【Guaudian】 Not everyone is Melburnian 里头提到AC

rlsrls08

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen ... -film-festival-hack

Not everyone is Melburnian


Jeremy Goldkorn
guardian.co.uk,
Monday 3 August 2009 11.32 BST
Article history

Contrary to western reports, the hacker of a film festival website says he was driven by a patriotism felt by many in China

On 15 July, the Guardian reported that a cultural attaché at the Chinese consulate in Melbourne called the organiser of the Melbourne International Film Festival and "demanded a documentary about exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer be dropped" from the programme.

Rebiya Kadeer is considered an enemy of the state by the Chinese government and is blamed for organising the riots that killed 197 people according to the official death toll.

Shortly after the phonecall from the consulate, Chinese filmmakers including art house cinema darling Jia Zhangke began to withdraw their films for the festival, citing the Rebiya Kadeer documentary as the reason. To date, all seven Chinese films originally slated for screening, including those produced in Hong Kong and Taiwan, have withdrawn.

On 25 July, the film festival's website was hacked, its content replaced with a Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans. Many of the reports about the hack assumed that the action was planned by the Chinese government. A typical example: on The New Yorker's blog, Richard Brody wrote a post called We are all Melbournian in which he says that "the hack attack should be understood as the tacit work of the Chinese government".

This assumption is widespread, despite a story by Mary-Anne Toy in Australia's Sunday Age newspaper in which the hacker in question is quoted denying that he acted on behalf of the Chinese government.

It seems many westerners cannot believe that Chinese people would engage in such pro-government activities unless the government ordered them to do so. This is a fundamental misunderstanding about what I think is the biggest and most emotional difference in thinking between the average westerner and the average Chinese person: attitudes towards Chinese policy in Tibet and Xinjiang.

I first became aware of it in 1997. I had been in China two years and was planning a trip to Tibet. When a normally mild-mannered and apolitical Chinese friend of mine heard of my plans, he got agitated and gave me a lecture about how Tibet is and always was a part of China. More than 10 years after that lecture, China is a much more open and in some ways westernised place than it was, but that has not changed the attitudes of most Chinese people when it comes to their country's right to rule Tibet and Xinjiang.

The hacker who vandalised the Melbourne Film Festival website shows an attitude typical of China's urban youth. I tracked him down (not hard – his net handle "laojun" is the same as the name he left on the hacked website) and asked him why he hacked the site and if the government has anything to do with it.

Laojun said that it's "completely normal for a Chinese person to have a patriotic heart" and that the government had absolutely nothing to do with his actions: "On the contrary, I am worried the government will punish me for this." He also noted that he has received many messages of support from fellow Chinese internet users who have added him to their instant messaging contact list or written supportive messages on various internet forums that have discussed the hack.

This morning a new poll on the Kaixin social networking site, a Facebook clone that is currently the most popular networking site for upwardly mobile Chinese urbanites (among the country's most cosmopolitan citizens) asked users if they supported the hack. Only two answers were possible: "support" and "super support". Around 1,000 people have voted support, and 10 times that number voted "super support". Other Chinese forum websites with posts about the hack have also drawn overwhelmingly positive comments. Supporters also include the users of Anti-CNN.com, a website started by a young man in Beijing around the time of the Tibet riots last year with the aim of revealing western media bias in their China reporting.

These people are not government workers and they know that they see a censored internet inside China. I asked Laojun himself what he thought of China's internet censorship programme, usually called the GFW or "great firewall" in China:

"To tell you the truth, I don't really like it, I don't really approve of it … But for me it does not really perform a function. I have a lot of ways to get around it and I sometimes go outside to look at foreigners' opinions about China. But perhaps for the government, the GFW helps to protect China's interests."

