[Rancid]

@Patrickov,

Are there plans for more protests? Or is this it?

Further, what do you think the long term fate for Hong Kong will be?

Do you feel that teaching Cantonese to younger generations is a form of rebellion against the mainland?

[skinster]

First of all, at attempts of threatening me.

Secondly, it is a fact that orgs involved work with / are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Anyway.

What is happening in Hong Kong
Huge crowds, perhaps as many as a million people, thronged the streets of Hong Kong on June 9 to express their opposition to a proposed change to Hong Kong’s extradition law. This mass action was followed-up by more militant actions a few days later that saw protesters throwing bricks, and police shooting rubber bullets.

The proposed amendment dealing with extradition is being presented across Western media as part of a tightening “totalitarian noose” around the “free and democratic” people of Hong Kong. The new bill, a fairly limited legal change, is facing almost universal condemnation by the most powerful Western nations in an effort to justify subjecting China to a new Cold War-style atmosphere.

Painting this proposed legal change as a creeping totalitarian threat to democracy misrepresents the facts. Hong Kong, known as a Special Administrative Region due to its special status, has its own code of laws and legal system, both of which are enshrined in the Chinese constitution. This status has been used by Western powers as a political football against the People’s Republic of China.

The bill at issue is formally known as The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019. It emerged in the wake of a 2018 case where a pregnant woman was murdered in Taiwan and the perpetrator fled to Hong Kong and could not be extradited since there is no extradition treaty between Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Despite being a part of China, Hong Kong SAR still maintains its own extradition treaties with other nations.

The opposition insists the amendment to existing extradition law will impede upon Hong Kong’s legal system in a way that turns their rights as residents of Hong Kong into a dead letter. This is, at best, an obfuscation.

The law only changes one real element of the extradition process: Currently in order to pursue extradition, there must be a treaty. Under the new law, the chief executive would be given the power to begin the process of extradition, on a case-by-case basis, in the case of countries seeking extradition where there is no formal treaty.

In terms of what crimes would even be eligible for this special procedure, the law would further limit the offenses to a threshold that actually excludes some serious crimes. The proposed law reaffirms that the basic rights of Hong Kong’s courts will still apply to the accused (rights akin to U.S. and British legal standards) and also implicitly gives the courts the ability to premise the extradition on certain agreements regarding sentence, custody, and treatment in the place of extradition. In other words, this is a fairly limited change. It also only applies to places where there is no relevant treaty, meaning that Hong Kong could develop more stringent rules regarding extradition to any given place, or raise its own standards for who it will extradite.

Without a doubt, today the average Hong Konger has more “democracy” in the Western sense than they did under British colonial rule. From 1843 until 1985, there were no elections of any kind in Hong Kong. The British government simply appointed a colonial governor and governing council. In fact, it was not until after the United Kingdom agreed to finally hand over the land they had seized from China that the British even decided to introduce limited suffrage.

The 1985 vote was an indirect vote, with literally only a handful of people voting. The first direct election did not take place until 1991. That election still featured a number of appointments by the governor, who was not elected. It was not until 1995 that the legislative council was fully elected.

Since 2010, the People’s Republic of China has added more seats both directly elected and in the so-called “functional constituencies” that represent subsets of the population in a type of electoral college. In other words, Hong Kongers elect more of their leaders directly and through constituencies than they ever have before in the history of the city.

This is in addition to the fact that — as laid out in the Hong Kong Basic Law governing the one-country-two-systems approach:

“The National People’s Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication”

This context is critical, because any discussion of “democracy” has to be considered in light of colonialism. The Hong Kong Basic Law is based on a joint British-Chinese agreement to hand over Hong Kong. In other words, the very return of a city stolen from China by British colonialists was predicated on China agreeing to the terms of the colonialists who stole it.

As alluded to above, the “rights and freedoms” the British sought to enshrine did not at that time (1984) include universal suffrage or elections. It did, however, include protections for:

“Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment.”

The entire context of the discussion about whether or not the legal change is appropriate is happening within a deeply anti-democratic context. That essentially it is “wrong” for China to change its own laws, and that the only correct course for any Chinese policy towards Hong Kong is a strict maintenance of the colonial status quo, imposed on China, by a colonial power that had no right to take the land in the first place.

