4 ms·

I'm sorry but: - The last round of Legislative Council elections during British rule was effectively by universal suffrage.[1] No LegCo elections after the han

I'm sorry but: - The last round of Legislative Council elections during British rule was effectively by universal suffrage.[1] No LegCo elections after the handover have been comparable. - During British rule, there were also municipal councils and again, council members were eventually elected by universal suffrage. After the handover the entire municipal council system was abolished. - Also during British rule, the Public Order Ordinance was found to violate the Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially regarding freedom of expression and assembly, and was amended accordingly. After the handover the amendments were repealed, resulting in a reduction of freedom of expression and assembly.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Hong_Kong_electoral_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Hong_Kong_electoral_refor... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Ordinance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Ordinance

UIZealot 7y ago
Any broadening of rights after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is suspect. These are ploys to alienate the Hong Kong people from China (離間計). They are what we call 陽謀, ploys we will nevertheless fall for even though we know they're ploys. Know your history. How had the British treated the Hong Kong people throughout its history as a colony? How has China treated the Hong Kong people? Honestly? (EDIT: Honestly, people?)
- pimmen 7y ago
  > Any broadening of rights after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is suspect. These are ploys to alienate the Hong Kong people from China (離間計). If you by that mean that giving a place more civil rights and protections against human rights abuses makes it more unlike China, yes, I agree. And as spacehunt said, British established the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill and the British also made large scale election reforms, which the CCP rolled back out of fear for democracy. And, when the CCP can't do anything with the current laws, they kidnap and imprison people for exercising their free speech in Hong Kong. We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him. Anyday now would be nice.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    > the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true. > the British also made large scale election reforms After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective. Like I said, a ploy you'd willing fall for, even though you know it's a ploy. > We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him. While I agree the CCP crossed the line in the case of Mr. Gui, and I sincerely hope for his release as much as you do, it by no means indicate the unraveling of one country, two systems. Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      > That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true. It’s still not withdrawn, Ms. Lam has only promised she will. But the bill is still in second reading. > After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective. These are not employees of the CCP who’s freedom is draining China’s budget, these are people who’s freedom and independent judiciary made them an attractive spot for foreign investment in the first place. The only thing the expansion of voting rights cost the CCP was a more expensive process to influence and pressure Hong Kong. With democracy, such a pointless bill as the extradition bill would not have been proposed in the first place, and the threat of losing re-election would have made the LegCo fully withdraw the bill immediately instead of after months of protest. And, a democracy has checks and balances to investigate police departments for excessive violence and corruption, another thing that the people of Hong Kong lost when the CCP rolled back the amendments that restricted police power. > Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US. I can publish a full page ad in every US newspaper calling for the US to drop all charges against Snowden and have absolutely no repercussions from the US government. I can’t do that in China calling for the release of Gui. That’s the main reason the case of Edward Snowden is not unravelling free speech in the US, or the west. I work for Bonnier, one of the largest publishers in the Nordics, and the Hong Kong government took out a full page ad in our largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, where they argued that Western governments should keep out of Hong Kong’s business. The editor in chief, Peter Wolodarski, explained why we did it like this; ”We gave the Chinese regime the opportunity to present their case in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country. An opportunity they deny their own citizens. Because that’s how much we value free speech in Sweden, and that’s how little the CCP values free speech.”

UIZealot 7y ago

Any broadening of rights after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is suspect. These are ploys to alienate the Hong Kong people from China (離間計). They are what we call 陽謀, ploys we will nevertheless fall for even though we know they're ploys. Know your history. How had the British treated the Hong Kong people throughout its history as a colony? How has China treated the Hong Kong people? Honestly? (EDIT: Honestly, people?)

pimmen 7y ago
> Any broadening of rights after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is suspect. These are ploys to alienate the Hong Kong people from China (離間計). If you by that mean that giving a place more civil rights and protections against human rights abuses makes it more unlike China, yes, I agree. And as spacehunt said, British established the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill and the British also made large scale election reforms, which the CCP rolled back out of fear for democracy. And, when the CCP can't do anything with the current laws, they kidnap and imprison people for exercising their free speech in Hong Kong. We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him. Anyday now would be nice.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  > the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true. > the British also made large scale election reforms After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective. Like I said, a ploy you'd willing fall for, even though you know it's a ploy. > We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him. While I agree the CCP crossed the line in the case of Mr. Gui, and I sincerely hope for his release as much as you do, it by no means indicate the unraveling of one country, two systems. Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    > That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true. It’s still not withdrawn, Ms. Lam has only promised she will. But the bill is still in second reading. > After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective. These are not employees of the CCP who’s freedom is draining China’s budget, these are people who’s freedom and independent judiciary made them an attractive spot for foreign investment in the first place. The only thing the expansion of voting rights cost the CCP was a more expensive process to influence and pressure Hong Kong. With democracy, such a pointless bill as the extradition bill would not have been proposed in the first place, and the threat of losing re-election would have made the LegCo fully withdraw the bill immediately instead of after months of protest. And, a democracy has checks and balances to investigate police departments for excessive violence and corruption, another thing that the people of Hong Kong lost when the CCP rolled back the amendments that restricted police power. > Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US. I can publish a full page ad in every US newspaper calling for the US to drop all charges against Snowden and have absolutely no repercussions from the US government. I can’t do that in China calling for the release of Gui. That’s the main reason the case of Edward Snowden is not unravelling free speech in the US, or the west. I work for Bonnier, one of the largest publishers in the Nordics, and the Hong Kong government took out a full page ad in our largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, where they argued that Western governments should keep out of Hong Kong’s business. The editor in chief, Peter Wolodarski, explained why we did it like this; ”We gave the Chinese regime the opportunity to present their case in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country. An opportunity they deny their own citizens. Because that’s how much we value free speech in Sweden, and that’s how little the CCP values free speech.”