When I read the constitution of Hong Kong (Basic Law) and the supporting laws in mainland China, I come to the same conclusion as you.
To me, this obviously overrides the text or "spirit" of any handover treaty, specifically the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as the Basic Law is a constitution.
Leaning on that treaty as a Hong Kong citizen or non-British outside observer requires either complete ignorance, or complete desperation to ever reference it. Which I understand for the people of Hong Kong who have no options and don't want the change of life, but it doesn't embolden me to see it as exceptional as it follows their form of due process, by the book.
So, I agree with you. Disagreeing with you requires me to have a completely separate higher standard than how governments we actually respect operate and what they would tolerate.
I'm not comfortable with any of the procedures, but I really do see how we get a very distorted view of what China is, its goals, and how it operates. And there is a level of constitutional consistency towards territorial unity, which is very predictable. If you are willing to accept that (and how almost every action can be construed to undermine territorial unity) then China is very easy to operate and live in comfortably. Not so dissimilar to an institution or amusement park where you never look behind the scenes and just do the PG-rated activities made available to you, and if you stick with that you're fine. Obviously not what we are used to and strive for in "the west", but not really the nightmare its portrayed as either. Its sad to me that even trying to explain things to you all in a pragmatic way could get me detained in China (because its not completely exalting the territorial unity of China and raises questions about it), but I really think its useful to understand and that its impossible to explain another way.
To me, this obviously overrides the text or "spirit" of any handover treaty, specifically the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as the Basic Law is a constitution.
Leaning on that treaty as a Hong Kong citizen or non-British outside observer requires either complete ignorance, or complete desperation to ever reference it. Which I understand for the people of Hong Kong who have no options and don't want the change of life, but it doesn't embolden me to see it as exceptional as it follows their form of due process, by the book.
So, I agree with you. Disagreeing with you requires me to have a completely separate higher standard than how governments we actually respect operate and what they would tolerate.
I'm not comfortable with any of the procedures, but I really do see how we get a very distorted view of what China is, its goals, and how it operates. And there is a level of constitutional consistency towards territorial unity, which is very predictable. If you are willing to accept that (and how almost every action can be construed to undermine territorial unity) then China is very easy to operate and live in comfortably. Not so dissimilar to an institution or amusement park where you never look behind the scenes and just do the PG-rated activities made available to you, and if you stick with that you're fine. Obviously not what we are used to and strive for in "the west", but not really the nightmare its portrayed as either. Its sad to me that even trying to explain things to you all in a pragmatic way could get me detained in China (because its not completely exalting the territorial unity of China and raises questions about it), but I really think its useful to understand and that its impossible to explain another way.