Actually, I’m just not getting all my “news” from the National Review and Rush Limbaugh.
Anyway I’m not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about the “facts” when you’ve made clear you already know what the facts are – it’ll all be 對牛彈琴.
I don’t want to seem a boring old fart, but the background to the “foreigners can’t engage in political activity” rumor dates from an incident in 1994 about which as a journalist wannabe I wrote the following for a local paper:
[quote]One of the most bizarre subplots in the recent electoral drama revolved around the government’s paranoia concerning foreigners taking part in the campaign.
Why the government should think that the word of a foreigner has such a fearsome potency in the ears of the electorate is a mystery.
However, the government’s efforts to stop foreigners taking part in the campaign show how inventive the government can be in the application of the law.
It also prompts reflection on who should or should not have the right to take part in the country’s political process.
On Nov. 6 Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou announced that some foreigners had been making speeches at election campaign rallies. According to the Election and Recall Act, only campaign aides registered with the Central Election Commission are allowed to do this. However, the law was unclear about whether foreigners could or could not register.
Three days later the CEC appeared to have found a way to skirt this ambiguity. Spokesperson Chen Ling-ling invoked the Foreign Entry and Residence Ordinance’s Article 33 which states that foreigners (which includes overseas Chinese on non-ROC passports) face deportation if they engage in activities other than those specified by their visa.
“If they are here on a tourist visa, then they should just be tourists,” said Chen.
Some foreigners then asked, through the letters column of this newspaper, about the status of those who have resident visas and are entitled to live here.
This seemed to provoke yet another about-face on the government’s part. On Nov. 22, CEC legal affairs chief Teng Tian-yu was once more invoking the Election and Recall Act, saying that four foreigners were at present being investigated, three of whom were working for the DPP.
He also said that doing translation work didn’t violate the Election and Recall Act. But if it involved advocating Taiwan independence this work could violate the National Security Act.
All this legalistic twisting and turning seemed to be further complicated when, the day after Teng’s remarks, KMT Secretary-General Hsu Shui-teh at a news conference praised for their patriotism a group of 68 overseas Chinese who had returned to Taiwan to campaign the KMT.
Before someone cries foul, note that the CEC defines a foreigner as someone who enters the ROC on a foreign passport, irrespective of their place of birth or abode. The KMT claim that all 68 recipients of Hsu’s praise had entered the country on ROC passports.
The long, unclear trail points perhaps only to a great deal of confusion over who should or should not be allowed to engage in election activities on the island.[/quote]
There’s more, but my point is that the idea that foreigners can get deported for having anything to do with politics results from this case in 1994. A demo is not an election activity and the DPP are in charge now, so I cannot imagine there would be a problem. A propos of “activities incompatible with your visa status” my visa says I am my Taiwanese wife’s husband. Not sure how going on a protest march is incompatible with that. Or I am supposed to just stay home and shag?
Does anyone know of any foreigners that have actually been deported in the last few years? The important consideration in Taiwan is whether a law is enforced, nt just whether it’s on the books or not.
[quote=“almas john”]America is gearing up to do the UN’s job. Should Iraq acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction then you can be sure that Israel will take them out. Much better that an international coalition see to it first.
The liberation of Afganistan is one of the great stories of the modern era. Beforehand all the pundits were predicting failure. And with good reason: history pointed to certain failure.[/quote]
Er, Israel already has WMD. Best estimates are about 200 nukes. Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility, is serving an 18-year jail sentence (in solitary confinement, after a secret trial) for revealing in 1986 that Israel had a nuclear program and had already, at that time, about 100 bombs. So if you are looking for a rogue state with WMD with a history of aggression toward its neighbors and in flagrant breach of a raft of UN resolutions, our friends in Tel Aviv would be ideal candidates.
My records are pretty good back to 1994 and I can’t find anything about anyone actually being deported. Threats, but no action.
Just did a very quick search on Google for “deported from Taiwan,” and came up with a couple.
In 1995, some Filipino laborers were deported for striking:
migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/archive … -35mn.html
In 1997 some Korean activists were deported after coming to protest the shipment of nuclear waste to Korea:
multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm0497.08.html
On another note…
A bunch of people have been deported for testing positive for HIV:
avert.org/archiveukaidsnews.htm
In 1999 a mianland Chinese woman was deported when her husband started taking Viagra:
Taipeh (Taiwan) - A mainland Chinese woman who was deported from Taiwan after her husband informed the police she was working illegally on the island has blamed Viagra for her fate. The woman, aged 41, wept as she told police that her elderly husband had found another woman after he secretly started taking Viagra. “I am a victim of Viagra”, she said.
prn2.usm.my/mainsite/headlin … apr99.html
AND, as a warning for some of you would-be Scottish musicians…
A washboard player was apparently deported in 2000. Not sure why, but presumably for being seen in the company of a known bagpipe player.
gaelwarning.com/Bandbio.htm
True indeed. But what threat has Israel posed with its nukes? Oh, perhaps you consider Israel’s possession of nukes as a deterrance to Arab aggression (how many times have the Arab nations attacked Israel already?) a threat?
