Chinese Women's Rights

Confucian Ideas about Women Confucian thoughts have greatly influenced the minds of China. During the Han dynasty, Confucianism became a part of the official education, which helped spread it across China. In later dynasties, male authority was enforced which brought a woman's status down. In the Confucian society, women were to hold a lower position than men. Women could only obtain power by becoming a mother. They had the task of producing son and it was frowned upon if they birthed girls. Their nature was expected to be passive and to revolve around their husbands and their family. Other Confucian ideas taught many that women were the cause of disorder. It was also taught that women should not rule and that people were not to concern themselves with women's ideas. Many of these ideas still influence the way Chinese women are treated today.

in education. The white paper also acknowledges the fact that the gender equality problems have not been resolved. Not many women play an important part in the government. The Central Committee is the highest ring of the Communist party in China. Only 22 members are women in the Central Committee of 192 people. Womens political influence has increased over the passed 50 years but it still remains low.

Traditional Role of Women in Chin In the traditional Chinese Society, women were oppressed and disrespected. The traditional role of women in China centered around the home, where they were expected to serve their families. 1. History

Violence Against Women It is very common in China for women to get abused. It is found acceptable in some parts of China for men to abuse their wives. There are not any laws to protect women from domestic abuse. Many authorities don't report abuse because they think that wife abuse is a family matter. Most domestic abuse is found in urban areas. Many women don't like to report abuse or get divorces because they are pressured to maintain a family. Women that suffer from abuse have no way of escaping because there aren't any shelters that they can go to.

Early in history, men dominated the Chinese society while women were subordinate to their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons. Arranged marriages left women with virtually no voice in the society. Chinese women did not have rights and privileges. Time Frame Women were treated like slaves, concubines and prostitutes before the 1900s. When Mao Tse-Tung took power in 1949, he pushed for gender equality and created policies to eliminate the oppression of women. Identification In the traditional Chinese society, women were identified as "Yin" while men were "Yang." As Asiasociety.org puts, it, "Yin" meant soft, passive, receptive, yielding, tranquil and reflective. Kinship Roles Women in the traditional Chinese society were mere daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law. They were expected to serve their fathers in their childhood, their husbands in their married life and their sons in widowhood. Changes While there is still some lingering discrimination, from the 20th century until present, Chinese women have been treated more equally and fairly. Modern Chinese people regard their women with respect. Chinese women are now entitled to occupational and educational opportunities.

Discrimination in Education and Employment Even though a law has been promoted to protect womens rights, women are still discriminated. It's hard for women to get jobs even if they have degrees. Most good jobs are open only to men. Women aren't offered many nice jobs that pay fair. Men and women work equally but women get paid 78% of the pay the men get. Chinese women make up one-third of workers in the fields of trade, industry, finance, and communication. They also make up almost half of the workers in education and health. Women's federations have created programs in rural areas to develop courtyard economies. Women work to weave household accessories out of maize husks. Young women get hired at embroidery factories so that they can continue to have babies but be able to work at home. Many rural girls aren't being sent to school. Many rural parents dont want to waste their money on a girl who will end up being married off to another family. Over 70% of school dropouts are girls and over 70% of about 220 million who are semiliterate or illiterate in China are women. In 1990, about 200,000 women were university graduates. This made up about onethird of the college graduates in China. Another factor of why there are women enrolled in higher education is because some universities openly express the fact that they discriminate against girls. This happens even if girls score equally as high or higher than boys in exams.

Abduction and Trafficking of Women Women have been the primary targets of abduction, illegal imprisonment, physical and sexual assault, and sale. This remains a serious problem in China. Mainly only rural parts of China conduct trafficking. There are women that are being sold as brides in the black market. Men who have purchased women dont get arrested meaning that the trade of women is still active. Usually when victims try to escape, they get brutally beaten, imprisoned, and possibly murdered. Even if a woman escapes, law enforcement officers recapture her. This happens because some officials say that the man who purchased the woman is the owner. Many women that are bought are also given marriage licenses to prove that they are married to the buyer. As China's economy falls, more and more women are voluntarily. This happens because some of the women are being convinced by traders that if they are sold, they will get better opportunities. The government wants to stop the trade of women, but some officials are involved. Women can only be saved if they make a complaint or if their family makes a complaint.

Unspoken issues: Human Rights, or Protection of Chinese Women's Rights Chinese women have trouble getting their laws enforced and many of them don't know their rights and need to be informed of them. There are many organizations that deal with these problems. Many Women Organizations report womens problems to authorities and suggest solutions. They also stress the fact that women want equality. Notices have been put up to stop trafficking women Fudan University has a union that calls women (mainly women that work) to remind them of their rights. Notices have been put up to remind people of women's rights. China set up an All-China Womens Foundation to protect and preserve the rights of women. The Constitution also enforces rights of women in political, economic, cultural and family life. Privileges? As regular reader will know one of the founding principals of this blog was to cover news and events effecting China that receive receive little or no press in the West, and which create little or no outrage. Either because they fall into areas that are taboo in the West, or simply because they do not create enough public interest for the Western big media to bother with. Previously this blog highlighted the difficult situation facing anti-censorship/pro-free speech campaigners when it came to China's crackdown on internet pornography. With NGOs and Western leaders finding themselves unable to criticize Beijing without themselves coming under pressure from parents groups and conservatives back home for appearing to

Women and the Government The government made a gender equality law in 1949 but discrimination against women continues. In 2005, the Chinese government released a white paper to mark the 10th anniversary of the Fourth UN World Conference on Women. This law promotes equality between women and men in nine aspects including politics and family life. The white paper points out that the government is doing what they can to eliminate discrimination

support the sex industry. As well as the roaring silence heard when China launched its crackdown on online sports betting. A similarly sensitive topic in countries such as the US, which traditionally provide much of the criticism of China's human rights record. In both cases people who seemed to think that human rights and free speech was the beginning and end of everything, and who called Beijing out on every little thing, suddenly appeared to have decided that the catch phrase of the day was "You must obey local Law", and that "Foreign countries should not interfere in China's domestic affairs". Making them sound more like Beijing's yes men than the freedom crusaders that they proclaimed themselves to be. An eventuality that lead some to question if said NGOs/leaders have any real interest in Human rights, or in the rights of the Chinese people. Or whether they are merely attaching themselves to an popularist cause for the purposes of publicity and/or the acquisition of funding. Whatever their reasoning, and whatever their motives, there sadly exist many more cases where the rights of Chinese are being trampled on, but the West has said little or nothing. Some of these cases are unambiguously serious. Situations where the Chinese people are being silenced for political or economic reasons, or where their rights are routinely being denied, but where there is little awareness in the West, and even less interest. However, there are other cases which at first glance appear to be far less serious. Trivial, even. So trivial in fact that some would say that they are barely worth calling censorship. But which never the less deserve attention because they form yet another cog in the machinery of the creeping state abuse machine, or because they form the so-called "thin end of the wedge". A small act of censorship - or a small abuse - that paves the way for a far larger acts of censorship. Or which creates a culture of "accepting censorship" in which people gradually find their rights eaten away in small - and seemingly unimportant - nibbles, until they wake up one morning and find that they have far less freedom than they thought they had. One such case - one which has been largely ignored by the West - is the creeping censorship that has been levelled against one specific group by Beijing that would have caused outrage had it been targeted at bloggers, or message boards users. But which has attracted little or no attention in the West because the freedom of expression that said group isn't the "right kind of free expression" for the West to be interested in protecting. The group: Online video game players. A Battle Worth Fighting? Though it might seem unimportant, and while many would argue that playing online video games is neither a right nor a matter of free expression, some China watchers argue that their suppression is an area that deserves much more press. Not because online games are in themselves a right, or all that important in the wider world. But because once state censorship becomes seen as the norm in a given area it becomes much easier for it to creep and to expand into more important areas. Creating a culture of censorship and the acceptance of censorship. Crackdown Over the last few years, the Mainland's online

gaming community has been the subject of increasing attention from Beijing, and has thusly experienced an increasing burden of rules, regulations, and censorship. Some of which have been applied directly to the gamers themselves, and some of which have been applied to the outlets that they use. Primarily internet cafes and gaming service providers. As well as games developers. A Brief History? Strictly speaking, online gaming in China has been the subject of censorship from the start. Being a form of media it has always been caught up in generic state censorship, even when it was not being targeted directly as a medium in itself. With Chinese games manufacturers having to observe the same rules and regulations as other content creators. However, the industry has now begun to attract the attention of Beijing in its own right. And thus has is now being directly targeted by state censors. Content Censorship? After having languishing in the shadows for many years, gaming in general arguably first caught the censors eye proper when an investigation launched by the Mainland Ministry of Culture discovered that many Chinese were playing foreign made video games that contained material that would not have been permitted in other media. Most of which had escaped the eyes of Mainland censors by virtue of having been downloaded from the internet (Often in the form of illegal pirate downloads), rather than having been retailed through a so-called "bricks and mortar" outlet in China, itself. As a result, in 2004, Beijing created a task force to vet and approve overseas games. Games that were not approved by the task force's censorship committee would automatically be deemed illegal - Regardless of their content - and websites/internet cafes that allowed them to be played/downloaded would face censure. As part of this censorship drive several criteria were drawn up under which a foreign game could be prohibited from use on the Mainland.

China watchers also noted that the new rules applied exclusively to foreign games. Domesticity produced games had always been subject to these conditions under the existing censorship regime. In keeping with this, many of the games that were subsequently prohibited were prohibited for predictable reasons. Such as the banning of the sports management simulation "Soccer Manager 2005" for depicting Chinese-Taiwan as having an independent soccer team from the Mainland, and strategy game "Hearts of Iron" for depicting the disputed island as being Japanese territory during WWII. "[Soccer Manager 2005] poses harm to the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Ministry of Culture, China Ironically - and in keeping with Beijing's brand of censorship - the prohibition came despite the fact that both games were factually correct. ChineseTaiwan does have its own independent soccer team that competes at an international level, while the island was under Japanese rule during WWII, having been ceded to Japan several decades prior under an unequal treat. At the time, there was some low level acknowledgement of the new wave of censorship by the Western media, but it quickly died down, and it didn't translate any significant outrage form foreign leaders or NGO. Part of the reason for this lack of outrage was that many of their own countries were undergoing significant internal debates over computer game censorship themselves. Although Beijing's censorship sweep did ban a number of games for political reasons, it also banned others for their depictions of violence, for sexual content, or because they had gambling themes, and it was touted in the domestic media as being part of Beijing's drive to protect children from graphic or harmful content. This put many in the Western in a difficult position, and made it hard for foreign leaders and NGOs to criticize Beijing without drawing fire from groups in the own countries who were seeking to bring in legislation Thus individuals and groups that wanted to stay out of the domestic censorship debate also stayed out of the Chinese censorship debate. While those that were in favor of tighter domestic restrictions found if very difficult to criticize Beijing for bringing in regulations which (with the exception of political censorship) mirrored their own overall goals very closely. For example, many Western parents groups have long campaigned for laws to be brought in that would prohibit the sale of sexually explicit, or gratuitously violent, games to under 18s. Additionally, there was little or no pressure from the gaming industry on NGOs, and leaders to press China on the issue of games censorship. This was partly because Western games had little presence in China, but wanted to increase it, and thus didn't want to antagonize Beijing.

of the Constitution

Violating basic principles

Threatening national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity

legitimate rights Divulging state secrets Threatening state security Defaming the nation Disturbing social order Infringing on others

"Online games with content threatening state security, damaging the nation's glory, disturbing social order and infringing on other's legitimate rights will also be prohibited," Chinese Ministry of Culture, China (2004)

China watchers noted that most of this was standard fair for Beijing, and that rather than representing something new they mostly represented the application of existing media censorship to downloaded gaming.

However, it was also partly because many of the banned games were in fact illegal copies of Western games that had not been officially released in China. Games which Western companies had themselves lobbied their own governments to put pressure on China about restricting. Meaning that the Western gaming industry had little to gain, but a lot to lose, in creating a fuss over censorship. Kill Switch? The online games industry came under the state spotlight a second time in China during late 2004early 2005. Though this time Beijing was acting in response to concerns raised by citizens, rather than on its own political agenda. Though the two did intersect at times. During 2003, concerns began to circulate amongst Chinese parents and school teachers over the amount of time that children were spending playing online games, and the effect that this was having on their health and education. With children spending time playing online games in internet cafes when they should have been doing homework, cutting class to play games, or spending money intended for food or school books in internet cafes. There were also reports of so called "CS" fights (Named after the online game Counter Strike) between students. Incidents - ranging from small scale altercations to serious brawls - resulting from online game players either brining their gaming feuds into the real world, or falling out over online games. Though in truth such incidents were something of an urban myth. And where they did happen they were often little more than scuffles between teenagers. Concern grew further during 2004 and 2005 as reports began to appear of deaths related to online gaming. Including the 2005 murder of Zhu Caoyuan, who was stabbed to death in Shanghai in a computer games related dispute, South Korean Seungseob Lee, who died of a heart attack after spending almost 2 days continuously, playing a game titled Starcraft, and the death of several Mainland youths who collapsed from exhaustion on a railway embankment while traveling home from an extended gaming session, and were killed when they rolled into the path of a train. As a result of this concern Beijing ordered that "kill switches" be installed in online games which would automatically cut users off after 3 hours of gaming. "The timing mechanism can prevent young people from becoming addicted to online games" Xiaowei Kou, General Administration of Press and Publication, China Rules were later modified by Beijing so as to specifically target players of online role play games. Which were Seen as being the primary cause for concern. Instead of automatically logging players out, their game characters were incrementally degraded over time. With gamers given a warning after 3 hours play, and loosing

50% of their character's power if they choose to ignore it. If the gamers continued beyond 5 hours then their characters would be reset to their most basic level - Essentially wiping out all of the gamer's progress so far - and they will not be allowed to log back in for 5 hours. The kill switch code was also later modified to only effect gamers under the age of 18. Allowing older gamers to continue as normal. Again, while this was reported around the world there was very little outcry from Western leaders or NGO, and media coverage usually took a non critical standpoint. Acknowledging that Beijing was acting to limit the time that people spent gaming, but stopping short of actively criticizing Beijing for doing it in the same way that they would had the restrictions been placed on a more socially acceptable group, such as bloggers. The reasons for this were primarily the same as the reasons for the lack of outrage over game censorship. It was not seen as being advantageous to their image back home for them to be seen defending the rights of people to play computer games for long periods of time due to the gaming related controversies that existed back home. Particularly owing to the growing concerns amongst Us parents over the length of time that their own children were spending playing computer games. Equally, there was little or no protest from games manufacturers, with companies choosing to work with Beijing in exchange for continued access to China's online gaming market (valued at an estimated $US500 Million by 2005) rather than risking antagonizing Beijing and being locked out of it. Indeed, some of the Wests largest online gaming franchises - including World of Warcraft - were amongst the first gaming systems to come on board with Beijing's kill switch legislation. Putting the newly mandated software modifications in place in order to continue to be allowed access to growing Mainland markets. Knock on Effects? During this period gamers were also caught up in wider politically motivated censorship. In particular, gamers who used internet cafes were forced to identify themselves using their state mandated identification card, each time they wanted to go on line. This restriction was not specifically targeted at gamers, and applied to internet cafe users in general. It formed one component of Beijing's campaign to intimidate those who used the internet to post/read content that contradicted the state mandated account of history, society and politics by making them easier to identify in the real world. One knock on effect of this was that it removed some of the anonymity of gamers, and allowed gamers under the age of 18 to be singled out for some of the above mentioned restriction, or even prohibited from accessing on line games at all. It also allowed gamers who used overseas services to play games not officially sanctioned in China to

be more readily identified. Though in truth this was more of a psychological issue than an actual restriction. It forced more self censorship than anything else, with gamers being wary of attracting the attention of authorities, rather than actually being prevented from doing something. Violence, Sex and Gambling? Restrictions were also brought in at various points on games which contain depictions of violence, sex and gambling. Some of these regulations have seen games developers being forced to modify or censor their games in order to be allowed to continue operating in China. One of the highest profile of these has been World of Warcraft and its various expansion packs. The publisher was forced to take the Mainland version of the game off line for 6 weeks in 2009. During which time the games graphics were modified to remove images of skeletons , gore, severed heads, and other such object. For example, skeletons used as scenery were replaced with hessian sacks, and undead characters were remodelled so that they no longer had torn flesh through which their bones could be seen. The in the Wrath of the Lich King expansion pack was twice refused certification on the Mainland despite heavy changes having been made from the Western retail version. At the time there were an estimated 5 million Chinese users of World of Warcraft. Accounting for around 30% of the game's total users. In other cases, entire games have been prohibited from sale/play because Beijing has decreed them to be wholly unsuitable. For example, in mid 2009 Beijing placed a blanked prohibition on gangster themed games: Games which allow players to take the role of gangster/Mafia characters, and which allow them to advance through the game by committing criminal acts. Companies were prohibited from retailing such games or allowing them to be downloaded, and websites were prohibited from hosting them or linking to them. According to Beijing, it was inappropriate for the healthy and harmonious development of Mainland culture for people to play games that encouraged them to pursue violent criminal pastimes in a virtual environment. These games encourage people to deceive, loot and kill and glorify gangster life. They are a bad influence on youngsters. Spokesperson, Ministry of Culture, China (2009) Prohibited games included the popular online gangster simulations Jianghu and Guhuozai. While these acts of censorship were noted by the Western media, including some big media outlets, the majority of overseas attention came for

games players expressing solidarity with their Mainland counterparts, rather than from states, NGO or human rights interests. Or from games companies As before, the lack of interest was primarily due to it not being socially or politically acceptable for public and pressure group figures to be seen defending the promotion of such material overseas in the face of domestic campaigns to bring in similar legislation at home. And with games companies not wishing to rock the boat in China. Additional Restrictions? After a brief respite, Beijing again increased pressure on online gamers in June 2010. Announcing a raft of new restrictions to be brought in for August of that year. The new legislation included some contentious moves, and some less contentious moves. As well as some that have left China-Watchers divided. Virtual Currency? Amongst the new measures is a total prohibition on the use of so-called "virtual currency" by those below the age of majority. Effectively ending the trade of points earned by playing games or performing functions on social networking sites for virtual or real world goods by children. This prohibition was brought in in part because of concerns that games developers and hosts were encouraging young players to spend increasing amounts of time online in order to earn virtual currency so that they could buy additional content. Such as upgrades for games characters, or additional features for social network sites. However, it was also partly brought in due to concerns that virtual currency and virtual goods were being traded in the real world. With online currency or goods being traded between players in exchange for real world currency. Or with one gamer being paid real world currency to perform menial or repetitive tasks online to boost the online currency or goods held by another gamer. Some have hailed the measure as a step forward in preventing gaming addiction, and as a means of preventing children form being exploited, while others have expressed concern that it may restrict innovation and may put Chinese games developers at a distinct disadvantage to their foreign competitors by restricting the kind of childrens' games that they can develop. There have also been concerns that a lack of child safe games containing virtual currency may encourage children to look for ways around age restrictions (for example, by using an account registered to a parent or older relative) so that they can play games designed for adults, which may contain unsuitable themes. Or which may bring them into contact with unscrupulous people seeking to exploit them. Something that has often been notes in countries such as a the US and UK, where there is little media aimed at older children and younger teens and where what media there is often talks down to them due to the over protective nature of certain social, media, and governmental elements. Which has caused many of them to migrate to more adult media. Such as

adult rated computer games, and magazines and television programs aimed at older teens and young adults. It remains uncertain how this restriction will effect Mainland games companies, some of whom make a notable portion of their profits through the trading of online currency, or through the repeat custom gained from young gamers attracted by virtual currency elements of their games. Though observers have commented that the move is certain to put them at a competitors disadvantage to their Western competitors. Limiting their growth potential and reducing their prospects for expansion in local and international markets, while pitting them against foreign companies that can use less restricted home markets in order to build a power base from which they can then move into China's markets. Mixed Reactions? One of the areas of new regulations that met with mixed reactions was the news that some aspects of gaming certification the process that games developers needed to go through in order to have their products approved for publication was being decentralized. Under the new regulations games developers no longer had to Beijing for certification. Instead certification was to be conducted at the local level by authorities in the developer's home province. On one hand China-Watchers noted that such a more would speed up the process of certification. Making it easier and cheaper developers particular small scale developers - to get their games certified published. Thus allowing the development and publishing process to be more efficient, and thus allowing Mainland companies a more even playing field when it came to competing with overseas developers. However, on the other hand, China-Watchers also noted that devolution of power on the Mainland has often come at a price. In many past cases local and provincial leaders have been seen to abuse devolved powers. In some cases to such an extent that said powers have had to be transferred to Beijing. Two of the main issues that China-Watchers have noted are those of corruption and personal agendas. With observers warning that local leaders may use developed certification powers as a means to extract money from developers. Either in the form of submission and re submission fees, or in the form of bribes. Equally, observers have warned that local leaders may use certification powers to restrict developers producing games with certain themes that are locally sensitive, but are not nationally sensitive. For example, games based on local events or local historical figures. There have also been concerns over unnecessary censorship caused by local authorities being over cautious. Unnecessary censorship and over self censorship are a continuing problem with the Mainland media, and are often seen as a by-product of Beijing's vague and ever changing censorship requirements.

Traditionally, Beijing will not directly tell local authorities or media interests what is to be censored. Instead the state typically provides broad statements without context, and without examples of prohibited or allowed content. Leaving media and local censors having to guess at how far they can take any particular topic, and often causing them to take an overly cautious approach. This has long been Beijing's policy for three reason: 1) Announcing the censorship of a particular topic means admitting that the topic exists, and that it is a problem 2) Being vague about censorship requirements allows Beijing to expand them to encompass new topics that arise suddenly without having to alter its guidelines, or to pretend that said topics were covered all along 3) By keeping people uncertain about what is allowed and what is not allowed Beijing encourages an atmosphere of caution that causes people to censors themselves on gray areas as well as on black list topics. Thus creating an environment where problems or concerns are not readily voiced, making it seem as if such problems and/or concerns are much less of an issue than they in fact are. China-Watchers thus have expressed concern that local censors may be more strict that Beijing's censors in some cases. Blocking or ordering the modification of some games that would have been certificated for sale by Beijing without issue. Other Aspects? Also covered by the 2010 legislation was a prohibition of the promotion blanket hostility between gamers: Games developers and publishers encouraging games players to compete aggressively against one another and think less of other players, rather than to compete in the spirit of the game. Little context was provided on this, though observers voice that Beijing's likely intention is that gamers should be encouraged to compete against one another for mutual enjoyment rather than be encouraged to destroy an opponent. Though some skeptical China-Watchers have voiced that this may be open to abuse. And that it may be a deliberately open ended clause that would allow Beijing to crack down on any competitive game that became too popular. Particularly if it encouraged fictionalization and people began split along social, political or cultural lines. For example, if Cantonese speaking Mainlanders began to form their own World of Warcraft gaming clans and to use it as an extension of their off line language ambitions, or if Fenqing clans developed to pursue and destroy the character of belonging to people who they deemed disloyal to Beijing, or to pursue other off line grudges. Explaining, not Excusing?

On the face of it, China is a heavily censored society. Political and social censorship is the norm. Beijing's official approach to many issues is that if you cannot see it, then it doesn't exist. Under this approach it restricts what can be published in the hope that if a person has a complaint or an issue, but cannot see find accounts from other people in a similar situation, then they will come to believe that they are alone, and will therefore keep quiet believing that they will have no support form like minded individuals if they go public. And in order to try to convince the greater Chinese people that everything is all right, and that they aren't living in a time of significant social and political upheaval, but that they are instead living in a single harmonious and united society working towards common goals. As such, all media print, broadcast, online, and so on is subject to censorship. Controversial or contentious topics the subject of broad prohibitions. Grey topics can only be addressed from a state approved perspective, and all media are must tow the line when it comes to the official state accounts of history, society and politics. So it would therefore make sense that computer games were censored, too. For the same reasons. Wouldn't it? No. Apparently not. Well, not always. While some censorship is undeniably political in nature - for example, no games developer would be permitted to publish a games that allowed players to fight as Tibetans seeking independence, or which depicted Chinese soldiers committing war crimes a significant portion of recent censorship has been made for other reasons. One of the primary reasons for recent crackdowns has been child protection. China-Watchers note that this has been done in a heavy and somewhat totalitarian manner as with many things in China, no matter what the intentions - but that is has also largely been non-political. According to some China-Watchers, much of the heavy handedness has been down to China's lack of control over the sale and rating games. When it comes to media of any type, China has only a minimal rating system, and marginal controls at the point of sale. Meaning that it is easy for children to purchase media aimed at adults, and that it is not common for such media to be labelled as such. It is also easy for children to obtain such media in pirate format, in which case no such systems would be effective. As a result, Beijing's games censorship regime is largely aimed at ensuring that all games are suitable for those who are likely to want to play them or likely to have access to them. In simple terms, because China has no equivalent of the R or NC-17 film classifications in place for games and no realistic means of enforcing such ratings, so no games that would warrant such a rating may be certificated for use/sale on the Mainland.

A similar situation exists in some other countries, including a handful of Western states. For example, the Australian rating system for video games has no NC-17 classifications, so all games retailed in the country must comply with the the next lowest rating of MA15+, or be classified as RC (Refused Classification). This lack of a content system is one of the reasons that Beijing's moves have been hard for Western countries to actively criticize. Any Western leader or NGOs that criticized Beijing for cracking down on the sale of violent or sexually explicit games to children would themselves be open to significant criticism from parents groups and childrens' campaigners in their own countries, as well as groups opposed to depictions of sex and/or violence. The same applies to restrictions on access to games, or access to games for extended periods of time. As noted above, it would not be seen as publicly acceptable for the president of the United States of America to call for Beijing to allow Chinese children to play Manhunt, or for teens to be allowed to play World of Warcraft 18 hours a day, even though the laws of their own country say that this is permissible. They would also find it difficult to criticize Beijing for the political censorship as Beijing's standard tactic would likely be to respond to any challenge with an answer based around the censorship of sexual or violent content: Essentially avoiding the issue and turning it around to an area where the West would not be able to defend its stance so readily. Equally, the West would also find it difficult to suggest that Beijing should bring in a more modern rating system as given Beijing's past record the rating system would in itself likely be used to justify political censorship. Gaming = Free Speech? There have, of course, been some inevitable questions raised as to whether online game playing counts as a form of free expression? What weight should be given to it? And even as to whether online gamers should have any rights at all. As of yet opinions are divided. Some argue that playing games is not a matter of free expression, but that it is essentially an entertainment activity, and a privileged rather than a right. And that there are no real freedom issues when it comes to prohibiting violent or sexual games, or preventing somebody from playing for an unhealthy length of time. Particularly if said person is a child. And as such should be protected from harmful content. Others argue that free expression is free expression regardless of the media or medium through which it is made. And thus that a gamer should have as much right to play a controversial game as they have to read a controversial book, or to watch a controversial documentary. Regardless of whether the cause of the controversy is related to sex, violence, or politics.

