Five demands, not one less.
五大訴求，缺一不可。
五大訴求，缺一不可。
With how the English language media is reporting, I would have thought the Yellow Vest protests are over.
At their highest the HK protest had like half the population in the street.
I've always wondered about public support, is this 1% based on substantial polling?
From the article:
“Apart from the formal withdrawal of the legislation, the protesters have asked for the government to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate police conduct in tackling the protests, grant amnesty to those who have been arrested, stop characterising the protests as riots, and restart the city’s stalled political reform process.”
All that said, this is just a slogan. Different protesters put weight on different elements of this menu. Each concession takes people off the street. Given how reasonable many of the demands are, it makes sense for someone to be an adult in the room to Xi’s pettiness.
Fifth, I can understand and dialogue can start and bickering in legislation, whatever, depending on definition this is achievable, but if you expect a democracy overnight then I have a strong urge to post a link to a music video.
Hense, as per my comments below, demanding all five demands to be satisfied is not constructive and to some degree immature.
- https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cz2dba/hong_kong_...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/czgvb7/emily_lau_...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cz93rd/suspected_...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cz797d/man_punche...
- https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cz4fjm/why_contin...
But categorizing 2 million people who participated in the protests (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48656471) as rioters is ridiculous.
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-extradition-back...
- https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/asia/viral-photo-hong-kong-pr...
> The alternative is an ever escalating oppression-protest cycle.
Anyway, I don't believe recreating June 4 is a wise move for PRC at this time. The whole world is watching.
If the protestors are prosecuted for what they did, but the police get to walk away, it's unacceptable to them. They won't accept it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Hong_Kong_Polic...
Full democracy is a legitimate demand but one that you need to be extremely optimistic, to say the least, to believe that the central government will agree to budge on.
On the other hand, demands regarding rioting are unreasonable. There objectively has been rioting going on and no government will accept to send the message that it is acceptable to throw petrol bombs or to ransack government buildings, or to use violence in general. The only leeway in these cases is usually the penalty courts hand: Very heavy to send a message or relatively light to appease.
If the economy suffers too much, there will be real internal pressure against protesters, especially against any violence.
If the bill is indeed withdrawn it allows protesters to stop while claiming a victory. This does not mean giving up on broader democratic demands but allows them to catch their breath and ponder a long term strategy.
I believe most protesters would agree with that. The fear is authorities using riot laws against peaceful protesters.
In this, again, there is reasonable compromise.
Rioting involves violence and I don't see the government budge on that. The fact that the protesters' demands mention a blanket amnesty and use the term 'riot' makes the demand unpalatable.
Regarding illegal assemblies there might be leeway in how strictly people are charged, or whether charges are dropped in many cases.
Beyond the obvious lack of trust the issue with such treaty is the procedure. Indeed it could give a say to HK courts or it could simply create a simple procedure where HK courts have no say beyond checking that the right forms were filled. I don't know how the bill was drafted.
In general, it is not unreasonable for HK to have extradition procedures with the rest of China at large (mainland, Taiwan, Macau) but again, the devil is in the details.
(Note that HK is formally part of the PRC, so saying "HK extradition to China" may ruffle some feathers).
Few, and with strict legal and political supervision [1]. The proposed law would have single-handedly smothered Hong Kong’s rule of law and stability. It was a stupid, unnecessary move pursued solely for Xi’s political concerns.
> HK is formally part of the PRC
Hong Kong is Chinese territory from a military perspective. Civically, legally and administratively, it is separate.
Hong Kongers used to identify as Chinese. But due to Xi’s hamfistedness over the past few months, that is no longer the case.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_China
HK is part of the PRC, that's what many people miss. It is granted special status within the PRC by a national law. Hence the official name "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China".
This is quite different from what, e.g. British people might expect. For example HK was never part of the UK and Gibraltar today is not part of the UK.
The point being that opposing "HK" and "China" as is often the case in western media is inaccurate and perhaps not productive as it sometimes seems intended solely at annoying the Chinese government.
This seems enough reason to me. Did you ever read about their antics in regards to Taiwan? They deserve everything that’s coming to them.
The strict supervision is the key here - there could not be true supervision of an extradition treaty with China when the executive is appointed BY mainland China.
No it doesn't. It's ridiculously easy to be charged for rioting. Here's the legal definition: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/245/s19.html
"when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance" [1]
This is legal speak to mean violence against people or property.
- Violence doesn't have to be actually carried out.
- Once a "breach of peace" is declared, everyone in the general vicinty can be charged with rioting.
If you take part in a riot/violent protest you may be charged with a criminal offence.
This is the way it works in most countries, including the UK. There is nothing extraordinary there.
Being arrested or even charged is also not the same as being convicted.
Note that the definition also includes unlawful assembly, so the people involved would already be in the wrong.
I think some people are trying a bit too hard to excuse violent protests as if HK was somehow a special case.
That being said, again let's also see who ends being convicted.
With prior cases as precedent, and with how loosely the law is written, the chances of them not being convicted after being charged is slim.
Without details your claims do not make much sense, including your claims about precedents and likelihood of conviction.
Arrest of social worker:
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=134091&si...
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/09/02/catastrophe-hong-kong-...
I might be misremembering the likelihood of being convicted with "riot", but from what I can remember, several people were convicted with riot in the 2016 unrest; they were later acquitted several years later through costly appeals.
Let's see how many gets convicted this time.
How else are you supposed to fight against a dictator for life in a system that's not a democracy?
Part of Hong Kong Basic Law (their Constitution, which was adopted during the handover process) stipulates that "the ultimate aim" is elections by universal suffrage for both the Chief Executive as well as the Legislative Council. So the demand for universal suffrage is simply asking the government to make good on their promises from 1990/1997.
One of the reasons that the extradition bill caused such an uproar in the city is that Hong Kong citizens are protected by rule of law in a way that doesn't exist in China. The law has clear definitions and punishment for rioting, and the actions of some protesters could very well fall into that category. So to ask for all rioting charges to be dropped is asking for the government to give in to mob rule. (Caveat—I don't think the rioting charge would be as big of a deal as it is if it didn't carry a 10 year prison sentence. But it's hard for the protesters to ask for anything less than blanket amnesty... Without looking at a specific case, where do you draw the line? What sort of punishment is reasonable?)
2. A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality
3. Retracting the classification of protesters as “rioters”
4. Amnesty for arrested protesters
5. Dual universal suffrage, meaning for both the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive
from https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/czhs4q/the_five_d...
Another thread discussing the demands, though I'm sure there's more on that sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cqnxh9/the_5_dema...
五 5 大 big 訴求 demands 缺一不可 fixed expression “none is dispensable” (缺 lack 一 one 不 no 可 can/possible)
The five demand in question are the ones there is broad consensus on, see other threads.
The Hong Kong protestors have five demands.
According to this subreddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/czhs4q/the_five_d...) the five demands are:
1. Full withdrawal of the extradition bill 徹底撤回送中修例
2. A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality 成立獨立調查委員會 追究警隊濫暴
3. Retracting the classification of protesters as “rioters” 取消暴動定性
4. Amnesty for arrested protesters 撤銷對今為所有反送中抗爭者控罪
5. Dual universal suffrage, meaning for both the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive 以行政命令解散立法會 立即實行雙真普選
There's the usual boilerplate about releasing arrested demonstrators, arresting the cops who bashed them up, and sacking the government.
There are two big demands. The first is withdrawing this bill, which has reportedly been granted. That's a big deal. The communists have let the "terrorists" win.
The second demand is Australian quality democracy in Hong Kong. If they get that, it will be a massive, world historical deal.
At least everyone now has an excuse to stop throwing Molotov cocktails.
No seriously, these demands are a joke and not constructive. If anything it's just being used as an excuse to cause more chaos.
I'm trying to keep this comment as a logical opinion since I know hn isn't a place for flamed political views