Uh, which of the several wars between Israel and its neighbors were started by Israel? 
NONE.
I think you ought to check the dictionary on the term “aggression”, because you seem quite confused.
Yeah, a “raft of UN resolutions” against Israel. That’s because the UN is filled with authoritative regimes that have an agenda which is merely to oppose the western democracies and hang on to their own power.
Those nations fill their ignorant masses with the idiotic notion that the US and Israel are to blame for all their woes. What a load of crap. I understand why the ignorant peoples of the Arab mid-east nations buy this nonsense, but how is it that sophisticated western peoples are duped as well? What did the Soviets call these western sophisticates? “Useful idiots”. I wonder why?
I read somewhere that in the last 100 years, the Arab nations have translated into Arabic fewer foreign language books than Spain translated into Spanish last year.
There is an excuse for the ignorant Arab masses, who are force-fed shit by their state-controlled media… but how in the world someone with access the internet can accuse Israel of being the “aggressor” against its Arab neighbors is beyond me.
There is no debate about the facts. They exist and are acknowledged by most governments, AFAIK.
But you’d rather not discuss facts… OK… that says volumes about you and any argument you have.
Good Lord :?
Actually, I’m just not getting all my “news” from the National Review and Rush Limbaugh.[/quote]
Really? Hey, I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. The info I posted above is from the UN website. Best, I believe, to go to the primary source for the facts… you apparently feel otherwise?
So tell us, where do you get your news? Or do you merely repeat opinions such as presented in the clever little song at the start of this thread?
You go to the demo and I’ll drop by your house and fill in for you! 
Regarding your criticism of the little ditti:
Perhaps headines to CNN broadcasts like “The Hunt for Weapons” as seen on TV last night might explain the “innaccuracy”.
Besides how can you say the inspecters are not looking for weapons? How else can they prove disarmament is taking place unless they see that the weapons and the weapons programs have been dismantled, neutralized, etc. It seems like you’re being a big old prick to a number of people over semantics.
Resolution 1441 also states:
This would suggest that not all weapons are known despite your:
The line in the ditti:
They’ve got weapons we can’t see,
And that’s good enough for me
'Cos it’s all the proof I need
This probably refers to Rumfield’s egregious comments:
“The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq’s WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq’s noncooperation,”
There were countless critics, both domestically and internationally, of the Supreme Courts decision to effectively appoint Bush president. To deny that there was a controvery, and that many still feel Bush’s legitimacy in doubt (whatever your personal feelings), is just plain silly.
[quote]Let’s look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
Huh? [/quote]
Are you being purposively obtuse here? Have you not heard the suggesion (whether true or not) that the president is using Iraq to deflect attention from the economy, the environment, the erosion of civil liberties, etc. Not very well informed of you, is it? Silly you.
[quote]Sir Donald Bradman wrote:
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq,
The US has plenty of support from other nations regarding Iraq. What does this line mean? Its just stupid, in light of the facts. [/quote]
Again, are you just willfully ignoring the international criticism, especially at the beginning, towards any action against Iraq? Garnering support has been difficult. There’s no debate about that. Even domestically a bare majority of people (52% as of yesterday according to ABC news) want to go to war against Iraq. Even if you only include your own people as Allies then the above statement stands. Again, you’re being very silly.
Satire works best when you dislike the target of it. Otherwise it just seems slanted and partisan. But of course. It’s satire. It takes liberties. Does being a Bush supporter mean you have to be as linguistically inept as he is?
[quote=“tigerman”]
There is an excuse for the ignorant Arab masses, who are force-fed shit by their state-controlled media… but how in the world someone with access the internet can accuse Israel of being the “aggressor” against its Arab neighbors is beyond me. 
[/quote]
OK, this is just too easy, almost a troll, but I have to ask:
Did you really mean Arab or American?
