Hong Kong protesters demonstrate against extradition bill

Please treat other members in a friendly and respectful manner: Our Community Guidelines.

  • Tens of thousands of people are marching in Hong Kong against a law critics fear could let China target political opponents in the territory.

    The controversial extradition bill would allow suspected criminals to be sent to mainland China for trial.

    The protests are expected to be the biggest since the 2014 Umbrella Movement, which saw hundreds of thousands take to the streets.

    Be nice to each other, be nice to the staff and most important of all, be nice to yourself.

    Always abide by staff instructions and do not argue with them.

  • Didn't China promise they would treat Hong Kong separately for at least 50 years when they got hold of the territory in 1997?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Hong Kong extradition: Police fire rubber bullets at protesters

    Police have fired rubber bullets and tear gas at protesters in Hong Kong where anger at a new extradition bill has spilled over into violence.

    Protesters blocked key roads around government buildings and threw bricks and projectiles at police.

    The government is still backing the bill, which would allow extradition to mainland China and it is expected to pass its final vote on 20 June.

    Looks like HK is on a collision course with mainland China. First rubber bullets, then it will be real ones...Will it explode?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I fear for the protesters, as I suspect they will be beaten into submission. The Chinese 'government' does not tolerate protests, as history has shown.


    This is the country our PM trusts with our G5 network!

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • The Chinese government has been gradually asserting more control of HK and this is the thing that may tip the balance into widespread violence. As you say Fidget, the Chinese government has "form" when it comes to dealing with protests, 30 years after the Tiananmen Square massacre.


    I don't think this well end well at all.


    We signed a treaty with the Chinese, when we handed HK back to them which allows HK to be semi-independent for 50 years after the treaty. The Chinese government has been breaking it, as they assert ever more control over HK, so we have a legal duty to do something. Should we get involved though, if it all goes belly up?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • "we have a legal duty to do something".


    What might that something be?


    C'mon, you know that any something will be nothing


    Surely everyone knew, even Chris Patton, that when the lease ended, whatever was signed or said, there was nothing that would stop China doing whatever it wished with HK. Even back then the sense of foreboding was palpable.


    That is why Trump is 100% right to not put up with any sh*t from China.


    I feel sorry not only for the citizens of HK but also those in China who aren't permitted or can't afford to leave.

  • Surely everyone knew, even Chris Patton, that when the lease ended, whatever was signed or said, there was nothing that would stop China doing whatever it wished with HK. Even back then the sense of foreboding was palpable.

    Yes I remember that myself as the British flag was lowered and the Chinese goose-stepped in with their flag at the handover ceremony.

    I feel sorry not only for the citizens of HK but also those in China who aren't permitted or can't afford to leave.

    True.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Of course neither Britain nor the EU will stand up and at least voice their unease/disdain/contempt towards China


    Why not? Because we want to China's business


    What we and the EU don't realise is that China has two connected needs:


    Need (1): to invest in and flog stuff to the West and, of course, buy our stuff and allow in some Western investment. Even the Chinese recognise it has to be a 2-way street.


    Need (2): not be shamed and shunned.


    The reason these two needs are connected is that if China is shamed & shunned by the West, they fear the trading relationship will be at arm's length where the West will be reluctant to invest in China and even more reluctant to welcome China to invest in the West.


    Loss of Face is China's weak spot. Disdain will cost the West nothing

  • On the two points:


    1. I think that was the case even just twenty years ago, but there are now hundreds of millions more Chinese who have been lifted out of poverty and are consumers in the same way we are. And hundreds of millions more peasants who are waiting for their chance.


    China's internal market for consumer goods and services is immense now, so do they really need outside markets?


    2. The Tiananmen Square massacre showed they don't give a damn about such things, or more recently, their island building programme. which they've now turned into military bases off other's people's coasts.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Will China crackdown on these protestors now, this is just the excuse they need?

    Do you think it might be argued this is not just the excuse China needs but also the justification?


