Dalai Lama Denied Visa
 

I found this article interesting today, perhaps others will be equally confused. Hopefully someone can shed more light on this situation.

This article states that South Africa has denied his visa because they are worried that a visit by the Dalai Lama will shift attention away from the world cup.

Is South Africa attempting to make a pro-China anti-Tibet political statement?
Are they sending a message to their country that soccer should be more important than spirituality?
Or do they not want a great spiritual leader to be present for a secret reason?

______________________________________________________________
I think that South Africa is concerned with its relations with China. They would rather deny the Dalai Lama's visa than potentially interrupt trade. I think their argument that the visit will somehow detract from next year's World Cup is weak and unsubstantiated. I do not see how it could detract from the World Cup to allow the Dalai Lama to be present at the prayer ceremony that is designed to promote the World Cup by brining soccer officials and spiritual leaders together from around the world.

Well, it seems that the answer is written within the article itself.

There is another similar story that happened recently concerning the Special Olympics writing the Dalai Lama out of their opening ceremonies. I'm not sure how that was resolved.

I saw the words you bolded within the article, but I found them vague.
Is China bullying countries into ignoring the Dalai Lama? Why do we allow their threats to be this powerful?

Yes, the world cup is more important than the feelings of some religious leader.

You are comparing probably the greatest sporting event in the world to some self righteous preacher who is merely a representation of a struggle he has little practical impact on.

And the world listens to China for one reason, their economic might. Why do you think half the world considers Fidel Castro to be an outlaw?

His holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is always welcome in my house. So long as I don't have to call him his holiness the 14th Dalai Lama in conversation. Repeatedly. Do you think he'd mind "Mr. Gyatso"? Or "D.L."?

It's a shame that either soccer or a relationship with China takes priority over the words and presence of such an important world leader and representative of peace. It really demonstrates that South Africa has their priorities screwed up.

Because they exert tremendous economic power in the world. China has an inordinate amount of paranoia regarding world opinion of their continued occupation of Tibet - which only serves to draw more attention to a situation that much of the world cares little about. So in a way, I suppose it works in the Dalai Lama's favor that China goes to such lengths to make organizations shun him.

And, Strange Famous, who said anything about the Dalai Lama's feelings? He represents the occupied nation of Tibet - his country and his people that he has worked for tirelessly all of his life. What have you done? Get a grip.

First, I wouldn't be worried about the feelings of the Dalai Lama--he's a pretty stable guy. But it isn't even about his feelings so much as the work he does. But I find your comparison of that to some soccer tournament--no matter how big--a bit disconcerting.

The Dalai Lama self-righteous? You've got to be kidding. And as far as practical impact: This is why he intended on going to South Africa in the first place.

Okay, so you want China's influence to dictate world events, especially in relation to peace, cultural hegemony (in their case, cultural genocide), and territorial integrity. I'll have to say I'm not for that.

* * * * *

The actions of South Africa are deplorable, especially considering their political/cultural history. I really cannot believe this.

So are Canada's, for refusing entry to British MP George Galloway, due to his sympathies with the Palestinians.

AFP: Canada bars Galloway over Hamas support

Fucking Harper.

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that" - Bill Shankley

I dont think China dominating the agenda of the world is any more healthy than America dominating it, or Russia, or anyone else - but the fact is that money and power are the only things that have any baring in such matters. (and money and power usually go together)

Blame the system, not not the oddball prejudices of one particular band of powerful capitalists.

Then Bill Shankley is a moron IMHO.

Mastercard is more lenient with the hippie types.

QFT.

It's all bread & circuses, my friend — the Great Distraction. The World Cup is now officially yet another thing drawing our attention away from such atrocities as what China is doing to Tibet (and this is just one of many situations around the world).

I understand what you are saying about money and power, and that is the issue here, but I don't think you make it any easier by blaming some amorphous system that we cannot name, nor see, nor understand. Blaming "the system" is a cop out. This was merely the disturbing decision of a handful of politicians, organizers, and likely some corporate types.

Actually, he is one of the greatest managers in football (soccer) history, a beloved person in Liverpool, and was paraphrasing an American football coach 30 years ago.

