4 ms·

Stuff like this makes me feel like we're the suckers. 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be ab

by winrid 7y ago

Stuff like this makes me feel like we're the suckers. 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK? 2. All the accounts are created through VPNs. Well, YT is blocked in China. If Chinese people are trying to show us what the protesters are actually like (I don't know for real either way) they would have to use a VPN. And they would be inclined to work together to vote up related content for awareness. 3. If a state like let's say Texas in the US had a legal system where I could commit a crime in PA and escape to Texas, wouldn't we want to fix that? Of course there would be protests. Think of the recent protests we've had in France, just for tax reasons. You think if this kind of law changed in Texas you wouldn't see fires and overturned cars? My point is, maybe our view into that side of the world is not as clear as we think.

dragonsh 7y ago
I agree with you that there isn't any legal discourse on implications. It's immaterial in these protests as it is a manifestation of despair due to economic reality and worsening living conditions without a hope of revival. 1. Extradition treaty require local competent court to make a decision whether to extradite or not. But For majority of protestors it is immaterial because the perception is that Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few). So the actual discussion no one wants to discuss or hear. 2. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter does not like privacy. Because their basic business is to trade personal information and time for free service. So try using any of them through TOR or VPN they will block you or make it very difficult, independent from which country you belong. In this aspect so far only EU is trying to preserve some privacy but still not enough with many loopholes. 3. Again as I mentioned in no 1, here majority of the protestors do not even understand how extradition works. So this discussion is secondary the primary reason the protests are taking place is due to bleak future outlook and harsh economic reality and living conditions (as I mentioned in my previous comments living in a car parking size apartment space).
- xster 7y ago
  > perception is that Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few). So the actual discussion no one wants to discuss or hear. That's actually a bit surprising. I always had the opposite impression, at least in terms of judicial independence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Ko... Most of the final appellate court judges aren't even Chinese which is remarkable (that it's mainly British, Australian and Canadian judges ruling in China).
- ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
  Oh yeah, the protests are absolutely nothing to do with increasing authoritarianism and overreach, increasing violations of one country, two systems and decreasing autonomy. Totally. These things are non-issues for Hong Kongers.
  - dragonsh 7y ago
    This is again a comment without an iota of evidence. If you have any proof of China breaking one country two system which means the provisions of "Basic Law", you can definitely take your case to competent Hong Kong courts. Regarding extradition bill which is already made dead I still need to see any evidence that it was bad, except the protest more reflected that people think Hong Kong judiciary is incompetent and works at China's whims. Here below is a brief for your perusal: "Upon receiving a request for extradition, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice first determines whether several conditions are met, including: the crime is one of the 37 listed categories and punishable by seven years or more in prison; the offence in question is a crime in both Hong Kong and the requesting jurisdiction; the offence in question is not of a political character, and the offence is not punishable by death. If the justice department determines that the conditions are met, then it goes before Hong Kong’s chief executive, who can decide whether to veto or proceed with the extradition request. At this point, the suspect can apply for judicial review, with a right to appeal in the city’s highest court. If the request proceeds, an arrest warrant is issued, after which the subject is immediately barred from leaving Hong Kong. Once the subject is arrested, the case moves to the courts, where a preliminary hearing is held. Once the court decides that there is no political motive behind the extradition request, and that there is sufficient prima facie evidence that there is a possible case, it can then make an order of committal. At this point, the suspect can appeal. With the judicial process over, the request goes back to the chief executive, who can again decide to deny the extradition request on humanitarian grounds. Here, the subject can petition the chief executive to oppose extradition. Should the chief executive decide to proceed with the extradition, an extradition order is given. At this stage, the suspect can again appeal to the courts to stop the extradition. If the suspect decides not to appeal, or if the appeal is unsuccessful, the suspect is extradited. The process could take years, which is typical of extradition proceedings."
computerfriend 7y ago
It's pretty clear what the view in Hong Kong is too. On "their side" of the world.
jazzyjackson 7y ago
Chinese people trying to show us what protesters are like would be free to upload videos from Hong Kong, because YouTube is not blocked in Hong Kong, only in Mainland China.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  But government agents in China posting deceptive or false stuff wouldn't be blocked.
hashmap 7y ago
> 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK? This is a good example of a particularly sinister argumentation style, and you can see it everywhere these days. It typically goes like this: 1. Take an objectively bad reality. "Citizens of Hong Kong could possibly be extradited to a totalitarian state for any thing that state decides was a crime." 2. Restate it as an abstract ideal or extreme case, ignoring the details that make it bad, and ask why one wouldn't want this thing that's actually good: "But shouldn't people who commit crimes in other countries have to face justice?" / "Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?" I'm not sure what to call it, but it would be good to have a two or three word phrase to succinctly call this kind of thing out. I'll have to think, but would appreciate input from others who have noticed it as well. Edit: I would add that the really "sinister" part is that those bad details are ignored for the sake of making the argument, but are, in fact, the end goal.
- winrid 7y ago
  Not trying to be sinister. That is the reality right? It's a hard question.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by winrid 7y ago

