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.
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?
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The extradition treaty has officially been withdrawn as a result of the protests.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.
And, again, this was because of a bookstore owned in Hong Kong, not the mainland.