Protest in Hong Kong

[K. A. Pital]

I must say that here I am with Siege. Legalism is not a valid defence unless you subscribe to it. A great many discriminatory laws were ended by disruption of the legal process, and probably would otherwise persist much longer. If some concerns like national independence justify scrapping agreements (such as, say, driving colonialists out of concessionary cities, which was done often in a rather violent manner and breaking every possible imperial law), then surely the concerns for democratic rights can be no less valid.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm talking about the protestors and their grievances, and have been since I got to this thread. It's you that's constantly trying to return to 'b-b-but the agreement!' even though your own article pointed out the Chinese government 'intended to observe with minimal commitment', and it was you who said that when citizens don't care for an agreement made between governments "the other side should not either" as if citizens and their government were somehow equal. So as far as I'm concerned pointing out the obvious asymmetry of power and the relation government-citizen is very relevant. And if those things are just "talking points" to you, then I suppose that speaks volumes about your outlook on life.

The fact that government and citizens aren't equal isn't relevant, because the power differential doesn't come into it when its an agreement between governments, as per your own statement.

Coming from the man who called protestors 'democracy wankers', that is especially rich. God forbid a man explains how he arrived at his position!

I defined who I called democracy wankers earlier. I suggest you read it. Properly this time.

No it isn't, but if you can't see the difference then I suppose that can't be helped.

Then why did you choose to "accomodate" me by then stating your own opinion which just happens to be the same as the protesters?

[Thanas]

Meanwhile, despite the China whores trying to depict this as a justified Chinese reaction to rabble rousers, China has quielty incarcerated over 100 intellectuals on the mainland, including journalists working for German newspaper. Link in German

[Gandalf]

Does the article state if are they all under some sort of house arrest, or is there some intellectual's gulag?

[Thanas]

Does the article state if are they all under some sort of house arrest, or is there some intellectual's gulag?

Thrown into prison, with no contact allowed for families and lawyers. No charges filed, of course - as if anybody expects China to hold to the rule of law.

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong police is using pepper spray at the shortest distance possible and is also just straight up beating on people. two pictures here, Video here

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe they should learn to use heavy equipment:

[Thanas]

Your point being?

[K. A. Pital]

My point is they have a long way to go to match police brutality from Europe and US.

[Thanas]

My point is they have a long way to go to match police brutality from Europe and US.

Really? When was the last time German police led a guy into an alley and beat him senseless?

[K. A. Pital]

They beat people up on a regular basis. I recall the case of Derege Wevelsiep, but surely that is not the only one.

[Thanas]

As if those situtions are comparable. You know they are not. In any case, is this anything but a massive tu quoque fallacy?

[Purple]

I think that his point might have been that people have no right to criticize the behavior of foreign governments until they ensure that their own governments at home can match the standards that they wish impose. As in, that one has no right to blame others for doing something he him self is doing as well only worse. At least that is how I understood it.

[Gandalf]

I think that his point might have been that people have no right to criticize the behavior of foreign governments until they ensure that their own governments at home can match the standards that they wish impose. As in, that one has no right to blame others for doing something he him self is doing as well only worse. At least that is how I understood it.

What sort of crazy idea is that? Wouldn't it mean that only people from Utopia could actually levy criticism at foreign government?

[Thanas]

I think that his point might have been that people have no right to criticize the behavior of foreign governments until they ensure that their own governments at home can match the standards that they wish impose. As in, that one has no right to blame others for doing something he him self is doing as well only worse. At least that is how I understood it.

1. Given Stas is from Russia that would mean he would have to shut up about everything
2. This whole thing is nothing but a thread derail to divert attention from China, as usually happens in these threads because some people just can't stand China being criticized for beating people up in alleys.

[K. A. Pital]

Given that I have a better idea of police brutality and what it entails than most people here, I see no reason to shut up, Purple.

As if those situtions are comparable. You know they are not.

I've seen people beaten up during the Occupy protests, and that is a directly comparable situation.

This whole thing is nothing but a thread derail to divert attention from China, as usually happens in these threads because some people just can't stand China being criticized for beating people up in alleys.

Actually no. If I wanted to defend China or more precisely HK from some accusations, I would do so (so far I see no reason for that), but I merely point out the similarities in handling protests. It is not a tu quoque to point out that similar Occupy protests were routed by the police and their camps destroyed in the First World nations.

[Thanas]

And again, what does this have to do with the Chinese situations, even if we assume your situations are exactly as you interpret them?

[K. A. Pital]

Because you said China does not respect the rule of law. Whereas, in fact, China has been acting in full accordance with the legal - not moral! - aspects of the situation. Hong Kong was always promised elections from nominees; not completely free elections. Dispersing protesters who threaten the power has been a priority for most governments, and so China is hardly unique here.

What I said, and what you also missed with your obsession with law, is that even being right from a legal standpoint, they are wrong from a moral one. And no, the state doesn't have an obligation to present charges immediately either, it has a term when people could be held without charges. Unless you know the term expired, you cannot be sure detention is illegal. I know, I've been to such penal institutions. No explanations, maximum allowed term they hold a person without filing charges, then let go. Typical protest dispersal tactics.

You seem to have taken offense not in the moral wrongness of such actions, but in that they are done by China, and tried to paint them illegal. But you need more evidence for the illegal, a lot more than for just amoral.

[Thanas]

You seem to have taken offense not in the moral wrongness of such actions, but in that they are done by China, and tried to paint them illegal. But you need more evidence for the illegal, a lot more than for just amoral.

I would assume that even under chinese law (or Hong Kong law) leading suspects into a dark alley and beating them until they are bloody is illegal. If not, then the law in China is worth nothing.

[K. A. Pital]

You said the detention is illegal; stop shifting the topic here. If media persons were really detained illegally for more than the maximum allowed period, then there should be proof of that. It can also be grounds for an international complaint.

As to HK, once again, the dispersal tactics are a lot less heavy-handed than those used routinely by many First World nations. I am sure beating people up with police clubs is illegal there too - but it happens. Meanwhile, officers in question are suspended, if we are to believe the news. So it seems that wrongdoing is recognized and dealt with, unlike your initial claim that law means nothing to them.

I am questioning the moral aspect of suppression while you are focused on the legal. So what if the officers are punished, and the detained are released before the term of charge-less detainment expires? Will that make it somehow better in your eyes, and if yes, just what kind of crap a philosophy like that is?

[Thanas]

You said the detention is illegal; stop shifting the topic here. If media persons were really detained illegally for more than the maximum allowed period, then there should be proof of that. It can also be grounds for an international complaint.

They were detained at least for over 10 days without contact to lawyers or families. Stop trying to make this a legal form of detention

As to HK, once again, the dispersal tactics are a lot less heavy-handed than those used routinely by many First World nations.

No, I am pretty sure being lead into a dark alley and then savagely beaten for several minutes is not routinely used by many First World nations.

[K. A. Pital]

You said the detention is illegal; stop shifting the topic here. If media persons were really detained illegally for more than the maximum allowed period, then there should be proof of that. It can also be grounds for an international complaint.

They were detained at least for over 10 days without contact to lawyers or families. Stop trying to make this a legal form of detention

That is good evidence. There's breach of right to counsel, clearly, even while detention without charges can last for up to 37 days in China. There is no right to contact your family during the period of detention. The right to contact an attorney is there (obviously breached, if none was contacted in 10 days), however, there is no right to private contact with an attorney, all conversations must be overheard by police.

No, I am pretty sure being lead into a dark alley and then savagely beaten for several minutes is not routinely used by many First World nations.

I am pretty sure that so far people are not ending up being killed in the thousands like they are due to police violence in the US.

[Tanasinn]

Didn't you already get called out for tu quoque "BUT MUH AMERICAN POLICE" bullshit?

[K. A. Pital]

I'm just baffled by the fact Thanas considers the HK police a terribly brutal force when so far the protests didn't even lead to a single casualty. That is all. And let me be frank, I come from a place where during protests people simply dissappear in black vans and then they die in very horrible ways. And little if anything is ever reported.

[Thanas]

I'm just baffled by the fact Thanas considers the HK police a terribly brutal force when so far the protests didn't even lead to a single casualty. That is all. And let me be frank, I come from a place where during protests people simply dissappear in black vans and then they die in very horrible ways. And little if anything is ever reported.

I do consider them more brutal than European forces. As to American forces, you know my opinion of their tactics.

[fgalkin]

I'm just baffled by the fact Thanas considers the HK police a terribly brutal force when so far the protests didn't even lead to a single casualty. That is all. And let me be frank, I come from a place where during protests people simply dissappear in black vans and then they die in very horrible ways. And little if anything is ever reported.

I do consider them more brutal than European forces. As to American forces, you know my opinion of their tactics.

Thanas, that's rich. One beating victim after weeks of being attacked and spit on by protestors?

Do I need to remind you about your own police in action?

The HK police involved in the beating were suspended. How many of the above do you think were?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin