A state's restrictions on the rights of individuals, movements and parties to openly criticize the current economic system may be considered by some good or bad depending on how aligned they are with the state's economic system. People aligned with the government point of view may not object to lengthy prison terms for nothing more than the free expression of ideas contrary to the "party line." Of course, in a society without a free press the state's point of view is sure to prevail and most will be coerced into alignment.
Others believe there should be no state restriction on open criticism for politcal economic views not aligned with the state's economic system. These people do not believe in imprisonment for those who do no more than freely express their ideas.
Which system of state governance do you prefer? Imprisonment or no imprisonment for the free expression of ideas?
The quotes attributable to Liu by poster BBW come from a Tariq Ali piece (see linked source, a reprint from the original) appearing in the London Review Blog. Tarik, himself, manages to comfortably combine a virulent anti-west, Marxist socioeconomic, pro-Chavez philosophy with a successful, entreprenurial career as author and film maker that has allowed him to enjoy a privileged residence in London's Highgate area.
Some of the commentators at the London Review Blog source question the accuracy of the statements attributable to Liu by Tarik. Some assert that the alleged statements may be inexact hyperbole, because Tarik, himself, doesn't furnish sources. But more importantly, whether Liu actually said these things or whether his political views could correctly be described as pro-capitalist, pro-west, or neo-conservative, it is not determinative of his worthiness for the award.
One commentator correctly observes:
Tariq Ali is particularly wrong when he asks: ‘He has a right to these opinions, but should they get a peace prize?’ It is evident that the prize was not given for these opinions, but for his struggle for human rights. I think his mistaken views do not destroy his merits as a peaceful activist for democracy and human rights in China.
http://networkedblogs.com/bKTQ0
Another commentator observes that:
Mr. Ali would like this piece to be about the illegitimacy of the Nobel committee, because that’s a banal enough statement to be correct. Instead, the glaring dishonesty shows again that Mr. Ali sheds solidarity with prisoners under authoritarian regimes when their politics differ from his own.
http://networkedblogs.com/bKTQ0
Liu Xiaobo is serving an 11 year jail sentence for nothing more than speech critical of his government. His acceptance statement in absentia underscores the importance of a free press and freedom of expression, freedoms that are self-evidently absent in China:
"Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity, and suppress truth."
In his own piece critical of the committee's selection of Liu, Tarik Ali himself concedes the point that Liu's imprisonment is a blow to free speech:
"This year the Chinese government were foolish to make a martyr of the president of Chinese PEN and neo-con Liu Xiaobo. He should never have been arrested, but the Norwegian politicians who comprise the committee, led by Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Labour prime minister, wanted to teach China a lesson."
Can it possibly be that China needs to be taught the lesson.
p.s. If Norway shared China's restrictive laws on freedom of expression, then BBW could be jailed for his post were he ever to step foot in Norway. Not a happy state of affairs.
