Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber(hongkongfp.com) |
Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber(hongkongfp.com) |
I'll bet at least 1/3 of the protestors weren't even born when that happened. But they have access to both oral and written history about how things used to be.
Information is a powerful thing. I hope they succeed in pushing back on China's takeover.
So much so it smells like a false flag op. They were left pretty much alone for about 12 hours, while they broke windows and shutters, since the first reports of broken windows came last night.
To justify the "entirely necessary but unavoidable" reaction coming soon?
There are very good non-conspiratorial reasons for the police to take their time, this time around. Plus there's always a subset of protestors who just want to destroy property and take a more aggressive stance (usually the younger ones), regardless of the predictable way it will be spun by opponents and perceived by the more moderate public. Not every act of violence or property destruction can be blamed on police provocateurs.
This time they wait until the protest has effectively finished trashing the legislature, then go in with tear gas and have a big sign stuck on riot shields of "WARNING: TEAR SMOKE". Both police and protest seem to be taking a dramatically different approach. The peaceful demonstrations that have continued appear separate.
Maybe it is as presented, but it sure makes me suspicious given history.
3 suicides over the last few days can be associated to the current unrest. I wouldn't say it's all the government's fault but it cannot be overlooked either.
They are desperate, while whether the current realities warrant that feeling is debatable, one cannot deny its existence.
Disclosure: I closely followed the forum where many of the high level discussions take place: lihkg.com (in Cantonese).
The protestors broke into the legislative council, partly in response to the no-response from the government after the large protests on 9 June, 12 June, and 16 June; and partly because of some recent desperate suicides towards no-response from the government (just two cases on 30 June, the day before 1 July).
There were lots of push back for breaking the windows even among the protestors, but eventually they did it just to enter the building. The protestors did not go further to break things: they left money for drinks in the fridge, and labeled artifacts for protection (in Cantonese [1]), so they remained civil except for breaking into the building.
They made a declaration [2] before they left and the police took over.
[1]: https://www.facebook.com/hksidestories/posts/245385840131281...
Bloody disappointing if so, as it seems likely to get just the sort of heavy handed response that they're demonstrating over.
General question: What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows?
How do you apply that process for determining the nature of protests in your local city?
I ask, because I've never been to, seen, heard of, or read about a protest whose nature was not in dispute by conflicting media. The side that a publication supports is nearly always framed as a group of angels, while the opposing side frames it as a bunch of savages, that were rightfully put in their place by a police response.
One really needs to look at the whole picture to gain some perspective on this recent "sudden" raise of civil disobedience in HK.
The problem with insinuating "false flag" is that it gives everyone license to believe whatever better fits their existing narrative. I remember the possibility being raised, on HN, for the murder in Charlottesville, for example.
In this specific case, it is quite obviously false. Entering & occupying the legislative chamber, with no injuries and rather minor damages, just isn't enough of a pretext for a violent reaction to be considered proportional.
Could you imagine the UK passing a law that Brussels has jurisdiction over UK citizens? The brexiters would go absolutely nuts. HK has a history of resisting Chinese attempts to impose One China on them.
This is already the case, right? Per Wikipedia:
"A regulation is a legal act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously."
It also creates a genuine likelihood of raising anti Chinese sentiment and increasing the threat of violent resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
Press wear a more heavily reinforced helmet w/ possible other colors? If True, thats so cool that they are organized enough to agree the protestors wear helmets!
The protesters had left and the police has reclaimed the building.
Apparently the police are also rounding up people leaving via the metro.
Throwing acid is not exactly unheard of in HK - often cases against women.
Thankfully there's no indication of that.
During the time the protestors were raising the British flag in the legislative chamber, the World Service was doing an in-depth report on Taylor Swift's latest social media rant, and interviewing some blogger about Ivanka Trump.
I remember when the BBC was the go-to place for breaking world news.
Is it like that would be a preferred status of HK?
Is is like a reference to former puppets running HK, who now report to Beijing instead of Britain?
Is it just trolling?
I see it as a testament to their desperation.
Have there been any political leaders in Hong Kong who have publicly opposed returning to China or who have requested recognition by other UN member States?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is 1) political, 2) on TV news constantly, 3) not really new since they've been protesting for days now
That's a very simplistic view. Many people who oppose the Chinese government do not support complete independence. If there's a referendum on this I expect it to fail on a large margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong
The eyes of the world indeed do "know what China is like". They do not care. Should HK move towards independence, tanks will roll south and the world will do nothing.