I’m not saying that all Americans are ignorant, but while I was there visiting (I usually stay about 1-2 months/year in the US), the media, though not officially state-controlled, is certainly biased. Despite all of this, and the usual amount of solidarity that most Americans show for political (world) affairs, they are seriously questioning GW’s decisions. I think the only reason he’s not already there is Cheney’s biding time.
Just my two cents, but really, the American newspapers tell readers what the corporations that elect the government want them to hear. I suppose all newspapers do that… and even the American newspapers have spoken about Sharon’s “militant” attitude.
I don’t like George Bush, and don’t like his own personal motives for attacking Iraq. However, with that said, I still think invading Iraq is the best decision. I also think much of the “criticism” comes from people who will criticize and villainize America at every turn, whether or not it’s justified. Whether or not Bush’s motives are purely monetary or oil-based doesn’t change the fact that as long as the U.S. fulfills it’s commitment to re-build Iraq, then the Iraqi people will be much better off in the end. In my opinion, anti-war protesters will always protest war, whether or not it’s “justified” or “necessary”.
As for the Israel-Palestine thing, I don’t blame Sharon for being so aggressive. Arafat had his chance several years ago, and Clinton busted his butt to get an agreement, but at the last minute Arafat backed out. Why? Because although he says he wants “peace,” he really wants every last Israeli out of the Middle East. He brought this on his own people, and it won’t be solved until he’s gone. Israel is surrounded on all sides by enemies who will stop at nothing to exterminate them, and the Palestinians don’t play fair … why should the Israelis? More power to 'em.
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]Regarding your criticism of the little ditti:
Perhaps headines to CNN broadcasts like “The Hunt for Weapons” as seen on TV last night might explain the “innaccuracy”.[/quote]
Yes, of course. But when so many people criticize CNN for “bias”, how is it that so many of these same people then accept and repeat what they see and hear on CNN?
Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. The UN is NOT looking for weapons. The UN sent Hans Blix to Iraq to VERIFY disarmament… Mr. Blix has decided to “look” for weapons… but that was not and is not his mission.
Sorry that you see me that way. I think it is clear that the UN and the intelligence agencies of several nations are aware substantially of the weapons and materials that Iraq possesses. As many critics of the US point out, the US sold much of these things to Iraq… and so did Russia and I think Germany. It isn’t a secret.
Indeed, the Resolution calls on Iraq to prove disarmament. It thus far has failed to do so.
Well, perhaps I was not clear enough. Sorry. Hans Blix has reported to the UN as follows:
[quote=“Blix Report”] I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization, and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals [/quote]
[quote=“Blix Report”]I turn to biological weapons. I mentioned the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasion, and I come back to it, as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which, it states, it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991. As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged, as reported, in Iraq’s submissions to the Amorim panel in February of 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate I note that the quantity of the media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. [/quote]
There were countless critics, both domestically and internationally, of the Supreme Courts decision to effectively appoint Bush president. To deny that there was a controvery, and that many still feel Bush’s legitimacy in doubt (whatever your personal feelings), is just plain silly. [/quote]
Not at all. I never denied that there was a controversy surrounding the 2000 election. What is plain silly, actually, is the assertion that the US Supreme Ct. “appointed” Bush president. That is incorrect, so why say it?
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”] [quote]Let’s look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
Huh? [/quote]
Are you being purposively obtuse here? Have you not heard the suggesion (whether true or not) that the president is using Iraq to deflect attention from the economy, the environment, the erosion of civil liberties, etc. Not very well informed of you, is it? Silly you.[/quote]
Of course I have heard the “suggestions”. But, after September 11th, the reason for Bush’s actions and policy in the mid-east appear rather obvious to me. Not agreeing with silly “suggestions” doesn’t make me silly. Maybe it makes me a “big old prick”, eh?
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”] [quote]Sir Donald Bradman wrote:
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq,
The US has plenty of support from other nations regarding Iraq. What does this line mean? Its just stupid, in light of the facts. [/quote]
Again, are you just willfully ignoring the international criticism, especially at the beginning, towards any action against Iraq? Garnering support has been difficult. There’s no debate about that.[/quote]
I’m not asserting that garnering support has not been difficult. I am refuting the statement that the US has “no allies”. How is it that you don’t understand this simple issue? Are you being willfully obtuse?
Huh? “Allies” refers to foreign nations not our own people Irrelevant statement… Silly you.
No. Satire works best when it is based on facts. Of course people who dislike the target of satire often like the satire, but that only illustrates their lack of objectivity and or fairness…it doesn’t indicate that the satire works.
Oh. Taking liberties with the facts is OK by you?
I don’t know. Does being a Bush critic automatically mean that you are really clever and sophisticated?
