Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this?
Please read more media from a different standpoint and think about this event in another way.
In the west, we use freedoms of speech to balance the boat from one side to the other. Freedom of speech is the mechanism for stability. Freedom of speech is primarily how something is told they are wrong.
Freedoms are also why I can write: Bush destroyed the twin towers on 9 11 and killed thousands but you cannot say the CCP killed thousands on June 1989 in tiannamen square. Both events in history before many users here were even born. It's not only that it's illegal for you but censorship ensures that the boat is stable and the sea is calm. for Chinese, censorship is stability, freedom is the threat. You literally, emotionally, don't want to say those things, and you don't feel bad about it. Most westerners don't understand this. Freedom and difference to China means bloodshed and instability.
there are of course limits to freedom of speech in the west, direct calls to violence are out for example.
However encouraging protests is not encouraging violence even if the protests become violent riots later. In China protests are illegal by default because they might upset the boat potentially.
Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China.
The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
It’s not the purpose of the opposition to prevent democratization, that’s silly. The people were not “incited to riot”, they did their best to make their voices heard. But China didn’t actually want to hear their voices. And you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda. You haven’t tried to really empathize with the people losing their freedoms. You don’t understand what a nightmare it has been for them.
That would be a wonderful thing if my government were currently persecuting 1 million people solely based on their religious and cultural identity. The consequences would be carried by hope.
Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened.
Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone.
About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show.
In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem.
[1] https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-...
But what if you don't want to be in the family? In the west we have that freedom to be different.
We also have the freedom to say the equivalent of Bush did 9/11 : on June 4 1989 the CCP massacred thousands.
Now the point of one big family is that the stability of the family, keeping everything going together peacefully means you don't rock the boat, you have to not speak out about how your uncle is a criminal. One big family ensures family members voluntarily censor themselves and consider those saying June 1989 Tianamen Square as literal existential threats to the stability of the family. Where in the west we can say Trump is part of a global conspiracy to X,y,z in China to do the same means attacking the very identity and stability of your own person, your bio family, your town and your nation. The story that is believed is that this stability was won through so much bloodshed. Anything must be done to stop rocking the boat. Chinese people really cannot be free as they don't know what it is. They see HK as an alcoholic daughter that needs to be treated to get well and join the rest of the family. Same with the Muslims. They are both different and in China difference is a fundamental threat.
It's fascinating.
Diversity is hard to swallow, given our tribalistic nature, but we have no choice but to foster and protect it, now that we're hyper globalised.
China's action to standardise and promote monoculture is a big failure that will eventually collapse in the future. It's just a question of when.
Xinjiang has more mosques than the whole United States. It's hypocritical to call China anti-muslim. At least we don't forbid muslims to enter our country. And we haven't ever bombarded their homelands.
What we're doing to the Uygurs is to help them earn more and lead a better life. Many Uygurs migrated to other provinces and opened up noodle shops. Those back at home may get along with the old ways, but the old ways don't have computers or other modernized tools and entertainments. And we want to help them understand why it is good to treat their women equally, and why it is good to live peacefully with atheists.
You think you have freedom because you know where the bottom line is. Imagine you publish a detailed crime plan. How long will the FBI come to your door?
Those in China see this and are horrified. To them, freedom and instability equal bloodshed and violence. Any rights should be given up to ensure the safety of one's family. If you have no freedom as a child you will be happier as your mother and father will look over you. teenage rebellion is also not encouraged culturally for example.
It's interesting to understand the CCP mind set. It explains the almost non sensical criticism of "freedoms" often heard. As most westerner don't understand China, similarly most mainland Chinese don't understand the west.
It also comes with great cost.
I can understand the need of diversity in a country, diversity of races, opinions, religions, etc. We want diversity too, so long as it is within our country. If by being Muslim means you want out of the country, is it for or against diversity on your part?
As a Hong Konger, I'm always amused by how much influence the CCP thinks Jimmy Lai / Apple Daily / Next Media wields.
Inciting riots? Really? Can you point to a single Apple Daily article that demonstrates this?
You’re the one who needs to read more and get a new perspective - all you are doing is repeating the very common, very boring mainstream Chinese opinion.
Further, it’s impossible for anything to be more vague than the HK national security law - there must be some level of maximum vagueness and China has achieved it with this law.
Edit: I see you’ve linked Nathan Rich - what a horrible source. Why don’t you link the actual law you’re talking about?
> 18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided.
I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.
In the US, the Supreme Court balances that law against our constitutional rights, rendering it almost unenforceable. In fact, the way that law is applied is very specific, not vague at all.
Please read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
Nathan Rich and people like him may be fun for you to watch because they confirm your worldview and reinforce your biases, but I suggest you read some real legal scholars if you're interested in actually educating yourself.
Edit: Also, getting back to the origin of this thread, nothing in US law prohibits what Jimmy Lai did. And nothing prohibited it when he did it in Hong Kong. Even besides how disgusting this law is, applying it retroactively is truly appalling.
Back to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong National Security Law is not retroactive:
> Article 39 This Law shall apply to acts committed after its entry into force for the purpose of conviction and imposition of punishment.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AHong_Kong_National_Sec...
The police found evidence that he violated the law after the National Security Act was released, so they arrested him. I wait for the Hong Kong police to release more information.
YouTuber is just one of my information channels, and I also go to the websites or forums of protesters.
The President has emergency powers in existing law to regulate foreign trade in this general way, for the purpose of rapidly responding to action by hostile foreign nations executed through trade including through notionally private firms.
Trump hasn't banned TikTok yet, and the powers he is trying to use for that were given to him by Congress. It hasn't gone through courts yet, though, so you need to read more about it before making claims. This seems to be a pattern with you.
They claim it is not retroactive - but I highly doubt it. And you yourself said he was being punished for things that happened before it was in place.
His Twitter account would briefly get more clicks than Trump's, and a swarm of congress-critters would fight each other for the privilege of having him hauled in front of their panel for a grueling, multi-hour session of righteous posturing, all televised live. Then the late night shows would create condensed, only slightly exaggerated but far more entertaining versions of their performance. By day four, everybody would have moved on to the next outrage du jour.
Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China.
I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote.
Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future.
I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.