To argue that the amended extradition law is “undemocratic” because it would expose a person to “unfair” trials on the “mainland” rings somewhat hollow when Hong Kong maintains an extradition treaty with the United States where one is, also, not guaranteed a fair trial.

There is clearly divided opinion on this issue in Hong Kong. Only 22 years since the end of colonization, Hong Kong has a unique and diverse society. Questions of how much to emphasize the “two systems” or the “one country” aspects concerning “mainland” China are often contentious.

However, the give-and-take is real. Mass protests shelved a central government proposed “national security law” in 2003. On the other hand, the franchise was expanded in 2010 through a fairly unprecedented form of cooperation between the two main factions of the Legislative Council and the central government.

The last elections had a turnout of roughly 60 percent, a vital sign that there is broad legitimacy for the Basic Law status quo and its formal and informal political structures and culture.

Currently there are prominent voices, both individual and organizational, broadly considered “pro-Beijing” who are urging Chief Executive Carrie Lam to slow the process and engage in a broader consultation about addressing extradition issues. She is vowing to move forward. So the exact future of this issue is still somewhat cloudy. Overall this is a reflection of the fact that protests in Hong Kong often are not as simple as the basic political divisions between the “pan-Democrats” generally seen as more hostile to China and the so-called “pro-Beijing” camp.

One thing is certain, however. Western imperialist powers are cynically claiming to be friends of democracy, in order to do whatever they can to divide and weaken China. Hence the strong statements against the proposed amendment to the Basic Law from organizations like the U.S. State Department. Further, there are forces within Hong Kong that ultimately do not want to be part of the People’s Republic of China, that are now attempting to — as they consistently have — leverage Western governments and public opinion for their own anti-China purposes.

It is critical to expose the lies and manipulations about what is being proposed, as well as what it means, since the broader discourse feeds into a rapidly solidifying narrative of the need for a new Cold War-style confrontation with China to secure the world’s #1 position for U.S. corporate giants and ultra-wealthy.
https://www.liberationnews.org/what-is- ... hong-kong/

[JohnRawls]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-YgjmWMJB0

So we have Rugoz talking shit on me, he who was wrong about Syria, Venezuela and is pro any dumb neocon policy.

JohnRawls the shit-neolib doing the same, never interesting in any way.

Beren, he who very recently made an embarrassing thread about DPRK defectors that don't exist, amongst being wrong about other things.

And Rancid, who knows very little about foreign policy because, America.

Any actual arguments here?

So your argument is that everyone is wrong or stupid. If you paid attention my opinions are not necessarily the same as Rugozes or Berens and visa versa. Its funny how it feels like you really wanted to call Beren a neo-con also but can't really pinn down the neo-con in him.

You also mentioned Syria, i have literally the same opinion of situation in Syria as you so what you even talking about? Does that mean you are also wrong on Syria?

Clearly you feel uncomfortable with your Alex Jones status from the left on pofo nowadays.

[Rancid]

I feel like the thread is getting derailed skinsters crackpot posting

[colliric]

I feel like the thread is getting derailed skinsters crackpot posting

Frankly I am surprised Skinster posted blatent Communist Party Propaganda from the "Four Matters of Confidence" Twitter page, which is CCP funded crap. I don't mind much about the second one by the Jewish guy, but the first one is payed for by the CCP.

She can make her argument without that crap. Lol.

[Beren]

What's the matter, @skinster? According to your posting you're either brainwashed or brainwashing, you should rather feel respected that I think it's the latter one.

[skinster]

So your argument is that everyone is wrong or stupid.

No, I was responding to the ad-homs directed at me with ad-homs.

I feel like the thread is getting derailed skinsters crackpot posting

Stop derailing the thread with single posts about what you think about me, I don't give a fuck what you think about me, how is that not clear yet.

Frankly I am surprised Skinster posted blatent Communist Party Propaganda from the "Four Matters of Confidence" Twitter page, which is CCP funded crap. I don't mind much about the second one by the Jewish guy, but the first one is payed for by the CCP.

Any arguments against the reports?

I don't know who funds her Twitter page, any info on that would be interesting.

