3 ms·

Yeah because the right to protest shouldn't be a thing and they should all bow down to the CCP. /s It couldn't be clearer that if anything HK wants nothing to

by belval 6y ago

Yeah because the right to protest shouldn't be a thing and they should all bow down to the CCP. /s It couldn't be clearer that if anything HK wants nothing to do with China.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
I am just trying to comment something substantive to go beyond the sensationalist and emotional way the topic is usually (purposely) covered.
- avmich 6y ago
  > The social unrest last year showed that the Hong Kong government was unable to handle passing [national security legislation] on its own This is a conclusion which definitely can be argued. Plenty of people point out to the roots of unrest coming from Beijing. There could be determination that Sino-British Joint Declaration was violated by Beijing, with corresponding corrective measures from UN members.
  - flyingfences 6y ago
    > determination that Sino-British Joint Declaration was violated by Beijing Unfortunately, China has clearly and publicly stated that they consider the Declaration non-binding and have no intention of following it. > corresponding corrective measures from UN members Unfortunately, China has a permanent seat on the UNSC and so can veto any resolution against them.
    - avmich 6y ago
      > they consider the Declaration non-binding But others may think differently and act accordingly. > has a permanent seat on the UNSC and so can veto Russia has a permanent seat. And is under sanctions. Not even strongest possible - could be worse.
      - flyingfences 6y ago
        But did those sanctions have any meaningful effect upon Russia's conduct? Did the sanctions stop Russia from annexing Crimea?
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Well, the HK government previously attempted to implement article 23 about 10 years ago and backed off due to demonstrations, etc. At some point it can be argued not implementing the Basic Law should lead to 'corrective measures'. The Sino-British Declaration calls for the Basic Law to be followed, so article 23 should be implemented. It's all largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, though. HK is a territory of the PRC. No foreign country has any say in Chinese domestic issues. Following treaties to the letter only leads to 2047, but the end result is the same however you look at it. This is all stirred up because it is seen as a tool to cause trouble to China. It's a show.

by belval 6y ago

Yeah because the right to protest shouldn't be a thing and they should all bow down to the CCP. /s It couldn't be clearer that if anything HK wants nothing to do with China.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

I am just trying to comment something substantive to go beyond the sensationalist and emotional way the topic is usually (purposely) covered.

avmich 6y ago
> The social unrest last year showed that the Hong Kong government was unable to handle passing [national security legislation] on its own This is a conclusion which definitely can be argued. Plenty of people point out to the roots of unrest coming from Beijing. There could be determination that Sino-British Joint Declaration was violated by Beijing, with corresponding corrective measures from UN members.
- flyingfences 6y ago
  > determination that Sino-British Joint Declaration was violated by Beijing Unfortunately, China has clearly and publicly stated that they consider the Declaration non-binding and have no intention of following it. > corresponding corrective measures from UN members Unfortunately, China has a permanent seat on the UNSC and so can veto any resolution against them.
  - avmich 6y ago
    > they consider the Declaration non-binding But others may think differently and act accordingly. > has a permanent seat on the UNSC and so can veto Russia has a permanent seat. And is under sanctions. Not even strongest possible - could be worse.
    - flyingfences 6y ago
      But did those sanctions have any meaningful effect upon Russia's conduct? Did the sanctions stop Russia from annexing Crimea?
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Well, the HK government previously attempted to implement article 23 about 10 years ago and backed off due to demonstrations, etc. At some point it can be argued not implementing the Basic Law should lead to 'corrective measures'. The Sino-British Declaration calls for the Basic Law to be followed, so article 23 should be implemented. It's all largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, though. HK is a territory of the PRC. No foreign country has any say in Chinese domestic issues. Following treaties to the letter only leads to 2047, but the end result is the same however you look at it. This is all stirred up because it is seen as a tool to cause trouble to China. It's a show.