I live on the other side of the world, but this still strikes a deep chord with me.
I'm Swedish, born and raised in Gothenburg. After the Umbrella protests in 2014 five people connected to the Causeway Bay Books store in Hong Kong disappeared. One of them is a naturalized Swedish citizen, his daughter was raised in my home town. He is now imprisoned and can't communicate with his daughter, or with the Swedish authorities. Angela Gui, his daughter, is continuing on the struggle for his release to the extent she can, being only 21 when her father disappeared.
All these arguments about "leave China be" or "this isn't the West's problem" just don't make any sense to me. This is a small world, whether we like it or not, and letting authoritarian stuff like this extradition treaty to a dictatorship slide is condoning it and before you know it your citizenship, constitutional rights and passport which you thought would keep you safe doesn't work anymore and you get snatched from a street for something you've said. Your family can only cry themselves to sleep over it from the feeling of powerlessness.
We don't have to go into hypotheticals about what will happen if China gets more power to persecute people of Hong Kong. In Sweden, we already know what they've done with the limited power they hold now.
We, people from Hong Kong, appreciate your view a lot.
Your view is particularly relevant to the current protest on anti-extraditions law: the focus is on what if more people will be transferred to China when CCP does not like what you have done outside of China.
Without the extraditions law, CCP has to go into great length to abduct others into China--for the case of the five missing book publishers (including a Swedish national) [1] who did not violate any law in Hong Kong or elsewhere (ignoring some made-up non-sense of drink-drive accidents), likely CCP used secret agents reaching as far as Thailand, because there were no travel documents necessary to have the five people crossing the border through legal channels.
But once the extraditions law is passed, China can use Hong Kong to bring people into China, regardless of their nationality, and foreigners merely transiting in Hong Kong could be arrested and then extradited into China.
The results weren't pretty. The Swedish national, Gui Minhai, in this case were forced to made a "confession" on CCTV for his "crime", in addition to losing his freedom [1].
China has shown repeatedly that they could retaliate by charging foreigners. What follows the Huawei incident is a recent example.
> This is a small world, whether we like it or not, and letting authoritarian stuff like this extradition treaty to a dictatorship slide
A while ago a plane arrived in Fiji half-filled with Chinese police officers. They arrested 77 supposedly Chinese nationals, put them on the plane, and took them back to China. This was all extra-judicial. None of the 77 were arrested, charged, or convicted by the Fijian justice system. It's unknown who the 77 are, but the Chinese claim they were involved in an online fraud ring.
They probably are following orders really well, it's the judicial and legislative system using the police that are almost not even trying to uphold the human rights conventions. You know, the UN ones, which China claims they support, since China's a permanent member of the security council and all.
I really like people when they comment without doing research and just feed their hatred. The event in Fiji IS about online scammers, and thousands of people in China have suffered from these scams. These scammers are, unfortunately, mostly organized by Taiwanese because conveniently we use the same language. They are usually released in days when sent back to Taiwan. Fortunately Chinese police office does a good job, and work with local government to crack down these activities. These criminals reside in African countries and South east countries because the law enforcement there is technologically limited. I understand people hate Chinese government (you are not a happy person anyway), but using wrong evidence to back up your claim is just appalling.
If you are looking for political dissenters, they are mostly in Europe, Canada, and sometimes U.S. Never in third-world countries.
CCP does have a lot of room to improve in protecting human rights. But to be fair, for the matter of national security, every country takes the extreme measure. Look at the Assange case. Neither Swedish nor US government makes any sense to me.
“Fair” is a big word. It will likely not be fully public, for a start.
China is undoubtedly the worst offender, when it comes to the right to a fair trial; but let’s not pretend “our” countries cannot stack the deck when they feel it’s necessary.
Whenever people bring up human rights abuses in China, that China is a totalitarian country, there are always people bring up that democracy isn't that much better, it's chaotic, there are special interests, there are ways to abuse human rights in a democracy too etc.
Here's my take: people living in democratic societies have this powerful weapon called free and fair election. Furthermore, independent judiciary and the rule of law. All of their constitutions have some kind of bill of rights built in, and the governments, by and large dare not cross the legal boundaries or it's almost certain that there will be consequences. If these checks and balances are not enough due to prosecutors stacking their deck with heavily financed teams of lawyers, enacting or reviving controversial laws, the civil societies are fully able to demand change, and action it during elections. While we should not pretend that democracies are perfect, let's also not pretend they are totally useless. Change can happen quickly if enough people want it to. On the hand, China after Tiananmen, has expanded its state power so much, its control of information so effective, its surveillance system so encompassing, and its civil resistance so shattered, its policies has bribed so many people, it's almost impossible to effect any substantial change without a total collapse of the regime.
Saying or implying democracies are just as bad as totalitarian regimes like the PRC risks spreading hopelessness that the people in democratic countries cannot change things. So I hope the next time people bring up this comparison, have some proportion, some perspectives in mind, and think about what they can do to better their governments, instead of just conveniently dismissing the value of democracies.
I completely agree. My aim was simply to point out that Assange's case is so bad, that one really shouldn't use it as a point of superiority of this or that system.
So my HK team had the week off to protest. Luckily I didn't get any calls at 2am to bail anyone out of jail.
This result- where the government backed down, was not expected by anyone. Ever since the Beijing-picked government stared down the Umbrella Protests in 2014, it's been a death by a thousand cuts to Hong Kong's autonomy.
After talking to a friend who works for one of the pro-Beijing parties, it turns out the biggest fear for the Chinese authorities wasn't related to HK at all, but Taiwan. China has spent so much resources to promote friendly candidates for office in Taiwan and this HK debacle has instead emboldened the incumbent president of Taiwan, who is not at all friendly towards Beijing. In fact, she won her party primary and is now well positioned for the elections next year. As it turns out, as important as HK is, Taiwan is more important to Beijing and anything that provides fodder for Taiwan's independence leaning party is not allowed.
Saying the way HN readers can understand, the fear of Beijing is nor "people hearing" as much as "people talking"
Just every political commotion starts with people coming and talking with each other, forming groups, and confirming their views and positions, and not simply passively receiving information.
Central Propaganda Department works a lot to prevent negative sentiments from becoming rallying points for political opposition exactly for the reason above.
We’re used to Beijing thinking for the long term. When they rotated leaders, this was largely true. With Xi as leader for life, however, the short-term decision making and incompetent bureaucracies that characterises dictatorships are beginning to emerge.
Hong Kong shouldn’t have been a problem. Most Hong Kongers, until recently, identified as Chinese moreso than Hong Konger. The transition in 2047 would have been uneventful.
Now, Hong Kong pissed off. Taiwan has seen the writing on the wall. China’s multi-decade integration strategy must be rethought because Xi didn’t think he could survive Hong Kongers criticising his leadership (including its corruption).
There's been a stronger identity as being a Hong Konger recently, but my family has always identified as being from Hong Kong. Looks like young people have dramatically shifted in their views. Found this saying the same: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/21/hku-poll-3-1-young-hon...
The last of my wife's family left HK in 1997. They've always strongly identified as being Hongkongers / Cantonese, rather than just Chinese, and will often correct people who don't understand the difference. My wife refers to our twins as half-Cantonese, so do I and the rest of our family. This whole situation is very unfortunate to me, but as my wife's mother said this morning, the writing was on the wall way back in 97.
This is the sort of thing predicted by Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed", the basic premise of which is that short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property.
> short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property
The evidence shows the opposite. Political leaders (in any system) want to act in the short term. Democracies simply constrain them.
No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales.
(Democracies’ rotation of leaders also allows for fixing mistakes. Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions.)
> No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales.
A dictator that survives the first two years is more likely than not to die in power. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The Logic of Political Survival. That’s not a guarantee of lifetime tenure but it’s pretty good, and you don’t get to be dictator, or last the first two years without being excellent at the fight for political survival.
Regarding mistakes and bad decisions democracies may be a bit better than dictatorships but it’s not a massive difference. When democracies go to war they mean it. Dictatorships are a lot more likely to realise they made a mistake and back down.
Democracy’s saving grace is in the proportion of the population that has power over politics, nowhere else. Dictators are great at pleasing the people they need to please to stay in power, it’s just that’s less than 10,000 people, sometimes less than 1,000.
The difference is when one party doubles down on unpopular choices they become more likely to be voted out of office. This is direct communication between the populace and rulers.
In single party systems, dictatorships, etc leaders are frequently acting on really bad information or simply don’t feel the need to back down. Thus, such things tend to build up and compound over time.
> I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country
It characterises humans in general. It’s difficult for leaders to admit mistake. Political change generally increments when leaders are removed from power.
We've come full circle. I never thought I would see someone unironically support monarchy in 2019, much less cite Hans Hermann Hope as an actual source. Hacker News! A place for hackers, people who want freedom to explore new technologies, disrupt industries, and evaluate other hackers based on their merit alone. God the Internet has gone downhill. Democracy is messy and complicated, but lifetime leaders are not the right answer and do not align with hacker culture at all.
Isn't it contradictory to consider yourself an arbiter of which opinions hackers should be allowed to have? The idea that the Internet has gone downhill because of increased participation is inherently elitist.
In any case, this forum is hosted on a website whose primary goal is to help tech minded people become rich and attain the top of the neo-liberal hierarchy. So much for the cyberpunk fantasy...
No one person is the "arbiter" of what hackers should think. That's ridiculous. But cultural norms exist. The hacker subculture (which also exists) has norms that trend towards making decisions based on merit and skill, while also emphasizing freedom. I don't think it is controversial to associate these attributes with hackers. And it is not controversial to say that these attributes are incompatible with the rule of an absolute monarch, who by definition rules unilaterally no matter the merit of his/her actions.
What really bothers me is this implication that increased participation always means a better website. I mean come on. This person is proposing a monarchy! What year is this, 1650? It is great to have a diversity of opinions, but no one is obligated to sit on the sidelines and say nothing when someone else gives a hot take straight out of Leviathan. Everyone is free to express their opinion on this site, but we are all free to call out B.S. when we see B.S.
I think your perspective makes sense, and I agree with it for the most part. I just feel that there is an underlying tension at the root of it.
Although hacker culture is mostly as you describe it, I would say that many hackers are also contributing to making the world more monarchical, even if they might not perceive their actions as such. The way tech is changing society and the way tech companies are evolving is pointing the way towards a resurgence of a somewhat feudalistic power structure with capital-owners at the helm supported by a caste of highly educated or skilled professionals, and the remainder of the population in dire economic straits.
That's why the "It's [current year]!" argument rings hollow to me. Most hackers will become either capital owners or part of the higher caste, because they will have skills that make them economically adaptable.[0] The largest part of their work ultimately helps increase inequality since whatever productivity gains are largely captured by the new feudal lords, so to speak. This is hardly an original or profound insight since wages have been stagnating for years and inequality has been skyrocketing. With automation, something identical to absolute monarchy will take place in all but name. A revolution will then be impossible since the Panopticon will have become real, the Third Estate will no longer be needed at all, and means of exchange will eventually become digitized.
You end up with hackers who have the luxury to discuss freedom and the big bad System even as they pauperize most of the population on Earth and contribute to that same system. Not every hacker does of course, but enough do to make it a concern.
Yeah, I absolutely agree that there is tension in the hacker community and that the aims of many self-proclaimed hackers is basically getting rich. I’ve seen a number of “Ask HN” posts essentially asking, “How can I get money fast using tech?”
At one time, I used to think the tech community was largely egalitarian-minded and that it actually believed in making the world a better place through technology. But it seems that a lot of tech entrepreneurs have basically become run-of-the-mill capitalists (if they weren’t from the beginning) who push for privatization of parts of government and oppose any kind of sane regulations on their companies.
Maybe hacker culture is just the juvenile stage in a tech entrepreneur’s quest to buy a big house on West Egg.
I don't support monarchies. Neither does Hoppe, or this book. He proposes only that monarchies are better than democracies, which he also doesn't endorse. I myself don't have a strong opinion on the question. I was referencing, without endorsing, an interesting theoretical explanation for the observation made in the parent comment.
I am proud of our democratic cousins in Hong Kong; this is just the beginning. Who knows what kind of country China will be in 2047, maybe there is hope for democratic China or 50 more years of democratic Hong Kong, who knows.
As for Taiwan, Taiwanese people already identify themselves with being Taiwanese. Nearly 80% of people polled identify themselves in fact, in recent polls. Now we just need the older generations to slowly fade away (ones that still watch China influenced news channels). The fact that president Tsai (who is close to our US allies) won her party election recently and has a 10% lead over her opposite party opponents (who are now distancing themselves from China) give us great hope. Our independence is going to continue.
As for the naysayers that say China can simply invade, I beg to differ. China was always going to have problems attacking a well fortified island. But an old, broke China with no allies in the region attacking Taiwan with US backing it is impossible. And as time goes on, Taiwan will eventually declare independence and have the world support for it. That’s the future I am looking forward to
I think the South East Asia region will be more stable if Taiwan, a democratic nation, rises in power and gets less influenced by CCP, whose legitimacy depends largely on fast GDP growth, which is increasingly impossible in this age of excess production and currently is done only with unsustainable credit expansion. Recently Xi is switching the legitimacy from fast GDP growth to revival nationalism--the so called Chinese dream [1]--but such aggression is also destablizing to the region.
Some coordinated efforts in the free world to raise Taiwan would help, but at least Taiwan is gaining a little bit from the recent trade tariffs [2].
I doubt Mainland government will allow a “eventually” Taiwan independence because it hurts the legitimacy of CCP(on the MAINLAND!), which will have a cascading effect.
CCP's legitimacy is the war machine. Unlikely it will be deployed, but it is there nevertheless, and the perceived threat from US will only make it accelerate such actions.
You know who isn’t naive? CCP. Any slight acts of aggression against a democratic Taiwan will mean economic sanctions against China from US and its allies (EU, Japan, etc). China’s economy will go back to the stone ages. Those US, British, French warships patrolling the Taiwan straits aren’t just for fun neither
Almost vice-versa, ask US and its allies if they’ll support any equally aggressive action from Taiwan(e.g. break current tie) when there’s no benefit for them
I'm quite sure Taiwan will last longer than the CCP in Beijing. The end game is PRC becomes democratic eventually and then Taiwan can "unify" - meaning, China becomes a federal republic with Taiwan as one of the states/provinces.
People thought the Soviet Union would last forever and then, almost overnight, it was gone.
Please don't use HN for partisan battle. It's not what this site is for. Yes, the topic and the thread are political, but this is a big step in the wrong direction.
Sorry, but China could invade Taiwan by breakfast and be done by lunch if it was so influens. The only reason it has not happened already has very little with Taiwan to do and more with geopolitical issues and Chinas dependency on oil.
> Both Westerners and Taiwanese should be more optimistic about the defense of Taiwan than is now normal.
> Yes, the Taiwanese Army projects that it can only hold off its enemy for two weeks after the landing—but the PLA also believes that if it cannot defeat the Taiwanese forces in under two weeks, it will lose the war!
This is my bad! I have been spreading fake images! Sorry that was sent to me via WhatsApp. ( But I can promise you the real thing would have look just as stunning ) Keep your attention to the Dropbox Folder.
What's going on with those first two images? The first one is clearly mirrored, though also placed a little off-center. Are these renders? A mashup of rendering and actual photos? Just photos with one mirror effect? I'm genuinely curious.
They've made it. The Chief Executive apologized and the government has suspended the fugitive law amendment. That's really a RARE concession in these years because the Chinese government typically doesn't compromise at all under pressure.
> They've made it. The Chief Executive apologized and the government has suspended the fugitive law amendment. That's really a RARE concession in these years because the Chinese government typically doesn't compromise at all under pressure.
First, the government is suspending the law amendment, not retracting it. The law amendment could be revived in a month or two--that is, after enough leaders have been arrested and the protest cools down, just like how they cold-handled the Umbrella protest in 2014, or many other protests in China--for all we know now.
Second, the government is arresting people under the charge of "riot" [1]--despite HN'ers labeling such protest as non-violent, the charge of riot means a maximum term of 10 years--and they arrest people even by violating patients' privacy and eroding trust from patients to doctors [2]. If charged, some protesters have to pay a high price, joining others who have been paying the price due to Umbrella protest.
I would not say they have made it until the law is at least retracted.
I agree with you that the government should release all protesters arrested. I actually don't care about the difference between "suspension without timetable for restarting" and "retraction" because even if the government had completely retracted the amendment, they could draft another amendment anytime anyway.
I don't think this is quibbling over terminology - "suspending" is a temporary measure, and governments being governments, there's every chance it would be "unsuspended" once the protesters melt away.
>because even if the government had completely retracted the amendment, they could draft another amendment anytime anyway.
Now that Carrie Lam has realised that she cannot do whatever she wants (at least on this issue). The criteria, if or when the this amendment will re-surface, will depend on public opinions, instead of whether it's temporarily suspended, or retracted.
What is the situation with bail in HK? In the US authorities often settle for incremental policy creep while counting on using legal and medical expenses to wear down activists in addition to physical violence.
People stateside have been very impressed with action in HK, taking notes on topics from communications to practicalities like quick extinguishing of gas grenades. Here it's often difficult to achieve sufficient density due to geographic dispersion as well as different political conditions.
According to the news, it’s unlikely that any progress on the bill will be made until next year, based on this protest. It is not just suspended, they also canceled further open discussions about it.
This is nothing but a temporary delay. It will still be passed soon enough. Remember Hong Kong is on a 50 year countdown anyway so there’s always an inevitable end coming.
"The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law."
China needs the West and it is politically unsavvy for China to renege on the rights granted before 2047. However, the British Foreign Office announced that Chinese officials now treat the Joint Declaration as "void".
According to the news, it’s unlikely that any progress on the bill will be made until next year, based on this protest. It is not just suspended, they also canceled further open discussions about it.
Yea no the HK govt needs to withdraw the bill and explicitly guarantee no extradition without conviction under HK law for people to feel safe. If China can extradite whoever they want from HK, HK has no sovereignty and no separate identity from China.
This is mentioned in the article as not being good enough and is just postponing the issue. (I would post a quote, but the Bloomberg mobile site is not cooperating with me).
That's indeed true. But I see such suspension as a kind of signal that Beijing would like to compromise, which is nearly impossible. In practice, the "suspension" simply means that it's over because Beijing doesn't want to "lose face" and intentionally picked a moderate word to make both sides happy.
Note that the government statement says "There is no timetable for restarting the process." Even if the government had completely retracted the amendment, they could draft another amendment anytime anyway. That's why I think they've made it.
The chief executive is basically a pawn of Beijing, where democracy is limited and many delegates who elect the CEO are appointed by pro Beijing groups.
If HK got rid of their appointed delegates, the anti-Beijing group would have a clear majority.
It's not clear who would have the majority if functional constituencies were eliminated. The pro-Beijing camp got a higher proportion of the popular vote than the anti-Beijing camp in the last Legislative Council election.
Yes, democracy is limited in Hong Kong. The city has never been ruled democratically. The issue now is that Beijing will not take the risk of allowing separatists to take power.
As for the Chief Executive's actions, it's not entirely clear to what extent she's responding to popular pressure, business groups in Hong Kong that want stability, or the central government.
> As for the Chief Executive's actions, it's not entirely clear to what extent she's responding to popular pressure, business groups in Hong Kong that want stability, or the central government.
I would say, the Chief Executive is more like a coordinator between Hong Kong and Beijing on such big issues. I don't think she is able to make important decisions like this on her own.
which has been becoming more and more hardline since 1997. Besides, the HK government cannot act on her own on such big issues. It has to be consulted with the PRC government.
I strongly believe that the people of Hong Kong should have the right to self-determinism. There is nobody alive who has lived under Chinese rule in Hong Kong. For reference, I am British. I hope that someday Hong Kong can be recognized as a country in its own right.
As do the people of Tibet. Tough being under the umbrella of an autocratic up-and-coming superpower. Hong Kong has no chance of achieving independence anytime soon.
Is it though? Or... Something closer to communism with a democracy wrapper over it.
The part I find most confusing is that Hong Kong believed China's word on separate laws separate courts. That was going to be the case until it wasn't convenient, which I suppose is now.
2/7th is huge. The Bolsheviks had a tiny, tiny percentage of the population and they took over Russia. Also 2/7 participation doesn’t mean 2/7th support. A lot of people might support the movement but are unwilling for various reasons to take to the streets. 2/7 is historic and huge.
The other 5/7 may watch TVB - a HK TV channel of which to many people is their only news source, and which has since been bought by mainlanders, just like many other media and publishing assets in HK - and believe in something totally else.
No joke, if you watch only TVB news, you will think the HK government is doing a great job and these protesters are arrogant, dis-obedient trouble-makers.
The gap in understanding can be really really big.
> No joke, if you watch only TVB news, you will think the HK government is doing a great job
I get that: we have the same thing here in the USA with many newspapers and some TV stations. Heck, because of this, some people actually believe President Trump is a Russian Agent, you know, despite the fact that he is one of the great capitalists of all time, and he never ran for Any elected office until he won the Presidency--a feat which was all but impossible... still they think Putin made that happen, because that is what they are told.
I stand corrected: I said > "and he never ran for Any elected office until he won the Presidency"
Technically he did run in 2000, I apologize for the inaccuracy; however it was more akin to dipping one's toe into the shark infested waters of big time politics than a full on assault.
I still feel he accomplished the impossible; like Marquez does in MotoGP, or Senna did in F1--people like that are Rare indeed, and I respect the hell out of that ability, and you trifle with them at your own risk.
An average HKer: I don't trust China's Justice system, which is heavily influenced by their government. I could be sent to China for made-up crime.
An average Chinese: Its a shame that HK as a part of China has Extradition treaties with all other countries but not Macau/Taiwan/Mainland (historical law by british). Imagine the same case for Hawaii and US Mainland.
As with other legislation, the devil is in the detail.
> An average Chinese: Its a shame that HK as a part of China has Extradition treaties with all other countries but not Macau/Taiwan/Mainland (historical law by british).
Such simplification--Hong Kong has Extradition treaties with all other countries but not China--is not useful in understanding laws.
I would cite below a point made by Leung Kai Chi (in Chinese [1], Question 6 there), translation mine (+ Google Translate):
> 6. But some Western democracies will also sign a transfer agreement with the Chinese government?
>
> Yes, but the situation in Hong Kong is different. First, when other countries and the Chinese government sign a transfer agreement, they generally stipulate that they will not be transferring to their nationals. However, under the Hong Kong Ordinance, both residents who are born and raised in Hong Kong, or those who only transfer at the Hong Kong airport, can be detained and handed over. Second, democratic countries have election supervision. If the government misuses the handover procedure, it will be punished by the voters. The chief executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the central government. Even if the transfer procedure is misused, it is difficult to open up the responsibility. Thirdly, precisely because the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the Central Government, the handover arrangements in Hong Kong cannot be compared with other places. Leaders of other countries can independently assess whether a suspect should be handed over to mainland China. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is responsible to the Central Government in accordance with the Basic Law and cannot make independent decisions. Under the framework of this system, all administrative examinations under the responsibility of the Chief Executive are tantamount to a false statement.
I actually read a comment written by a mainland Chinese to his fellow Chinese, "How many of you truly trust the justice system inside the country? We've suffered under it enough already. Why subject others under it?" It was highly liked.
Well, yes. The handover is explicit in 2047. This whole mess was an avoidable miscalculation prioritising Xi’s short-term political interests over China’s long-term strategic wellbeing.
How is it they are not fucked? No country that wants to continue to do business with China is going to back this uprising. Is there an imaginible sequence of events that doesn't result in either capitulation or a violent crushing of dissent?
They're actually succeeding- the government has backed down and apologized. The protests are pushing on for the resignation of the Chief Executive.
Keep in mind this new extradition law also applied to foreign, non-HK/CN citizens visiting Hong Kong legally. Companies operating in HK _really_ did not want this bill, either,
I don't think we can conclude the long-term intent from backing down now. It could be simply kicking the can down the road. Beijing might just be waiting to try this later. The longer they wait, though, the riskier it gets to push the Socialist system onto Hong Kong. It seems more and more citizens are willing to defend Democracy than has been the case in Hong Kong's past. If the numbers are correct, this is more protestors than the Umbrella movement.
Well, HK is the most powerful financial center in Asia, not to mention a recent UK colony. It has far more Western leverage against China than say Taiwan.
Hong Kong is still a finance heavyweight and still a gateway to China for many. Many Chinese companies in the past few years have and prefer to list their IPOs in HK rather than elsewhere because of HK's stable economy and I'm sure they would like to keep it that way (for now).
US killed Huawei overnight, a world-class competitor which was basically beating US companies, using pretty shoddy justification. So I would not rule out no one can challenge China, China is not the US. And even if it were Vietnam still beat their ass.
Cut off from global markets. Cut off from probably most international suppliers. Cut off from all American patents. In its current state I doubt it will last very long as anything outside of China.
Doesn't USA have same extradition treaty with most countries and under Patriot act anyone can be extradited without due process from any of this nations
Hopefully the common folks in mainland China are watching, and is not censored, and take inspiration from HK folks in marching and fighting for their human rights.
To give due credits, the Hong Kong people put great effort to ensure that the protests--both the Umbrella protest in 2014 and the anti-extradition protest in 2019--are peaceful, largely because they don't want to turn Victorial Park into another Tiananmen Square--there are 6000 PLA troops stationed in Hong Kong, and they will come out once the Hong Kong police loses control of the situation.
Hong Kong people learned from mainland China first. I do hope that one day mainland China could learn back, when the time calls for it.
Okay, as for the bit on cleaning trashes [1], we don't learn it from China, we learn it from Japan (for example [2]). Well, we all have something to learn from each other.
While I agree with your other words, is the last paragraph really necessary? If you want us mainlanders to trust you, it is advisable to not praise Japan when it is not directly related to the conversation.
Mainlanders are also perfectly capable of doing it, although we are not doing as good as we can.
Downvote me all you want, I still support your democratic movements. But if you truly want mainlander to hear your voice, talking about how good Japan is is counterproductive.
If you want to make friends with the victims, it is not a good idea to talk about how morally superior the criminals are. Please explain why are you down-voting this. I changed my mind seeing your previous posts, and I may change again if you can point out my mistake.
Thank you for your honest reply, I just upvoted you.
> While I agree with your other words, is the last paragraph really necessary? If you want us mainlanders to trust you, it is advisable to not praise Japan when it is not directly related to the conversation.
I agree that the last paragraph is not necessary. But I did learn something from your reply to my last paragraph.
I personally separate the Japanese people we see nowadays from the wartime Japan under militarism, and I think this sentiment is popular among the recent generations in Hong Kong (and perhaps in Europe and US, etc). Older generations in Hong Kong, who experienced the Japanese occupation, think differently, understandably.
So to a Hong Konger like me, praising Japan does not have any strings of nationalism attached. It is like praising the spice in Thai food (and this is irrelevant to whether we like Chinese food, or China). And that's why I am being over-insenstive here, and I could have done better.