[Rancid]

Frankly I am surprised Skinster posted blatent Communist Party Propaganda from the "Four Matters of Confidence" Twitter page, which is CCP funded crap. I don't mind much about the second one, but the first one is payed for by the CCP.

That is funny given how much she was complaining some months ago about that Berringkats (sp?) organization being connected to the UK government or something. Now, it's fine if she wants to use government backed propaganda outlets to spread some message. However, I would hope she would stop feigning to somehow be moral and just. Sometimes, you just have to admit you're as low, selfish, and petty as the rest of us.

I just think she's in denial that she's in the mud with the rest of us.

[Rancid]

I don't give a fuck what you think about me, how is that not clear yet.

Those posts aren't directed at you.

Stop derailing the thread with single posts about what you think about me,

Fair enough. I'll stop here so long as you don't say anything stupid directly at me.

[skinster]

Bellingcat*

at your edit.

I'm not sure what colloric is talking about, but if there are arguments to be made against what I post I would like to see them instead of boring ad-homs.

[JohnRawls]

If we get back on topic. The better question is what CCP gonna do soon. There is a chance that they will escalate the violence to check what will happen. I do not think that it is likely considering the situation they are in right now but it is possible. They can't tolerate for a long time because it has a chance to spread even due to censorship. Voice of mouth and things like that. And i do not think that China wants others regions/places to get ideas. (If Hong Kong can protest, then why we can't?)

The longer the protests last, the higher the chance of violence from CCP side become. I do not think that they are in a situation when they can weather the storm like Macron did nor do they actually have the political savy nor the institutions/trust to do so.

[Rancid]

If we get back on topic. The better question is what CCP gonna do soon. There is a chance that they will escalate the violence to check what will happen. I do not think that it is likely considering the situation they are in right now but it is possible. They can't tolerate for a long time because it has a chance to spread even due to censorship. Voice of mouth and things like that. And i do not think that China wants others regions/places to get ideas. (If Hong Kong can protest, then why we can't?)

The longer the protests last, the higher the chance of violence from CCP side become. I do not think that they are in a situation when they can weather the storm like Macron did nor do they actually have the political savy nor the institutions/trust to do so.

Really? I'm not sure I believe that. I think CCP and government has the winning hand here. They just need to play the long game and be more patient.

[Patrickov]

@Patrickov,

Are there plans for more protests? Or is this it??

AFAIK a kind of non-cooperation movement is called, in the name of "general picnic".

However I doubt participation will be large before the G20, or the 1 Jul rally, now that both sides seem rather quiet.

[Beren]

There is a chance that they will escalate the violence to check what will happen.

What do you mean? "Let's pour some oil on the fire to check what happens?"

They're trying to cool it as they can and when it's cool enough they will smash the rest perhaps, but it's fire-fighting now.

I do not think that they are in a situation when they can weather the storm like Macron did nor do they actually have the political savy nor the institutions/trust to do so.

Thanks for pulling Macron in the thread, however, it seems a bit more serious in HK than what Macron has to face in France.

[JohnRawls]

Really? I'm not sure I believe that. I think CCP and government has the winning hand here. They just need to play the long game and be more patient.

If we compare it to France then the core what people are fighting for is different. In France there is trust in the institutions but there is no trust in the course. In Hong Kong there is no trust in both the institutions and the course.

There is a difference if you trust somebody to do something when says it. But perhaps don't like what he says.
A whole different matter is if you do not trust somebody to do what he says and you also don't like what he says.

More real life example is Trump. You might not like his course or his rhetoric but you still trust the institutions to do what they are supposed to. To limit his power when needed and be on their merry way doing what they have done for centuries.

On the other hand there is Hong Kong. People are really mad at the institutions and the course. The same institutions that supposed to protect them from growing Chinese influence are being undermined by the CCP and are a tool against themselves. Not to mention the course to One Country One system basically.

It is not a situation that can be fixed by providing minor concessions and then waiting it out like Macron did. So CCP is in a place where it needs to provide large consessions for Hong Kong to be happier than it is right now or use another mean to forcefully pacify them.

The simple reason that Macron or Trump can get away with that is because people are not mad at the institutions. They are mad at them or politicians for their course and small concessions in the course help to make the people happier. Its a different story when the people consider the institutions to be anti-people. Here a change of course still doesn't solve anything.

