5 ms·

Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this w

Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. Thought experiment: if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law in violation of federal articles, how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating this?

pimmen 7y ago
A better anaology would be if the US implemented extreme Sharia law, how cavalier would people who don't want to live like that be? Hong Kong didn't choose the CCP who didn't even exist yet when the lease was signed. They sure as hell didn't choose to lose their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression either. So, if you do a thought experiment about protests against the government, keep in mind that the government in question commits some of the worst human rights abuses today.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  > A better anaology would be if the US implemented extreme Sharia law, how cavalier would people who don't want to live like that be? That's a very poor analogy. Hong Kong citizens already enjoy the benefit of an independent legal system and don't have to live like mainland citizens. > They sure as hell didn't choose to lose their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression either. They sure didn't. And they sure haven't lost those rights.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    The protest was about the prospect of losing those rights, starting with being subject to mainland laws through extradition. The protest has then expanded to being against the CCP undermining ”one country, two systems” in general, an example of which would be Gui Minhai who’s serving time for a book he published in Hong Kong. So, I would say the analogy is still apt. The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against.
    - UIZealot 7y ago
      > The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against. Really? How exactly is it being implemented? EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?
      - RavlaAlvar 7y ago
        If you live in Hong Kong, you can definitely feel that over the years, CCP have been increasingly ramp up their influence on HK matters. CCP officials start to comment on internal HK matters, lobbying for government policy to pass in the legislative branch.
        UIZealot 7y ago
        Influence? Certainly. Just like the UK could influence HK matters when it was a British colony, China can influence HK matters now that it's a Chinese special administrative region. Control? Not so much.
        pimmen 7y ago
        Because the control is still being implemented. To implement it, you need influence.
        UIZealot 7y ago
        Again, how exactly is it being implemented? All you came up with is the extradition bill, and that, again, has been withdrawn.
      - pimmen 7y ago
        The extradition treaty subjecting people to some mainland laws is a step in that direction.
        UIZealot 7y ago
nexuist 7y ago
> Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall and realize independence is fleeting. Without getting into the specifics of Sharia law, I think we can reduce your next question to "how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating a state or city that violates federal law?" * Northern states endured slavery for dozens of years while passing their own laws that criminalized slavery, allowed slaves to buy their own freedom, etc. (however the South responded by passing a federal law that required Northern states to capture escaped slaves and bring them back, one of the precursors to the Civil War and the only time the system totally failed) * Prohibition failed so hard the Fed actually gave up and nixed it from the Constitution * More than 30 states have decriminalized marijuana going totally against the DEA, a federal agency with certain powers defined by federal law * Many cities are "sanctuary cities" which means they refuse to cooperate with ICE and DHS, again federal agencies * Some states, especially Southern ones, routinely encode new strategies into law to bypass Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made by the third branch of federal government, the Supreme Court * Upon the passage of the ACA ("Obamacare"), multiple states immediately sued the federal government and refused to implement sections of the law While these actions certainly cause tensions between individual states and the Fed as a whole, the Union still holds together due to of the lack of authoritarianism. Because of the decentralized nature of Western power (as implemented via federalism and other strategies), it is impossible for one figurehead or political party to dictate what happens in every corner of the country. Entire legislatures can be overturned by citizens who wish to ignore the federal government's worst wishes. This is a feature - not a bug. That being said, there are limits to the tolerance, and breaking the Constitution is one of them. Would people support a state ignoring the Bill of Rights? No, absolutely not. But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more. Would Americans support a state that fights for more rights for the people? I suppose it's subjective, but I would say yes, yes they would support a state that aims to give more freedom to the people. That difference is crucial. >if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law This question hinges on the premise that a majority of people in a Western democracy would decide to willingly give up their rights to the state in recognition of a greater power. Are there groups like this? Certainly - evangelicals, Wahhabists, etc. Do they make up a majority? I really doubt it. I am hard pressed to think of any situations in history where any large mass of people have decided to replace their democratic freedoms with a dictatorship or theocracy. Authoritarianism is usually a result of a violent takeover, hence why most dictators live and die by their armies and not their citizens. So the question is a false premise in my eyes - why would any majority vote their right to vote away?
DanTheManPR 7y ago
"They can do with it as they please"... what? The tyrannical CCP has some sort of fundamental ownership right over the lives the people of HK? Your statement about sharia law in Rhode Island not only confirms that you don't care about the will of the people in the democratic sense (which, in your thought experiment, are mostly muslims, and you imply actually do want religiously based laws), but also reverses the reasoning of constitutional rules (which are there by the will of the people, to specifically to bar restrictions on free exercise of religion, with the express purpose of protecting the minority of Rhode Islanders who would be oppressed by Islamic law that was enacted by the will of the majority). That you think this example supports the former is gobsmacking to me.
- foobarian 7y ago
  It doesn't matter what I care about. It's a simple question: in the stated scenario, which, even if it was the will of the people but a blatant usurpation of the US constitution - what do YOU think would happen?
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  There is a real notion of a nation's ownership right in Western thought. It's called the Westphalian nation-state, and dates back to times of the Protestant Reformation and bitter international warfare. The idea is that peace is better than everyone killing each other over religion, even if this means abandoning the people next door to some measure of religious repression at the hands of a different sect of Christianity. However, it would be a mistake to think of the Hong Kong matter in this way. To quote the Beijing party line, "Xi Jinping thought on diplomacy has made innovations on and transcended the traditional Western theories of international relations for the past 300 years" (i.e. back to the Treaty of Westphalia). Instead, Xi Jinping thought revives tianxia, the mandate of heaven, and envisions total world domination in a heirarchical system under Chinese rule. "The Chinese have always held that the world is united and all under heaven are one family," Xi told us in his 2017 New Year's message. Thus, even as China increasingly meddles with other nations' affairs to effect its strategy of world domination, it is naturally unconscionable for other nations to interfere with theirs or attempt containment. It is against this framework that we should consider the matter of Hong Kong.

