Pre-Criminals in China: Uighur Concentration Camps

The Chinese region of Xinjiang is home to millions of ethnic Muslim Uighurs who have lived there for decades. Hundreds of thousands of Uighurs have been detained in camps without trial, but China argues they voluntarily attend centres which combat “extremism”.

Recently, the BBC was granted permission to visit one of the camps. Read the exposé to learn more.

I wanted to write this article because something very interesting occurred during the BBC’s visit. BBC’s China Correspondent John Sudworth sat down with the local government of Xinjiang where they revealed their true intentions.

In essence, China believes it can determine guilt in advance. In other words: pre-crime.

Zhang Zhishen, Xinjiang Foreign Affairs Office:

Some people, before they commit murder, already show they’re capable of killing. Should we wait for them to commit the crime? Or should we prevent it from happening?

Xu Guixiang, Xinjiang Propaganda Department:

Our focus is to take a person who’s on the edge of committing a crime, a minor criminal, and return them to normal society as a law-abiding citizen.

We now have persons on this planet which we can call “pre-criminals”. I think it’s time to move Orwell’s 1984 to the non-fiction section.

Thanks for reading,

Notes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-48700786

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps

3 responses to “Pre-Criminals in China: Uighur Concentration Camps”

  1. Hi dude! I’ve read a couple of posts and finding your stuff pretty cool. I’m not looking to start an argument on the internet, and I abhor and fear totalitarianism, but have you considered how biased the BBC version of this is? As far as I can tell, the Chinese are ignoring the human rights of these people and brainwashing them (not good) but it’s difficult to swallow such criticism from western democracies when we’re pretty much doing the same stuff. Headlines here in Oz shout that huawei can’t be trusted because it’s in bed with the chinese government, then a smaller story details new laws passed here that require tech companies to give the oz government access to their data. The pre-crime detailed in the article sounds alot like laws passed here in oz that target people deemed at risk of being radicalised or giving support to foreign powers. (geez, I hope my writing this isn’t considered ‘damaging to australias economic or security interests’).

    Not only do I see so many parallels to how the US, UK and my own government here in Australia treat their citizens, but the bias I see in the media seems to be in favour of absolutely demonising China. There are many examples in this BBC report, but take for instance that no-one is leaving for their “day off” (cue ominous background music). Outside talking to the “principal”, the reporter infers that nobody actually gets to leave. the minder asks the “principal” if he’s sure he understands the reporter’s questions. Does he? Is there no one leaving right then because there was a misunderstanding? Then it is intimated that they are stopped from filming when they turn up uninvited, turning up uninvited to a government institution and not being allowed to film? sounds normal. But then they are filming (I thought they weren’t allowed?) and people actually are leaving for their “day off” after all. But instead of this disproving the earlier assumption (possibly a miscommunication) that people didn’t get to leave, this is instead presented as an ominous sign of the scale of the detention as there is so many men from one place.

    In the before and after (satellite?) pictures, the bare courtyard “mysteriously” becomes an excercise area with sporting courts on it before the media visit. But what’s the purpose of the solar panels which also “mysteriously” appear on all the rooftops in the after photo? is it possible that the place was actually still being built between these two photos? I’m not saying that the place wasn’t stage managed to look less like a concentration camp and more like a school, in fact the big yellow flower boxes shown earlier beside the road to the front entrance are suspiciously amenable to being moved around on a forklift and so are probably only there for the visit. My point is that the report is so obviously trying to find what it is looking for rather than finding the truth. It makes me wonder if it is just an over-zealous reporter trying to sound like he’s found a big scoop, or if there is an agenda being pushed that’s supposed to get us all angry and afraid of china? Personally, I’m already angry and afraid of all governments 🙂

    I actually noted and wrote down so many examples of bias in this report (adults wearing uniforms is ominous? you mean like we have to do at most workplaces here in Australia?), but even with just these few examples I’ve already raved on like a nutter so I gotta stop 🙂 Again, I’m not trying to pick an argument, nor do I have any love for any totalitarian regime, I’m just constantly bewildered that while individual freedoms and equality are being fast eroded in my own country and those of the west like mine, so much effort is being put into maximising the horror of the similar situation in other countries, china in particular. Don’t you find that curious? I don’t know what I’m more scared of, the big brother of ‘1984’, or the corporatocracy of ‘Rollerball’.
    Cheers, keep up the excellent wordpress, I’ll be reading!
    Greg.

    1. Hi Greg. Thanks for taking an interest in my blog. I share similar thoughts as yourself. While biased, I can still use the BBC’s investigation to learn something new. I take what I need where I can get it. Trust me when I say, that I don’t agree with many of the authors that I quote throughout my blog, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t take something positive from their writings. For example: I’m what many would consider a “militant atheist”; however, I find the writings and the speeches of MLK quite riveting. I hope this makes sense to you.

      Now, to address your other points, I’d like to quote Orwell. You may find these helpful:

      “The very people who ought to be the guardians of liberty, who are beginning to despise it, in theory as well as in practice… There is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loved democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought… These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at Fascists… The result of preaching totalitarian doctrines is to weaken the instinct by means of which free peoples know what is or is not dangerous.” – Original Introduction to “Animal Farm”.

      “One has to remember this to see the Spanish War in its true perspective. When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of war – and in this particular case of the intrigues, the persecutions, the lies and the misunderstandings – there is always the temptation to say: ‘One side is as bad as the other. I’m neutral’. In practice, however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction.” – Looking back on the Spanish War, 1942?

      “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand.” – 1984, Part 2, Chapter 9.

      Cheers!

  2. Nice, thoughtful reply. Thank you. I’ve found quite a few new sources in your blog now and I’m very grateful for it. Now I just have to not try and read them all at once 🙂
    Cheers,
    Greg

Leave a Reply to Greg Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: