Jackie Chan attacked for China comments

Actor Jackie Chan attacked for saying no need for freedom in China

Jackie Chan's comments that freedom may not be good for China were taken out of context, his spokesman said Tuesday, while Facebook users and Chinese scholars condemned the veteran actor on the Internet in a spreading backlash.

The 55-year-old star of the "Rush Hour" action comedies caused a huge uproar after he told a business forum on Saturday that it may not be good for authoritarian China to become a free society.

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday, adding freedoms in his native Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic."

Taiwan, which split from China in 1949, is democratic and Hong Kong, a former British colony now ruled by China, enjoys some free elections.

"I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want," he said.

Hong Kong and Taiwanese legislators lashed out at the comments, with some accusing Chan of insulting the Chinese race.

But Solon So, the chief executive of Chan's company JC Group and his main spokesman, told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday the actor was referring to freedom in the entertainment industry and not Chinese society at large.

Chan was speaking at a panel discussion about Asian entertainment industries and was asked to discuss movie censorship in China.

"Some people with ulterior motives deliberately misinterpreted what he was saying," So said.

But Chan discussed China as a country - not its entertainment industry specifically - immediately before making his comments about freedom, according to an AP reporter who attended Chan's panel discussion in the southern Chinese island province Hainan.

"Sure, we've got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It's hard to compare us with other countries," Chan said, referring to China's communist rule and capitalist-style reforms under the communist regime.

"But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan continued.

Meanwhile, the public backlash against Chan grew.

A group of Chinese scholars published a letter on the Internet on Monday accusing Chan of "not understanding how precious freedom is," even though "free Hong Kong provided the conditions for you to become an international action star."

A Facebook group set up by Hong Kong users calling for Chan to be exiled to North Korea had drawn more than 2,600 members by Tuesday. The group also posted form letters urging Hong Kong's Baptist University and Academy for Performing Arts to strip Chan of honorary degrees they gave the actor.

The Hong Kong Tourism Board, for which Chan serves as an ambassador, had received 17 complaints as of Monday that his comments "hurt the image of Hong Kong and aren't reflective of Hong Kong people," a publicist said. She declined to give her name because of company policy.

The University of Hong Kong's students' union said in a statement Monday Chan's comments "cast shame on the entire Hong Kong citizenry" and "may poison the younger generation."

Opposition Taiwanese politicians on Monday demanded that the city government of Taipei strip Chan of his role as ambassador of the Deaf Olympic Games to be held in the Taiwanese capital in September.

David Ahenakew acquitted of wilfully promoting hate

A Saskatoon judge has acquitted David Ahenakew Monday on a charge of promoting hatred against Jews, but denounced comments the former aboriginal leader made in a speech and subsequent interview six years ago.

Ahenakew, the former head of the Assembly of First Nations, was charged after making inflammatory comments during a 2002 speech and interview with a journalist.

In his comments, the 75-year-old blamed Jews for the Second World War, called them a "disease" and seemed to justify the Holocaust.

However, provincial court Judge Wilfred Tucker said in his judgment that although the comments were "revolting, disgusting and untrue," it didn't appear to him that Ahenakew intended to promote hatred.

After hearing the verdict, Ahenakew hugged his daughter and told reporters outside court: "I'm glad it's over."

This was the second time that Ahenakew stood trial on the charge. He was found guilty at his first trial and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000. However, he appealed his conviction, which was overturned, and a new trial was ordered.

During the second trial, Ahenakew testified that he does not hate Jews but believes they caused the war.

"Everybody says I'm a Jew-hater," he told court. "I don't hate the Jews, but I hate what they do to people."

The controversy all began in December 2002, when Ahenakew gave a speech in Saskatoon during a health conference held by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

In his speech, Ahenakew blamed Jews for causing the Second World War. A newspaper reporter later asked him to clarify his remarks.

"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" Ahenakew said to the reporter. "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe."

"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God-damned world."

Ahenakew's comments cost him his position as a senator with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, as well as his Order of Canada, which was taken from him following his first conviction.

Ahenakew's defence lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the case should never have gone to trial.

Christie said his client was simply arguing with the reporter and did not want his comments published.

However, crown prosecutor Sandeep Bains told court that Ahenakew knew he was speaking to a reporter and agreed to be interviewed.

In his ruling, Tucker said he believed that Ahenakew did not intend to promote hate because he had not planned to speak to the reporter about his speech and had tried to end the interview.

Tucker also said he believed the comments Ahenakew made in his speech were not premeditated.

