Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- like_we_were_enemies_in_a_war [2021/07/21 01:17]
admin [More specific claims]
+++ like_we_were_enemies_in_a_war [2021/07/22 00:21] (current)
admin [References used in report]
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 | ::: | ::: |an ever-present network of surveillance cameras, including facial recognition cameras | | ::: |
 | ::: | ::: |a vast network of checkpoints known as “convenience police stations” | | ::: |
-| ::: | ::: |unfettered access to people’s personal communication devices and financial history | | maybe |
+| ::: | ::: |unfettered access to people’s personal communication devices and financial history | |maybe |
+| ::: | ::: |tracking in real time | |maybe |
+|31 | no free movement | | |maybe |
+| ::: | no travel abroad | | |maybe |
+| ::: | discrimination | | |yes |
 ===== Admissions =====
 "finding reliable information about life inside the internment camps is particularly difficult" (p7)
@@ Line 84: / Line 89: @@
 |WC21 | ::: |sentences forgiven |some detainees |testimony |context needed to determine if this is justified |Unknown |
 |WC22 | ::: |other people sentenced to prison |some detainees |testimony |"**apparently** for everyday behaviour" |Unknown |
+|WC23 |discrimination | Han didn't have to go through checkpoints |Yin |testimony |  |Yes |
+|WC24 |not allowed to practice religion| no praying |former detainees |testimony |  |Yes |
+| ::: | ::: |attending mosques | ::: | ::: | Yes |
+| ::: | ::: |teaching religion | ::: | ::: | Yes |
+| ::: | ::: |wearing religious clothing | ::: | ::: | Yes |
 ===== Highlighted cases =====
@@ Line 91: / Line 100: @@
 | ::: | ::: | ::: | ::: | ::: | ::: | Unknown source |
+===== Methodology =====
+==== Sources of information ====
+^Source type ^Number ^Source ^Considerations & Criticism ^
+|first-hand testimonies from former detainees |55 | | |
+|witnesses who were in Xinjiang |15 | | |
+|family members who have relatives missing or detained |68 | | |
+|analysis of satellite data | | | |
+|confidential government documents analysed by journalists | | | |
+|confidential government documents analysed by scholars | | | |
+|confidential government documents analysed by human rights organisations | | | |
+==== Issues with methodology ====
+Amnesty International has made no investigations into the veracity of the information provided.
+=== Assertion 1 ===
+"The government of China has taken extraordinary measures to prevent accurate information about the situation in Xinjiang from being documented." This is an illogical argument, since they would need to know the information first before being able to judge whether it was accurate. So this statement can be disregarded as an assertion without evidence.
+=== Assertion 2 ===
+"Anyone living in Xinjiang who speaks out about the internment camps, is perceived to have spoken out, is accused of speaking out, or is affiliated with anyone who has spoken out, risks detention, arrest, imprisonment, torture, and enforced disappearance, not only for themselves but also for their family members." In order to make this assertion, Amnesty International would need to survey and document a large number of people to find out if they had spoken out. This has not been done.
+=== Assertion 3 ===
+==== References used in report ====
+^Ref # ^Source ^Statement supports ^Evidence for human rights abuse? ^Comments and criticism ^
+|R1 |Xinjiang Victims Database, shahit.biz/eng/#filter |no giving out details |No |procedural matter only |
+|R2 |[[John Sudworth]], BBC News, [[www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55666153 | “China’s pressure and propaganda – the reality of reporting Xinjiang,”]] 15 January 2021, ; |denied "unfettered access" |No |procedural matter; completely subjective as to the meaning of "unfettered"; selective ((Highly selective choice of journalists, human rights investigators; citizen journalists and vloggers ignored))  |
+|::: |Andrew McCormick, Columbia Journalism Review, [[www.cjr.org/analysis/uighur-xinjiang.php | “How extensive restrictions have shaped the story in Xinjiang, China,”]] 16 October 2018, ; | ::: |No | ::: |
+| ::: |Matt Schiavenza, Asia Society, [[asiasociety.org/blog/asia/why-its-so-difficult-journalists-report-xinjiang | “Why It’s So Difficult for Journalist To Report from Xinjiang,”]] 23 May 2019, ; | ::: | No | ::: |
+| ::: |[[Human Rights Watch]], [[www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/25/chinas-weak-excuse-block-investigations-xinjiang | “China’s **Weak** Excuse to Block Investigations in Xinjiang: Ambassador Claims ‘Unreasonable, Unnecessary Obstacles’ Prevent UN Visit,”]] 25 March 2020,  | ::: | No | ((This article makes a judgement that Xinjiang tours will lack credibility; tours are considered "highly controlled" - however, how does one determine if a tour is highly controlled without knowing what is supposedly being "hidden"? )) Conclusion before evidence|
+|R3 |Robin Barnwell and Gesbeen Mohammad, PBS Frontline, “China Undercover,”7 April 2020, www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/china/undercover/ |"coordinated effort to prevent speaking to locals |No |This is completely dependent on what access one thinks a journalist should have; vloggers and citizen journalists who have had access not interviewed or cited |
+| ::: |Isobel Yeung, Vice News, [[www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ | “China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover in the Most Dystopian Place in the World,”  | No | |Fairness ((How is it possible to make this judgement after such a short time?)) |

The Anti-China Propaganda Project

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools