Hong Kong Protests Live Updates: Police Violence Puts Government on Defensive(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Hong Kong Protests Live Updates: Police Violence Puts Government on Defensive
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/world/asia/hong-kong-protests.html
93 comments
This was an inevitable conclusion, I grew up in Hong Kong and we left in 1996 during the handover along with many other ex-pats. We saw the writing on the wall as did many others based on how horrible the handover was going. It is a true shame what is happening to Hong Kong now but I don't see China relenting to pressure as that would only embolden other cities to do similar protests. I worry for my friends who are still there as the only way this is going to end is in a continued escalation of violence. As someone who visited Tiananmen Square in the early 90s, it was amazing how quickly the country moved on and refused to discuss it. I worry that is what is going to happen in HK.
The ability to suppress discussion/political action in response to such a significant event (such as Tiananmen Square) would seem more difficult now with ubiquitous cameras.
Many records can be made, but can they also be shared widely enough to maintain political pressure? Maybe not, if the population is dependent on government controlled internet infrastructure. This makes Starlink more interesting. How do you prevent your population from using foreign built satellite internet if that country should choose to make it freely available to your citizens? Do you simply lose control? Do you try to rebuild/force roll out a proprietary, non-interoperable telecommunications system?
After seeing the impact of telecommunications and social media propaganda on recent world events (for instance, the Arab Spring) - I’m sure there are smart people thinking about how to plug populations into the internet against the desires of the home country. Satellite based internet seems like an obvious solution, but maybe it’s not even as complicated as that.
Many records can be made, but can they also be shared widely enough to maintain political pressure? Maybe not, if the population is dependent on government controlled internet infrastructure. This makes Starlink more interesting. How do you prevent your population from using foreign built satellite internet if that country should choose to make it freely available to your citizens? Do you simply lose control? Do you try to rebuild/force roll out a proprietary, non-interoperable telecommunications system?
After seeing the impact of telecommunications and social media propaganda on recent world events (for instance, the Arab Spring) - I’m sure there are smart people thinking about how to plug populations into the internet against the desires of the home country. Satellite based internet seems like an obvious solution, but maybe it’s not even as complicated as that.
Hate to be "that guy", but public blockchain technologies are another strong tool that people have for resisting censorship [0]. It's much, much harder to nullroute blockchain traffic as opposed to nullrouting a website with information you want to censor. It's also very clear that the CCP is afraid of such technologies [1]
The rub is of course, this censorship-resistance being predicated on the consensus mechanism of a blockchain not being concentrated in one country.
[0]: https://theconversation.com/chinese-internet-users-turn-to-t...
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-blockchain/china-im...
The rub is of course, this censorship-resistance being predicated on the consensus mechanism of a blockchain not being concentrated in one country.
[0]: https://theconversation.com/chinese-internet-users-turn-to-t...
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-blockchain/china-im...
>> Do you try to rebuild/force roll out a proprietary, non-interoperable telecommunications system?
Honestly can see that happening. It's happened in the past for economic reasons, no reason why a government wouldn't force it for political reasons. It would be a natural progression from filtering.
Honestly can see that happening. It's happened in the past for economic reasons, no reason why a government wouldn't force it for political reasons. It would be a natural progression from filtering.
This is something I've always been confused about- what's the difference between an "expat" and an "economic immigrant"? Is it just the origin country or color of skin?
Expat supposedly not staying and not called the place home.
Immigrant is really moving in.
You add the economic adj the response is by another - expat has money ei no
Immigrant is really moving in.
You add the economic adj the response is by another - expat has money ei no
I think it is also about how rich you are? (Coming from an expat/economic immigrant)
I think it also hinges on the degree to which someone cuts ties with one's country of origin. "Expat" implies continued ties to a homeland, whereas "immigrant" implies an intent to turn the new place of residence into one's new home. There are obviously exceptions and blurred lines there, but that seems to be what I've observed.
Expat says nothing about why a person is living somewhere other than their homeland.
[deleted]
It's a word that immigrants use so they can continue to hate immigrants.
Or at the very least distinguish themselves from the immigrants everyone else hates.
It seems that the government is not giving up.
The politics in HK pseudo-democracy seems complex. Is there any way to democratically remove pro-Beijing camp from the power? Unless there is, it seems like the government just has to weather the storm.
The politics in HK pseudo-democracy seems complex. Is there any way to democratically remove pro-Beijing camp from the power? Unless there is, it seems like the government just has to weather the storm.
It's exceedingly unlikely to happen (and Beijing would likely find a way to prevent it from happening) in the legislature ("Legco"). This is due to combination of proportional representation in the geographic constituencies, and the fact that half the seats are taken up by functional constituencies which are mostly pro-Beijing. And the Chief Executive is explicitly chosen from a pool of pro-Beijing candidates, so that wouldn't happen unless the law is changed. (The law that enacted this in 2014 was one of the sparks for the so-called "Umbrella Revolution")
Some relevant wiki articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NPCSC_Decision_on_Hong_Ko...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Ko...
Some relevant wiki articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NPCSC_Decision_on_Hong_Ko...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Ko...
Yes, but you need a very tilted election toward them due to the indirect nature of the election. Probably about 65% of vote against Beijing parties would do it.
I hope these people stay strong when the heavy handed crackdown occurs. This time there are millions of cameras watching.
That's of very little comfort in today's world.
For example: People in EU can see footage of drowning people trying to cross the mediteranean sea, and react by punishing the orgnizations who try to help.
Really, the interpretation of events matters much much more, than some footage.
For example: People in EU can see footage of drowning people trying to cross the mediteranean sea, and react by punishing the orgnizations who try to help.
Really, the interpretation of events matters much much more, than some footage.
I think he is referring to the millions of Chinese government cameras with facial recognition.
China is going to use these protests as an excuse to accelerate taking control of Hong Kong.
If Democracy were to die in HK, I think it’s better for it to die this way rather than a silent squeal like what has happened here in America. The executive runs roughshod ignoring laws and subpoenas, the idiot President openly invites foreign assistance to win elections and not a single protest among over 300 million so called Patriotic Americans.
100% agree. It shocks me a little bit how few protests there are in the US right now.
It died with Citizens United, and everything since then from Democrats and Republicans is just parts of the game of keeping the masses content while selling out to the oligarchs. If you didn't notice til Trump, you weren't paying attention.
But it's still nothing compared to the Hong Kong situation, so there is that I guess.
But it's still nothing compared to the Hong Kong situation, so there is that I guess.
We trade with China so readily without even a thought of the kind of dark totalitarian regime reigns, anything for profit right ?
Feel very sorry for the HK citizens but there is nothing the UK can do, HK being returned to China was seen as part of the end of UK influence which (people wanted?), meaning we have 0 influence now.
However being under the sphere of China's political surveillance system is clearly not what anybody wanted.
I noted with interest how citizens binned all digital methods of payment and comms to avoid be prosecuted for being at the demonstrations retrospectively and presumably extradited to some prison factory in China if the extradition dictat gets through.
Anyway IMHO Trump has inadvertently tried to reset the balance and caused the Chinese alot of problems by starving them of tech know how and trade. But as we know Presidents come and go - Communist China is eternal - they will just wait for the next leader to turn around and sell out everyone.
Feel very sorry for the HK citizens but there is nothing the UK can do, HK being returned to China was seen as part of the end of UK influence which (people wanted?), meaning we have 0 influence now.
However being under the sphere of China's political surveillance system is clearly not what anybody wanted.
I noted with interest how citizens binned all digital methods of payment and comms to avoid be prosecuted for being at the demonstrations retrospectively and presumably extradited to some prison factory in China if the extradition dictat gets through.
Anyway IMHO Trump has inadvertently tried to reset the balance and caused the Chinese alot of problems by starving them of tech know how and trade. But as we know Presidents come and go - Communist China is eternal - they will just wait for the next leader to turn around and sell out everyone.
[deleted]
A key difference to understand between protests in America and in Hong Kong is that there is no division in Hong Kong about the issue. In the US, for example, half of the population opposes Trump and half supports him. There are anti-Trump protests and pro-Trump rally. The US is divided on many issues.
In Hong Kong, the whole population is united against the government. The territory is democratic on paper, but no longer in practice and basically run by the CCP.
(Note, recently moved from the US to HK and went to see the protests for myself yesterday, though I didn't actively participate)
In Hong Kong, the whole population is united against the government. The territory is democratic on paper, but no longer in practice and basically run by the CCP.