dragonsh 7y ago

I agree with you that there isn't any legal discourse on implications. It's immaterial in these protests as it is a manifestation of despair due to economic reality and worsening living conditions without a hope of revival. 1. Extradition treaty require local competent court to make a decision whether to extradite or not. But For majority of protestors it is immaterial because the perception is that Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few). So the actual discussion no one wants to discuss or hear. 2. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter does not like privacy. Because their basic business is to trade personal information and time for free service. So try using any of them through TOR or VPN they will block you or make it very difficult, independent from which country you belong. In this aspect so far only EU is trying to preserve some privacy but still not enough with many loopholes. 3. Again as I mentioned in no 1, here majority of the protestors do not even understand how extradition works. So this discussion is secondary the primary reason the protests are taking place is due to bleak future outlook and harsh economic reality and living conditions (as I mentioned in my previous comments living in a car parking size apartment space).

xster 7y ago
> perception is that Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few). So the actual discussion no one wants to discuss or hear. That's actually a bit surprising. I always had the opposite impression, at least in terms of judicial independence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Ko... Most of the final appellate court judges aren't even Chinese which is remarkable (that it's mainly British, Australian and Canadian judges ruling in China).
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
Oh yeah, the protests are absolutely nothing to do with increasing authoritarianism and overreach, increasing violations of one country, two systems and decreasing autonomy. Totally. These things are non-issues for Hong Kongers.
- dragonsh 7y ago
  This is again a comment without an iota of evidence. If you have any proof of China breaking one country two system which means the provisions of "Basic Law", you can definitely take your case to competent Hong Kong courts. Regarding extradition bill which is already made dead I still need to see any evidence that it was bad, except the protest more reflected that people think Hong Kong judiciary is incompetent and works at China's whims. Here below is a brief for your perusal: "Upon receiving a request for extradition, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice first determines whether several conditions are met, including: the crime is one of the 37 listed categories and punishable by seven years or more in prison; the offence in question is a crime in both Hong Kong and the requesting jurisdiction; the offence in question is not of a political character, and the offence is not punishable by death. If the justice department determines that the conditions are met, then it goes before Hong Kong’s chief executive, who can decide whether to veto or proceed with the extradition request. At this point, the suspect can apply for judicial review, with a right to appeal in the city’s highest court. If the request proceeds, an arrest warrant is issued, after which the subject is immediately barred from leaving Hong Kong. Once the subject is arrested, the case moves to the courts, where a preliminary hearing is held. Once the court decides that there is no political motive behind the extradition request, and that there is sufficient prima facie evidence that there is a possible case, it can then make an order of committal. At this point, the suspect can appeal. With the judicial process over, the request goes back to the chief executive, who can again decide to deny the extradition request on humanitarian grounds. Here, the subject can petition the chief executive to oppose extradition. Should the chief executive decide to proceed with the extradition, an extradition order is given. At this stage, the suspect can again appeal to the courts to stop the extradition. If the suspect decides not to appeal, or if the appeal is unsuccessful, the suspect is extradited. The process could take years, which is typical of extradition proceedings."

computerfriend 7y ago

It's pretty clear what the view in Hong Kong is too. On "their side" of the world.

jazzyjackson 7y ago

Chinese people trying to show us what protesters are like would be free to upload videos from Hong Kong, because YouTube is not blocked in Hong Kong, only in Mainland China.

LorenPechtel 7y ago
But government agents in China posting deceptive or false stuff wouldn't be blocked.

hashmap 7y ago

> 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK? This is a good example of a particularly sinister argumentation style, and you can see it everywhere these days. It typically goes like this: 1. Take an objectively bad reality. "Citizens of Hong Kong could possibly be extradited to a totalitarian state for any thing that state decides was a crime." 2. Restate it as an abstract ideal or extreme case, ignoring the details that make it bad, and ask why one wouldn't want this thing that's actually good: "But shouldn't people who commit crimes in other countries have to face justice?" / "Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?" I'm not sure what to call it, but it would be good to have a two or three word phrase to succinctly call this kind of thing out. I'll have to think, but would appreciate input from others who have noticed it as well. Edit: I would add that the really "sinister" part is that those bad details are ignored for the sake of making the argument, but are, in fact, the end goal.

winrid 7y ago
Not trying to be sinister. That is the reality right? It's a hard question.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]