    Protesting is getting out of hand, becoming contagious, a compulsive need, whether related to early stirrings of latent anarchy or identity politics or an exaggerated misconceived notion of democracy and freedom of expression or the arrogance of youths' presumption of societal rights or .... whatever. Remember Marlon Brando's answer in The Wild One when he and his Hell's Angel gang dismounted their Harley Davisons and strode into a bar and the barman asked Brando "what are you rebelling against?" and he replied "what have you got?". Or how tv news anchorman Howard Beale in Network persuaded Americans to open their windows and shout "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take take it anymore?".

  • Do you think it might be argued this is not just the excuse China needs but also the justification?

    No justification, especially as I suspect it's China itself who are behind these violent protestors.


    The protestors, the peaceful ones, are right to be suspicious about this Bill being put on ice. The Bill is not gone, just sidelined for now, so the protestors want to kill it while they have the momentum.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Bill not gone, just sidelined for now, so the protesters want to kill it while they have the momentum.

    What they want and what they'll get are two different things.


    They should suspend protests and see how it pans out in forthcoming months and years. That's the difference between a brainless mob and a political or social moveement


    The idea of letting these yellowish snowflakes rather than a court of law decide when extradition is justified must seem to mainland China both abhorrent and risible


    I think it was shrewd for mainland China (or even its semi-stooge HK government) to use private protester-resistance/deterrent personnel rather than the HK police.

  • I was meaning to post back here the other day, but the heat took over...


    But I watched the BBC News and these violent "protestors" were attacking people who had just attended a freedom march. This was no random attack and the attackers were all dressed the same..


    It's clear, they were Chinese military.:thumbdown::cursing:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 1 Which ones? HK's or commissioned by mainland China?. Because they're both violent


    2 Attacking those on freedom march. Is Jon Snow your dad? Freedom march my arse. They break up things


    3 That's a good thing, right. It means the action was purposeful. What do you want? People attacking one another at random and without purpose?


    4 And what's wrong with that? Someone has to stop people who just want to protest to the end of time, where nothing will satisfy them, where reason and debate goes out of the window and simplistic brainless slogans are the order of the day, and where the protesters are so utterly divorced from reality that they actually think the owners of HK will accede totally to their juvenile idealistic wishes. I used to be left wing, then centrist, then guiltily and reluctantly right wing (and prepared to pretend I wasn't in certain company) but thanks to the way this world is developing, where no government can't please all the people all the time or unite a 50-50 difference of opinion which becomes more entrenched and virulent which each day that passes, I'm all for calling in the police, failing that, the army, and failing that, under-cover mercenaries; whoever it takes to hose them down, chuck them into a compound, try them as disturbers of the peace and destroyers of public property and possibly anarchists, impose a severe draconian sentence which will be suspended for 3 years to see if they can learn to grow up and behave the themselves - or, as Trump would suggest, go and live somewhere else.


    Yet having said all that, Hong Kong is a sad mess. The gap between rich and poor is quite dismaying. Property costs are double that of London and with so many people in so few square feet, the squalor for those scraping by on a low income is horrendous for what is considered to be Asia's economic powerhouse. By contrast, it's capitalist rival Singapore has a far more civilised lifestyle extending across the socio-economic spectrum.


    I don't know if the oppressed protesting Hong Kong citizens are going to get anywhere with mainland China. But I'm pretty sure they won't make any progress by protesting about every little thing. Trying to talk with the Hong Kong government is a waste of time. That's like trying to negotiate with the caretaker rather than the landlord. If the protesters can't find a way to have talks with the government in mainland China then they don't stand a chance. But they need a leader who can a command a "protest ceasefire" while negotiations are in progress. The long term problem is that I'm not even sure how much mainland China needs Hong Kong as a conduit to Western capitalism. I think China is quickly learning how to trade with the West and maybe Hong Kong will have less useful advice or know-how to offer in the future. I think Hong Kong is already for those Chinese entrepreneurs who cannot imagine being answerable to mainland China and I'm sure their wealth is by now banked outside of Hong Kong just to be on the safe side - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if one day soon they decide to also deposit themselves somewhere else.


    Isn't it interesting that no one in this forum on this thread has even attempted to comment on the rightness or wrongness of mainland China imposing this extradition bill. When Robbie opened the thread on 9 June based on the BBC News item, no one commented on the fairness or otherwise of this extradition treaty being imposed by mainland China, in spite of the fact that Robbie's BBC News lead did discuss reasons for and against.


    I think commenting on the protest without weighing up its justification is pointless and superficial.


    Here's a hot newsflash for you. Mainland China owns Hong Kong! One owner of two separate styled regions is bound to produce differences in style. There was never a treaty that defined what differences would and wouldn't be acceptable to the owner. And no owner in his right mind would agree to put a difference of opinion of two regions to independent arbitration when his is the giant owner and the other a small breakaway westward capitalistic spearhead). Least of all when smaller region is represented by excitable people protesting about everything. I'm not sure China's unrelenting position has done them any favours but they are already today a force to be reckoned with.




    .

    Edited once, last by casablanca ().

  • 1 Which ones? HK's or commissioned by mainland China?. Because they're both violent

    They're Chinese military. Mainland China, the clue is in their identical clothes and the fact they only targeted protestors coming back from a peaceful protest.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • They're Chinese military. Mainland China, the clue is in their identical clothes and the fact they only targeted protesters coming back from a peaceful protest.

    You talk of "peaceful" protests. I look at TV pictures of thousands of protesters behaving in a manner that is anything BUT peaceful. I also look at attempts by uniformed riot police to restrain them. It hardly matters whether these riot police are commissioned by China on the mainland or China in Hong Kong. It's all China. Is your reluctance to judge the merit or sensibleness of this prolonged protestation because :


    1) You think it less important than just commenting on the activity of protesting? A bit like describing the appearance of an atomic mushroom cloud over Hiroshima rather than the reasons, for better or worse, why it happened.


    2) You think practically everyone in the West believes, as you do, that the protesters are the heroes who can do no wrong and the Chinese are the villains who can do no right?


    3) You think that pursuit and demand for "Democracy" and its partner, "Freedom" is a concept with no upper limit and that if a government refuses to adhere to all the demands for Democracy and Freedom, then vigorous public protests can commence with no restraint on size or duration until the Government capitulates to those demands? Or top put it another way: are you a supporter of mob democracy?


    4) You think "what?" is more important than "why?", "effect" more important than "cause" and that a consideration of likely outcomes and possible solutions is a mental bore and chore?

  • You talk of "peaceful" protests. I look at TV pictures of thousands of protesters behaving in a manner that is anything BUT peaceful.

    I am specifically talking what was shown on the BBC tv news on Monday, There were these white shirted men who just happened to be holding baseball bats...X/ (I doubt they were a sports team) and they were targetting (note the word targetting) people who were standing around in a station. The news reported that these people who had been attacked by the white shirts had come from a protest about democracy.


    How would any thug off the street know from all the people standing around in a station concourse, which ones had been to a democracy protest? In my opinion, these were clearly Chinese military.


    I'm not saying that out of all the protestors, some of them might be violent, but I'd bet my shirt that many of them who are attacking police or destroying property are Chinese military or working for the Chinese military, but that is separate to the specific incident on Monday that I'm talking about.

    It's all China.

    Here's a hot newsflash for you. Mainland China owns Hong Kong

    Just on the specific point that it's "all China." No it's not. As I'm sure you know, the Chinese signed a international treaty with us when we handed Hong Kong back to them that Hong Kong's laws and customs would be treated differently to that of mainland China for fifty years after handover.


    What is happening, I believe, is the attempt to make Hong Kong part of "all" China, through whatever means are necessary.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Isn't it interesting that no one in this forum on this thread has even attempted to comment on the rightness or wrongness of mainland China imposing this extradition bill.

    I will. It's wrong and against Hong Kong's Basic Law, which is why its been put on ice for now. For now.


    Do you really think a justice system based on a autocratic communist system is equal to one based on the law and jurisprudence?


    There is no law in mainland China, it's just whatever the communist party official "on duty" says it is on even given day.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • My understanding is that Hong Kong was always part of China but a freeport and, for a while, a colony of Britain, which was ratified in a 99 lease, expiring in 1997, at which point the hand-back to China would be accompanied by a treaty agreement of a constitutional principle of "One country, two systems", which was actually proposed by China’s modern-day outward-thinking leader Deng Xiaoping (who died and was replaced by a hardliner).


    The treaty set out that Hong Kong would have its own governmental system, legal, economic and financial affairs, including trade relations with foreign countries. I’ve read the treaty and it is anything but watertight on the degree of freedom that mainland China would permit to Hong Kong and it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that the difference between a communist landlord and democratic leaseholder was never going to make go for an easy tenancy.


    Once China insisted that the so-called free elections permitted in Hong Kong had to be restricted to candidates selected by China, the treaty became exposed for just what it was and still is: a declaration of goodwill (a highly variable emotion) to allow Hong Kong autonomy but sufficiently generalised to allow China to invoke upper limits of autonomy. In short, a treaty with too many “outs”.


    Following on from fake elections came the power of China to insist on extradition from Hong Kong of any so-called accused criminals. At that point I think Hong Kong citizens “got the message”- the autonomy set out in the treaty, to put it mildly, lacked legal enforcement, least of all with China whose legal system has more in common with Iran and North Korea than Europe or the US.


    As a consequence, Hong Kong protestors have upped the ante and are now demanding a degree of democracy that is, to all intents and purposes, that of an independent sovereign governed nation. There is no way they are going to get it. Least of all if they behave like delinquents.


    China will take a long-term view, based on the value of Hong Kong in its financial and trading relationship with the rest of the world. The world being what it is, where global economy eclipses global morality, where America, Europe generally and Britain specifically are prepared to trade with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and consider trading with North Korea if they can dial back their nuclear military ambitions, .I don’t see any scope whatsoever for the West to prevent Hong Kong from being subjugated by its landlord owner. This is why I think that escalating the protests and turning Hong Kong into an unceasing uprising is not a smart way of persuading inviting China to discuss and consider a middle ground formula.


    As for whether China uses Hong Kong police or rents Hong Kong triads to take a tougher line or loses even more patience and brings in the Chinese Army, what are we able to do about it except imitate “Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells”? I don’t think we are going to raise the quality of thinking or debate by watching TV news to discern who are sporting white shirts, black shirts, face masks, riot shields, water hoses, tear gas, baseball bats, rubber bullet rifles and who set off a particular skirmish.


    Unless one thinks maybe there is potential to build this fracas into a multi-national board game called Global Chaos. The board game winners are the ones who make the most money – because that’s global reality - and the protesters are just one of many obstacles / pawns that one might draw out of the Chance pack of cards which can be harnessed to your game strategy eg a Chance cheque to pay Triads to subdue them ….. or draw another chance card and convert your Hong Kong dollars into Caribbean dollars which you can stash in a Caribbean low-tax haven …. Or ….?!?!!

  • The treaty set out that Hong Kong would have its own governmental system, legal, economic andfinancial affairs, including trade relations with foreign countries. I’ve read the treaty and it is anything butwatertight on the degree of freedom that mainland China would permit to HongKong and it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that the difference between a communistlandlord and democratic leaseholder was never going to make go for an easy tenancy

    I agree, but as I've not read the treaty I cannot argue the point one way or the other, but as as you say a communist landlord was always going to clash against a democratic leaseholder. The clash still to come.

    Once China insisted that the so-calledfree elections permitted in Hong Kong had to be restricted to candidates selectedby China, the treaty became exposed for just what it was and still is: a declaration of goodwill (a highly variableemotion) to allow Hong Kong autonomy but sufficiently generalised to allow Chinato invoke upper limits of autonomy. Inshort, a treaty with too many “outs”.