Why are you castigating a good, dead man because Strange Famous quoted him out of context?

You should be ashamed. You too Mixedmedia.

I am not a fan of football (of either variety) so any quote like that is going to make my eyes roll. It did occur to me later that the quote could have been made tongue-in-cheek, though. If it means that much to you, I will apologize. But if an apology is necessary I really don't think I'm the one who should be making it. After all, SF used it to de-legitimize the oppression of the (roughly) 2.5 million people of Tibet.

Oh for Pete's sake. The quote by Shankley (yes, a great coach) is supposed to be funny. As in "See? I take this game way too seriously. Hardy har har!" It was clearly hyperbole, and meant to be a simple but memorable way of saying that soccer is his life. If I were to call coach Shankley right now and ask him, I'm sure he'd say that a world leader speaking about a real chance for peace is much more important in the grand scheme of things than South African soccer.

I'm sure this isn't about soccer, it's about China. South Africa isn't stupid, it looks like China has a real shot at being the world power a bit down the road and they'd be antagonizing China by allowing his holiness the 14th Dalai Lama speak. Which is a shame, because I won't live in a world where the same China that is bullying Tibet is in charge. I'll be fighting them with everything I have.

You beat me to it highthief, I was going to post the same thing, Canada is just as bad for not allowing Galloway into the country to speak.

I'm utterly embarassed by this. Let's ban the Red Cross and Medecins sans Frontiers while we're at it, because, you know, they've given aid to the Palestinians as well.

I actually wrote to my Conservative MP and told her I would not be voting for her unless her increasingly paranoid government reverses the decision.

At first I thought that this story may have some interesting backstory to it or something, but it sounds like China is just pressuring lesser developed nations (again).

I am so sick of China acting like... well... China I guess.

*sigh*

Can I ask why Americans despise China for taking over Tibet, yet love Israel for taking over Palestine, all the while shunting the Native Americans off to reservations?

It's kinda fucked up.

What makes you think we love those things? lol, you just brought up the fact that Canada wouldn't allow this Galloway chap into the country because he speaks for the Palestinians. Do you love the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories? Are the aboriginal peoples in Canada entirely happy with their lot?

Should we review the US's voting record on Israel compared to the rest of the known universe?

The US (and occasionally Australia) are the only nations who regularly give Israel a pass no matter how many Palestinians get mowed down.

I'm interested in whether any nation actually has principles. Don't you see the oddness of the positions?

Just for the record, the Special Olympics (re: the story I mentioned earlier) took place in Idaho. It's not just lesser developed nations.

Dalai Lama: Special Olympics visit canceled - International Herald Tribune

You're really, really asking the wrong American. I think that Israel should hand over a lot of their leadership for war crimes to an international court, where they throw the proverbial book at them. I want all of Israel's "settlements" abandoned by Israelis and I want the walls and checkpoints taken down. I also want the Palestinians to stop resorting to terrorism, but as sick as this sounds that's more about PR.

I want the US to honor our treaties with Native Americans and give them what we promised, but that's only a start.

And don't forget reparations for slavery.

I may have to write my MP about this as well, it really is embarrassing, as Ignatief said yesterday, if there's a valid security concern he supports the ban, but if it's as he suspects and the Conservatives and Harper just trying to shut up free speech, then he doesn't support banning Galloway. As I see it, Harpers trying to shut free speech out.

I never heard of the guy and I refuse to be ashamed of thinking that's a dumb ass thing to say especially given the context it was quoted.

I happen to like sports, in general. But people put too much value on sports and it's stars IMO.

Damn you for beating me to the punch! :thumbsup:

I was going to say, he should've tried for a "Discover" card. It gives cash back, which is sort of like reincarnation.

If you want to go to the trouble, then fine. I'm not interested in engaging in an intracontinental pissing match. Obviously something is afoot in Canada if this person is not being allowed into the country.

And I think it's a bit disingenuous to approach someone who has stated their views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pretty flatly in no uncertain terms and imply that because the government that sits in Washington and votes very rarely in the interests of such persons that they 'love' the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the treatment of Native Americans. And don't worry yourself, America is only a major event or two away from 'loving' the Chinese occupation of Tibet, as well. You want to rub someone's nose in the sellout injustices perpetrated by the American government try an American who hasn't spent the greater part of their life witnessing it.

I know your comment was addressed to Will so I don't speak for Will, just myself as one of those 'Israel loving' Americans of which you speak.

I don't think we can give back to people who lost out on their lands. Unfortunately this is Darwinism at its worst. The strong survive and the weak are replaced. If we start giving back where would we stop? Do the Celts get land back as well?

Where does a religion's concerns compare to our profit margin concerns?:eek::rolleyes:

Darwinism is natural selection. Genocide (regardless of how gradual) is the opposite—unnatural or artificial selection.

A great deal of Native Americans live in abject poverty because businesses don't want to set up shop on reservations and allotted land. Upper class is often in the $30,000 range on a reservation. Not to mention there are crime issues that stem from what seems like systemic alcohol abuse. They got a really, really crappy deal and it wouldn't take much to help. Imagine if we gave tax breaks to businesses on reservations. Or free utilities. Or tons of scholarships.

We gave them gambling, which generally is connected to crime and substance abuse. Then, when a few casinos start to succeed, a ballot measure to tax the reservation mysteriously appears.

I know this sounds insensitive, but why stay on the reservation when there are few opportunities? Assimilation is an alternative to poverty. I realize that predjudice against Natives was rampant and kept many from prospering. Is this still the case? This has happened to many ethnic groups in America. Africans, Irish, and Chinese, to name but a few, have all gotten a crappy deal here. The difference is the other ethnic groups have moved into the business and political arenas. Perhaps, in time, Native Americans will come to embrace America as it is now and become part of the country instead of seperate from it.

Yeah, that happens to the ones lucky enough to get decent grades in pretty bad schools or that commute to non-reservation schools generally end up either (forgive the term) whitewashed, leaving behind a dying culture, or they return to try and fight for their way of life.

30 Days on an Indian Reservation

A purely political move, and a strike against free speech. How "un-Canadian." I see the parallel of this to the situation in South Africa: decision-makers taking the easy road to avoid the difficulty of managing relationships and/or political ties. I'm reluctant to call this kind of thing cowardly and/or lazy, but I'm not sure what else it could be. All I know is that if it becomes par for the course, we're headed for dangerous times.

Indeed.

I'm ashamed. I saw it on the news last night and was very taken aback by their stance.

They're really making an ass of themselves. :no:

i don't really have an iron in this fire, but i'll just point out that like it or not the dalai lama is always both a religious and political figure in a way that's basically different from, say, the pope. so even if you're inclined for whatever reason to see in the dalai lama the world's most fabulous human being, he still is a political figure directly tied to the politics surrounding tibet. so none of this stuff from china should be a surprise.

I dunno, the Pope becomes very political when he decides to start talking about condoms or evolution. Admittedly, he wasn't chased out of Italy under the threat of execution under a fascist government, but he can be political in his own way none the less.

I could see the Pope not being invited to supper at the Dawkins household.

I am not surprised in the least. But I'm not really bothered by it either. Like I said previously, I think it only serves to bring more attention to a situation that has pretty much been ignored by everyone but a subset of activist-minded people. Most people identify the Dalai Lama with his books. I've no doubt that the DL and his folks are hep to this fact, as well.

In my opinion the Dalai Lama is pompous, banal, self righteous, and unhelpful to the situation beween China and Tibet.

I dont support silencing the guy - he should be encouraged to speak up as much as he likes and perhaps the West might start to realise he has nothing much to say.

Seriously, those on the path of enlightenment in the Buddhist meaning can easily appear as such by those who know little about such experiences. And don't you think he could be and act and appear much worse given the fact that his homeland has been victim of cultural genocide for a number of decades now?

Don't hate him because of his disposition despite what he's endured.

Nothing to much say? The achievement of happiness, peace, understanding, compassion, and the elimination of misery, anger, and destructive desire isn't much to you?

Do you understand what you're saying? Do you even know anything about the Dalai Lama and Tibet?

Do you want the Tibetans to give up who and what they are and just be Chinese? Do you wish to allow the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism and culture?