Violent Protests In Hong Kong.

El_Bee wrote: »

there was a load of Chinese on O'Connell st today waving flags, a great bunch of lads.

I presume they were waving PR China flags? If they were waving US and UK flags it would have been top story on the RTE 6 news. :rolleyes:

potatocake wrote: »

The bill was introduced by Hong Kong authorities. It had nothing to do with China. IT was in response to a man who murdered his pregnant girlfriend and dumped her body in the bushes while on vacation in Taiwan. The bill was eventually taken off the table.

In response? If you imagine that the Chinese authorities don't have other objectives in their mind, then you must be the most innocent soul on Board.is.
By Hong Kong authorities? Sure...with Beijing pulling the strings.
And as for taken off the table. So what? It's merely been shelved, parked. It's not been scrapped. They're just waiting until the time is right and then it will appear again.

potatocake wrote: »

Why are you trying to make this out to be some kind of Chinese crackdown? Are you even aware of how stupid that sounds. The protests and riots continued AFTER the bill was scrapped. Ask yourself why.

To repeat: The bill wasn't scrapped. It's still hanging there like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of the people of Hong Kong. When Carrie Lam's puppetmasters demand it's return it will reappear.

potatocake wrote: »

Hong Kong was and is part of China. It always has been. It was seized violently by the British after the Opium Wars and in that 150 year period the people of Hong Kong had no votes and not even local government. They were ruled directly from Westminster by crusty old Oxbridge buffoons who couldn't even speak the language. So much for the much vaunted "democracy" that everyone is blabbing about. Hong Kong is not independent. It's as much a part of China as the Isle of Wight is part of England.

Isle of Wight? Maybe you should have said "As British as Finchley"
Thanks for the history lesson. I'm sure we had no idea. And yet under these "crusty old Oxbridge buffoons" the people of Hong Kong were spared the horrors that the Party brought to mainland China:the Hundred Flowers campaign, the Lao Gai, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution. They still have freedom of speech, freedom of Assembly, the freedom to criticize and jeer and mock Xi and Lam. God forbid that these ungrateful wretches should aspire to enjoy freedoms that you and I take for granted. Yes, that's the much vaunted democracy. If you think that there is no difference between a state where a million people can come out into the streets and protest and a state where the dead were piled up in the hundreds the last time people tried that then you're beyond help.

potatocake wrote: »

sk yourself who's behind these protests. Have you heard of Jimmy Lai? A gutterpress tabloid media mogul with links to the Washington neocons. He'svjust one of many players manipulating events on the ground. But if you want to believe the simple-minded narrative then that's up to you.

Wow! You must imagine this Lai fellow has literally unheard -of powers. He has the power to get hundreds of thousands, millions of young people onto the streets where they stand there in the pouring rain. Did he make them undergo fear, discomfort and threat with...what, exactly? Threats? Bribes? While the authorities with all the powers of education, of television, of coercion and their "great Fire Wall of China" cannot compete. What extraordinary hypnotic abilities does he have? Why CNN, Fox and every TV channel, Facebook page, Twitter feed and Instagram post in the USA couldn't get a hundred thousand people onto the streets. What does that tell everybody except purblind dimwits like you about the lack of popularity of the pro-Beijing authorities in Hong Kong in general and Carrie Lam in particular.

Gatling wrote: »

Tell that to the citizens of Hong Kong it's seem the citizens want actual democracy not Chinese rule

Then maybe they should leave China.

China's manner of control may be substandard, but its right to exercise its own laws on its own lands are indisputable.

The whole issue centers on a difference between legal systems, the result of colonialism, and I welcome Chinas move to wipe out the traces of that British colonialism.

Indeed, in the case of Macau, I welcome it there too, and I'm quite pro-European. Ex-colonies should know their place, even more so given the historical context.

Territory was taken from China by imperialists when it was weak and behind the curve. China has outgrown this era and now is rightfully washing away the traces of that past.

Those territories (HK, Macau) are Chinese, and anyone who has a problem can either go about changing Chinese policy with their fellow Chinese, or can gtfo of China's territory.

If theres a call for China to be less authoritarian, less controlling of its citizens then that is one thing.

If theres a call for China to respect some leftover bullsht dictated by colonists who sailed to the other side of the globe for the purpose of stealing land then thats quite another.

Yurt! wrote: »

Not under the Sino-British Joint Declaration (and the Hong Kong Basic Law which flowed from it). Which is an international treaty, deposited at the United Nations and co-signed by two Security Council members. Under its terms, with the exception of foreign policy and defense, Hong Kong is to govern its own affairs until 2047.


So yes, very much disputable.

Treaty shmeety.

China are right to give this treaty with the British as much respect as the British traditionally do.

If they like Britain so much then they can go live there.

greencap wrote: »

Treaty shmeety.

China are right to give this treaty with the British as much respect as the British traditionally do.

If they like Britain so much then they can go live there.

Ouch!

The Sino–British Joint Declaration is a legally binding international agreement signed by the UK and the PRC.

Under the Agreement, in accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between the UK and the PRC, the socialist system of PRC would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years until 2047. The Joint Declaration provides that these basic policies should be stipulated in the Hong Kong Basic Law and that the socialist system and socialist policies shall not be practised in HKSAR.

It is still a long way to 2047.... the PRC just can't wait!

I might be time for the citizens of Hong Kong to call for a referendum and separate from China all together before it's too late

Kimsang wrote: »

Going by your logic, we should immediately remove all traces of English/Roman/Viking history from our culture. Is that what you want to see? Time to get rid of calendars!

If it were a choice between British colonial rule, and communist gulags 1984 style, which would you choose?

What if Britain had promised to hand over Northern Ireland to USSR during their communist era. That would be ok?

Does it matter that the people of Hong Kong invaded their parliament and erected British flags?

Are you completely bereft of a sense of history?

Thank you for posting that picture though, its a prime example of why some of these protesters actually do need a boot on their neck. You know whats happening if I ever have a 2 million strong army and some cnt starts waving the jack in Cork city hall.

Does it matter that the people of Hong Kong invaded their parliament and erected British flags?

Yes, very much so. Just not in the sense you think.

If it were a choice between British colonial rule, and communist gulags 1984 style, which would you choose?

Well that depends, is my skin brown in this scenario. Will a pencil stick in my hair?

Yurt! wrote: »

I hate saying this, but I've a far, far greater grasp than you. Not only is your 'opinion' kind-of wrong, it's actually completely not what the historical record shows.

yeah, if you don't say so yourself.

Kimsang wrote: »

Well answer for if your skin is white or brown or whatever.

You do realize that prior to these protests Hong Kong was one of the wealthiest, safest, educated and cleanest places to live? Was this thanks to the Chinese or the UK, or a combination of both?

You'll need a lot more wealth if you want to buy China's dignity and territorial integrity.
This isn't Greenland, Donald.