Comments:Shoe thrown at Chinese PM during speech at Cambridge University in the UK

Well, this shoe-throwing guy has little knowledge of Chinese politics. Wen Jiabao is generally seen as a reformer in the CCP. By hitting the old man, he may well have crushed his own foot of spreading democracy and human rights in China. It is also pathetic when it comes to the question of democracy, more and more people are resorting to "violent" behavior rather than a candid discussion/argument, the real pinnacle of democratic politics.
 * In China, we believe that Wen has no political power as a PM already. The role he plays in CCP currently is just a moral old man to show somthing "new deal wish" to the people, and to cool down the society's anger. --1j1z2 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess that George bush's acciedent had a good effict on people all over the world.

Favorite
"His [the man's] behavior met strong opposition of the entire audience. He was booed and taken away. The whole audience gave long and warm applause to Premier Wen for his excellent speech. The facts demonstrate that the despicable conduct of this troublemaker will win no sympathy, and will not hold back the tide of friendly cooperation between China and Britain," said the Chinese government in a statement posted on their website.
 * I love someone who takes actions on the genocide of Tibet, while the whole world loved it when Georgie Bush gets a shoe and because of him Iraq has democracy.Love the way the works this days.--66.229.21.217 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the student threw the shoe in protest of Communism, not Tibet. In any case, he should not have resorted to violence.--75.16.237.125 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, Georgie's involvement with the invasion of Iraq was rubber-stamping the orders and trying to sell it to the U.S. public. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and a bunch of other people had decided Iraq needed levelling while Clinton was still in power. Being hopelessly naive, they thought they could get away with toppling an entrenched dictator and the people would welcome them with open arms. This was secondary, the key objective was to send a message globally of, "We are American - we can kick your butt". One of the key reasons Iraqis seem to have taken to the recent elections is that is the only realistic way they're going to get the Americans out. They hate GWB, most of the Shias still haven't forgiven his father for stopping supporting them when Kuwait was liberated.
 * Of course, this has little to do with a student throwing a shoe at the Chinese PM. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will Iraq abandon democratic elections once the US is out? I mean, if that is the key motivation for the participating in them ... --SVTCobra 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Violence? Perspective.
Compared to the the massive and small acts of violence that this regime is responsible of and has been responsible of for decades, a flying shoe is little more than a small gesture. Which makes the reactions of the PM Wen and his government really interesting in my opinion. Instead of shrugging it off - as they probably should have - it is called a despicable act. A flying shoe, a random guy who yells dictator! Come on. Bush shrugged it off. It is 'despicable' because this guy is more right than wrong, and that's exactly the thing you can't do in China - critize and be right about it. We don't want to know what would have happened to him there. And that's exactly what gives this random incident significance. Some insight can be gained from it - into the mindset of people who control millions and millions of other people's lives. And I mean control. To them such an act is intolerable. As for the Uni that's on an other page... Make your own opinion. --boo (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to say what you said is wrong, but just to point out that before the communist takeover of China in 1949, the same words you said has been said of the Kuomintang by the communists. Look at how the communists are doing now. Violence never does justice to violence.


 * Of course. You're right. But here were talking about a shoe and words. It just doesn't compare. In terms of violence I mean. --92.104.189.63 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys (add expletive) kidding here, over wether the civil disobedience that the guy decided to serve justice for what is a non-violent crime by any stretch of the imagination. I mean this isn't that asian guy with the hat from the old James Bond movie that'll cut your head off, right? Is that comparable to contributing to the genocide in Sudan? Are you on drugs, I mean seriously, no offense meant but still really? 400,000 deaths... blah, blah... check me down the page. peace,N-

New bush
Huh, I think there is new Bush here.

lol

Why did the 27yr old shoe thrower, call the Chinese Prime Minister a "dictator?"
We could certainly imagine that there are crazy people out there who does strange or illegal things. This is not a completely random from of expression however.

