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?
That alone should tell you that Hong Kong has been able to maintain substantial autonomy from the central Chinese government.
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.
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.”
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.