The Crown said it would review the ruling before deciding on whether to launch an appeal of the acquittal.

Officials with the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) said that while they respect the court's decision, Ahenakew's comments caused a great deal of pain to Canada's Jewish community.

"While Mr. Ahenakew has not been convicted, there is no doubt that his words and actions were anti-Semitic and we hope Mr. Ahenakew has come to understand the pain he has caused," CJC co-president Sylvain Abitbol said in a statement. "We urge Mr. Ahenakew to make amends so he can be remembered for healing rather than for hurting."

Rihanna 'Appalled' by Chris Brown's Public Apology

Rihanna has not yet come out of her hiding place nor did she comment on her alleged altercation with Chris Brown which occurred last weekend, but a longtime friend of her has revealed to the Chicago Sun-Times that the songstress was "appalled" by the public apology Chris has issued.

Rihanna, according to the source, expected Chris to give details about their blow-up instead of simply saying he was "sorry and saddened" over what has happened.

"All of us, including Rihanna, don't understand how he can say he's sorry on the one hand, but still ... does not admit any guilt," so the Barbados-based friend said. "He should have expressed more contrition."

Elsewhere in Los Angeles, a close associate of Rihanna told the Chicago Sun-Times on Monday, February 16 that the sexy Barbadian performer was "royally pissed off" by Chris' statement. She even branded his comment as "cavalier and arrogant".

It's been more than a week after reports of them getting involved in an alleged physical fight dominate the headlines, but neither Rihanna nor Chris Brown has shared with the public the truth behind the incident. Both of them reportedly have been spending time with respective family and friends.

As of Chris Brown, he in the meantime is awaiting for his next court appearance, scheduled for March 5.

Prince Harry apologizes over racist remarks

Britain's Prince Harry issued a public apology Saturday after a British newspaper published video on its Web site of him using offensive and racist language.

The News of The World reported that Harry, third in line to the British throne, used offensive terms to refer to people from Pakistan and people of Arab descent.

Harry, who is an army lieutenant in the Household Cavalry's Blues and Royals, is purported to have made the remarks in 2006 in an airport departure lounge as soldiers waited to travel to Cyprus for training exercises.

The newspaper said in a statement that in the video, Harry referred to one colleague as "our little paki friend" — using a derogatory term for people of Pakistani origin.

It reported that he called another cadet — who was wearing a headscarf — a "raghead." The newspaper said that the video was filmed by other cadets and supplied to the newspaper.

St. James's Palace — the office of Harry and his elder brother Prince William — said on Saturday that Harry was sorry for any offense caused by his use of the word "paki."

"Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely sorry for any offense his words might cause," spokesman Patrick Harrison said in a statement.

"However, on this occasion three years ago, Prince Harry used the term without any malice and as a nickname about a highly popular member of his platoon. There is no question that Prince Harry was in any way seeking to insult his friend."

Harrison said that Harry had used the other offensive term to refer to either the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents.

"Neither the army nor the armed forces tolerates inappropriate behavior in any shape or form," Britain's defense ministry said in a statement Saturday. "The Army takes all allegations of inappropriate behavior very seriously and all substantive allegations are investigated."

The ministry said no complaint had been raised against Harry over his comments. "We are not aware of any complaint having been made by the individual," the ministry's statement said.

Last year, Harry served with the British Army in Afghanistan for 10 weeks. He was withdrawn from the combat zone after his deployment, a closely guarded secret, became public.

Harry has previously acknowledged drinking underage and smoking marijuana. In January 2005, he apologized after being pictured in a newspaper at a costume party dressed as a Nazi, complete with a swastika armband.

I've a few problems with this:

- This incident occurred 3 years ago, and only now is an apology issued?

- I know he's a prince and all, but he couldn't apologize himself, with his own mouth, and a statement had to be issued for him? he was able to use his mouth to make the comments, couldn't use his mouth to issue the apology??

- With the costume incident in 2005, it's safe to assume this isn't just an accidental one time thing, but a pattern of behavior like this can be seen. I'm sorry but something like that can't be just condoned or brushed off simply because of someone's status. WRONG IS WRONG!

- Someone with feelings like this, being on a "peacekeeping" mission in a foreign country....with a loaded lethal weapon in hand, and knowing that there status can basically allow them to get away with anything... is VERY unnerving!!

- Is these traits to look up to in a potential future king?

Am I the only one who feels this way about this?? am I taking it the wrong way?? What do my readers think of this??