Protester hurls shoe at Chinese PM during UK visit
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 7 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 26 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
22 Comments
Login to comment
0
some14some
Protester was a minor, id withheld? anyway, copycat has no significance except for the media.
0
Luddite
I assume the is a student, therefore he/she are most likely over 18. Why would they name the protester anyway, they've been arrested but not charged.
0
rajakumar
No one hurt, it is okay.
0
likeitis
Nope. Is assault even if the shoe did not make contact.
Anyway, not sure what the Chinese PM did besides maybe help oppress his own people and those of Tibet, although I have no details if its true. Its not like he ordered an invasion of Tibet or ordered tanks into Tianamen Square is it?
0
AlfGarnett
Lucky he didn't do it in CHina, he'd get shot in the back of the head.
0
smithinjapan
Ah well, he missed no one was hurt, and the British PM didn't order him nearly beaten to death, so no real harm done. I doubt he'll be the celeb the man who threw his shoe at bush was, but one can always aim a little high, no?
0
Altria
This shoe throwing business seems to be in brogue.
Maybe someone will lob a pair of geta or toilet slippers at Aso next.
0
Wolfpack
Hilarious!
0
Athletes
AlfGarnett
Lucky he didn't do it in CHina, he'd get shot in the back of the head.
Back in 1960s, it was true what you mentioned. China has changed a lot and there are more openess than before. People are openly critizing the government. Some laid off workers burned the car of communist party official in southern province. Suprisingly they were not shot and got a minor charges.
Burning the photo of top official is not a serious crime in China anymore. In HK and Macau, some political activists sent the empty coffin for president Jiang Zemin and Hu Jingtao visit. They are still free as birds. Things are changing. I think it is good for China.
0
techall
Buy stock in shoe companies now!! If this is going to be the accepted form of protest, Obama had better pracitce his dodging skills and I see a boom in the footwear market.
0
LFRAgain
That's very debatable.
0
AlfGarnett
On BBC News 24 the newsreader bloke said the fella has just been charged by the old bill, but didn't mention what the charge was.
Probably get a slap on the wrist, just to keep them Chinese happy. It also said the Chinese PM said throwing the shoe was despicable like.
0
likeitis
World-wide, yes. In my country, no. If one makes a move to attack someone, so much as draw back their fist, its assault. All you have to do is make the person feel they are about to be struck. Make contact, and its battery too.
I think it makes sense. It makes a whole lot more sense than this "public order offense". Even more than the "insulting a public official offense" al-Zeidi got. The point is the man was attacked, and had reason to be afraid of injury. That is the true problem with the action. You do not go around making people fear for their safety like this, PM, president, bricklayer or housewife, its wrong.
0
bebert
It might reveal the nature of the grievance. If the name is Chinese, it could be an expatriate with a any number of grievances: lack of free speech, confiscation of farmland for development, lack of religious freedom, Falung Gong, etc.
If the name is an English or European one, the shoe was probably thrown by a "Free Tibet" goofball with no legitimate stake in China.
Yes, probably a slap on the wrist, but if this had been the prime minister of Israel you can be certain the shoe chucker would face jail time and reeducation.
0
bobbafett
A pom tossing a sneaker is nothing compared to an Iraqi tossing a size 10. A true Brit would have hurled rotten cabbage.
0
LFRAgain
I'll go with you on that. While I personally don't agree with many of the Chinese domestic policies, I don't think attacking or insulting the head of state is any way to go about airing my concerns. Furthermore, it's incredibly hypocritical to extol the virtues of a society in which freedom of speech without fear of persecution or injury is sacrosanct, yet not afford the same protections to non-citizens just because you disagree with what they are saying.
Wen Jiabao, despite being the head of a political system I find distasteful, should be afforded the same rights with regard to freedom of speech as we would give to anyone else. Rights don’t simply stop being depending on one’s nationality or what one is saying.
But the assault thing? The shoe didn’t come even remotely close. And I doubt the hurler actually intended any harm considering he was throwing, well, a shoe, from the back of the room. Wen really had nothing to fear from the shoe or the thrower. It’s insulting, yes. But it’s not assault. To laboriously dress it up as so in order to make a grand statement about the sanctity of human rights is contradictory and cheapens the meaning for real victims of actual assault.
0
likeitis
It says the shoe landed on the stage in the article. I don't think it is fair for us to expect the Chinese PM to be able to determine on the spot whether he was actually in danger, or calculate the trajectory instantly and not feel a sense of danger. Besides, even if he instantly recognized it as a shoe and that it would not hit him, how is he supposed to know if there is not a hand grenade hidden in it?
I would certainly be concerned if an object landed on the stage I was speaking on. Knowing it was thrown intentionally and I was the target would only increase the concern. Therefore, I still consider it an assault.
0
Nessie
Assault, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)
In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. It is important to note that actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary: an assault can take place with a toy gun, for example.
As distinguished from battery, assault need not to involve actual contact—it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension. For example, wielding a knife can be construed as assault if a fearful situation was created.
0
LFRAgain
Well, I guess a thrown shoe might indeed constitute legal assault. Of course, there's the "reasonable apprehension" part, which I suspect might make it harder to argue the harmful nature of an athletic shoe.
If we were to look at more legalese, we'd find this as well:
Furthermore . . .
From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
That part in particular suggests that Wen wasn't in fear of his safety in the least.
0
Zenpun
That part in particular suggests that Wen wasn't in fear of his safety in the least.
If Wen died with heart attack because of the shoe, it was a crime. It was not only a physical assualt. Throwing someone with Tomatoes or soft fruits are more reasonable although it is against the law.
It was a stunt for five miniutes fame. It is a physical assault or humilation regardless of any excuses. Common law was origianted from England. Everyone has a freedom to express their disastifaction. However intimidating or shocking someone with the physical object was not permitted by law or public order.
0
LFRAgain
But he didn't. Nor did he display any signs commonly associated with surprise, shock, or fear.
Furthermore, criminal law makes no provisions for protecting someone from "humiliation." If you want to argue "mental anguish, " then that's a civil court issue, not a criminal court one. Criminal law does, however, protect against physical damages, or assault, as defined above.
Seriously, trying to make this into more than it actually was just looks silly and makes a mockery of the legal system and the people it's designed to genuinely protect. A shoe isn't a deadly weapon, nor is it even a mildly intimidating weapon.
It was an athletic shoe. Just say it out loud to yourself a few times to let the point sink in.
This was a disruption of public order offence, and nothing more.
0
Zenpun
A shoe isn't a deadly weapon, nor is it even a mildly intimidating weapon.
It is not true for everyone. For infants, disable and frail elderly it is lethal as rock. One young girl was hit with the shoe on her head once, she got a Brain Hamorriage and Coma. I have mentioned that harmless soft fruits are more acceptable.
Just say it out loud to yourself a few times to let the point sink in. I have no hatred or excuse for anyone or anyting else. Making noise or making publicity by my self alone can not change the world. I understand about my limitations. I respect individual rights however I will not favour or bias the intimidation or humilation.
Peaceful protest is a civilzed manner. Violent protest is immature and lawless. It is against the principles of law and order. It should not be encouraged.
Back to top