pimmen 7y ago

A better anaology would be if the US implemented extreme Sharia law, how cavalier would people who don't want to live like that be? Hong Kong didn't choose the CCP who didn't even exist yet when the lease was signed. They sure as hell didn't choose to lose their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression either. So, if you do a thought experiment about protests against the government, keep in mind that the government in question commits some of the worst human rights abuses today.

UIZealot 7y ago
> A better anaology would be if the US implemented extreme Sharia law, how cavalier would people who don't want to live like that be? That's a very poor analogy. Hong Kong citizens already enjoy the benefit of an independent legal system and don't have to live like mainland citizens. > They sure as hell didn't choose to lose their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression either. They sure didn't. And they sure haven't lost those rights.
- pimmen 7y ago
  The protest was about the prospect of losing those rights, starting with being subject to mainland laws through extradition. The protest has then expanded to being against the CCP undermining ”one country, two systems” in general, an example of which would be Gui Minhai who’s serving time for a book he published in Hong Kong. So, I would say the analogy is still apt. The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    > The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against. Really? How exactly is it being implemented? EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?
    - RavlaAlvar 7y ago
      If you live in Hong Kong, you can definitely feel that over the years, CCP have been increasingly ramp up their influence on HK matters. CCP officials start to comment on internal HK matters, lobbying for government policy to pass in the legislative branch.
      - UIZealot 7y ago
        Influence? Certainly. Just like the UK could influence HK matters when it was a British colony, China can influence HK matters now that it's a Chinese special administrative region. Control? Not so much.
        pimmen 7y ago
        Because the control is still being implemented. To implement it, you need influence.
        UIZealot 7y ago
        Again, how exactly is it being implemented? All you came up with is the extradition bill, and that, again, has been withdrawn.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      The extradition treaty subjecting people to some mainland laws is a step in that direction.
      - UIZealot 7y ago