Every country has secessionist movements, and no country wants to encourage that sort of thing abroad, lest it bite it in the ass domestically.
Don't forget that Scotland very nearly did leave the UK, with the government's consent, in 2014 (but the referendum didn't pass).
The Catalonia case is a bit murkier, since the Catalan government did not actually reach an agreement with the Spanish government before they went ahead with the referendum. Also because of irregularities seen by international observers during the referendum, the Catalonia referendum result was generally not recognized.
1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power.
How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.
The evidence you presented could be spun either way.
God bless the grass that's gentle and low, Its roots they are deep and its will is to grow. And God bless the truth, the friend of the poor, And the wild grass growing at the poor man's door.
If and when they do, it will be unlikely to end well.
When I talk to HK citizens I don't really get the sense of desperation. I get the sense of complacency and imaging everything is going to be okay. Carrie Lam has certainly crossed an ideological line, I still think we are projecting our perspective of how Hong Kong citizens are supposed to feel.
https://i.imgur.com/TVKFW4S.png
(1) It's pretty obvious there are 3 hands which everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring (you know, like a watch).
(2) Composite frame clearly show hands do not move at all throughout the video suggest the watch is in fact not wound / functional.
These don’t feel mutually exclusive to me.
If you need bilateral support to exercise your right to self-determination, you don't actually, in practice, have any right to self-determination.
It's like saying that you have the freedom to leave your abusive job, but only as long as your boss lets you quit. That's not freedom, that's slavery.
[1] And yes, I am aware that the case in Scotland was a bit different. Props to the UK for being, as an outside observer, reasonable about the whole affair.
People need to get over the reality that One Country Two Systems was meant to be a transition, not a permanent condition. Legally. The most legitimate path that is not tinged with racism or colonialism is to use that time to make sure China becomes a prosperous and free country that everybody wants to live in, as it should be.
The trick with running an autoracy is that it has to be absolute. If one city could disobey and contend the rulers then others will follow.
I would expect few car bombs to follow soon. Terrorism is such a tabu in the West that it would give China carte blanche in HK.
P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.
There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then). In HK the situation is completely different: people know what kind of country China is, and will fight for whatever rights they still have.
Sure, the topic has disappeared from the news. But that does not mean everything is back to normal. It just indicates the situation is frozen.
More generally, territorial expansion by force has been extremely rare in recent history, compared to previous times. That would indicate that the practice generally being frowned upon, and the available actions in response, are somewhat effective.
As to Syria, I remember hearing about it on the first day of protests. That's not to say it went well in any meaning of the word–there really aren't any good options once a government has decided to brutalise its own people. But it did get attention.
Whether they smash windows and vandalise, or not.
2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source.
Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension - and is a distraction, used to condemn some protests (that you politically oppose) as illegitimate, and to endorse others, as legitimate?
Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans, either planted, embedded, or just standing on the sidelines. I postulate that it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances.
Edit - And this most recent round of demonstrations is the nail in the coffin. No business would ever do business in HK now with the political uncertainty, easier to simply set up shop in Shanghai or form a JV.
This is why the underlying sentiment of Hong Kong independence is especially offensive to Chinese sensibilities.
Becoming independent from China != completely severing ties with China. Also, I think these days a better served purpose of HK is as the access point to the whole Asian/SEA region, rather than the access point to China alone.
Also, HK seems to be (from an outsider perspective) one of the most (if not the most) "westernized" cities in the region, with the proliferation of English language and all, so I can totally see it becoming the central hub in the Asian/SEA region for a lot of companies from the west.
HK as an Asia/SEA hub is a reasonable point, but Singapore already serves that role and is much less reliant on China.
Should there be a most "easternized" city in the heart of Europe that should have a prolific Mandarin speaker base?
We do not know what people of Crimea wanted. Nobody during military occupation of Crimea asked their opinion.
After the invasion cam ethe period of disillusionment. It turned out the situation only changed for worse. But nobody should be surprised there was practically no opposition when Russians took over Crimea.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116814/crimean-tatars-primer...
Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
>Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
Tatars are not the oldest owner of Crimea. 2500 years ago Crimea was a Greek colony, then it was part of a Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire [1] Mongols conquered Crimea only in 13th century.
Tatars from Tatarstan and Tatars from Crimea share only name, they are different nationalities.
>While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
This logic is totally misleading. If there are more Russians it does not make Crimea Russian.
More than 15% of Ukrainians opposed Maidan (including Crimeans). Yet they were subjected to it.
And also yes minority have there rights.