People hit Saddam's statue with shoes after he was overthrown. Journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi threw his shoes at bush. An unnamed (27-year-old) man threw his shoe at Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao. UPDATE: "This is a scandal" as he interrupted Wen's speech from the back of the auditorium. "This dictator here, how can you listen to the lies he's telling? You are not challenging him," and "Stand up and protest,"

So let's consider the argument that in the case Saddam, bush and Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, shoe actions, might have been a protest for civil rights, even using civil disobedience. Somehow this or any motive is completely absent from this article. Isn't it the role of the news, press or god forbid, journalism, to relay not only facts but the opposing frames of the background of a conflict as a reference for the readers to develop a dialogue so they can ponder the evidence.

So let us consider PM, Wen Jiabao's civil rights record for a second. As a member of the Fourth generation or "republican generation" leadership he has had bush's support threw rebuke of Taiwan's president in 2003. Taiwan previously has strong support from the US maintaining its independence from China.

The following were from wikipedia & :

"We don't wish for foreign intervention, but we are not afraid of it." as an allusion to the United States' stance on Taiwan. -Wen

"Although the 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech,[6] the Chinese government often uses the subversion of state power clause to imprison those who are critical of the government"

"2007 the military budget rose 17.8 percent compared to the previous year"

"The Chinese government had promised to issue permits allowing people to protest in so-called 'protest parks' during the Games,[20] but on 18 August it was reported that of 77 applications, 74 were withdrawn, two suspended and one vetoed."

See this 2005 article: "China torture 'still widespread'" [] Wen's Premiership started in 2003.

"China is Sudan's largest economic partner, with a 40% share in their oil,[126] and also sells Sudan small arms." "In July 2008, the BBC reported that China is training fighter pilots for and selling army lorries to Sudan, in violation of the 2006 arms embargo."

In the "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 The reported tolls ranged from 200–300 (PRC government figures) and to 2,000–3,000 (Chinese student associations and Chinese Red Cross)." -wikipedia

"And what goes through Lu's mind when he sees the remarkable photograph of one man standing in front of a military tank?" "He represents to me and to countless millions of Chinese the fighting spirit of all men against tyranny," Lu says." "I saw the bodies of people who were killed," says Lu. People were mowed down for hours all across Beijing as they tried to stop the army from reaching the square. He says the number of those killed should be in the thousands, not in the hundreds." []

His comment "dictator" would've been better directed as "tyrant" since Wen works in a group structure, regardless of his populist break. It is defined in part as: Putting "the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population." It should be said that with the economic growth that China has experienced and there may have been some opening. Compared to the US prison system, there's is quiet modest.

"The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate,[3][4] and total documented prison population in the world.[5][6] As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.3 million were incarcerated.[7] More than 1 in 100 American adults were incarcerated at the start of 2008. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million, while having four times the population, thus having only about 18% per the US incarceration rate." -

However there is always Tibet. This is from The Heritage Institute (a left wing rights organization): "If the matter of Tibet's sovereignty is murky, the question about the PRC's treatment of Tibetans is all too clear. After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet."

Is there probable cause, to believe there was a reason to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that there might have been breech of civil rights in China, that the shoe throwing man might have been objecting to? Is it Ok to condemn one person for rights violations and not another, because they are from the same country as you or because they have loaned your government money?

Could there be a reson why only one man objected to the Prime Minister? Was there a dialogue with the Prime Minister as the Cambridge official suggested?

Is there a conflict between the rights of the: Chinese, especially Tibetans and Sudanese vs. the British relationship with China? England and China have been on opposite sides of Cold War, First and Second Opium War, and the status of Hong Kong. However Britain has made some concessions to China that are arguably not in the best interest of the people. "30 June-1 July 1997 - Return of Hong Kong to China." That with the, "One Country, Two Systems" Principle "29 October 2008 - HMG recognizes Tibet as an integral part of the PRC. It had previously only recognized Chinese suzerainty over the region." What China does for England? (I am getting at and will be back.)

Thank you for reading, Nick Wheeler, NYC—Nick Wheeler (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

if i would be pres.id kill him and c smith

I Think it's right for the universtiy to say sorry. Go China!!