First of all, one of the initial demands of the protest was to retract the characterization of one of the earlier protests as a riot. So even peaceful demonstrations have been cracked down on by the government. Even well-organized protests such as the one on July 1st (the anniversary of Hong Kong being handed over to China - there's usually protesting on this date) have met with strong resistance - early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time.
Secondly, late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters.
Most importantly, the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student.
And regardless how the protesters are behaving, the argument that the only valid form of protest is peaceful protest is also historically inaccurate. Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible.
> early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time.
But did the police use violence first?
> late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters.
When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help?
> the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student.
The officer was under attack and fired in self defense, you know that better than I do.
> Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible.
In a place without law and order, it may not be feasible. In Hong Kong? It's definitely possible.
Because you have a sense of honor and duty? Because you want to preserve the possibility of peaceful protest? The reasons go on.
I'm not say that makes them right. I'm saying I can understand why they stayed on the sideline. And I wouldn't disagree that those in charge at the scene should be held accountable for their inaction.
Speaking more factually, China has used unrelated charges to arrest and imprison political dissidents for years now. This is a known phenomenon, and likely the reason behind the protestor's concerns about extradition. The promise not to use the law for political crimes is worthless knowing that history.
> The promise not to use the law for political crimes is worthless knowing that history.
That fear is certainly reasonable. But the HK Chief Executive has officially announced the withdrawal of the law about a month ago. How do you justify the continuing violence and destruction since then?
How do you justify continuing violence and destruction by "law" enforcers?
Seriously though, I think that protests against extradiction law transformed into protest against China's illegal claim over Hong Kong.
Even though we disagreed, I always thought you sounded intelligent and thoughtful.
But somehow you felt the need to resort to naming calling and baseless speculations here.
The facts are really not on your side, are they?
The issue is that the aggregate activity of accounts like yours on overseas forums like reddit/HN is effectively a nationalistic propaganda campaign even though you probably don't realise it.
The reverse would be if thousands of random Redditors who are enraged about the HK protests showed up on your regular WeChat groups and started repeating identical pro-west propaganda talking points everywhere. Except the reverse can't happen because all the main communication mediums in China are locked out to foreigners.
That is the unfair disbalance. That is the state orchestrated influence campaign. The CCP doesn't need bots or shill armies. They have millions of nationalistic individuals overseas and use them to the same effect.
What does China censoring its media have to do with anything, besides advocating for the same kind of censorship on HN?
The aggregate activity of accounts like yours is effectively a propaganda campaign that bends the facts of a divisive, bigoted, right-wing nativist riot against anyone who sounds different or dares to disagree, to fit the narrative of a desperate fight for freedom, because that's what gets you support in the West.
Or shall we stick to the facts instead? They still matter, don't they?
Your account is 6 days old. Your account's activity is 100% directed towards China-related threads and your comments take on a CCP angle.
I'd like to know what brought you to HN and what you hope to accomplish here. Where do you live? Where did you study? What are your political leanings? I would love to open a line of dialogue.
Yes, I can admit that I've created an alternate account. Because the current American political atmosphere is instilling fear for my ability to freely express the alternative that's other than the popular opinion. I'm selfish and wish to not cause damage to my credential on my main account, and leave that for non-political discussions.
I only come to hope to bring certain other perspective in peace and hoping for scholarly discussions on perspectives that I've not personally considered.
As for my life trajectory, I was born in China, studied in Canada, and now presently resides in America. I like to think that I lean towards the center, but other people may not believe so.
But you are using anonymity to advocate for a regime where anonymity has been systemically removed and where this conversation could never take place on a public forum. That's a bit of dissonance no?
It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have been shrewd to paint a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
What I cannot stress enough, is the rampant violence and destruction from these protesters, which has done this great city, and many innocent citizens, unimaginable harm. Feel free to support their peaceful protests, but please don't simply pile on and encourage these violence and destruction.
If anything I said is untrue, please correct me. Use the truth to argue your side, don't be a coward and hide behind your downvote.