nexuist 7y ago

> Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall and realize independence is fleeting. Without getting into the specifics of Sharia law, I think we can reduce your next question to "how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating a state or city that violates federal law?" * Northern states endured slavery for dozens of years while passing their own laws that criminalized slavery, allowed slaves to buy their own freedom, etc. (however the South responded by passing a federal law that required Northern states to capture escaped slaves and bring them back, one of the precursors to the Civil War and the only time the system totally failed) * Prohibition failed so hard the Fed actually gave up and nixed it from the Constitution * More than 30 states have decriminalized marijuana going totally against the DEA, a federal agency with certain powers defined by federal law * Many cities are "sanctuary cities" which means they refuse to cooperate with ICE and DHS, again federal agencies * Some states, especially Southern ones, routinely encode new strategies into law to bypass Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made by the third branch of federal government, the Supreme Court * Upon the passage of the ACA ("Obamacare"), multiple states immediately sued the federal government and refused to implement sections of the law While these actions certainly cause tensions between individual states and the Fed as a whole, the Union still holds together due to of the lack of authoritarianism. Because of the decentralized nature of Western power (as implemented via federalism and other strategies), it is impossible for one figurehead or political party to dictate what happens in every corner of the country. Entire legislatures can be overturned by citizens who wish to ignore the federal government's worst wishes. This is a feature - not a bug. That being said, there are limits to the tolerance, and breaking the Constitution is one of them. Would people support a state ignoring the Bill of Rights? No, absolutely not. But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more. Would Americans support a state that fights for more rights for the people? I suppose it's subjective, but I would say yes, yes they would support a state that aims to give more freedom to the people. That difference is crucial. >if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law This question hinges on the premise that a majority of people in a Western democracy would decide to willingly give up their rights to the state in recognition of a greater power. Are there groups like this? Certainly - evangelicals, Wahhabists, etc. Do they make up a majority? I really doubt it. I am hard pressed to think of any situations in history where any large mass of people have decided to replace their democratic freedoms with a dictatorship or theocracy. Authoritarianism is usually a result of a violent takeover, hence why most dictators live and die by their armies and not their citizens. So the question is a false premise in my eyes - why would any majority vote their right to vote away?

DanTheManPR 7y ago

"They can do with it as they please"... what? The tyrannical CCP has some sort of fundamental ownership right over the lives the people of HK? Your statement about sharia law in Rhode Island not only confirms that you don't care about the will of the people in the democratic sense (which, in your thought experiment, are mostly muslims, and you imply actually do want religiously based laws), but also reverses the reasoning of constitutional rules (which are there by the will of the people, to specifically to bar restrictions on free exercise of religion, with the express purpose of protecting the minority of Rhode Islanders who would be oppressed by Islamic law that was enacted by the will of the majority). That you think this example supports the former is gobsmacking to me.

foobarian 7y ago
It doesn't matter what I care about. It's a simple question: in the stated scenario, which, even if it was the will of the people but a blatant usurpation of the US constitution - what do YOU think would happen?
fennecfoxen 7y ago
There is a real notion of a nation's ownership right in Western thought. It's called the Westphalian nation-state, and dates back to times of the Protestant Reformation and bitter international warfare. The idea is that peace is better than everyone killing each other over religion, even if this means abandoning the people next door to some measure of religious repression at the hands of a different sect of Christianity. However, it would be a mistake to think of the Hong Kong matter in this way. To quote the Beijing party line, "Xi Jinping thought on diplomacy has made innovations on and transcended the traditional Western theories of international relations for the past 300 years" (i.e. back to the Treaty of Westphalia). Instead, Xi Jinping thought revives tianxia, the mandate of heaven, and envisions total world domination in a heirarchical system under Chinese rule. "The Chinese have always held that the world is united and all under heaven are one family," Xi told us in his 2017 New Year's message. Thus, even as China increasingly meddles with other nations' affairs to effect its strategy of world domination, it is naturally unconscionable for other nations to interfere with theirs or attempt containment. It is against this framework that we should consider the matter of Hong Kong.