Palden Yeshi, a Tibetan monk and teacher from eastern Tibet, has reportedly been sentenced to six years in prison by Chinese authorities for teaching the Tibetan language to local children during school holidays, according to a report by the Dharamshala-based independent radio station Voice of Tibet (VoT).
He was a teacher at Karze Monastery in Tehor, Karze County, and was arrested on May 17, 2021, while serving at the monastery. According to sources cited by VoT, Chinese police suddenly arrived at the monastery and detained him without prior notice, forcibly taking him away.
Following his detention, authorities did not provide his family with clear information regarding the reasons for his arrest or the legal basis for the charges against him.
Sources indicate that the primary reason for his detention was his efforts to teach the Tibetan language to more than 300 local children during school holidays. The classes were reportedly organized for young students from nearby communities who wished to learn Tibetan reading and writing. Chinese authorities are believed to have deemed these voluntary language lessons illegal.
[...]
In related news, China bars Tibetan government employees from religious rites and family funerals.
Tibetans employed in government positions have been strictly forbidden from engaging in religious practices. While they are technically allowed to visit major religious sites such as the Jokhang Temple (Tsuglakhang) and the Potala Palace during Losar, their presence is limited to sightseeing purposes only.
They are expressly prohibited from offering prayers, making ritual offerings, performing prostrations, or displaying any other forms of religious devotion. Authorities reportedly warned that such acts would constitute violations of Communist Party discipline.
The restrictions extend into private family life. Government employees are said to be barred not only from participating in public religious ceremonies but also from attending last rites, weekly memorial prayer services, and cremation rituals for their own deceased relatives. A Lhasa resident told TT that even the traditional seventh-day prayers for the departed cannot be attended by those in state employment.
[...]
"Reasonable skepticism" has to be accompanied by a little research. Without making any effort to investigate your opinion, then it is based entirely on your feelings, rather than facts. Even if what someone says sounds ridiculous and unbelievable...at least start from a position where you may be wrong. Test your opinion, before simply "deciding" that you know what you're talking about.
It isn't even hard. If you type in the guy's name, there are dozens of different articles about him from a wide range of sources, going back years. Read several, and cross reference the claims, to see if they are even consistent. If your goal is to disprove what's being said, it helps to know the facts. And you never know...you might find out that your initial reaction was wrong.
Or, you can just be the kind of person who doesn't care about facts. If you're happy having an uninformed opinion to hide behind...that's cool too. Everyone has their limitations. Some people just don't want to know the truth.
You ought to practice what you preach.
Again, that's the job of the person making the claim. All I said was that this source doesn't claim that he was missing, which is true. If you make the claim, then it is entirely your responsibility to find a source that backs it up.
I haven't said anything incorrect this conversation, and in fact, I have pushed for a greater degree of scrutiny into the actual facts. So it's strange that you would say this. On what basis did you arrive at this assessment of me? The fact that I didn't believe a claim without a source?
It's incredibly ironic because what you're doing here is instantly deciding to believe propaganda, and then saying I "don't care about the facts" when I refuse to do the same without evidence. Again, you should try practicing what you preach.
I did. I typed the monk's name into google before I even commented. Did you?
Uh, huh. So, you're narrowing your argument down to semantics, in order to avoid the fact that you first made this claim, yourself?
You sound pretty sure about that claim...seeing as how you included the "100%" part to emphasise just how untrue this story is. But, again...you didn't even bother to look it up before you said it. Turns out your claim was based on "100% baseless speculation".
Except that you entered this conversation stating your opinion as if it were a fact...which was in itself, incorrect. I was the one "pushing for a greater degree of scrutiny" from you.
You're telling me.
Man, if you could only see how much projection is stuffed into this paragraph, you would blush. You're basically telling on yourself...but either lack the self awareness to see it, or just the integrity to admit it.
Then why didn't you provide a source that actually said the thing you claimed, as is your responsibility when you make a claim?
Yes, actually, I did. I didn't see a source that I recognized so I treated them all skeptically and continue to do so.
Not that I had any responsibility to. Because all I said was that this source does not say that the person went "missing," which is both objectively true, and does not require looking at any other sources to say confidently.
Yes, I was sure about that claim because it's correct and I stand by it. The article is full of "sources indicate" and "are believed to" and things like that. No further research is required to dismiss this specific article as baseless speculation.
That's because what I stated is not an opinion, it is a fact, and a correct fact. You have said absolutely nothing to show that it's incorrect. Again, "sources indicate" and "are believed to" are baseless speculation. If there's evidence for those claims, this isn't it.
That's you, not me. I don't know how you got it into your head that blindly believing "sources indicate" is somehow the rational position, but it absolutely is not. You are the only one blindly believing claims and insisting everyone else should do the same without a shred of evidence, I am the one pushing back against that.
Rationality and skepticism go straight out the window for you the moment China is mentioned.
Lol! Wow. Dude, you're trying way too hard to sound like you have a valid argument here. I would respond to it all, point for point...but it's becoming clear that you are either being intentionally dishonest, or you simply haven't bothered reading any of my previous comments. And if you aren't going to argue in good faith, then I won't bother.
What have I said that's in any way dishonest or indicates bad faith or that I haven't read your comments?
You're just proving my point. Any sort of reasonable skepticism, any scrutiny whatsoever, applied to negative claims about China, gets dismissed and automatically labelled as "bad faith" or "dishonest," and it's expected that I blindly believe whatever I'm told, even if the only evidence provided is "sources indicate" and "are believed to have."