Some China-Watchers argue that the real issue here is not sex or violence, or time spent on gaming at all. But rather the fact that Beijing is seeking to interfere with people's freedom to choose for themselves, and that it is attempting to create a sanitized environment: A generic and homogenized mono-culture where people think only good thoughts, and act as perfect citizens. Rather than as free thinking individuals. As might be found in a dystopian science fiction novel. Said China watchers have voiced that Beijing needs to take a "step back" and to "treat the Chinese people as adults" who should be allowed to develop mentally and creatively at their own pace, not as children who need protecting. "Online games with content threatening state security, damaging the nation's glory, disturbing social order and infringing on other's legitimate rights will also be prohibited," Chinese Ministry of Culture, China (2004) China watchers noted that most of this was standard fair for Beijing, and that rather than representing something new they mostly represented the application of existing media censorship to downloaded gaming. China watchers also noted that the new rules applied exclusively to foreign games. Domesticity produced games had always been subject to these conditions under the existing censorship regime. In keeping with this, many of the games that were subsequently prohibited were prohibited for predictable reasons. Such as the banning of the sports management simulation "Soccer Manager 2005" for depicting Chinese-Taiwan as having an independent soccer team from the Mainland, and strategy game "Hearts of Iron" for depicting the disputed island as being Japanese territory during WWII. "[Soccer Manager 2005] poses harm to the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Ministry of Culture, China Ironically - and in keeping with Beijing's brand of censorship - the prohibition came despite the fact that both games were factually correct. ChineseTaiwan does have its own independent soccer team that competes at an international level, while the island was under Japanese rule during WWII, having been ceded to Japan several decades prior under an unequal treat. At the time, there was some low level acknowledgement of the new wave of censorship by the Western media, but it quickly died down, and it didn't translate any significant outrage form foreign leaders or NGO. Part of the reason for this lack of outrage was that many of their own countries were undergoing significant internal debates over computer game censorship themselves. Although Beijing's censorship sweep did ban a number of games for political reasons, it also banned others for their depictions of violence, for sexual content, or because they had gambling

themes, and it was touted in the domestic media as being part of Beijing's drive to protect children from graphic or harmful content. This put many in the Western in a difficult position, and made it hard for foreign leaders and NGOs to criticize Beijing without drawing fire from groups in the own countries who were seeking to bring in legislation Thus individuals and groups that wanted to stay out of the domestic censorship debate also stayed out of the Chinese censorship debate. While those that were in favor of tighter domestic restrictions found if very difficult to criticize Beijing for bringing in regulations which (with the exception of political censorship) mirrored their own overall goals very closely. For example, many Western parents groups have long campaigned for laws to be brought in that would prohibit the sale of sexually explicit, or gratuitously violent, games to under 18s. Additionally, there was little or no pressure from the gaming industry on NGOs, and leaders to press China on the issue of games censorship. This was partly because Western games had little presence in China, but wanted to increase it, and thus didn't want to antagonize Beijing. However, it was also partly because many of the banned games were in fact illegal copies of Western games that had not been officially released in China. Games which Western companies had themselves lobbied their own governments to put pressure on China about restricting. Meaning that the Western gaming industry had little to gain, but a lot to lose, in creating a fuss over censorship. Kill Switch? The online games industry came under the state spotlight a second time in China during late 2004early 2005. Though this time Beijing was acting in response to concerns raised by citizens, rather than on its own political agenda. Though the two did intersect at times. During 2003, concerns began to circulate amongst Chinese parents and school teachers over the amount of time that children were spending playing online games, and the effect that this was having on their health and education. With children spending time playing online games in internet cafes when they should have been doing homework, cutting class to play games, or spending money intended for food or school books in internet cafes. There were also reports of so called "CS" fights (Named after the online game Counter Strike) between students. Incidents - ranging from small scale altercations to serious brawls - resulting from online game players either brining their gaming feuds into the real world, or falling out over online games. Though in truth such incidents were something of an urban myth. And where they did happen they were often little more than scuffles between teenagers. Concern grew further during 2004 and 2005 as

reports began to appear of deaths related to online gaming. Including the 2005 murder of Zhu Caoyuan, who was stabbed to death in Shanghai in a computer games related dispute, South Korean Seungseob Lee, who died of a heart attack after spending almost 2 days continuously, playing a game titled Starcraft, and the death of several Mainland youths who collapsed from exhaustion on a railway embankment while traveling home from an extended gaming session, and were killed when they rolled into the path of a train. As a result of this concern Beijing ordered that "kill switches" be installed in online games which would automatically cut users off after 3 hours of gaming. "The timing mechanism can prevent young people from becoming addicted to online games" Xiaowei Kou, General Administration of Press and Publication, China Rules were later modified by Beijing so as to specifically target players of online role play games. Which were Seen as being the primary cause for concern. Instead of automatically logging players out, their game characters were incrementally degraded over time. With gamers given a warning after 3 hours play, and loosing 50% of their character's power if they choose to ignore it. If the gamers continued beyond 5 hours then their characters would be reset to their most basic level - Essentially wiping out all of the gamer's progress so far - and they will not be allowed to log back in for 5 hours. The kill switch code was also later modified to only effect gamers under the age of 18. Allowing older gamers to continue as normal. Again, while this was reported around the world there was very little outcry from Western leaders or NGO, and media coverage usually took a non critical standpoint. Acknowledging that Beijing was acting to limit the time that people spent gaming, but stopping short of actively criticizing Beijing for doing it in the same way that they would had the restrictions been placed on a more socially acceptable group, such as bloggers. The reasons for this were primarily the same as the reasons for the lack of outrage over game censorship. It was not seen as being advantageous to their image back home for them to be seen defending the rights of people to play computer games for long periods of time due to the gaming related controversies that existed back home. Particularly owing to the growing concerns amongst Us parents over the length of time that their own children were spending playing computer games. Equally, there was little or no protest from games manufacturers, with companies choosing to work with Beijing in exchange for continued access to China's online gaming market (valued at an estimated $US500 Million by 2005) rather than risking antagonizing Beijing and being locked out of it. Indeed, some of the Wests largest online gaming franchises - including World of Warcraft - were amongst the first gaming systems to come on