Likewise, most of Hong Kong people could separate mainland people from CCP.
> Mainlanders are also perfectly capable of doing it, although we are not doing as good as we can.
Thanks for letting me know something I was not aware of, and I sincerely praise those mainlanders for their effort. Keep up with the good work.
As your linked article also suggests, Japan is leading the world in cleaning after themselves, that's why I gave credit to them.
And back to the protest, I mention that Hong Kong people are cleaning trashes in protest [1], because I disagree with the "riot" charge by the government [2], which could result in a maximum term of ten years.
> separate the Japanese people we see nowadays from the wartime Japan under militarism
Yes, this is the sane choice. Unfortunately we both know that bad news draw more attention from the general public. Just like many mainlanders still remember vividly that (a small fraction of) HKers called them as locusts, when some Japanese say something bad about China, it gets spread much much faster than other news and stays in the memory for a long time. I was merely stating the fact that it is not a good idea to praise Japan in a conversation in general unless necessary, given the current state of our media. But still, their officials need to stop visiting the Shrine, or the names of the war criminals need to be removed.
> "riot" charge by the government
Usual CCP bs. My stand on this is that: HK is the best candidate for advocating changes to the CCP, if you can succeed before 2047 then we really own you a big favor. But HK should also remember that this is our internal affair, no foreign organization should interfere. The West can be used as extra pairs of eyes to keep the CCP checked so it doesn't repeat the disaster happened in Tiananmen square, but that's it. I hope you can understand why we don't trust the West, after we have witnessed the events happened elsewhere.
> I was merely stating the fact that it is not a good idea to praise Japan in a conversation in general unless necessary, given the current state of our media.
Agreed, and points taken. Thanks.
> My stand on this is that: HK is the best candidate for advocating changes to the CCP, if you can succeed before 2047 then we really own you a big favor. But HK should also remember that this is our internal affair, no foreign organization should interfere. The West can be used as extra pairs of eyes to keep the CCP checked so it doesn't repeat the disaster happened in Tiananmen square, but that's it. I hope you can understand why we don't trust the West, after we have witnessed the events happened elsewhere.
That's reasonable. Thanks for voicing out your main concern: that China may lose control to foreign organization, hence CCP should stay unless absolutely unbearable. I think I understand more how mainlanders think now.
I have spent 9 years in the US. When I first came here, I was fed up with CCP's bs and thought the US and its system is the best. But now I have come to the conclusion that it is just as evil as the CCP, but in different ways. I think so because I have witnessed first hand about how insulting the Chinese is still acceptable [0] even in the PC culture (ppl still ask me if I eat dogs), how biased the mainstream media are, and how the democratic system here is full of flaws. More and more mainlanders are sharing my view, for better or for worse.
Also, it's not just "lose control to foreign organization". Based on the above reasons, we believe that the West is hostile towards Asia and will do everything to prevent any country in that area from growing up and challenge them. The US supports Korea, Japan and Taiwan just so it can put pressure on China, instead of actually caring about their people. Look, the HN crowd are still down-voting my post that complains about you mentioning Japan and I still can't think of why.
Yes, I understand that rights can only be obtained by earning instead of begging, and the Chinese-American community did a poor job to defend their rights. But until we have a memorial day for [1], I do not believe the Westerners care about our well-being at all.
As for your protest, this image of the flyer in [2] was circulating privately on our social media, and I have to say that one of the bullet points is really questionable, namely, collective punishment (do you have proof of this?). Even if all the other ones are true to some extent, this one is going to hurt your credibility a lot and push people away from you.
I am going to take a risk by quoting Chairman Mao's words: 政治就是，把支持我们的人搞的多多的，把反对我们的人搞得少少的！The number of people in the mainland who doesn't like CCP's actions is probably larger than you realized, but these people, by their nature, dislike liars in general. If HK want to win their support, then it really should make sure that their flyers/slogans are flawless and based on facts, and do not smell like the typical Western propaganda. I know this is putting the burden on you but hey this is not an easy task to begin with.
Edit: Let me add more materials that supports my view that the US doesn't care about us at all [3], and how they provided continuous support to Chiang Kai-shek even if he did [4] and [5]. I am from Henan so you can imagine why do I think this is just as bad as what the CCP did, and how angry I am when almost no Westerners talks about these when they talk about the KMT.
FYI, this conversation is very productive and contributes to the greater conversation in a positive way. Thank you for bringing in a unique viewpoint. I hope we all can work better towards the future.
> I think so because I have witnessed first hand about how insulting the Chinese is still acceptable [0] even in the PC culture (ppl still ask me if I eat dogs), how biased the mainstream media are, and how the democratic system here is full of flaws.
I have seen this as well, HATE it, and I've had to chew people out on it before. But it's something bigger than just one person trying to be mindful, I think.
There is the normal amount of it that is in jest, as with any other group of people, but for some reason, treating Asia like the butt of your jokes almost NEVER seems to be taken with any sort of seriousness at all. For example, a normal, sane westerner wouldn't go out saying 'Black people eat nothing but watermelon,' without complete irony, but for a much longer time, it was completely reasonable to make similar jokes, even more vulgar jokes towards people from Asia. Only recently have people started thinking 'Oh, maybe this is a bad idea, too.'
The media... Yeah. The media is dreadful. But it's a growing sentiment in the west that the media is useless and does extraordinarily more harm than good (being a shame since it's so ingrained in everything)
> Look, the HN crowd are still down-voting my post that complains about you mentioning Japan and I still can't think of why
Just for a western perspective, there may be a few reasons this is happening
* People in the west LOVE Japan. Obviously we'll look at the entire country with rose tinted goggles, and anything they've done to the west we've done back to them tenfold. So as a rule, Japan tends to get a MUCH bigger free pass on just about everything. Doubly so because their culture is so prevalent in the west. My initial thought, without actually reading into what you were saying was: "Japan is terrible. China is better." Obviously that's not what you said at all, but it's STILL my first gut reaction (the next thought was instinctively 'maybe some nuance was lost between languages?' Which is also a very unhelpful sentiment, but it remains my initial reactions)
* There's been a LOT of anti-Asia, especially Chinese, sentiment lately. I'm not exactly sure what's going on, if there's some sort of propaganda push or people are literally just echoing the political climate, but especially on Hacker News, it has been almost unusable due to how toxic it is lately. Again, I try to see beyond what I'm seeing/hearing, but even for me it's hard to not get swept up at times. So ANYTHING pro Chinese is bound to be at least met with skepticism at best.
* People unfortunately, and incorrectly treat the 'flag' button as a 'dislike/I don't like this' button. I think Reddit unfortunately normalized this as a trend.
> we believe that the West is hostile towards Asia and will do everything to prevent any country in that area from growing up and challenge them
I may not be as well researched into this as someone who's actually on the receiving end, and I am on the younger side, but from the perspective I know, Russia, China, and the US were always on equal footing and were constantly trying to do similar things like this to each other. I would be interested in hearing more about this from a different viewpoint, however.
Thank you for your kind words, it really warms my heart.
Yes, recently there has been an abnormally high amount of news about China on HN and I find most of the comments questionable to say the least. I was so pissed and registered this account to post some comments that are also questionable, so I really should calm down and contribute something that actually helps.
Speaking of the Japanese culture, I must admit that I envy them for how well it is preserved and developed with time. I totally understand why you find it's beautiful and think it represents the good things in the Far East. Our problem is that the Japanese government treat us like they defeated us during WWII because now they are the ally of the allies, which makes us super upset.
Yes all our governments suck, but from our perspective, the US has actively caused much much more trouble around the world than China. And we are genuinely concerned about what's going to happen next because of mentality shown by words like [0] (sorry if the link is pay-walled).
The more people having constructive conversations, the better. If at least to attempt to drown out the toxicity. But, if we never succeed, well, at least we made the effort.
The general west hears very little about Japanese government as a rule. So I don't have any reason to believe or disbelieve you. All we get are the culture's good bits, but maybe never see the underbelly. Maybe we'll hear something if there's a controversy, or about the new emperor since it was a novelty, but that's it. So that's very interesting to hear about Chinese-Japanese relations.
Funny enough, if you just skim this article, it seems to prop up Japan as a underdog model state. Reading into it a bit more has more detail, but I know at least several people who just read the bullet points of articles like this, and walk away with whatever they got. I wonder if this is a contribution to the push, but it might be that this is what is in the news right now, and this is what politicians in the west are talking about. (Or at least what the media is reporting)
I think the thing to watch for is next year's US elections. The two parties in the US are somewhat similar on a global scale, but the differences that do exist between them are really important for these relations, and has the potential to improve things, rather than continuing to polarize them. Either way, the US was divided almost in half by population last election, (the majority didn't even vote for the Republican offices, but that's not how the election system works,) so it seems at least say that there is a large number of people that do not hold the same opinions as their government.
There is no Chinese-Japanese relation, because you cannot leave the US out of the discussion, not after WWII. In fact, what the Japanese think about us is pretty much irrelevant because pro-China [0] government officials die before they can actually do something, at relatively the same time [1] [2].
I think the root of the conflict between the West and China is the arrogance of the Westerners and the (slowly rising) confidence and impatience of the Chinese.
The arrogance is not only the jokes or bamboo ceilings. The deepest arrogance is the unwilingness to understand the Chinese way, let alone respecting it.
Why do the Chinese tolerate their government? Are they silly or are they all cowards? No. There are just trade-offs. And there is reality. So, do the homeless in US cities who live under bridges enjoy the democracy? Do they really have a way to change their way of living by having the right to vote? The Chinese people are practical and still in the low tiers of Maslow's hirearchy of needs, and the government provides them with the basic needs. Yeah, we have electricity, phone signals, roads and bridges for the smallest villeges scattered in mountains. Not sure if the US can promise the same.
And there are so many myths about Chinese legal system or sensoring. Yeah we got problems in these fields, but such problems are not always pushed top down. The Chinese people also have a huge influence on the court system, and the justice popular in China may not be popular in the West. About the punishment to people refusing to pay the debts, or to people refusing to give up seats belonging to other passenger on the trains. The Westerners throw so much FUD at it, but it's actually quite well-accepted by the Chinese. So, what do you actually want the Chinese to have? What you think is good for them, or what they actually want? What makes you a better decision maker?
And the arrest of people making outrageous remarks on the Internet are actually well accepted too. The police may actually act on request of other civilians seeing those remarks and get offended. And most such remarks are actually bordering or well into the territory of hate crime. Don't you talk about joking about presidents. More like humiliations, and not to officials, but to veterans, war heroes, moral code, and other people and things honored by the majority of the society. Do they deserve arrest? Perhaps and perhaps not. But the Chinese people are not complaining.
So, do you Westerners really want diversity of cultures or not? If you really mean it, try to understand the Chinese and respect their way. Like you claim to have done to the Islamic way. If you don't, just shut up and let it be.
(Could not edit the parent comment for one more remark)
> I still support your democratic movements. But if you truly want mainlander to hear your voice, talking about how good Japan is is counterproductive.
Thank you for your support, and for the honest opinion. It is important for us to understand how you think. I hope we can understand each other better with enough communication.
Yes, but she's probably too occupied at the moment to kick another honest's nest.
Also, HK can be a valve for the Chinese economy if the trade war continues to deteriorate.
The majority of the Chinese people have no idea what's happening in HK anyway, so it's not like HK will lead to troubles in other Chinese cities by itself, at least not in the short-term. So it is IMO wise for the Chinese government to leave HK alone for the time being.
Every article I see about the HK protests makes sure to focus on how non-violent the gathering was. I see many people framing that non-violence as a better way to affect change in their government.
I sincerely hope that a non-violent protest gets these people the change they want, but I take real issue in framing violent protests as unnecessary when your historically oppressive government refuses to listen to the will of its people.
As others have pointed out, HK government is not historically oppressive, physically speaking. So if the protesters initiate violence without being provoked, mass opinions may change real quick.
IMO we better consider this on a case-by-case basis. If non-violent protests can and will work in more places in future, why not?
Like I said, I hope they work, but I see no reason for the HK government or Beijing to respect this, given there's no actual threat of the people protesting in a more forceful way.
There was supposed to be a general strike tomorrow (Monday), but since the government has suspended the legislation, it seems to be called off (I said "seems" because there is no clear leadership in the current protest movement).
The point is that politicians always use the inevitable violence that arises when you have demonstrations to discredit the legitimity of the demonstration.
I'm French and politicians have become very very good at this.
Violent protests in this case directly play into the hands of CCP and gets you PLA with HK Police uniforms on the streets.
Also any change that comes through "gun" rarely turns into ballot friendly. Once armed the erst while "freedom" fighters will start fighting for their clan/class/tribe/interests.
Do you understand that PLA can march into HK without any tricks, invariably of that?
I'd also mention that there were many times in the past when Beijing genuinely considered that option.
During yellow umbrella protests last year for examples, 3 regiments in Guandong province were not simply put into high readiness, but actually mobilised, i.e. troops issued ammo, and vehicles fuelled and armed.
I will not be surprised if a bigger operation is underway right now, and we simply don't know it. VPNs have been jammed 24/7 for more than a week, more intensively than even during 4.6 anniversary. New bootstrapping IP ranges are blocked within minutes on major VPNs. I've never ever seen it being so extreme ever.
