard Defender" propaganda turn into overseas "police stations". Services also entail liasing with PRC law enforcement, i.e. if Chinese tourist gets robbed, they can refer to service centres for guidance, but it's largely PRC public security telling them how to work with local authorities due to language barrier (see drama of Italian police patrolled with Chinese police). These setups exist because PRC tourists/diasphora everywhere now (and thus targetted everywhere), but most places haven't brought up Chinese competency in public services.

Except US, AFAIK no other gov investigating has publically released evidence of foul play. Like there's arguments to close these stations are extra territorial setups, except as far as I'm aware, they're run by diasophra citizens of countries, not Chinese nationals. And LBH, anything pertaining to US actions vs China from last few years is indistinguishable from propaganda. There's some US court docs on the couple Chinese (US citizens) in NY being prosecuted for repressing dissidents on behalf of PRC gov, that's as close to primary source as you can get. This all without touching the founder of SafeGuard Defender, Peter Dahlin... history with PRC, first westerner to be charged for work undermining national security afer NGO reforms, arrested for a few weeks, deported, seperated from Chinese gf). Let's just say he's got bones to pick.

IMO accusations are borderline retarded, and unsurprisingly borderline retarded western msm and useful idiots in west believe it. Spend half a second thinking why PRC intelligence operations would coordinate under very public (and publically advertised) arrangements that gets comingled with civil activities. It's dumbest possible "front" to host these activities, especially for operation foxhunt tier work. Like Chinese spies, especially those with foreign citizenship,can get all sorts of cover work that doesn't directly linked back to official Chinese gov activities (as in terms of paperwork)... and they choose what, network of borderline extraterritorial consulate service arrangements?

E: The TLDR for me is western (really US led) propaganda associated with broad effort to dismantle PRC's United Front like work abroad, started with Chinese programs at various universities. Because again, Chinese intelligence so stupid and lazy (or bold) that they would setup in actual campuses. Which itself is response to PRC basically destroying US/Western NGO operations in PRC mid 2010s for subversive influence ops. Except Chinese don't really run large think tanks or well resourced NGOs as cover for their intelligence activities aboard. They don't need to, they have diasphora citizens everywhere already integrated. The few comparable arrangments that exist are United Front related setups in the west.

This rings true, except for the part where Western media and police are intelligent or competent enough that you should call it, "propaganda".

Its just racism.