y2kenny
Suez Canal blocked by container ship Ever Given: Live
Camera Tech from 1971: Match-needle exposure meter
"Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
I don't see any mention of government there. Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? How do you reconcile ideologically or philosophically that it is not ok for US Congress to limit speech but ok for other powerful entities?
Gnome-shell extension that improves window tiling capabilities of gnome-shell
I don't speak the language but the auto transcribe and auto translate seems to work ok.
South Korea Shows How to Safely Hold a National Election During Covid-19
>> Last Friday Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing former leader, demanded that HSBC state its position after enjoying privileges in the territory that “should not be taken for granted”.
He also warned that it could “be replaced by banks from China or other countries overnight”.
In a Facebook post he wrote: “We need to let … British companies such as HSBC know which side of the bread is buttered.”
No it's not.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -- United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Revealed: Seven year coronavirus trail from mine deaths to a Wuhan lab
Hong Kong national security law passed by Beijing
Mystery of $2bn of loans backed by fake gold in China
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong
Before update:
Today's press release [1]: "The Secretary for Security will move a motion according to the Rules of Procedure when the Legislative Council resumes."
The relevant official text of the above chinese link: Rule of Procedure of the Legislative Council (LegCo) 64(2) and (3)[2]: "(2) The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, by an announcement made in Council at the beginning of proceedings for the resumption of the second reading debate on the bill, withdraw the bill if -
(a) the purpose of the resumption is for making such an announcement; and
(b) such purpose has been so stated in the notice of the resumption of debate given under Rule 54(5) (Second Reading). (L.N. 74 of 2005)
(3) The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, in making an announcement for the withdrawal of the bill under subrule (2), address the Council on matters relevant to the withdrawal but no debate may arise on such an address. (L.N. 74 of 2005)"
So no motion/debate/vote is needed. People are saying the Article 23/national security bill in 2003 was withdrawn by simple gazetting, without any motion or debate. This is the equivalent press back then [3].
[1] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201909/04/P2019090400666...
[2] https://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/procedur/content/pa...
[3] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200309/05/0905155.htm
[4] https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1478843-20190905.h...