You may disagree with Laojun's views on Xinjiang or censorship. You may blame his thinking and the support of his fans on state propaganda or the educational system. But a large – I would daresay majority – of the population of China do not feel that they are Melbournian at all but red-blooded, patriotic Chinese people.

rlsrls08

记者采访了入侵澳大利亚墨尔本电影节的黑客laojun， 意识到中国年轻人在西藏和新疆问题上多么的支持政府。

我自己认领翻译。

rlsrls08

不用了，在译言上找到了译文

谁说人人都是墨尔本人？

七月十五日，卫报报道，一名中国驻墨尔本领事馆的文化专员致电墨尔本国际电影节的组织者，“要求不播放流亡的维族首领热比娅的纪录片”。

热比娅被中国政府看做国家的敌人，被指是策划上月造成197人（官方数据）死亡的暴乱的幕后黑手。

领事馆向电影组织方致电后不久，包括艺术电影当红导演贾樟柯在内的中国电影制片人开始撤回准备在电影节上放映的影片，称热比娅的纪录片是他们退出的原因。截至今日，包括在香港和台湾制作的一共七部中国电影都已退出电影节。

七月二十五日，电影节网站被黑客攻击，网站内容被一面中国国旗和反热比娅的标语取代。许多报道猜测这次攻击是由中国政府策划的。《纽约客》博客上有一个典型的例子：Richard Brody写了一篇《我们都是墨尔本人》，文中称“此次黑客攻击可以看作是中国政府默许的行动”。

尽管Mary-Anne Toy在澳大利亚《周日时代报》上撰文引用黑客的话说，此次攻击并非代表中国政府，但是这样的猜测还是铺天盖地。

似乎许多西方人并不相信，中国人没有政府的指使会做出如此拥护政府的行为。我认为，一般西方人与一般中国人的思维方式之间有一个最大最深的差别：即对中国政府的西藏和新疆政策的态度。在这一点上存在着根本的误解。

我在1997年首次意识到这个问题。当时我在中国已经呆了两年，准备去西藏旅游。我有一个礼貌和善而不关心政治的中国朋友，他听说我的计划后十分激动，就“西藏永远是中国一部分”的道理给我上了一课。这一课过去十多年，中国比以前更开放，在某些方面业已西方化，但是对于中国管治西藏和新疆的权利，大多数中国人的态度毫无改变。

攻击墨尔本电影节网站的黑客反映了中国城市年轻人的典型心态。我追踪到他（并不困难，根据他在被黑网站上留下的“老君”署名，可以抓到他在网上其他的线索），并问了他为什么要攻击网站，政府是否与之有关。

老君说，这“对于一个有爱国心的中国人来说完全正常”，政府和他的行为完全没有关系：“相反，我担心政府会因此惩罚我。”他还说，自己得到了不少中国网友留言发信支持，他们把他加为即时通讯联系人，或者在讨论此次黑客行为的网站上留言支持。

今天早上，开心网上有一个新投票（开心网模仿Facebook，目前是那些力争上游且最具世界视野的都市人最爱的社区网站），调查是否支持这次黑客攻击。投票只有“顶”和“狂顶”两个选项。大约1000人投了顶，投狂顶的人数是顶的十倍。其他中国论坛也有针对此次黑客行动的帖子，肯定的评论占了绝大多数。支持者包括anti-CNN.com的用户，这个网站是由北京一名年轻人在去年西藏暴乱时建立的，目的在于揭露西方媒体西方媒体针对中国报道时的偏见。

这些人不为政府工作，他们很清楚中国网络的审查。我亲自问了老君对于中国网络审查系统的看法。这套审查系统在中国通常被称为GFW或长城防火墙。

他说：“老实讲，我很不喜欢，很不赞同这种做法。但它基本上对我没有作用。我有很多翻墙的办法，有时候会出去看看外国人对中国的看法。不过可能对政府来说，GFW保护了中国的利益。”

你也许不赞同老君对新疆或者网络审查的看法。你也许会批评他的思考方式、批评为政府鼓吹的老君支持者以及教育体制。但是，我敢说，大部分中国人根本不把自己看作“墨尔本人”，他们将自己视作有着一腔爱国热血的中国人。

http://www.yeeyan.com/articles/view/41021/53357/dz

何艳

"洋装虽然穿在身, 我心依然是中国心, 我的祖先早已经把我的一切, 烙上中国印. 长江长城, 黄山黄河,在我心中重千斤, 无论何时, 无论何地, 心中一样亲.流在心里的血, 澎湃着中华的声音......"张明敏的歌就在我耳边响起.

