Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#101

Post by throwaway894345 »

anoonmoose wrote: post #94
throwaway894345 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. The idea is that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization as we know it. As bad as China's human rights abuses are, they pale in comparison to its climate abuses. If you have ideas for compelling China to reduce its emissions to meet targets while also holding them accountable for their various other violations, I'm all ears.

I wanted to include this in my initial comment but it felt too flippant, but since you asked- I have always outright dismissed the idea of US military action against China for their local human rights abuses until you made me consider the possibility that their global human rights abuses were worse and that you couldn't simultaneously pressure them on both fronts. Congrats, you have made me at least 5% more nihilisti…

Going to war with China would itself be an existential threat, and thus rightly politically impossible (we in the west can't even muster political support to decommission fossil fuels--how are we going to get ourselves to go to war with our largest trading partner and a fellow nuclear and economic superpower?). Personally I'm going to prioritize solutions that minimize deaths.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#102

Post by dirtyid »

goodcanadian wrote: post #51
AlexandrB wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of China myself, but there's some evidence[1] that the two Canadians arrested were, in fact, spies. Personally, I'm not sure what to think. But tweets like this from CSIS[2] are certainly suggestive when viewed in a certain light. [1] https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/29/michael-kovrig-and-sp... [2] https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441576564374769665

I have never before heard of Canadian Patriot, but from the first sentence of the editor's note, I am led to strongly doubt its impartiality: Canadian Patriot Review Editor’s note: On September 24, 2021, an agreement was reached to free Meng Wanzhou who had been illegally held captive in Canada since December 2018 . . . There was nothing illegal about Meng Wanzhou's arrest. The U.S. made a request under a long extant…

The process for detaining the Michaels was legal as well. Every nation has authority to round up spies. Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past.

>Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. [0]

At end of day, billionaire who commited alleged fraud gets treated like billionaires while Spies who commited alleged espionage get treated like spies. This shouldn't be shocking, it's how the game is played. Canada excuting US foreign policy (China Initiative) because US found a paper loophole to kidnap Meng legally doesn't change the fact Canada kidnapped Meng in terms of diplomatic norms in the same way "enhanced interrogation" is still torture. Nevermind that Canada had legally right to drop extradition if case is sufficiently politicized as well. But laws are subservient to politics.

[0] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#103

Post by _-david-_ »

criddell wrote: post #41
cm2012 wrote: post #36

The USA should make it illegal to kowtow to China like this. The details of how this law could be structured can be debated, but there has to be a way. Let companies choose between having US and Chinese business instead of always taking the easy way out.

I don't think the constitution would allow it. Kowtowing is an expression of something so I would guess it's covered by the 1st amendment.

I would agree that the Constitution would probably not allow it to be banned, but I would say there are many things not protected by the 1st amendment that could be considered an expression of something.

Treason

Obscenity

Libel

Slander

Certain threats

Incitement

Hiring a hit man

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#104

Post by Spooky23 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13
throwoutway wrote: post #2

Actively refusing is the least passive/neutral thing they could have done. Now they’ve obligated themselves (morally) to refuse Chinese political meeting bookings as well, but we won’t see that happen Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics

> Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics In a vacuum, I fully agree with protesting China to the fullest extent; however, if scientists are to be believed, these things (human rights, trade, etc violations) trifle in comparison to the climate change threat, and China has all of humanity by the throat here. We need a…

Using whatsboutism to whitewash the influence of a foreign power in free speech is gross.

What makes you think that you’ll be able to talk about climate change if the Chinese Communist Party decides doing so is against their interest?

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#105

Post by TimTheTinker »

My favorite part:

> Prague mayor Zdeněk Hřib, who attended the conference, said in response: "I hear that China is unhappy about this conference being held here in Prague. Well, I am unhappy there's a country in 2021 that has concentration camps."

I don't know why it's so politically incorrect to call out the Chinese communist party on its human rights abuses. It's clearly a highly authoritarian, abusive country -- one of the major blots on the human race at the present time, along with North Korea.

We ought to be brave and speak the truth about it.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#106

Post by criddell »

_-david-_ wrote: post #103
criddell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the constitution would allow it. Kowtowing is an expression of something so I would guess it's covered by the 1st amendment.

I would agree that the Constitution would probably not allow it to be banned, but I would say there are many things not protected by the 1st amendment that could be considered an expression of something. Treason Obscenity Libel Slander Certain threats Incitement Hiring a hit man

For sure. I didn't mean to imply freedom of speech is absolute.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#107

Post by artificialLimbs »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #91
artificialLimbs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> they pale in comparison to its climate abuses Ah yes, the old "murdering a few people now is less of a problem than potentially murdering more people down the road" argument.

Yeah, I guess in my mind it’s worth finding face-saving means to alleviate Uyghur suffering in order to save humanity as we know it. But again I ask: what is your solution?

Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore.

It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#108

Post by mikem170 »

dirtyid wrote: post #102
goodcanadian wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never before heard of Canadian Patriot, but from the first sentence of the editor's note, I am led to strongly doubt its impartiality: Canadian Patriot Review Editor’s note: On September 24, 2021, an agreement was reached to free Meng Wanzhou who had been illegally held captive in Canada since December 2018 . . . There was nothing illegal about Meng Wanzhou's arrest. The U.S. made a request under a long extant…

The process for detaining the Michaels was legal as well. Every nation has authority to round up spies. Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past. >Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very o…

Also I'm sure that crimes committed by billionaires are selectively prosecuted.

This one one seems particularly political, given her crime was trading with Iran against U.S. law. Funny that she is not a U.S. citizen, though.

I wonder how would the U.S. feel if China arrested a U.S billionaire in a third-party country because they broke a Chinese law. File this under "might makes right", I guess.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#109

Post by dirtyid »

Santizing discussion around "political neutrality" when PRC considers WUC a seccessionist and terrorist group with connection to ETIM who has history of terrorist attacks in PRC. I find it amusing how the article compares Marriot hosting Pompeo to WUC, again PRC's equivalent of Taliban. More on the nose than one would think. Looks like crisis management by Marriot throwing the local franchise under bus though. Wonder if WUC will take them up on the offer for other conferences.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#110

Post by meragrin_ »

hugh-avherald wrote: post #77
meragrin_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that hotel franchised or owned by Marriott? If it was franchised, the "corporate management" is obviously not Marriott.

My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.

> My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally.

If they meant Marriott, I would think they would explicitly say Marriott since it gives them an out for the blame. If it wasn't a Marriott decision, it would be dumb to explicitly say Marriott but they know they have a good chance to dodge blame with just the generic "corporate management".

> It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.

It does make sense if the franchisee has multiple hotels with some of them being in China. Don't know if that is the case, but it could be.

Post reply on HN