Comment by MsMowz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MsMowz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'll try to strictly source my remarks and refrain from commenting on the political content of the HK demonstrations to keep this purely factual, as I think this could be a rather controversial thread; however, it's interesting how different the reception to these demonstrations is to the reception to the US Capitol riots and the BLM demonstrations of last year. Hong Kong demonstrators have stormed government buildings[1], thrown gasoline bombs at police[2], attacked plainclothes police[3], and the like. In total, one pro-liberalization demonstrator died after falling from a parking garage[4], and one anti-liberalization demonstrator died after being bludgeoned with a brick by pro-liberalization demonstrators[5]. To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997[7].

If these events occurred in the United States, whose government surveils almost all telecommunications[8], what would its government do? One part of that answer is to have the military occupy a city with limited congressional representation (DC)[9]. This is clearly a much more restrictive measure than the measures taken by the HKSAR government, but its presentation by non-Chinese media has been the exact opposite. For what it's worth (zero), my opinion is that both government responses are consistent with what can be expected given their respective situations. Why are they portrayed differently? Is it ideology, or am I missing something that differentiates the two?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Legislative_Co... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50115629 [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hong-kong-... [4]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833... [5]: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-el... [6]: http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/intro/about_lc.htm [7]: http://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [9]: https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/pentagon-extends-national-guar...

Equating the two is ridiculous.

The Capitol Riots were an attempt to overturn a free and fair democratic election in favor of the rioters preferred candidate.

The HK protests are in relation to freedom from the Chinese Government's dictatorial rule.

Democracy is what is most important in both of these situations. The Capitol Riots were anti democracy. The HK protests are pro democracy.

> Equating the two is ridiculous.

When someone wants to defend the indefensible, false equivalency seems like the go-to tactic nowadays. It's basically: "After ignoring all the extremely important differences, isn't this thing you like just like this thing you hate? Hypocrite."

The classic these are "terrorists" and those are "freedom fighters" trope in real life.

At least refer to both of them as "riots" or both as "protests."

I understand your point, but what I was asking for is a non-ideological distinction. Every point you have made is from the ideological position that supports liberal democracy, but those who support people’s democracy would levy the same accusations in reverse. I’m not interested in hearing either of those points of view, because there simply cannot be a productive discussion on those terms.

I would like to understand the empirical situation. You suggest that I’m equating the two, but I’m actually just ignorant on the _substantive_ arguments. If you would be kind enough to enlighten me on that front, I would truly appreciate it.

In DC, people tried to overturn the US Congress, which's elected by and representing the American people.

Where in HK, people protested against the HK government which is appointed by the CCP, and the HK legislature where half of the seats are appointed by the CCP and the rest is elected with vetting by the CCP. The HK gov (both exec. + leg. branches) don't represent the HK people, they represent the CCP.

That's the non-ideological distinction. US Congress is authorized by the people. But the HK gov (both exec. + leg. branches) are authorized by the CCP. And unlike US, people in HK have no peaceful way to influence the politics in HK by voting.

You can't just ignore the ideological elements of this, because they are at the heart of why people feel differently about these events. If I attack someone because I want to rob them, I'm the bad guy. If I attack someone because they are about to hurt some children, I'm the good guy. The only difference here is the intent of both parties, and you can't simply brush that aside because it isn't "empirical".

>"Democracy is what is most important in both of these situations."

That's what you said. Plenty of people might disagree about what is most important. Your message in general looks very hypocritical in my opinion.

To curb this type of simplistic view on Sino-US relationship, and give both sides some light equally:

> free and fair democratic election

Depending on your sources, this can be a questionable statement.

> freedom from the Chinese Government's dictatorial rule.

Depending on your sources, this can be an equally questionable statement. Case in point: most of Chinese mainlander call CCP's rule as people's democracy. And Tiger Yang, the foreign affair chief in CCP, who recently slapped Mr. Blinken, claimed "American Democracy" should not be judged by Americans only, and he believed American Democracy is not fully supported in USA.

That kind of comparison relies on leaving the definitions of important concepts undefined. For instance the word "democracy" in "CCP's rule as people's democracy" and "free and fair democratic election" is being used to refer to incompatible things. To an American's ear, the CCP's use is an Orwellian inversion akin to "Freedom is Slavery."

"To an American's ear, the CCP's use is an Orwellian inversion akin to "Freedom is Slavery"

Frankly speaking the US is not the only country in the world and in this context why would other countries give a f..k about how it sounds to America's ear. They could be backwards in relation to western view on human rights but you can't really tell independent country how they do their things.

> Frankly speaking the US is not the only country in the world and in this context why would other countries give a f..k about how it sounds to America's ear.

Undemocratic governments like China's don't, except to muddy the waters and troll.

If you think that "democratic" countries do not troll and muddy waters I have a bridge to sell.

