Falun Gong practitioners suffered severe Human Rights abuses in China during the communist regime and the practice has also been the subject of strict Government-led internet censorship during recent years.

The persecution of Falun Gong started shortly after the Great Firewall of China was constructed and the practice has since been at the top of the list of banned search terms in China.

The exhibition, titled ‘The Art of Truth, Compassion, Tolerance’, will open on 17 July and it will run until 15 August.

More about the art work here: http://www.falunart.org/

‘The Art of Truth Compassion Tolerance’ will be exhibited at Curtis Mayfield House (above WHQ Club), Carliol Square, Newcastle Upon Tyne.  Please note that the exhibition is open Saturdays and Sundays only.

Blogs and news services have been bursting with insights into the debate and even the US Secretary of the state, Hilary Clinton, has had her say.

For those who have managed to avoid the fuss, let’s recap briefly.

Just as news websites were getting over the hype about Nexus One – the much awaited Google-phone – the search engine giant fired itself back onto the news agenda and rattled the technological world, revealing it was considering ending its presence in China.

The decision followed Google’s investigations into ‘a highly sophisticated and targeted attack’ on their corporate infrastructure which, they said, originated from China.

The investigations revealed evidence of the primary targets being Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, the company stated in its blog post.

David Drummond, Senior Vice President of Google wrote: “We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech.

“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered – combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web – have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”

Lucrative markets v human rights

Freedom of expression in China has been making human rights activists very anxious for a long time.

Amnesty expressed its concerns for the first time in 2002, not long after China opened its markets to foreign companies and investors in 2001.

A statement on the charity’s website states: “Amnesty International is concerned that in their pursuit of new and lucrative markets, foreign corporations may be directly or indirectly contributing to human rights violations or at the very least failing to give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments. Of particular concern are abuses of the right to freedom of expression and information.”

As the economy continued to grow, so did the number of people sentenced for internet-related offences, Amnesty reported in 2004.

In a 2006 report, the main concerns were caused by US internet companies Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google. Entering the lucrative markets meant complying with the Chinese government’s requests – search engine results as well as email, web and blog content had to be censored.

It is often argued that no company can afford to stay out of the Chinese market, hence the compliance. On entering China, Google tried its best to make the decision sound like it had not been motivated by cash.

They claimed the benefits of increased access to information for people in China outweighed the discomfort they felt in agreeing to censor search results.

While they felt let down back in 2006, human rights activists have been thrilled over Google’s u-turn.

Arvind Ganesan, director at Human Rights Watch said in The Guardian: “A transnational attack on privacy is chilling, and Google’s response sets a great example.”

But critics have been quick to issue a reminder that the right thing to do would have been to fight the censorship in the first instance.

BBC’s business editor Robert Peston wrote in his blog: “Google’s statement that it wants an unfettered Chinese search engine or none at all is certainly a big bold gesture that shines a light on systematic infringement of freedom of expression in that country.

“But most campaigners for this freedom would argue that Google should never have agreed to be censored when launching its China service in January 2006.”

To be censored or not to be censored?

While censorship can be painted as an inexcusable restriction on freedom of speech, many would argue that there are some situations where it can be justified.

Child porn is already being censored by some governments and recent school shooting tragedies have raised questions about violent content posted by users to sites such as YouTube. Can anyone really argue that everything and anything can be posted in the internet in the name of free speech?

But who draws the line? And what is the test for content deemed immune from censorship?

In Australia, it is feared the list of banned websites has increased from around 1,000 to 10,000. While most of the banned sites contain illegal porn, the worry is that the list will start including sites containing political material.

Senator Scott Ludlam expressed his concerns in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Australian opposition party leader said: “The Government is embarking on a deeply unpopular and troubling experiment to fine-tune its ability to censor the internet. If you consider this kind of net censorship in the context of Australia’s anti-terror laws, it paints a disturbing picture indeed.”

Last year, the Australian communications regulator exercised its authority by adding to the list a site called Wikileaks which publishes anonymous submissions of sensitive information on governments, corporations and religion.