I do not deny that the protest can die out eventually. It obviously can happen but i just think that the situation is different and it is ultimately less likely to happen than compared to France. And France already was a massive protest in itself and took many months. If you look at the scale also. What is the number? 25% of the population of Honk Kong? 40%? This is a massive number. Usually 3%-5% of the population taking part in a protest is enough for a revolution. (Don't remember where i read it. I think Ukraine had like 3% or 4%)

[Rancid]

If we compare it to France then the core what people are fighting for is different. In France there is trust in the institutions but there is no trust in the course. In Honk Kong there is no trust in both the institutions and the course.

There is a difference if you trust somebody to do something when says it. But perhaps don't like what he says.
A whole different matter is if you do not trust somebody to do what he says and you also don't like what he says.

More real life example is Trump. You might not like his course or his rhetoric but you still trust the institutions to do what they are supposed to. To limit his power when needed and be on their merry way doing what they have done for centuries.

On the other hand there is Hong Kong. People are really mad at the institutions and the course. The same institutions that supposed to protect them from growing Chinese influence are being undermined by the CCP and are a tool against themselves. Not to mention the course to One Country One system basically.

It is not a situation that can be fixed by providing minor concessions and then waiting it out like Macron did. So CCP is in a place where it needs to provide large consessions for Honk Kong to be happier than it is right now or use another mean to forcefully pacify them.

The simple reason that Macron or Trump can get away with that is because people are not mad at the institutions. They are mad at them or politicians for their course and small concessions in the course help to make the people happier. Its a different story when the people consider the institutions to be anti-people. Here a change of course still doesn't solve anything.

I do not deny that the protest can die out eventually. It obviously can happen but i just think that the situation is different and it is ultimately less likely to happen than compared to France. And France already was a massive protest in itself and took many months. If you look at the scale also. What is the number? 25% of the population of Honk Kong? 40%? This is a massive number. Usually 3%-5% of the population taking part in a protest is enough for a revolution. (Don't remember where i read it. I think Ukraine had like 3% or 4%)

Yea, this is reasonable too.

[Patrickov]

Usually 3%-5% of the population taking part in a protest is enough for a revolution. (Don't remember where i read it. I think Ukraine had like 3% or 4%)

A revolution is only possible if you can militarily and economically match your oppressors. Clearly not the case for Hong Kong.

[JohnRawls]

What do you mean? "Let's pour some oil on the fire to check what happens?"

They're trying to cool it as they can and when it's cool enough they will smash the rest perhaps, but it's fire-fighting now.


Thanks for pulling Macron in the thread, however, it seems a bit more serious in HK than what Macron has to face in France.

It might look like that from your side. Look at it from the Chinese perspective, the CCP perspective. They have basically a non-violent revolution on their hands happening in Hong Kong. There is no clear solution to the problem nor do they want to provide concessions which will be seen as weakness. (Because it is)
Also if this continues long term then others places might get ideas. It is not like the issue in Hong Kong is the only issue across all of China.

So what can they realistically do? Use violence is one of the options. It is not like Hong Kong got anything to fight back with. The other question is how will they be able to handle the diplomatic fallout. Here it is a bit problematic because right now they can't for many reasons.(Trade war with Trump, change in the economic model etc) On the other hand it is definitely a 100% proof way to stop the current protest. (If you think that Hong Kong can withstand a violent solution from the CCP then you are just kidding yourself). A persons safety and well-being is way higher on the "To Do" list of any person compared to notions of self-rule.

As for Macron, well, the example is appropriate. I also find him to be a decent benchmark for the current times. A lot of people can call him a shill or corporate stooge or liberal fool or whatever. Reality is that he created his party and won the presidential election at a time when his politics were unpopular and in decline. He overturned the established parties of the same sort and sent a big "Fuck you" to Le Pen. He also weathered a protest and came out of it stronger. The praxis of Macron is an interesting subject.

[skinster]

[Beren]

A revolution is only possible if you can militarily and economically match your oppressors. Clearly not the case for Hong Kong.

I wouldn't believe Hongkongers mean to make a revolution, they just mean to keep their city privileged.