    I agree. This has been coming for a long time.

    As a consequence, Hong Kong protestors haveupped the ante and are now demanding a degree of democracy that is, to allintents and purposes, that of an independent sovereign governed nation. There is no way they are going to get it. Least of all if they behave like delinquents

    I agree, but as for the wider protests now, rather than the specific incident I was talking about, I still question how many of the violent protestors are genuine protestors and not plants by the Chinese military.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Thanks Ho for engaging - I really appreciate -it's lonely talking to oneself!


    I too question how many of the violent protesters are genuine protesters. But you can also turn the question around and ask how many genuine protesters are violent.


    Of course the catch here is that genuine protesters can become violent not because that is their intention or natural disposition but because the very act of protesting en-mass generates a sense of shared self-righteousness, which turns into excitement, fierce resolve and, sooner or later, it gets physical.. At which point, who are the real protesters? Who are infiltrators egging them on? Who are battling to get it under control and at least try calm negotiation without being naively over-demanding? Who are Hong Kong triads taking China's side and seeking to subdue or defeat the protesters?


    Ultimately the problem is that those in Hong Kong have sampled the taste of capitalism, enterprise, freedom and voting for a government that will serve their needs and ambitions discovered and the chance that China will ever find that political concept attractive, even a partial version of it, is not looking too hopeful in the immediate future and, if it does eventually happen - at least meeting the West halfway - those poor devils in Hong Kong right now protesting their hearts out might not see it happen until they are too old and grey to have shared that benefit.


    I do so wish us in the West could provide China with more persuasive examples of why capitalism, freedom, and democracy is The Right Way.


    China's advanced methods of citizen surveillance and correction - are frighteningly effective - science fiction come true (reminds me of that movie Minority Report and of course Farenheit 451). I'm wondering if any of China's incredible methodology can be employed to reduce some of the criminal horrors that beset the West's unchecked freedom and liberalism. Practically all the science fiction novels and movies which show dystopian government control are produced by authors who are freedom-loving liberals and thus depict it as an evil to be resisted and conquered by all freedom-loving liberals people. But is Western society throwing out the baby with the bathwater? How can we possibly develop fair and decent methods of preventing criminal or psychotic or deranged behaviour when we are still arguing about the merits of profiled random searching?

  • Of course the catch here is that genuine protesters can become violent not because that is their intention or natural disposition but because the very act of protesting en-mass generates a sense of shared self-righteousness, which turns into excitement, fierce resolve and, sooner or later, it gets physical.. At which point, who are the real protesters? Who are infiltrators egging them on? Who are battling to get it under control and at least try calm negotiation without being naively over-demanding? Who are Hong Kong triads taking China's side and seeking to subdue or defeat the protesters?

    That sums up exactly what China wants to achieve here, in my opinion. A big confusing mess which then requires their "assistance" to make all things "good and calm" again. Which is why the protests will become more violent so that China can then send in the tanks. The oldest game in the book played over and over again by every dictator and autocratic regime in the world. To solve "the problem", you've got to create it first...


    Don't forget the tv cameras only focus on the few violent protestors (regardless of who they are, or their motivations) and not on the thousands of peaceful protestors.


    Ultimately the problem is that those in Hong Kong have sampled the taste of capitalism, enterprise, freedom and voting for a government that will serve their needs and ambitions discovered and the chance that China will ever find that political concept attractive, even a partial version of it, is not looking too hopeful in the immediate future and, if it does eventually happen - at least meeting the West halfway - those poor devils in Hong Kong right now protesting their hearts out might not see it happen until they are too old and grey to have shared that benefit.

    As China essentially crowned a new emperor in recent years, I think there is zero chance the Communist Party will peacefully hand over the reigns of power in HK or the mainland. But that's also the same reason why things might change especially with all the infighting and corruption within the party, eventually.