Funny. In your erroneous description and or explanation of satire, you indicated that because it is satire, it is OK for people to “take liberties”… “Liberties”? With the truth? With the facts? What do you mean?
So, if you are a critic of president Bush, its perfectly acceptable to “take liberties” with the facts… or with the truth…
However, if one is in agreement with President Bush, and one rebuts criticisms of Pres. Bush, criticisms that you admit have taken liberties with the facts, then one is a “big old prick”.
Do I understand you correctly?
Shove off, mate.
[quote]
Mucha (Muzha) (Muzha) Man wrote:
Does being a Bush supporter mean you have to be as linguistically inept as he is?
tigerman wrote:
I don’t know. Does being a Bush critic automatically mean that you are really clever and sophisticated?[/quote]
You have to admit that’s funny. Well, I do anyway.
Good for you MT. I agree. Maybe there’s a teeny tiny risk of being deported, but it’s certainly minute. Thanks Mr Sanders for xplaining the ‘reason’ (almost a misconception) for the belief that foreigner’s in Taiwan can’t get involved in political activitie. It seems that this rests solely on the regulations that say you can’t do anything that is not part of your ‘reason for residency’. This could be interpreted so widely that it’s obvious that it’s a case of ‘if they really want to get you, they’ll think of something’ - ie no real danger.
Which brings me to my point, which is to go along with MT in urging anyone opposed to the war in Iraq (and please if you want to argue the case, please go to one of the threads for that purpose - not here), to come along to the rally, and how about we meet up first (and make ourselves more conspicuous targets if they really do want to bust us 
). Anyone want to meet up and march together?
Brian
I read that article. It’s entirely based on anonymous sources, so I can’t place too much stock in it. And as much as it pains me to see the storm clouds gathering over Iraq, I’m not hearing any practical solutions from the anti-sanctions, anti-war crowd. It’s worth noting that a good many of the anti-Afghanistan war protesters are silent now. 
I can remember when a foreigner the DPP had brought in was deported for speaking at a rally over 10 years ago. Things have changed since then, and I can remember some foreigners taking part in a protest in front of AIT not too long ago with no problem. I would think if a street-load of foreigners raising a ruckus against what is arguably Taiwan’s most important trade and defense buddy – and it makes the government or Taiwan look bad, or AIT complains, they might just dust off the rules that say foreigners can’t protest here, since, to my knowledge, that rule was never really dropped.
I disagree. I don’t know what’s so anonymous about a report by UNICEF official Anupama Rao Singh to a March 20, 2000, Security Council 661 Committee meeting; a statement by US representative Eugene Young; an April 2000 US report to the 661 Committee; or a June 23, 1991 Washington Post article. But the article will come out shortly in a book to be published by the Harvard University Press, so we can judge it further then.
As for the danger of being deported for protesting, it’s not an issue here, but I was present somewhere when it was an issue. On 9/9/99, I went to Myanmar to witness what many predicted would be a mass protest with government arrests and killings. People predicted that because on 8/8/88 thousands of Burmese protested their lousy government, and the government responded by lining the streets and the rooftops with soldiers who opened fire on the protesters, dragged many away to be tortured and killed, and sent others off to years of hard labor. Because the Burmese, like the Chinese, are into numbers, it was widely reported that 9/9/99 would be a recurrence, so it was difficult getting a visa then, and all press were denied visas. I intended to witness the carnage and take photos discreetly if possible.
This was my second trip to Myanmar, I arrived two weeks beforehand and got a hotel in the middle of town. While the locals dare not speak publicly about their govt, privately they will, and the whole country was nervous. One could feel the tension building as the big day approached. When the day finally came, the center of town was filled with army trucks, armed soldiers, barricades and barbed wire. Though my hotel keeper advised me not to leave the hotel, I walked around town and everywhere was quiet, with nervous soldiers standing ready beside the barricades. In the end there was no protest because the people knew if they said a word the punishment would be harsh.
While it was actually a let-down that nothing happened after all the build-up, it was good, of course, that no one was killed. And I was amply rewarded a couple of days later, when I chanced into meeting and speaking with the great Aung San Suu Kye in her office. When I think of her courage and sacrifice, and that of Gandhi, MLK, and others of their ilk, I feel ashamed of my lazy, selfish lifestyle. As was stated in some other thread just recently, “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men (and women) to do nothing.”
But, there is no danger in walking with a few thousand anti-war protesters in Taiwan so long as you don’t damage property or do something stupid like that. So, if you really believe the coming war is a bad idea, show the world where you stand.