Hacker News Reader

> 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

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.

If I understand HK law correctly there are 2 offences: taking part in a an "illegal assembly" and "rioting".

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.

Hong Kong almost passed a law allowing extradition to China, a country lacking the rule of law. This is why the legal code failed to mollify the population. It was the law itself the protesters were protecting.

Some western countries have extradition treaties with mainland China.

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).

> Some western countries have extradition treaties with mainland China

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

The list does not strike me as "few", which is by the way irrelevant to the point... As I said the devil is in the details, not the principle.

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.

> 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.

> Few, and with strict legal and political supervision

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.

In all English news and the first article it's literally called an extradition bill, what would you call it instead?

> Rioting involves violence and I don't see the government budge on that

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

"breach of the peace"... Considering that the legal system is descended from the British system (and actually this law dates from British rule), this means:

"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.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace

Read it more closely.

- 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.

In general, behaviour that is threatening enough to cause alarm is considered violent. This what this law says, which is fairly standard.

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.

So explain why even first aid officers and social workers were charged with rioting?

Your occupation does not prevent you from taking part in a riot.

That being said, again let's also see who ends being convicted.

Of course these were not merely their occupation, they were on active duty when they were arrested.

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.

I'm wondering how a social worker could be on "active duty", let alone in a violent protest. I'm also wondering how a member of the emergency services on duty could be arrested.

Without details your claims do not make much sense, including your claims about precedents and likelihood of conviction.

I'll try to find some English sources.

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.

It's referring to a specific event on June 12th where police referred to a peaceful protest as a riot.

Those demands essentially amount to amnesty for protest-related crime and civil diobedience, an attempt to avoid a post-protest "reprisal" regime.

Wait. You think wanting the government to change (democracy) is a legitimate demand, but wanting them to stop calling protests riots is unreasonable?

Not the person you're replying to, but in some ways it is.

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?)

> On the other hand, demands regarding rioting are unreasonable

How else are you supposed to fight against a dictator for life in a system that's not a democracy?

I think this example has been set by the UN time and time again now. You send them a strongly worded letter.