    I do so wish us in the West could provide China with more persuasive examples of why capitalism, freedom, and democracy is The Right Way.

    Why would senior communist officials give a damn when in effect they each rule their own little fiefdoms like mini kings? Life is very good for them, far better than under a democratic system. Same goes for the Putin regime, Saudi regime etc.


    China's advanced methods of citizen surveillance and correction - are frighteningly effective - science fiction come true (reminds me of that movie Minority Report and of course Farenheit 451). I'm wondering if any of China's incredible methodology can be employed to reduce some of the criminal horrors that beset the West's unchecked freedom and liberalism. Practically all the science fiction novels and movies which show dystopian government control are produced by authors who are freedom-loving liberals and thus depict it as an evil to be resisted and conquered by all freedom-loving liberals people. But is Western society throwing out the baby with the bathwater? How can we possibly develop fair and decent methods of preventing criminal or psychotic or deranged behaviour when we are still arguing about the merits of profiled random searching?

    Interesting. Why not create a thread about this to explore further? There are lots of arguments to be had over the good and ills of using and storing DNA as but one example.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Hong Kong protests: Police officer points gun at protesters

    A police officer has been caught on camera brandishing a large gun at protesters in Hong Kong.

    The incident came during clashes outside the Kwai Chung police station where dozens of protesters are being held.

    Oh dear...


    Interesting that another cop seemed to warm him off going by the video.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I I don't think the protesters need much encouragement or nudging from China to create more chaos and violence. It really is HK's own- goal


    2 Well, that media coverage for you! Whether it's a search for seabird covered in oil or a bleeding child in Syria or violent encounters with protesters in HK (which also encourages protesters to pursue further the "reality" which they saw on tv)


    3 It's possible China will first subdue the protesters and then reign with a looser rein. In that way the West might feel more comfortable continuing to deal with HK in goods and finance..


    4 Living like a mini king in a nice little fiefdom ain't cheap. Nor is it cheap to keep Chinese citizens subjugated and accepting of their lot and disinclined to stage an uprising. Which means China needs to sell stuff. Which means HK is not just a nice little earner but a necessary one too.


    5 You're right, China's sci-fi-come-true advancements in surveillance, dossiers and tracking of Chinese citizens merits a thread of its own. Not least to consider whether its advancements have merit in helping the over-excitable and ever-protesting West impose an upper limit on freedom, as well as crime prediction and prevention. I'll leave you to launch such a thread because my previous attempts reveal I have a dead hand for that. I think the Reuters weblink is the most neutral or open minded description of what it's all about


    https://www.reuters.com/articl…ads-quietly-idUSKBN1KZ0R3

    https://www.washingtonpost.com…e/?utm_term=.40edf13ef888

    https://theday.co.uk/stories/t…vanced-surveillance-state

    https://www.theguardian.com/co…urveillance-exported-west

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…urveillance-xinjiang.html

  • I just come back to the point that there are thousands of peaceful protestors in HK and the violent ones are just a minority and I question whether that minority are even genuine protestors at all.


    I agree with your point 4, but just add the caveat that when HK was handed over to the Chinese, the then Chinese leader said he would sooner see the place levelled to the ground rather than allowing any unwanted "influences" to infect mainland China. Yes, HK makes a lot of money, but the priority above all else for the Communist Party is staying in power, regardless of any other consideration.


    Thanks for those links, I'll have a read up when I can.:thumbup:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.


  • It won't take much now for the Chinese military to react, now that they're saying "terrorists" are involved.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Hong Kong protests cripple airport for second day

    Flight check-in has been suspended at Hong Kong International Airport for a second consecutive day because of anti-government protests.

    The airport, which is one of the world's busiest, has been the site of daily protests since Friday.

    The protesters have been peaceful, but as I alluded to before, the protests have been infiltrated by security forces. This won't end well, as China won't tolerate this for much longer.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.


  • Oh, oh, Just noticed this.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.