Violent protests brings out the tanks and people start dying literally in the streets. Unless you are talking about actual revolution, violent protest accomplishes nothing and results in losing the moral high ground which is critical if one is to have international support. Violent protest in Hong Kong would result in Beijing sending in soldiers to suppress the rebellion under the guise of “public safety.” You get martial law and its justified (using their calculus) as protecting people from harm from the violent protesters. Violent protest in China would result in thousands dead and Beijing accelerating the 2047 expiration of the two systems, one country agreement. Bad idea.
So if Beijing is just going to send military force if they perceive something that will truly threaten change in HK, but they did not send anything, what does that tell you about the probable outcome of these non-violent protests?
I think the protestors are fighting the good fight, but I'm not holding my breath that anything will actually come about because 2 million people stood in the street.
Violent protest that is not “actual revolution” doesn’t bring change. It just leads to fighting in the streets as the parent said.
compare the violent protests that ignited the Syrian civil war (actual revolution) to the violent protests that resulted in no actual revolution (Rodney King riots, yellow vests in France, etc) to consider the difference, I think.
There is little distinction. One leads to another.
If you can dig news in well, you know that Syria began with some bakers protesting flour price hike and them roughing up some policemen.
A lot of revolutions stared with public disturbance events which had only tangential relation to political context, with Russian revolution being the best known example
China has learned a lot since 1989, not necessarily the best lessons, but they at least have a well trained non lethal anti riot force (part of the PAP) and wouldn’t resort to the PLA unless as a best last resort even in mainland cities. One of the tragedies of 1989 is that China basically had no non lethal anti riot capabilities.
When a government deploys violence anyway people do have a right of self-defense. There's a broad spectrum of criminality from refusal to disperse following an order to do so, through interferences with public property like removal or deployment of barricades, through interference, confiscation or damage to vehicles, through direct physical confrontation which has its own escalatory tree.
Non-violence is a position but must have limits, otherwise you are demanding that people become punchbags of the state and preemptively invalidating all resistance against oppression, thereby amplifying the oppressor's narrative. A government in sufficient trouble will kill nonviolent people anyway and while it will lose moral legitimacy it is often willing to accept that as the price of strategic advantage, because the reality is that state actors can get away with killing people under many circumstances.
What we sometimes see (as here) is a triangle between government, capital, and people. Capital threatens to depart if government is overly aggressive and likes to pat itself on the back for its regulatory capability, but at the same time capital uses government to keep people subservient to those who control the wealth; one might say it's similar to fleecing sheep and aiming to slaughter as few and as humanely as possible. Large capital interests farm people within the legal and executive infrastructure of states for all practical purposes.
It would be a huge risk. China is on the ropes in the political theater. Sending military troops to put down civilians in a free trade capital of the world would not earn them any favors.
I could see the 2047 date being extended. Hong Kong, as a percentage of China's total GDP, is just 2%, whereas back in 1997 it was about a quarter. Hong Kong isn't as economically relevant to China as it once was. So, let it be as-is under "One Country, Two Systems" to keep the peace with trade partners.
I doubt that any of this is even passes by Beijing strategic calculus.
Above protests being violent or non-violent, what concerns Beijing more is them keeping going for that long.
What Beijing truly fears the most is them made look powerless. Pretty much the sole point of propaganda in China is to instill the idea of the state being allpowerful, and omnipotent.
Hong Kong's government is historically not oppressive to its people. It's generally considered to be one of the most libertarian places on Earth. If they were to get violent against their oppressors, they'd be getting violent against mainland China. (They don't want to get violent against mainland China).
> As long as you can make it back to HK then you are above the law in Macau/mainland China/Taiwan
Not sure what’s going on with this account’s posting history. That said, this allegation is false.
Taiwan supports the protesters [1]. Taiwan and Hong Kong, both lawful jurisdictions, are free to enter into extradition agreements with each other. This extradition bill was a ham-fisted attempt by Beijing to subjugate Hong Kong. Ironically, in failing, it has shown Xi’s limited power [2].
What I wrote is not an allegation. It is a fact as there is currently no extradition from HK to Macau/mainland China/Taiwan.
The whole bill was brought forward because of a HK resident accused of murdering his girlfriend in Taiwan and who fled back to HK. You can say that this was a pretext to bring the bill forward but it still highlights a real issue.
The Taiwanese government is being cynical here.
It's also difficult to see how this bill would "subjugate" HK if passed.
I do agree that the HK courts would need to be very thorough in considering extradition requests from the mainland and that their independence should be preserved.
> Ironically, in failing, it has shown Xi’s limited power
Or perhaps people are assuming that "one country, two systems" is a sham when it actually isn't.
> The whole bill was brought forward because of a HK resident accused of murdering his girlfriend in Taiwan and who fled back to HK
Germany broadly prohibits the extradition of its citizens [1]. (As does China [2].) This doesn’t turn Germans and Chinese into lawless actors outside their borders. It just means their international crimes tend to be domestically prosecuted.
There are many ways to solve the problem of cross-border crime. Extradition is one of them. It works when you have two jurisdictions with rule of law. It is a bad solution between Hong Kong and China.
Couldn’t you say the same about any pair of counties without an extradition treaty? If an American flees to Russia, he’s “above the law” in America, for example.
What makes HK so special that they must have an extradition treaty with China?
Crimea has the problem that the annexation was very, very popular among Crimeans, even more so than most separatist movements. That doesn't make it okay, but after the fact, it'd be hard for third parties to justify forcibly reuniting Crimeans with the Ukranian government they don't want to be under.
This is a very solid round-up of what faceless accounts have been spamming all over Twitter since this story emerged.
These arguments are weak enough to strain credulity. Almost all of them can be answered by saying "the context is very different"
1. Yellow Vests - no overlap in what is being protested. Dissatisfaction with policy vs dissatisfaction with fundamental political rights = very different context.
2. Extradition with rule of law abiding country that isn't explicitly trying to silence your dissidents = very different context.
3. Assange situation is complex and one-off, and the charges are more complicated than just reporting on stuff. It is also being openly discussed, scrutinized and will be prosecuted openly in a legal system. What routinely happens with dissidents and party critics extradited to China is very different.
4. HK was under British rule for a long time and there is a large English-speaking base.
5. Narrative about HK has to do with categorically different political / economic freedoms than the mainland. There's subtlety beyond a comparison like "what will be the bigger GDP"
The "Assange situation" is not complex, and it's not one-off. He published numerous secret documents that were deeply embarrassing to the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and many other countries. He is being targeted for entirely political reasons, and the cooperation of the British and Ecuadorian authorities is likewise politically motivated. In the case of Britain, the motivation is twofold. Assange released documents about the UK government's actions, and the government wants to maintain good relations with the United States. In the case of Ecuador, the motivation is better relations with the United States and access to IMF loans.
The persecution of Assange is not one-off, because it sets a precedent for future prosecution of journalists in the United States, and it establishes that journalists are in danger in any country that has an extradition agreement with the United States.
Given all the concern about the Hong Kong extradition law being used to target critics of the Chinese government, I would expect the same people who oppose the HK law to also vigorously defend Julian Assange against extradition to the United States for political crimes.
