As Masked Intruders Set Fire to Hong Kong’s Epoch Times Printing Press, what is it about free speech that totalitarians hate the most? Answers from Liu Xiaobo, Mala Yousafzai, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Winston Churchill, Terry Pratchett, Abraham Lincoln, Immanuel Kant, and Nelson Mandela… And the New York Times on the incarceration of 1 million Uighurs “This Is Not Dystopian Fiction. This Is China.” Column on Hong Kong from this week’s edition of The Universe.


 

What is it about free speech that totalitarians hate the most?: Masked Intruders Set Fire to Hong Kong Epoch Times Printing Press

https://www.theepochtimes.com/masked-intruders-set-fire-to-hong-kong-epoch-times-printing-press_3150829.html

 

This Is Not Dystopian Fiction. This Is China.

The New York Times – International Edition
November 20, 2019 Wednesday

Byline: The Editorial Board
Communist leaders engage in modern-day totalitarian brainwashing, bizarre lies and industrial-level indoctrination
to suppress Muslims.
“Ying shou jin shou” – “Round up everyone who should be rounded up.”
The echo of “1984,” “Brave New World” or “Fahrenheit 451” is unmistakable. But this is not dystopian fiction. It’s a real bureaucratic directive prepared by the Chinese leadership, drawing on a series of secret speeches by Xi Jinping, China’s authoritarian leader, on dealing ruthlessly with Muslims who show “symptoms” of religious
radicalism.
There’s nothing theoretical about it: Based on these diktats, hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, Kazakhs and other Muslims in the western Xinjiang region have been rounded up in internment camps to undergo months or years of indoctrination intended to mold them into secular and loyal followers of the Communist Party.
This modern-day totalitarian brainwashing is revealed in a remarkable trove of documents leaked to The New York Times by an anonymous Chinese official.

The existence of these re-education camps has been known for some time, but nothing before had offered so lucid a glimpse into the thinking of China’s bosses under the fist of Mr. Xi, from the obsessive determination to stamp out the “virus” of unauthorized thought to cynical preparations for the pushback to come, including how to deal with questions from students returning to empty homes and untended farms.
The latter script is eerily Orwellian: Should students ask whether their missing parents had committed a crime, they are to be told no, “it is just that their thinking has been infected by unhealthy thoughts. Freedom is only possible when this ‘virus’ in their thinking is eradicated and they are in good health.”
That someone from within the unforgiving, secretive Chinese leadership would take the enormous risk of leaking 403 pages of internal documents to a Western newspaper is in itself amazing, especially since the documents include an 11-page report summarizing the party’s investigation into the activities of Wang Yongzhi, an official who was supposed to manage a district where Uighur militants had staged a violent attack but who eventually developed misgivings about the mass detention facilities he had built. “He refused,” said the report, “to round up everyone who should be rounded up.” After September 2017, Mr. Wang disappeared from public view.
It becomes clear from the documents that Mr. Xi is far more concerned by any challenge to the Communist Party’s image of strength than foreign reaction. Already in May 2014 he told a leadership conference, “Don’t be afraid if hostile forces whine, or if hostile forces malign the image of Xinjiang.” Accordingly, the Chinese government made
no effort to deny the leaked documents, but rather portrayed the crackdown in Xinjiang as a major success against terrorism and accused The Times of smearing China’s “antiterrorism and de-extremism capabilities.” 
What the documents really reveal is not an effective antiterrorism campaign, but rather the paranoia of totalitarian leaders who demand total fealty in thought and deed and recognize no method of control other than coercion and fear.

Mr. Xi and other top government officials reveal in these papers a conviction that the Soviet Union collapsed because of ideological laxity and spineless leadership, and a top security official attributed terrorist attacks in Britain to the British government’s “excessive emphasis on ‘human rights above security.'”

And Mr. Xi argued that new technology must be part of the broad campaign of surveillance and intelligence-gathering to root out dissidence in Uighur society, anticipating Beijing’s deployment of facial recognition, genetic testing and big data in Xinjiang. 
Whoever leaked these revealing documents obviously disagreed and had the courage to do something about it. His or her brave action is a cry to the world.
International outrage could turn that into a wake-up call for China’s leaders, despite their totalitarian swagger, if the world begins to see them as pariahs, not just trading partners. The whistle-blower, and the untold thousands of Chinese Muslims suffering under the yoke of Mr. Xi, deserve that.
Follow @privacyproject on Twitter and The New York Times Opinion Section on

 

This week’s edition of The Universe: “Why people in Hong Kong fear the displacement of “two systems, one country”, by “one system, one party.”

Catholic Universe page 16Catholic Universe page 17