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?
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?
CCP officials start to comment on internal HK matters, lobbying for government policy to pass in the legislative branch.
Just like the UK could influence HK matters when it was a British colony, China can influence HK matters now that it's a Chinese special administrative region.
Control? Not so much.