Felix Should be a Space for Rational Debate

This article forms part of an ongoing series of articles and responses beginning with the (2019) Comment Editor, Charlie Titmuss', article "Companies in China".

Arguments usually help us explore new knowledge but quarrels often stop us from learning. The recent comments by Mr. Titmuss and Mr Liu on Felix have drawn my attention to the different opinions towards China. It is apparent that both of the authors only intended to have a discussion; however, the last response by Mr. Titmuss was seriously inappropriate. Parts of Titmuss’s comment are not included as the “proper operation of Freedom of Speech in the UK” and some arguments which he made are lack of supports.

Some language in Titmuss’s response should not be rightfully used; on the other hand, such expressions in public might have broken the laws of UK. The Freedom of Speech only operates under the premises where the “reputation and rights of others” are protected. As Mr. Titmuss has admitted to “deliberately insult China” in his second last paragraph, the “Human Rights Act 1998” is not on his side. Moreover, it is doubtful if Mr. Titmuss is guilty of an offence to use “insulting words” under section F3.4A of Public Order Act 1986. Some may say that it is an exaggeration and Mr. Titmuss’s use of language only intends to make his point; however, when “China” becomes the accusative after “insult”, it is an abuse to many Chinese nationals. Commenting and criticising constructively on the government of a nation helps it to improve yet it is unacceptable to insult an entire country. In this particular case, it is even more intolerable when inadequate examples are used in Mr. Titmuss’s commentary.

Before raising objections towards the Chinese government’s actions, it is necessary that the entirety of what had happened which is not included in Mr. Titmuss’s writing. During the recent protesting in Hong Kong, it is worth to note that it started out to be a peaceful protest but the protestors’ behaviours resemble terrorism to some extent as the conflict becomes more and more violent. Alongside with the delays at the airport and fires set at subway stations, the riot is causing civilian casualties. On Friday (Nov.15) morning, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department of Hong Kong confirmed the death of a 70-year-old worker who got hit by the protestors at Sheung Shui Station. A bit earlier in September, a visitor from mainland China was beaten to severe injury at the airport only because he did not agree with the protestors. Such incidents are so prevalent in Hong Kong that they can be easily found via a reputable and “oft-cited” venue, The Guardian. The protestors are currently using “violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims” which is exactly the definition of terrorism in the Oxford Dictionary. The instability in Hong Kong has caused casualties in not only civilians but many more polices. For instance, thirteen officers were injured early in July when protesters threw unidentified liquids at them in a clash (CNN); a group of protestors beat a plainclothes policeman then threw a Molotov cocktail that briefly set the man on fire (The Guardian). Under section 89 of the Police Act 1996, “it is a criminal offence to assault a constable in the execution of his duty” in the UK; such laws are similarly present in almost every nation on this planet. Not all the protestors are to be considered as terrorists who attack civilians and polices, especially those who pursue political aims through peaceful means; however, it is also vital to notice that many of the protesters in Hong Kong are not in favour of peace. With these facts in mind, it is easy to understand why the police in Hong Kong have been arresting the protestors and the government of China has prohibited any support to protesters online. If not, consider how countries in the west dealt with terrorists and criminals who committed assaults on police officers. When their “pursuit of freedom” results in the murder of innocent people and severe damages to the city, is it still “glorious” or even justified? When we, as spectators, irresponsibly shout out “Glory to Hong Kong”, is it fair to those Hong Kong citizens who actually suffer from this social unrest?

Publications in a newspaper must consider facts but not subjective impressions. Hong Kong is merely one of the examples. For instance, achieving political aims is only part of the reasons for creating the Great Firewall; some external online platforms indirectly brought about terrorist activities in China and many websites contain not politics-related but still illegal materials. In Mr Titmuss’s logic of connecting the Great Firewall to highly oppressive censorship, it is likely that many western nations also have such censorships, especially after the “PRISM” incident. Also, before calling the 1989 Tian’anmen Square event a “massacre”, it is probably better to know the true history behind the news. Based on stories from some of my family friends who are the actual witnesses of that event, I would not call it a “massacre”. My three years of high school experience in Canada have provided me with many different perspectives other than that of a Chinese national; I have seen many kinds of arguments and discussions regarding Chinese politics and economy. All that I could see from Mr Titmuss’s response, though, is disrespect and provocation. What I expected from Felix was the spirit of seeking the truth and the spread of constructive opinions.

In the future, it is important that writings on the college newspaper are respectful and rational. Mr Titmuss owes the readers of Felix an apology due to his inappropriate use of language and misleading dictions but it is still up to Mr Titmuss if such an apology will be made. Felix provides Imperial students with an excellent platform of informing the rest of the college of their opinions and it is delightful that people from various backgrounds could have their perspectives to collide; however, it is also worth to be mindful so that this platform is not polluted by emotions or insults.