Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
To be fair, there were HK solidarity protests in Canada (and US). The problem was that the Chinese community were not strongly unified on the issue. If anything, most Chinese were overwhelmingly against it since most are mainlanders now and the pro-protest faction is not a majority to begin with.
This lead to a bizzare scene in Toronto where counter protestors showed up in exotics (Lambos, Ferraris, etc.) with PRC flags hanging out and revved their engines and circled around to drown out the yellow crowd.
The local media tried to portray it as obvious CCP influence, and people here posted with consternation about those accusations.
I'm very puzzle. I've seen so many footage of these riots in the US. But have barely seen anything that put the authority in a bad light like we have seen in Hong Kong.
For instance, here's a point blank shot using , i think, rubber bullet, at an unarmed demonstrator with his back turned.
Here's one a female demonstrator bravely stand in front of a police truck and was shot at (at the ground, she is not going to know that).
Here's one where demonstrators took the US flag down and thrown it in the water. With lots of people around, you would've thought really news worthy. (A similar thing in Hong Kong with only a few people around make headline news)!
This shows the crowd size. Unlike those thugs in Hong Kong where all videos are close up with small crowds (I've seen videos of same scene from a bit further away to show it was only a small crowd).
What about stills? I won't show the girl been peppered spray (it's on the world news thread).
Compare and contrast. In USA protestors facing police. Hong Kong, journalists facing police!
These are iconic images and videos, and if it was happening in Hong Kong, it will be all over our TV evening news. But as it is, we have to rely on social media and networks to get a feel of what's really happening. The power of MSM.
For instance, here's a point blank shot using , i think, rubber bullet, at an unarmed demonstrator with his back turned.
Here's one a female demonstrator bravely stand in front of a police truck and was shot at (at the ground, she is not going to know that).
Here's one where demonstrators took the US flag down and thrown it in the water. With lots of people around, you would've thought really news worthy. (A similar thing in Hong Kong with only a few people around make headline news)!
This shows the crowd size. Unlike those thugs in Hong Kong where all videos are close up with small crowds (I've seen videos of same scene from a bit further away to show it was only a small crowd).
What about stills? I won't show the girl been peppered spray (it's on the world news thread).
Compare and contrast. In USA protestors facing police. Hong Kong, journalists facing police!
These are iconic images and videos, and if it was happening in Hong Kong, it will be all over our TV evening news. But as it is, we have to rely on social media and networks to get a feel of what's really happening. The power of MSM.
Mr T
Senior Member
How many of my comments can you post here where I've supported the US and UK governments? Oddly enough, I will at some point support something they do, but it's hardly a daily occurance - although good luck finding lots of comments where I've praised Trump.
No, I haven't. There are good and bad Hong Kong police, just like in the US. Although trust in the police in Hong Kong hit rock-bottom at the end of last year, so it's probably fair to say that they are being heavy-handed.
The protests have gone on for so long because so many people have been involved. The HK police can't lock up hundreds of thousands/millions of people. If a territory like Hong Kong has near-constant protests for such a long time it shows a complete failure of leadership and an absence of good governance.
If you want to argue it's primarily the fault of the Hong Kong government, Carrie Lam and the pro-CCP parties that have a majority of seats in the legislative, I'm willing to accept that. There is much to be said that Beijing has been mislead by special interest groups that want to maintain the status-quo and are resistant to things like abolishing the functional constituencies (because that's where most of their power resides).
However, the CCP is still partly responsible. It has intervened, such as in "interpreting" what a valid oath for a HK legislator is rather than leaving it to the Hong Kong courts, it's also publicly backed Carrie Lam to the hilt, when Beijing could have demanded her resignation for incompetence. Her head on a plate last year would have significantly increased the chances of most of the protesters going home.
Arguably it was pretty good under British rule. The economy did really well, the city's growth seemed to have no end and there was high confidence in the police. People fled from mainland China to Hong Kong, rather than the other way around. We also gave Hong Kong rule of law. Just because there weren't elections for the governor didn't mean there wasn't a high degree of freedom in Hong Kong. (As an aside, if the governor had been elected Hong Kong wouldn't have been a colony, rather it would have been an independent city-state.)