board with Beijing's kill switch legislation. Putting the newly mandated software modifications in place in order to continue to be allowed access to growing Mainland markets. Knock on Effects? During this period gamers were also caught up in wider politically motivated censorship. In particular, gamers who used internet cafes were forced to identify themselves using their state mandated identification card, each time they wanted to go on line. This restriction was not specifically targeted at gamers, and applied to internet cafe users in general. It formed one component of Beijing's campaign to intimidate those who used the internet to post/read content that contradicted the state mandated account of history, society and politics by making them easier to identify in the real world. One knock on effect of this was that it removed some of the anonymity of gamers, and allowed gamers under the age of 18 to be singled out for some of the above mentioned restriction, or even prohibited from accessing on line games at all. It also allowed gamers who used overseas services to play games not officially sanctioned in China to be more readily identified. Though in truth this was more of a psychological issue than an actual restriction. It forced more self censorship than anything else, with gamers being wary of attracting the attention of authorities, rather than actually being prevented from doing something. Violence, Sex and Gambling? Restrictions were also brought in at various points on games which contain depictions of violence, sex and gambling. Some of these regulations have seen games developers being forced to modify or censor their games in order to be allowed to continue operating in China. One of the highest profile of these has been World of Warcraft and its various expansion packs. The publisher was forced to take the Mainland version of the game off line for 6 weeks in 2009. During which time the games graphics were modified to remove images of skeletons , gore, severed heads, and other such object. For example, skeletons used as scenery were replaced with hessian sacks, and undead characters were remodelled so that they no longer had torn flesh through which their bones could be seen. The in the Wrath of the Lich King expansion pack was twice refused certification on the Mainland despite heavy changes having been made from the Western retail version. At the time there were an estimated 5 million Chinese users of World of Warcraft. Accounting for around 30% of the game's total users. In other cases, entire games have been prohibited from sale/play because Beijing has decreed them to be wholly unsuitable.

For example, in mid 2009 Beijing placed a blanked prohibition on gangster themed games: Games which allow players to take the role of gangster/Mafia characters, and which allow them to advance through the game by committing criminal acts. Companies were prohibited from retailing such games or allowing them to be downloaded, and websites were prohibited from hosting them or linking to them. According to Beijing, it was inappropriate for the healthy and harmonious development of Mainland culture for people to play games that encouraged them to pursue violent criminal pastimes in a virtual environment. These games encourage people to deceive, loot and kill and glorify gangster life. They are a bad influence on youngsters. Spokesperson, Ministry of Culture, China (2009)

Prohibited games included the popular online gangster simulations Jianghu and Guhuozai. While these acts of censorship were noted by the Western media, including some big media outlets, the majority of overseas attention came for games players expressing solidarity with their Mainland counterparts, rather than from states, NGO or human rights interests. Or from games companies As before, the lack of interest was primarily due to it not being socially or politically acceptable for public and pressure group figures to be seen defending the promotion of such material overseas in the face of domestic campaigns to bring in similar legislation at home. And with games companies not wishing to rock the boat in China. Additional Restrictions? After a brief respite, Beijing again increased pressure on online gamers in June 2010. Announcing a raft of new restrictions to be brought in for August of that year. The new legislation included some contentious moves, and some less contentious moves. As well as some that have left China-Watchers divided. Virtual Currency? Amongst the new measures is a total prohibition on the use of so-called "virtual currency" by those below the age of majority. Effectively ending the trade of points earned by playing games or performing functions on social networking sites for virtual or real world goods by children. This prohibition was brought in in part because of concerns that games developers and hosts were encouraging young players to spend increasing amounts of time online in order to earn virtual currency so that they could buy additional content. Such as upgrades for games characters, or additional features for social network sites. However, it was also partly brought in due to concerns that