> Depending on your sources, this can be a questionable statement.

No it's not. The 2020 election was very clearly not rigged. The Trump campaign had every opportunity to bring evidence out that something was wrong in courts, and they didn't.

The Capital Riot wasn't about people with legitimate doubts who weren't being heard, they were people who's doubts were heard, and then dismissed because they didn't have any real evidence and because their claims were clearly wrong.

> To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997[7].

Democratically elected ? Note that hong kong functional constituency system is fully controlled by CCP.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...

So what?

A lot of government bodies are appointed by US president, and are "elected" only through some behind-curtain political exchanges.

Functional constituencies are part of the Hong Kong legislature. Imagine that half of the US Congress is appointed by the President of the United States.

The head of the HK government and half of the legislators are also appointed by the CCP.

The HK government is in no way any semblance of democratically elected. The majority power in all branches of government lies with Beijing appointees.

> To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997

No, this's misinformation. The HK government isn't democratically elected. The CEO of the HK government is selected by a committee appointed by the CCP. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Committee_(Hong_Kong)

Quote: The Election Committee is a Hong Kong electoral college, the function of which is to select the Chief Executive (CE).

Many countries, including the US and UK, have indirect elections for high offices. Are they also non-democratic?

Personally, my answer to that question is yes, but I’m willing to apply principles equally. Again, this is beside the point of what I was asking, as I’m not trying to get into an ideological debate.

Indirect elections imply that the members who could vote are elected by the people. In HK, the people who could "vote" are appointed by the CCP. This isn't indirect election. This's indirect appointment.

The obvious difference is that US citizens elected its Congress representatives, while the PRC 'assigns' the majority of the electors in the Hong Kong parliament.

Also while the official death count is low, there are many protestors who simply vanished from HK.

> simply vanished

Source?

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/hong-kong-china-prot...

One of the most striking things I have witnessed has been the letters that young protesters have been writing in case they are arrested or disappeared by security services. These “last letters,” to be read in the event that they don’t return from the protests, explain to their families why they are protesting, and also serve as a “no-suicide declaration.” Nine thousand, two hundred, and sixteen people have been arrested during the 12 months of protests, a figure much larger than the total prison population of 7,023. This discrepancy, combined with a series of mysterious deaths and disappearances that have been explained as suicides or accidents, has made protesters wary of their own safety. So the letters serve to say, “I will not be another suicide statistic.” As one young person wrote in their letter, “I have no regrets, not for a moment; even though missing or dead, I will never stay silent in the face of injustice”

Mostly social media conspiracy theories.

From US State Department itself on the situation in Hong Kong [0].

>There were no credible reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.

This is China-Hawk Mike Pompeo's state department BTW, report released in 2020 well after protests ended. If Pompeo couldn't find mystery murders, it probably doesn't exist.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-... [0]

Protestors who simply vanished such as this [1]?

[1] “Activist resurfaces to clear 'mystery death'”

https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/22246...

Difference:

US riot - citizens who enjoy democratic freedom protested against republic/democratic government. protest got violent, government handled it.

Hong Kong riot - citizens who enjoy(ed) democratic freedom protested against encroaching dictatorship. protest was peaceful, but then turned violent when police faking as protestors started violence. protest got violent, government handled it (openly and in secret). The dictatorship increased its power at the end.

I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong.

This is all about american interests and destabilizing china ir other countries.

I wonder what will happen in q few years. Will americans accept that another super power will dictate them what to do like the US currently does to their allies: europe cant build a pipeline to russia, in order to protect american interests in ukraine and poland. Europe cant use chinese hardware, while its proven that just a few years ago the americans listened to all communication of angela merkel, europe cant do business with the russians because they are sanctioned, nor with iran, etc...

> I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong.

This is a tiring argument. China has only 1 ally - North Korea. The rest of the countries in the proximity of China are adversarial and aligned with US - Japan, SK particularly. If Canada and Mexico were close allies of China, you betchya there would be a lot more going on along the east and west coast of US.

In fact, Japan and SK are counting on US to defend them. Does Canada and Mexico have such relationship with China? No. Instead, the US+Canada have NORAD.

I suggest some reading regarding military alliances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances

> I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong.

So it's the US's fault that China tried to impose an extradition law in HK? Because the USN ... had a port visit in Hong Kong? You know China approved that port visit, right?

2m out of 7.5m showed up to protest the loss of Hong Kong Sovereignty, that’s more than 1 in 4 of the entire pop

The storming of the capital was by a crowd of a couple thousand in a pop of 350m. So something like .0057% of the entire pop

In response to the HK protests individuals running for democratic office were thrown in jail on abstract and vague clauses from the new National Security Law, which coincidentally is a treaty violation to the original Sino-British agreement

In response to the Capitol riots, Trump lost his Twitter and Parler was shut down by private tech companies

It’s not the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com