Also, whether or not the protesters actually think colonial Hong Kong was better has nothing to do whether they have any valid grievances.
I'm not saying the treaty was a kind gesture, I'm saying it was a treaty. Something that both parties are supposed to agree to. If China had got Hong Kong back via a show of force it wouldn't have signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all.
Also I think you're insulting the memories of the CCP politicians like Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang who created the Sino-British Joint Declaration in the first place. There was some pushing and shoving over it, but it was all diplomatic and done in good faith.
You need to calm down. No one has said any political system is morally superior. The issue is what the CCP promised for 50 years. If China's promises don't mean anything because they can be reversed on a whim, well fine, but don't complain if people start saying China isn't trustworthy.
Last edited:
I know this is not real, but I've been told this is very similar to the Apple daily's news coverage of the US situation. Apparently, the thugs are very confused, because, let's face It, the thugs all got phones and can see what we see. They just don't know what to do!
It would, but I doubt it'll make any difference. Those thugs are too far gone to save.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
That's losing the big picture, isn't it? That's like saying there are black people in Africa and black people in Sweden so it's all the same. Every policeman in Hong Kong has shown incredible restraint or there would be body bags piled to the ceiling from just one person properly defending himself from terrorists. If there are bad police in Hong Kong, they are the ones who tipped off the terrorists to avoiding the good police. On the other hand, America world famous for racist police brutality. Many many police in America have been filmed attacking demonstrators just sitting down and talking in just this protest alone. There is no equivalency here.
The biggest problem with the governance and also the environment in Hong Kong is confusion. It's too complicated. Foreign judges, multiple parties, limited CCP power, large foreign (CIA) influence, it's a big mess. They need straight-forward governance with clear identity: You are Chinese, all your officials are Chinese, you answer to the CCP and we work together to make China the greatest power on earth. No other confusing narratives should be allowed to infect or poison people's minds, at least not at such a fragile stage in Hong Kong. It's ok for a mature person to be exposed to every way of thought and ugliness in the world, but Hong Kong is so immature, it would be like throwing a 5 year old into a den full of gangsters and drug dealers to see how he grows up. They're not ready now; they must be reeducated first.
That's only arguable for a foreigner or a Chinese person whose self respect has been completely destroyed. Nothing is good when your homeland is government by foreigners. All of Hong Kong's growth and economic success came from being linked to China; the British have no power to do anything for Hong Kong. The Brits gave Hong Kong this nonsense broken legal system and Hong Kongers protested all the same, but were met much more forcefully because Brits don't care about Chinese blood spilled while the CCP still sees the good Chinese people underneath the pathetic self-hating thugs that the British have turned them into.
Do you know who Deng Xiaoping is? Deng Xiaoping would have sent in the tanks to put Hong Kong in its place. The only insult to him is that the terrorists are still alive after committing all the violent crimes that they did. There is no respect in China or in me for Zhao Ziyang.
First of all, who promised 50 years? Not Xi Jinping, I'm sure. If Trump can tear up all the old contracts his predecessors signed, then why can't Xi?
And 50 years is assuming that things are relatively stable. If they turn into Somalia, China's not supposed to ignore it like some disgusting leftovers in tupperware only to be opened 50 years later to see what kind of bloody hell things have become. Your 50 years is nullified by chaos and the destruction of law, as we've clearly seen. After the total mess that the British left, Hong Kong clearly needs China now; the Chinese people in Hong Kong need China.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Well they'll welcome Neo-Nazis marching with them...
manqiangrexue, do not get sucked into having to defend China on "breaking" an international agreement.
China did not and have not broken her promise relative to One Country Two System as spelled out by the Basic Law of Hong Kong which is agreed to by UK and China. That is Western MSM narrative to justify their continuous lies about what is going on in Hong Kong and to interfere with an internal policy of China.
As I have explained several times in this thread, China applies the Article 18 and Annex III in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, a right given to her as part of the agreement with UK, to implement what were required for Hong Kong to implement per Article 23, but which Hong Kong failed to do so for 23 years.