红血

就像汶川地震的时候等着看中国笑话，期待中国内乱暴动的某些人们，当看到中国人民众志成城万众一心支援帮助灾区的时候，他们是多么的不理解啊，当然，WT们也依旧在各大网站上窜下跳，蛊惑煽动，问责政府，制度等等，但他们忘记了一点，在大是大非的事情面前，有血性的中国人永远知道自己应该站的位置，
这是只有200年历史的国家永远都无法理解的五千年民族融合文化积淀的中国民族的精髓！！

红血

昨天焦点访谈，揭露热比娅丑恶嘴脸的时候，就发现很多内容都来自AC，才知俺们的努力没有白费，突然感到特自豪～～

optimus_prime

赞一个，尽管手段不是太正规，但是是澳洲鬼子无理在前

rlsrls08

不过底下的留言就没有那么友好，最可恨的是名字象中国人(没准是独运轮?)的留言还说中国人被教育制度左右，不了解真相。

rlsrls08

《纽约客》博客上有一个典型的例子：Richard Brody写了一篇《我们都是墨尔本人》，文中称“此次黑客攻击可以看作是中国政府默许的行动”。
-----------------

July 27, 2009

We Are All Melbournian

According to the Melbourne newspaper The Age, Chinese hackers protesting the Melbourne International Film Festival’s screenings of the Australian director Jeff Daniels’s documentary “10 Conditions of Love,” about the exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer (who will be on hand), attacked the festival’s Web site: they “replaced festival information with the Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans and were [Saturday] night continuing to disrupt the site by spamming.”

Evan Osnos reported on his New Yorker blog about the withdrawals of Chinese films and filmmakers (in particular, the great director Jia Zhangke, whom Evan recently profiled in the magazine) from the festival in response to the planned screening; as the controversy mounts, film festivals of the world should be trembling—and uniting. Films critical of governments are a staple of the cinema, and of film festivals. At this moment, the world’s film-festival organizers should be uniting in defense of the right to program without fear films they deem worthwhile.

It’s important to remember that China heavily censors the Internet—and that e-mail messages hostile to Kadeer, “10 Conditions,” and the festival screening are allowed to be sent, while any in favor of the film certainly couldn’t get through from China to the Melbourne Festival. Therefore the hack attack should be understood as the tacit work of the Chinese government, and film festivals shouldn’t stand for it. “10 Conditions of Love” (which I haven’t seen) should be instantly programmed by all upcoming festivals; I’d like to see it included in the Toronto International Film Festival, in September, in its important documentary section; in the New York Film Festival, coming in October; in Venice, Sundance, Berlin, Rotterdam, Cannes—all the festivals that matter in the industry should show Daniels’s film. Festival directors would thereby affirm their solidarity with the Melbourne Festival and with its courageous director, Richard Moore, against government pressure.

And what if, in response, China should keep its films and filmmakers out of these same festivals? Then the films would become, in effect, samizdat (and would end up being seen, eventually, as such)—and China would no longer be able to make use of these films’ release to international festivals as a form of advertising for an ambiguous and tenuous policy of tolerance (which Evan reported on recently in the magazine)—or, rather, as an international cosmetic covering for repressive practices at home.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/ ... ll-melbournian.html

-------------
单位网www.danwei.org 编辑Jeremy Goldkorn的留言, 提到AC

No government should pressure film festivals. But there are someincorrect assumptions in this blog post:"It’s important to remember that China heavily censors the Internet—andthat e-mail messages hostile to Kadeer, “10 Conditions,” and thefestival screening are allowed to be sent, while any in favor of thefilm certainly couldn’t get through from China to the MelbourneFestival. Therefore the hack attack should be understood as the tacitwork of the Chinese government"China's Internet censoring system is not effective at screening emailsas the blogger suggests. It is also highly unlikely that the governmentwas behind the website hack. From my research, it seems to have beencommitted by the person behind www.oldjun.com who was almost certainlyacting on his own initiative, just like Rao Jin, founder ofbbs.m4.cn which criticizes Western media coverage of China. Thehack is almost certainly a "We are all Chinese" statement by thehacker. ~Jeremy Goldkorn editor of Danwei.org