Marquel, TPVs NYTimes Are We There Yet Section correspondent, was trying to make sense of take out policies when he read that China Uses ‘Picking Quarrels’ Charge to Cast a Wider Net Online. China is cracking down on dissent. Finding few laws that directly prohibit dissent, they’ve had to be creative, dragooning older laws to fit a newer purpose.
One that was meant to quiet neighborhoods and minimize village feuds, forbids “picking quarrels.”
China has recruited that law, and several others never intended for the purpose, to crack down on internet speech. Marquel was unsurprised by the article. Mufi had told him the Chinese will never allow free speech until the vast country spins totally out of control and breaks up into much smaller pieces.
But picking quarrels? It surprised Marquel that the authorities would come so close to admitting they view their people as children. To what other laws have they taken resort to stop speech but maintain a veneer of legality?
Marquel went to the Chinese mission and sought a spokesperson. It was lunchtime and he accepted a lunch discussion with one of the lower-level bureaucrats.
“Picking quarrels?” Asked Marquel, “Isn’t that a bit patriarchal and patronizing?”
The bureaucrat was in the middle of wrestling a radish out of his salad with chopsticks and lost it when he looked up to speak. “New conditions sometimes require old forms not readily suitable for modernity,” he said, sounding like Mao in the middle of the Long March.
“Okay, what other laws has your government used to stop internet criticism?” Marquel asked.
“There are quite a few. One we use to prevent tweeting or republishing other information is the law against repeating. It’s related to the law against picking quarrels. When two clans were really feuding, it was hard to stop and it often escalated into infantile behaviour, like repeating.” He said.
“Repeating? I don’t get it.” Marquel said.
“You know, like kids who tease each other by repeating the other’s words. ‘Marquel’s repeating!’ the other complains.” He said.
“Oh I get it. But how is that used to control internet speech?” I asked.
“Most subversive activities involve quoting others or republishing articles. Repeating.” He said.
“I get it. Pretty creative. What else?” I asked.
“It takes one to know one,” he said.
“What’s that all about?” I asked.
“You’re not allowed to say that. A lot of people from the countryside will use that to escalate an argument.” He said.
“So no one can say that?” I asked.
“No. Except in jail, I suppose,” he speculated.
“Is that all?” I asked, wondering what kind of society would ban a child’s phrase.
“Not at all. I’m trying to think of laws that have been rescued from the trash heap like the others that interest you.” He grabbed for more rice, pausing, and added, “Oh yes. You’re mothers so fat.”
“My mother?” I asked.
“No. I don’t know her. But you’re not allowed to start an argument with that.”
“Is that a serious problem?” I asked him.
“Not really, but it happens and when it does, we can get them. Unless their mother really is fat.” He said.
“It that a defense?” I asked.
“The law was originally passed to prevent the fat mother jokes so there was an exception for those mamas who really were obese, so it’s still in the law and is a defense, as you say.” He said, continuing to empty his bowl of rice.
“I guess there’s some creativity there.” I stopped and waited.
He showed off some fancy chopstick work, separating the sesame seeds from some sort of legumes, and then said, “Telling.”
“Telling what?” I asked.
“The law prohibits anyone from threatening to tell on someone. That was also a continuing source of bickering in the countryside. ‘I’m telling on you,’ things like that.” He said. “So if someone posts that vice chairman Cho Leung should be charged with corruption, that’s a form of telling and can lead to arrest.”
I was surprised by that. “For a country that depends on citizens informing on each other, that’s quite a shock,” I said.
“The law doesn’t forbids telling, only threatening to tell. You tell, you get a medal. You threaten to tell, you go to jail.” He said.
I saw. “I see,” I said. ” You know that Caucasians have often called the Chinese inscrutable, don’t you?” I asked.
“Oh yes. That came from us.” He said.
“From you?” I asked.
“Yes. We have called each other inscrutable for thousands of years.” He said.
“And that’s legal?” I asked.
“Oh yes. We would be intolerably inscrutable if we forbade people from observing that we are inscrutable.” He said.
“You really are inscrutable.” I observed.
He put his chopsticks down and said, “Yes, but not that inscrutable.” He insisted.
I had nothing to say so I did.
***
By MARQUEL: The Last Emperor. I Kid You Not.
Hilarious.
I cannot stop laughing. Funny!
Pure fuquel!
I love the “threatening to tell” law. You are machiavelique, Marquel.
Oh, Marquel…This is so imaginative, I cannot stop laughing and making up stuff myself.
This is crazy and funny and crazy. Marquel, you did it again. I love you, Bro!