Thought experiment: if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law in violation of federal articles, how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating this?
Hong Kong didn't choose the CCP who didn't even exist yet when the lease was signed. They sure as hell didn't choose to lose their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression either. So, if you do a thought experiment about protests against the government, keep in mind that the government in question commits some of the worst human rights abuses today.
They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall and realize independence is fleeting.
Without getting into the specifics of Sharia law, I think we can reduce your next question to "how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating a state or city that violates federal law?"
* Northern states endured slavery for dozens of years while passing their own laws that criminalized slavery, allowed slaves to buy their own freedom, etc. (however the South responded by passing a federal law that required Northern states to capture escaped slaves and bring them back, one of the precursors to the Civil War and the only time the system totally failed)
* Prohibition failed so hard the Fed actually gave up and nixed it from the Constitution
* More than 30 states have decriminalized marijuana going totally against the DEA, a federal agency with certain powers defined by federal law
* Many cities are "sanctuary cities" which means they refuse to cooperate with ICE and DHS, again federal agencies
* Some states, especially Southern ones, routinely encode new strategies into law to bypass Roe v. Wade, which was a decision made by the third branch of federal government, the Supreme Court
* Upon the passage of the ACA ("Obamacare"), multiple states immediately sued the federal government and refused to implement sections of the law
While these actions certainly cause tensions between individual states and the Fed as a whole, the Union still holds together due to of the lack of authoritarianism. Because of the decentralized nature of Western power (as implemented via federalism and other strategies), it is impossible for one figurehead or political party to dictate what happens in every corner of the country. Entire legislatures can be overturned by citizens who wish to ignore the federal government's worst wishes. This is a feature - not a bug.
That being said, there are limits to the tolerance, and breaking the Constitution is one of them. Would people support a state ignoring the Bill of Rights? No, absolutely not. But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more. Would Americans support a state that fights for more rights for the people? I suppose it's subjective, but I would say yes, yes they would support a state that aims to give more freedom to the people. That difference is crucial.
>if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law
This question hinges on the premise that a majority of people in a Western democracy would decide to willingly give up their rights to the state in recognition of a greater power. Are there groups like this? Certainly - evangelicals, Wahhabists, etc. Do they make up a majority? I really doubt it. I am hard pressed to think of any situations in history where any large mass of people have decided to replace their democratic freedoms with a dictatorship or theocracy. Authoritarianism is usually a result of a violent takeover, hence why most dictators live and die by their armies and not their citizens. So the question is a false premise in my eyes - why would any majority vote their right to vote away?
That's a very poor analogy. Hong Kong citizens already enjoy the benefit of an independent legal system and don't have to live like mainland citizens.
> They sure as hell didn't choose to lose their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression either.
They sure didn't. And they sure haven't lost those rights.
So, I would say the analogy is still apt. The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against.
Really? How exactly is it being implemented?
EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?
CCP officials start to comment on internal HK matters, lobbying for government policy to pass in the legislative branch.
The government of China pooh-poohs this treaty as a "historical document" and says it basically doesn't apply any more.
That said, the idea that "Hong Kong is China's property" would at least pay homage to the ideal of the Westphalian nation-state, a concept which China has also officially declared as an outmoded concept, and they have made it clear at all levels that they enjoy meddling in other countries' affairs. (Of course, while they are eager to dish it out, they can't really take it, and there is no end to the hypocritical caterwauling about foreign interference, especially regarding Hong Kong...)
However, it would be a mistake to think of the Hong Kong matter in this way. To quote the Beijing party line, "Xi Jinping thought on diplomacy has made innovations on and transcended the traditional Western theories of international relations for the past 300 years" (i.e. back to the Treaty of Westphalia). Instead, Xi Jinping thought revives tianxia, the mandate of heaven, and envisions total world domination in a heirarchical system under Chinese rule. "The Chinese have always held that the world is united and all under heaven are one family," Xi told us in his 2017 New Year's message.
Thus, even as China increasingly meddles with other nations' affairs to effect its strategy of world domination, it is naturally unconscionable for other nations to interfere with theirs or attempt containment. It is against this framework that we should consider the matter of Hong Kong.
This is I guess the core of the problem - how is this enforceable?
> That being said, there are limits to the tolerance
Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of cases where states defied and still defy federal statutes. I picked my example as something that seemed so extreme that it would be hard to tolerate unlike some of the other examples you mentioned.
> But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more.
My analogy breaks down at that level of detail, yes. My goal for that analogy was to describe something that:
- a minority of the population desires (RI vs. HK)
- is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)
I was not trying to match the direction of more freedoms or less freedoms or what have you.
Bottom line, and I am not condoning this - I used the word "unfortunately" - but I don't see much stopping China from pulling a Crimea here.
Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
The strong reaction against the extradition bill comes to a large part out of (reasonable) fear that it will be abused as a tool to get rid of dissidents and pro-independence elements.
(EDIT: I stand corrected, if reports of his continuing detention in mainland China are true. His is certainly a curious, unfortunately, and extreme case. It does not take away from the fact that Hong Kong still has a functioning judiciary system independent from mainland China, and the vast vast majority of Hong Kong citizens have no reason to fear the same fate.)
The extradition treaty has officially been withdrawn as a result of the protests.
That alone should tell you that Hong Kong has been able to maintain substantial autonomy from the central Chinese government.
[0]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/02/21/enough-forced-confessi...
And, again, this was because of a bookstore owned in Hong Kong, not the mainland.
However, the fact that such a self destructive bill is even proposed by the pro-Beijing government in the first place alone convinces me that ”one country, two systems” is being hollowed out.
It was suspended almost immediately after initial protests.
> self destructive bill
That's a stretch. Personally I believe Ms. Lam proposed it out of good faith. It was too naive perhaps, and did not include adequate protection for Hong Kong citizens. It never would have survived the legco anyway, never mind the protests.
Regarding one country, two systems. The Chinese government, to its credit, has largely kept its end of the bargain and allowed Hong Kong to govern itself, aside from making sure that the chief executive isn't actively anti-Beijing. Hong Kong people had never enjoyed as much freedom and autonomy as they do today, not under British rule, not ever. Some people are just too blinded by ideology to see that.
- The last round of Legislative Council elections during British rule was effectively by universal suffrage.[1] No LegCo elections after the handover have been comparable.
- During British rule, there were also municipal councils and again, council members were eventually elected by universal suffrage. After the handover the entire municipal council system was abolished.
- Also during British rule, the Public Order Ordinance was found to violate the Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially regarding freedom of expression and assembly, and was amended accordingly. After the handover the amendments were repealed, resulting in a reduction of freedom of expression and assembly.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Hong_Kong_electoral_refor...
Know your history. How had the British treated the Hong Kong people throughout its history as a colony? How has China treated the Hong Kong people? Honestly?
(EDIT: Honestly, people?)
If you by that mean that giving a place more civil rights and protections against human rights abuses makes it more unlike China, yes, I agree.
And as spacehunt said, British established the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill and the British also made large scale election reforms, which the CCP rolled back out of fear for democracy.
And, when the CCP can't do anything with the current laws, they kidnap and imprison people for exercising their free speech in Hong Kong. We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him. Anyday now would be nice.
Interestingly enough, the Chinese Constitution at one point arguably endowed even more rights onto the people than the American one:
"Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that 'citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.'[3] In the 1978 constitution, these rights were guaranteed, but so were the right to strike and the 'four big rights', often called the 'four bigs': to speak out freely, air views fully, hold great debates, and write big-character posters."[1]
Unfortunately that same Constitution also gives the government rights to take away other rights in the name of "protecting the [Communist] state," which is why authoritarian China is the China we know today.
I am not an expert on the Chinese Constitution nor a citizen of Hong Kong, but I think revolutionary HKers can make the argument that they are trying to live up to the original 1982 Constitution put forth before the rise of the CCP, which they may view as a totalitarian takeover of what was once their ideal legal system (since the CCP did not have such total control at the time of their British handoff).
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s...
> Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Thank you for the response!
That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true.
> the British also made large scale election reforms
After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective. Like I said, a ploy you'd willing fall for, even though you know it's a ploy.
> We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him.
While I agree the CCP crossed the line in the case of Mr. Gui, and I sincerely hope for his release as much as you do, it by no means indicate the unraveling of one country, two systems. Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US.
It’s still not withdrawn, Ms. Lam has only promised she will. But the bill is still in second reading.
> After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective.
These are not employees of the CCP who’s freedom is draining China’s budget, these are people who’s freedom and independent judiciary made them an attractive spot for foreign investment in the first place. The only thing the expansion of voting rights cost the CCP was a more expensive process to influence and pressure Hong Kong. With democracy, such a pointless bill as the extradition bill would not have been proposed in the first place, and the threat of losing re-election would have made the LegCo fully withdraw the bill immediately instead of after months of protest. And, a democracy has checks and balances to investigate police departments for excessive violence and corruption, another thing that the people of Hong Kong lost when the CCP rolled back the amendments that restricted police power.
> Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US.
I can publish a full page ad in every US newspaper calling for the US to drop all charges against Snowden and have absolutely no repercussions from the US government. I can’t do that in China calling for the release of Gui. That’s the main reason the case of Edward Snowden is not unravelling free speech in the US, or the west.
I work for Bonnier, one of the largest publishers in the Nordics, and the Hong Kong government took out a full page ad in our largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, where they argued that Western governments should keep out of Hong Kong’s business. The editor in chief, Peter Wolodarski, explained why we did it like this;
”We gave the Chinese regime the opportunity to present their case in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country. An opportunity they deny their own citizens. Because that’s how much we value free speech in Sweden, and that’s how little the CCP values free speech.”
> It does not take away from the fact that Hong Kong still has a functioning judiciary system independent from mainland China, and the vast vast majority of Hong Kong citizens have no reason to fear the same fate.
This is the case today. The proposed extradition treaty would flip that around significantly.
Also, the treaty has not been withdrawn at all, it has been "suspended", meaning it can still be picked up again at any time when/if the controversy has died down. Lam said a month ago that she plans to withdraw the bill, but that has not yet happened.
The chief executive publicly announced the withdrawal of the bill. It's as good as done, technicalities notwithstanding.
> these are people who’s freedom and independent judiciary made them an attractive spot for foreign investment in the first place.
What's your point? They had been that attractive spot for foreign investment before the expansion of rights.
> With democracy,
You seem to think democracy is this panacea that heals all ills. I have a magical bridge in Brooklyn you will surely be interested in.
> such a pointless bill as the extradition bill
The bill was proposed as a direct response to someone committing a crime in Taiwan and fleeing to Hong Kong. See the point there?
> And, a democracy has checks and balances to investigate police departments for excessive violence and corruption,
I admit that Hong Kong is not a full democracy, but Hong Kong already has all these things, and they work remarkable well, in fact much better than in most countries one might consider full democracies. Again, one would have to be really blinded by ideology to not see that.
> I can publish a full page ad in every US newspaper calling for the US to drop all charges against Snowden and have absolutely no repercussions from the US government. I can’t do that in China calling for the release of Gui.
But you can do that in Hong Kong. There you have it, one country, two systems, it's alive and well.