Mr T
Senior Member
I didn't say there was. I was making a suggestion that if China retrospectively finds the Treaty's terms annoying, it can put things back how they used to be.
Last edited:
Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
I didn't say there was. I was making a suggestion that if China retrospectively finds the Treaty's terms annoying, it can put things back how they used to be.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
How easily you forget your undemocratic thinking. Right here...
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/hong-kong-occupy-central-demonstrations.t7050/page-26 Post #518
And Beijing can use the same excuse you give the British for denying universal suffrage. And you forget the majority of Hong Kong eventually were against the protestors. A minority got to override and decide for the majority? So again... undemocratic.
No Beijing will just deport all the trouble makers to Great Britain.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
No, that's perfectly logical. Hong Kong was a remote colony that needed a governor, even after there was political reform in the UK.
Negative. Hong Kong is right next to China, it's not remote in the slightest. Guangdong is one of China's biggest cities and it's right next to Hong Kong. And China agreed to democracy when the UK agreed to hand Hong Kong island and Kowloon over to China. So there's no justification for reneging on the promise of democracy. Unless perhaps that China doesn't feel it can win the Chief Exec elections fairly.
You can only deport foreigners to another country. You can't deport your own citizens. So what - you're saying that, despite all the pro-China rhetoric, Hong Kong isn't actually a part of China?
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
And that governor could've been elected. Where's the law that says you can deny democracy if it's far away from the colonizing country? You're just making it as you go along. You can do it but no one else can. In a democracy everyone is equal under the law. How undemocratic to believe you can make up the rules as you go along but no one else can. Distance doesn't prevent the British from establishing a democratic leader. The primary point of your statement was since Great Britain didn't have democracy at the time, why should Hong Kong? Same excuse Beijing can use.
You mean like how the British deported the original inhabitants of Diego Garcia to another island? They weren't citizens of Great Britain yet they were forced out anyway.
Mr T
Senior Member
Yeah, but then the UK would have had zero influence on Hong Kong given it was so far away. In which case we might as well given it independence. Which perhaps we should have, but weren't going to because it was a colony. Hong Kong isn't a remote colony of China. And as I said, China is bound by treaty to allow Hong Kong democracy.
So you're planning to turn Hong Kong into a giant PLA military base?
I'm not sure I understand your position. Is it that Hong Kong doesn't deserve democracy because it wasn't granted full democracy under British rule? Or that I can't have an opinion because of my nationality and Britain's aforementioned failure to give full democracy?
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I don't care if the UK would have zero influence. That's called a democracy. It was illegally seized in the eyes of any civilized person in the first place. If you think military aggression and forcing people to sign a treaty makes it okay... Again where's the law that says denying democracy is okay because it's far away? And China can make a law that says the British illegally acquired Hong Kong and thus all agreements are null and void. The original treaty that said Great Britain had to hand back Hong Kong made no mention of democracy because again like you said... If the British didn't have universal suffrage, why should Hong Kong have it?
Where in the law that says you can deport people from their own land if it's turned into a military base? I don't care if Hong Kong would be turned into a military base. If that happened, would you be happy then? I bet not. You seem to believe that gives Great Britain an excuse. Again unequal under the law therefore not democratic.
Mr T
Senior Member
I still don't get it. How is this relevant to the issue of this thread - i.e the discussion of the protests and political reform in Hong Kong? Does this mean I can't express an opinion different from yours? Doesn't it mean I should be banned from the thread because I'm not Chinese? What?
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Are you going to dictate the conversation now? Charlie Hebdo! Charlie Hebdo! Never said such things. You replied to me using democracy and the law as an excuse for everything. I used you own undemocratic statements to counter therefore puts into question what you're really getting at. If you don't understand that, it's because you don't know what democracy is really all about and just use it as an excuse for your alternate agenda that has nothing to do with democracy or rights.
I don't call for people being banned because my message is better sent with conversations with people like you right now. Just because I'm catching you on every slip you make, doesn't equate to I'm calling for you to shut up or be banned. Are you like people I come across who think free speech is they get to say anything they want but no one can question or challenge? If anyone does your right to free speech is being denied? Again no understanding of what free speech and rights are all about. You brought up the subjects and I have the right to counter.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
And I find it offensive that you bring up democracy when your statements excuse British action over Hong Kong are wholly undemocratic and you don't believe in it. Charlie Ebdo is about free speech if you didn't know. If I show your undemocratic statements as proof, it means you don't believe in true democracy. Hence you must have an alternate agenda that has nothing to do with democracy. How is that offensive?
Last edited:
- Status