Also after the recent Assange developments, there was the Australia ABC raid after another journalist/leaker, with a warrant to “view/change/delete” anything in the station. And 2 more journalists arrested in France, covering the yellow vests, possibly not “correctly”.
Those were not arguments, it is what I see and might consider fact. That I would like people to give their opinions or just think about it.
USA is law abiding? It is the country with more prisoners global and per capita. Doesn’t look good. And Guantanamo? Patriot act? Also not when bombing other countries. They have shown more than once USA powerful are above the law.
Perhaps they should not accept extradition to China and also rescind to USA.
The focus on the violent parts is intentional. HK poor people repressive police, France poor police violent protestors.
Both are supposedly peaceful with clashes with the police.
In France. 15 protestors dead, 0 policeman. 4000 injured. 8000 arrested.
Estimation was 282k one single time, and after lower than that. But it has been continuous, with people every week all over the country. And all unions and society sectors participating.
In Italy, they made headlines for months.
The italian vice-premier went to talk with some random GJ leaders.
Parties from the italian far right and far left went to demonstrate with the GJ.
If it didn't make the news where you live, I'm very surprised.
France has a democratic system, Hong Kong has no democratic way to get rid of Lam.
USA has due process, the right to council and many other fundamental human rights.
Most of the posters are in Chinese.
Brexit will be worse for the UK economically, leaving China would be good for HK democratically. And, also, the UK has an enshrined right to leave thanks to article 50, HK does not have that right at all.
It is never ok, but there is a clear difference in the extent to which it occurs, the legality of it and how it’s handled by the government. For example, Gui Minhai has also criticized the US government but they didn’t kidnap him and keep him from exercising his right to council.
Or is your argument that every country that has performed extra judicial punishments, no matter the circumstances or judicial proceedings that followed, is as unreliable in its protection of human rights as China?
> is as unreliable in its protection of human rights as China?
The US is vastly worse than China in this regard. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered by the US govt in the middle east in the past two decades alone. The US does OK (and yes, obviously much better than China) domestically, but their respect for human rights ends at the border.
And this is a discussion about domestic courts, that’s what’s relevant to this article because those are the ones HK would extradite to. Extraditing to an American court is far more in line with respecting human rights than to a Chinese court.
Chinese and English are both official languages of Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Basic Law (article 9) and the Official Languages Ordinance (chapter 5 of the Laws of Hong Kong).
Most of the signs were in either Chinese or bilingual (English on one side, Chinese on the other). Because we are a bilingual city but also so that western media could understand what we are protesting about.
Obviously the western media used photos of protestors displaying the English side because it's easier and more convenient to explain
It’s a bit sad feeling like this level of participation would never happen in the US. I’m not sure what the reason is, but likely a mix of being a highly individualistic society, apathy, distraction.
> this level of participation would never happen in the US
It probably would. We just don’t have an issue that imminently and clearly threatens the wellbeing of 2/7ths of the population, and for which a simple solution (e.g. withdrawing a bill) presents itself.
When American cities get pissed off and form a consensus, they certainly turn out.
I bet that if you didn’t tell people who was president, the vast majority of Americans would notice exactly no differences between the last president. Slightly different tax rates and slightly different employment rates maybe, but practically no detectable difference. People’s retirement accounts are still healthy, people have jobs, wage growth (or non growth) is similar. The only difference is the level and type of rhetoric. Businesses might notice that it’s a bit easier to get things done, but the actual change between Obama and Trump is benign when you take the media out of it. Deportations of illegal aliens was actually higher under Obama if that’s your issue. But the US is characterized by stability and even under Trump, the US is a functionally stable as it has ever been. Under Reagan, a certain element was convinced the sky was falling, under Obama, the same thing. The US isn’t perfect, but it’s all going along reasonably well. The media likes to create non-stop urgency over everything, but that helps them sell more ads. I don’t buy into the hype that the world is ending. We could always be better and not everyone will ever be happy, but for most of us, American politics is two sides of the same coin and we like it like that. We don’t want revolutionary shifts every four or eight years; we want stability and predictability — that’s why our economy is so strong and our currency so safe.
Nobody’s wellbeing is being immediately affected by this president any more than the last one.
Very few people in the USA feel that their wellbeing is being threatened by Trump in the same way that many people in HK feel threatened by the Chinese government.
As a relative portion of the population, no. 2/7 of the US population don’t think that Trump is going to result in their being thrown into essentially concentration camps. He’s horrible, but it won’t result in that.
I wouldn't be so sure. If the entire US decided to gang up on one city, especially a city with a strong identity (New York or Boston) then you might see this.
Look at how New York responded after 9/11. Now put yourself in the shoes of the people of Hong Kong. When a group of people come to believe they are facing an existential threat, they respond in extraordinary ways.
The last massive protests that looked like this took place in multiple cities over several weeks. That was leading up to the Iraq war. They were ignored.
Were the Iraq war protesters facing existential threats? No. So the situations are not comparable.
Imagine if the US passed a law allowing Southern States to extradite, prosecute, and imprison anyone in New York for criticizing the Republican party. You'd have ten million New Yorkers out in full force.
If you create an infinite array of dialectics, you can destroy all cohesiveness and ensure that the individual is the highest level of organization in society.
We aren’t being oppressed. If the US decided to suspend the first and second amendments, start soviet style “collectivization,” or other extreme attacks on freedom, Americans would take to the streets as well. The US, despite cynicism of a select few, still operates under a Constitution with reasonably well functioning institutions. If people want something in the US, there are elections with results that are respected (mostly.) Trump being elected, Ocasio-Cortez being elected — examples of elections that came from people being frustrated with whatever frustrates them. Obama’s election was the same way. Being a republic is messy and imperfect, but change can happen when enough people want it. We don’t have to riot in the streets because rarely is anything bad enough at an individual level to warrant such action.
I'm Swedish, born and raised in Gothenburg. After the Umbrella protests in 2014 five people connected to the Causeway Bay Books store in Hong Kong disappeared. One of them is a naturalized Swedish citizen, his daughter was raised in my home town. He is now imprisoned and can't communicate with his daughter, or with the Swedish authorities. Angela Gui, his daughter, is continuing on the struggle for his release to the extent she can, being only 21 when her father disappeared.
All these arguments about "leave China be" or "this isn't the West's problem" just don't make any sense to me. This is a small world, whether we like it or not, and letting authoritarian stuff like this extradition treaty to a dictatorship slide is condoning it and before you know it your citizenship, constitutional rights and passport which you thought would keep you safe doesn't work anymore and you get snatched from a street for something you've said. Your family can only cry themselves to sleep over it from the feeling of powerlessness.
We don't have to go into hypotheticals about what will happen if China gets more power to persecute people of Hong Kong. In Sweden, we already know what they've done with the limited power they hold now.