Australia weren’t the first country to react to Wikileaks. Briefly banned in the US in February 2008, the award-winning site has continued to cause distress for a number of governments worldwide.
So the potential withdrawal of Google from China comes at a critical point for freedom of expression with countries all over the globe trying to reconcile the protection of human rights with issues such as the control of illegal activity.
Google and morals

China has defended its decisions by arguing it needs to give guidance to its people.

A statement from the State Council Information Office said: “Our country is at a crucial stage of reform and development and this is a period of marked social conflicts. Properly guiding internet opinion is a major measure for protecting internet information security.”

While that statement seems to kill any hopes of relaxation of censorship in China, the world is left to contemplate the motives behind Google’s threat.

A Telegraph article suggested that the reaction might have been sparked by the need for the company to respond to the criticism that has arisen with their growth.

Kamal Ahmed wrote: “Through 2008 and 2009 Google announced a whole slew of acquisitions and great innovations but without the underlying narrative of “why” and a rebuttal to the critics who said “aren’t you just taking over the world?”. Hence rows over publishing rights, personal privacy and news aggregation.”

Critics have also been quick to dismiss the threat as a hypocritical cover-up of a purely financial decision as, in spite of their dominance across the rest of world, Google has not been able to establish itself as the leading search engine in China.

Financially motivated or not, the fact is that the search engine giant has taken an important step.

After it was banned in Australia, Wikileaks wrote on its website: “The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.”

That in mind, Google needs to be thanked for its actions because it certainly has got people talking about a hugely important issue. Better late than never.

Case Study – Censorship in China

Although countries across the world exercise internet censorship in some form, the main attention is undoubtedly geared towards China… read more

And rightly so, say human rights organisations.

Amnesty stated on its website: “China operates an extensive censorship policy which includes filtering specific key words and politically sensitive subjects, which result in the blocking of specific internet results, as well as the complete blocking of a large number of websites, including human rights websites such as Amnesty International’s, considered politically sensitive by the authorities.”

Thrilled by Google’s recent statement, Roseann Rife, Amnesty International’s Deputy Asia-Pacific Director hoped that more international companies would follow its example.

She said: “It is important that internet search engine companies recognize the censorship measures adopted in China are not in the best interests of their customers and do not help promote freedom of expression or the right to information.”

But is it really that black and white? We asked Newcastle University Professor Feng Li to join in the debate.

Professor Li reminded New Media Monthly that censorship takes place all over the world, including both the UK and the US, and is needed for reasons such as security, safety and child protection.

Professor Li, who is specialised in foreign investment in China as well as information systems, doesn’t believe that Google’s actions will influence China’s approach in any significant way.

He said: “For the Chinese authority, maintaining economic, social and most of all, political stability is of paramount importance and censorship on the Internet is regarded as playing a very important role in achieving that.”

Professor Li believes that there is a delicate balance that needs to be struck between freedom of speech and censorship. And while individual countries play a key role in the process, international organisations need to be involved as well..

He said: “Because of the pervasive influence of the Internet and the huge number of stakeholders involved at many different levels, it would be a tall order to expect one single body to address all the issues involved in this domain. Any censorship needs to be adequately monitored by other independent bodies.”

China has, among other things, been accused of using information provided by the search engines to arrest human rights activists. BBC listed at least three occasions where search engine giant Yahoo was linked to these incidents.

But even with introducing new ways of monitoring and restricting the internet usage of its citizens, China has taken steps towards openness as well. In the run-up to the Olympics sites such as Wikipedia, Blogger and YouTube were unblocked – however, not left uncensored. In June 2009, on the anniversary of the Tianenmen Square protests, YouTube was blocked once again, together with Flickr and social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to keep the images of the tragedy out of sight.

Professor Li reminds that despite everything, a change for the better can be seen.

He said: “In recent years China has shown to be far more pragmatic than previously in addressing international concerns but it will be a slow, gradual process. The internet has already contributed significantly to China’s opening up to the outside world, so the continued engagement of global companies such as Google – rather than running away from it – has to be a positive thing for all.”