(Note, recently moved from the US to HK and went to see the protests for myself yesterday, though I didn't actively participate)
I’d like to believe that but just yesterday someone posted links to a Chinese news site showing lots of visible support for the pro government side. Lots of signs in the city showing support and a fleet of fishing boats with signs. Even if this is pure propaganda it shows there is visible support (even if artificial).
Upwards of 1 million people were at the protest this past Sunday. There's only a population of 7 million people in the entire SAR. That's the proportional equivalent of every man, woman &child in California, Oregon and Washington meeting in a single spot to protest something. Even if not everyone agrees on the exact details of what they're protesting, seeing that much passionate support behind a cause is a good indicator that the outrage is widespread.
Fishing boats could've been requisitioned from anywhere. Signs put up by party cadres. I think those are perhaps examples of propaganda that everyone on the ground there knows is false but are put up for the sake of the international media. I don't get the impression that there is much support for the pro-government side among HKers at all, from the couple I know living abroad.
What little visible support there is is manufactured. The supporting signs in the city are on the buildings of Chinese state-owned companies.
Carrie Lam has 43% support according to public opinion polls [1]
[1]https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/english/popexpress/ce2017/cl/cecom...
[1]https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/english/popexpress/ce2017/cl/cecom...
I have read several times that China has been moving progressively more pro-Beijing Han Chinese into HK. Much like policy in other regions China has occupied like Tibet and Xinjiang. I have never seen numbers or percentage of population behind those headlines. I wonder what proportion of the population they now make up.
Yes, it is several hundred people per day entering permanently or semipermanently.
Should look at the comparison. Also there are others if one look at opposition as well.
Donald Trump has 44% (as of June 12) according to FiveThirtyEight:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Sadly not, my wife who is from HK and strongly supports the protests just had a fight with her parents because they support the government. They even lived in mainland China during the cultural revolution, suffered for it, but still think the communist party can do no wrong.
This is false. I’m a Hong Kong citizen. I support the government. Most people that support the government just don’t bother to demonstrate.
Unfortunately, we know that people are literally paid to post pro China activism on the internet. You need independent verification to even be an anicdote.
Just curious, could you tell me what kind of verification do I need to provide?
Hacker News is also allowed through the Chinese firewall for some reason.
Also, Chinese people travel to Hong Kong pretty freely, where there is no Great Firewall at all.
Sure. What I was trying to say is that it is very easy for people in mainland China to use this site since it is not firewalled, so expect a lot of Chinese residents to comment here.
It was more or less the only site I could regularly use when I was there two weeks for work recently.
It was more or less the only site I could regularly use when I was there two weeks for work recently.
And they are usually not paid that much.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
"Unfortunately, we know that people are literally paid to post pro China activism on the internet."
It really goes both ways. You don't see pro-government support from western media because it doesn't fit their narrative. It's a two way filter. Stop thinking just because you have "free media", you'd have all facts. The fact that your parent commenter believe this is a 100% one sided matter shows how these brainwash propaganda can affect both sides.
It really goes both ways. You don't see pro-government support from western media because it doesn't fit their narrative. It's a two way filter. Stop thinking just because you have "free media", you'd have all facts. The fact that your parent commenter believe this is a 100% one sided matter shows how these brainwash propaganda can affect both sides.
Then good thing I didn't just notice this on "western media" and instead went and saw it for myself in Hong Kong. I've talked to HKers of all ages.
Sorry to have to break it to you, but it is unanimous. An overwhelming majority of the population is against the extradition bill, and any shows of pro-government support are manufactured as propaganda.
Sorry to have to break it to you, but it is unanimous. An overwhelming majority of the population is against the extradition bill, and any shows of pro-government support are manufactured as propaganda.
Lots of my young HK friends are having bitter fights with their parents because their parents don't support the protests. In any society, especially one like HK, there's always going to be a lot of pro-institutionalist people. They might not think that Carrie Lam is the best administrator possible but they think it's better not to rock the boat.
If you're out on the streets and talking to people, then of course all of them are anti-extradition since that's why they're out. Ask them instead if they know anyone who is against the protests. I'm sure they'll tell you about HS friends or uncles or bosses who are for this bill passing. The last public polling had 11% in support of the bill which, while definitely not a majority, is also not insubstantial and is too large to be dismissed as a viewpoint generated entirely through manufactured propaganda.
