3 ms·

Good. Why should HK comply with US sanctions after what happened in 2019?

graderjs 4y ago
I don't think they ever did so it's not like this is something new. But riffing on the 2019 theme I thought it was interesting that the 2019 Mass unrest was ostensibly triggered by the introduction of The "fugitive offenders ordinance" (the Foo bill, heh) which was basically an extradition bill. The purpose of that bill, which I suppose was much misrepresented, was essentially to allow Hong Kong to provide extradition mechanism for fugitives from jurisdictions where there was no formal extradition treaty extant. So in a pretty strong sense it was a piece of legislation to try to ensure Hong Kong would not become a haven for such folks. Of course these kind of sanctions that are the subject of the article are very different legally from some sort of fugitive (I think), but I think it's interesting that almost nobody in the West seemed to support the legal intention of the extradition bill to help Hong Kong not become a Haven for these types of fugitives and, and yet now with Hong Kong not implementing unilateral sanctions from other countries you see the criticism from the West saying "Hong Kong is becoming this Haven". Folks outside HK that didn't want to Hong Kong to implement an extradition bill, now they want Hong Kong to implement their unilateral sanctions. I'm kind of enjoying that irony but there's plenty of those kind of things, but I think people just have a very short memory plus a double standards attitude where something that's bad doesn't matter if it's not happening to them, and something that's bad can actually be a "good thing" if it's hurting the "right people." To me these kind of things seriously undermine the morality of the people saying this kind of stuff... And often the things they're asking for and doing a based on the idea that they have some sort of moral superiority position...But It seems most people don't really get that or don't care.
- beardyw 4y ago
  This is realpolitik. If country A asks country B to do something (or else ...) they can agree to it or not. It can be done quietly or loudly. I don't think "ah, but" arguments are of any value.
- yorwba 4y ago
  Seizing the yacht would be perfectly compatible with a strict anti-extradition stance as long as the seizure is ordered by a Hong Kong court and the yacht isn't extradited to another country afterwards. There's no double-standard, just a different standard: if something is a crime under Hong Kong law if you do it in Hong Kong, it should also be a crime under Hong Kong law if you do it somewhere else, and be punished as adjugated by a Hong Kong court.
darthrupert 4y ago
What happened in 2019?

I don't think they ever did so it's not like this is something new. But riffing on the 2019 theme I thought it was interesting that the 2019 Mass unrest was ostensibly triggered by the introduction of The "fugitive offenders ordinance" (the Foo bill, heh) which was basically an extradition bill. The purpose of that bill, which I suppose was much misrepresented, was essentially to allow Hong Kong to provide extradition mechanism for fugitives from jurisdictions where there was no formal extradition treaty extant. So in a pretty strong sense it was a piece of legislation to try to ensure Hong Kong would not become a haven for such folks. Of course these kind of sanctions that are the subject of the article are very different legally from some sort of fugitive (I think), but I think it's interesting that almost nobody in the West seemed to support the legal intention of the extradition bill to help Hong Kong not become a Haven for these types of fugitives and, and yet now with Hong Kong not implementing unilateral sanctions from other countries you see the criticism from the West saying "Hong Kong is becoming this Haven". Folks outside HK that didn't want to Hong Kong to implement an extradition bill, now they want Hong Kong to implement their unilateral sanctions. I'm kind of enjoying that irony but there's plenty of those kind of things, but I think people just have a very short memory plus a double standards attitude where something that's bad doesn't matter if it's not happening to them, and something that's bad can actually be a "good thing" if it's hurting the "right people." To me these kind of things seriously undermine the morality of the people saying this kind of stuff... And often the things they're asking for and doing a based on the idea that they have some sort of moral superiority position...But It seems most people don't really get that or don't care.

beardyw 4y ago
This is realpolitik. If country A asks country B to do something (or else ...) they can agree to it or not. It can be done quietly or loudly. I don't think "ah, but" arguments are of any value.
yorwba 4y ago
Seizing the yacht would be perfectly compatible with a strict anti-extradition stance as long as the seizure is ordered by a Hong Kong court and the yacht isn't extradited to another country afterwards. There's no double-standard, just a different standard: if something is a crime under Hong Kong law if you do it in Hong Kong, it should also be a crime under Hong Kong law if you do it somewhere else, and be punished as adjugated by a Hong Kong court.

darthrupert 4y ago

What happened in 2019?