If you're out on the streets and talking to people, then of course all of them are anti-extradition since that's why they're out. Ask them instead if they know anyone who is against the protests. I'm sure they'll tell you about HS friends or uncles or bosses who are for this bill passing. The last public polling had 11% in support of the bill which, while definitely not a majority, is also not insubstantial and is too large to be dismissed as a viewpoint generated entirely through manufactured propaganda.
I see in this survey[1], 47.2% are against the extradition bill, 23.8% supports, and the remaining are neutral. I don't think 47.2% is An overwhelming majority.
[1] http://video3.mingpao.com/inews/201906/20190607_Mingpaopoll....
[1] http://video3.mingpao.com/inews/201906/20190607_Mingpaopoll....
Please back up your preposterous claims with data.
supercall(8)
Police brutality is pure shit and has to be internally investigated and transparently resolved.
However, I dislike the current biased image and video reporting on Hong Kong protests. I understand that this plays perfectly into the current anti-China narrative, but we should be aware that such things are never one-sided and simple.
There is a lot of shit going on from both sides: police and violent protesters. To make a balance to the highly inacceptable police behaviour, please also find footage speaking against violent protesters:
Protestors "arming up": https://i.redd.it/faobvwh4qx331.jpg
Protestors beating up a police man: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/bzza2h/peaceful_p...
The moment when it escalated (the protestors goal was to storm the building, police was behaving in a de-escalative way by withdrawing, while being attacked by objects thrown into the police lines): https://www.twitch.tv/videos/437882587?t=03h05m00s
Coverage of protestors behaving aggressively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQfOfIAexzw&feature=youtu.be
Again, all this does NOT excuse any tit for toe police brutality attack. But I am a believer of fair and balanced reporting and I want to see both sides.
However, I dislike the current biased image and video reporting on Hong Kong protests. I understand that this plays perfectly into the current anti-China narrative, but we should be aware that such things are never one-sided and simple.
There is a lot of shit going on from both sides: police and violent protesters. To make a balance to the highly inacceptable police behaviour, please also find footage speaking against violent protesters:
Protestors "arming up": https://i.redd.it/faobvwh4qx331.jpg
Protestors beating up a police man: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/bzza2h/peaceful_p...
The moment when it escalated (the protestors goal was to storm the building, police was behaving in a de-escalative way by withdrawing, while being attacked by objects thrown into the police lines): https://www.twitch.tv/videos/437882587?t=03h05m00s
Coverage of protestors behaving aggressively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQfOfIAexzw&feature=youtu.be
Again, all this does NOT excuse any tit for toe police brutality attack. But I am a believer of fair and balanced reporting and I want to see both sides.
These people are ultimately protesting because they're under the thumb of a totalitarian regime.
This is like saying that a fair and balanced account of WWII must include a discussion of the Jews being unruly train passengers.
This is like saying that a fair and balanced account of WWII must include a discussion of the Jews being unruly train passengers.
Please don't go full Godwin. It never helps.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"This is like saying a fair and balanced account of the Kent State Shootings must include a discussion of students throwing teargas at the national guard[1]" would perhaps be a more accurate historical comparison.
But I think a reductio ad absurdum to Godwin in this case makes the point more eloquently. I.e. that the GP is making an appeal to a balanced treatment of violence of "both sides" where one side is literally a totalitarian government that the people in question have no non-violent recourse to replace.
1. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/items/sho...
But I think a reductio ad absurdum to Godwin in this case makes the point more eloquently. I.e. that the GP is making an appeal to a balanced treatment of violence of "both sides" where one side is literally a totalitarian government that the people in question have no non-violent recourse to replace.
1. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/items/sho...
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I often account for the imbalance of power, or else we wouldn't be seeing any conflict at all. Often the threat of violence is enough to coerce, and that doesn't get coverage. So when there is violent protests, I'm going to give more lenience to the group with far less power and force.
The sentiment is commendable. However, the way you've framed the "both sides" argument is a bit misleading.
Hardly any bricks were thrown. It is also a daft comparison, as the police were armed up for days with extremely powerful weapons. The asymmetry in terms of preparedness and armaments is off the charts.
"The moment when it escalated" is also not quite right as it is missing the context where, on Sunday night / Monday morning, the police attacked protesters with an extreme degree of violence.
Hardly any bricks were thrown. It is also a daft comparison, as the police were armed up for days with extremely powerful weapons. The asymmetry in terms of preparedness and armaments is off the charts.
"The moment when it escalated" is also not quite right as it is missing the context where, on Sunday night / Monday morning, the police attacked protesters with an extreme degree of violence.
Underneath any society there is violence. If you don't pay your taxes, eventually they will forcefully put you to jail.
Now, the default is not violence. These protests started peacefully. But when they are ignored, violence becomes necessary. We are all animals after all, and as such we don't go down without a fight.
Now, the default is not violence. These protests started peacefully. But when they are ignored, violence becomes necessary. We are all animals after all, and as such we don't go down without a fight.
Yes, I felt something in tune with that. I sympathize with people protesting the China machine taking over. But storming a parliament rarely ends well, and I respect substantial efforts to prevent that, especially in a somewhat functioning democracy such as Hong Kong still is.
...the parliament is literally ignoring millions of people on the streets.
At some point you make violent protest and revolution inevitable. Peace for the sake of peace is useless and an extremely centrist view.
At some point you make violent protest and revolution inevitable. Peace for the sake of peace is useless and an extremely centrist view.
There is a threshold, I know too little about the situation to say whether my personal one would be reached if I lived there.
No taxation without representation.
Police 'violence'? Have they never been to America? Or seen any G8 meeting in Canada or Europe? Talk about propaganda...
Yes, Americans are #1 in the world for police violence. And congratulations to us!
edit: I earlier said that this was the first time HK used teargas/rubber bullets, which is inaccurate. the important thing is that this is still violence, just because the US beats everyone in terms of sheer scale/frequency/intensity of police violence doesn't mean that this isn't police violence.
edit: I earlier said that this was the first time HK used teargas/rubber bullets, which is inaccurate. the important thing is that this is still violence, just because the US beats everyone in terms of sheer scale/frequency/intensity of police violence doesn't mean that this isn't police violence.
Tear gas was definitely used in '14, see this image from the Umbrella Movement protests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests#/media...
Multiple sources also mention rubber bullets being used in '14 as well:
https://www.google.com/search?q=umbrella+revolution+rubber+b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests#/media...
Multiple sources also mention rubber bullets being used in '14 as well:
https://www.google.com/search?q=umbrella+revolution+rubber+b...
ah, you're right, I misread the SCMP coverage yesterday, guess when they said "tear gas was used for the first time" that it was the first time ever, and not just within the protests this time.
the NYT article also has:
"The use of rubber bullets represented a turning point in the police response and was the first time the government acknowledged using the nonlethal rounds in Hong Kong in decades. The police response following the protesters’ push toward the Legislative Council was noticeably more aggressive as peaceful protests became more pitched throughout the day."
So maybe the use of force hasn't changed vs 2014, but the government's brazenness has.
the NYT article also has:
"The use of rubber bullets represented a turning point in the police response and was the first time the government acknowledged using the nonlethal rounds in Hong Kong in decades. The police response following the protesters’ push toward the Legislative Council was noticeably more aggressive as peaceful protests became more pitched throughout the day."
So maybe the use of force hasn't changed vs 2014, but the government's brazenness has.
Not then. Leung dare not. Do not know why lan dare.
The UK proved that rubber bullets can kill people[0].
The French first deployed tear gas during WWI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet#Riot_control_use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet#Riot_control_use
Hundreds of thousands protesting, hundreds who attack police and try to storm a government building... Seems like a pretty measured response. Try that in any other country.
Are you suggesting that no other country can possibly have police violence, because the US does?
If so, that's preposterous. Both can be heavy-handed!
If not, what is the point of your comment?
If so, that's preposterous. Both can be heavy-handed!
If not, what is the point of your comment?
Whenever china appears on hackernews...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
And inconsistently moderated. Actual HN staff seem to hover between not caring about the obvious tactics at play - even calling it a "trope" a if we were in a movie, or flagging posts calling out the tactic while the originals stay preserved (as do the ensuing derailed conversations)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20169100
I tried emailing this same staffer to get my account deleted to escape this encroaching noise. They really don't give a shit. I'll be surprised if your post is still here later.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20169100
I tried emailing this same staffer to get my account deleted to escape this encroaching noise. They really don't give a shit. I'll be surprised if your post is still here later.