The Hollies "Carrie Anne"
Posted on 06/15/2019 10:52:17 AM PDT by cba123
HONG KONG, June 15 (Reuters) - Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam on Saturday indefinitely delayed a proposed law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, in a dramatic retreat after anger over the bill triggered the city's biggest and most violent street protests in decades.
The extradition bill, which would have covered Hong Kong's seven million residents as well as foreign and Chinese nationals there, was seen by many as a threat to the rule of law in the former British colony.
Around a million people marched through Hong Kong last Sunday to oppose the bill, according to organisers of the protest, the largest in the city since crowds came out against the bloody suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations centred around Beijing's Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989.
(Please see link for full article)
Bullcrap.
Commies are the same everywhere.
Now the ChiCom secret police will target the protest leaders and arrest or disappear them. After a brief while, they will then reintroduce the legislation IMO.
Yep. The chicoms will just have their agents in HK “disappear” any troublemakers one by one until the rest get the idea to get inline or become an involuntary organ donor in the mainland lao gai system.
Designed by Jews? Are you for real?!
No body is a actually that stupid I hope.
I think you old freeper name was DavidDuke. Am I right?
She never said “indefinitely”. She implied “temporary” delayed at least for this year.
Nothing has changed because of it. The same people are still in office and China is still in control. The bill will be back but in a different form.
There is another protest this Sunday (June 16 HK time) demanding Carrie Lam resign and the “riot” designation of last week actions be removed.
Good. Indefinitely delayed is good, they may never bring it back, we hope.
These protest were misguided. This was about extraditing actual criminals. The criminal in question is convicted of bribing officials in Macao. They were protesting to let a convicted criminal remain at large in HK.
If the guy, Joseph Lau had fled to the US/UK/u/NZ/Fr/It/Gr he’d be extradited. Even wimpy Canada extradites to the PRC. Hong Kong is a city in China. That he can flee here is unconscionable.
Look, there are 40,000 PLA troops in HK. If the PRC didn’t want to play by the rules they could have just marched a few dozen of them over to the hotel where Joseph Lau is hiding grabbed him.
Yes, China is a country with issues regarding its legal system. But on the whole, those issues are no grater than the criminals like Hillary Clinton getting away with theft and murder in the US.
Many of the protester were paid. My niece made $1800 Hong Kong dollars and got a free lunch to attend.
But if they had guns...
Hey Tony,
1938 is calling. It wants its armband back.
You ever heard of an obama voter?
She avoided Tienanmen II. But the Commies will do extradition anyway. People will just “disappear.”
Hong Kong badly needs its Independence from the Red Hoard.
Great danger that China will read the further abandonment of Hong Kong’s people as yet another signal that the Free World will not defend its own
The Sky-High Stakes in Hong Kong
Claudia Rosett image
By Claudia Rosett —— Bio and Archives—June 14, 2019
PJMedia: The Rosett Report
In Hong Kong’s huge protest over a proposed law that would allow extradition from the territory to mainland China, there is far more at stake than “confidence” in the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system, or the health of Hong Kong’s economy—important though those both are. The real showdown going on in Hong Kong has long been between despotism and democracy, between tyranny and the Free World. And whether we, the free people of America, and our allies, choose to think of it this way or not, the reality is that the showdown now taking place in Hong Kong will shape our future as well.
.
Ruinous extradition law
For two reasons, the people of Hong Kong—in their efforts to stop this ruinous extradition law—deserve the strongest support we can muster. One reason is quite simply that it is the right thing to do, though in international politics that is often a backseat priority. The other reason—perhaps more compelling to those inclined to think of Hong Kong as a faraway foreign place and none of our business—is that it is a high-risk precedent for the Free World to abandon its own. It invites aggression by the likes of China (and Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.) against us and our allies. Which is what it will boil down to, if the U.S., the U.K. and other democratic powers do not find some way to buttress the demands of Hong Kong’s demonstrators. It is vital that Washington persuade Beijing and its satrap in Hong Kong, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, that it would be wise to scrap this proposed law, and moronic—or at least astoundingly expensive—to push it through.
Please, make no mistake. Officially Hong Kong these days may be a “Special Autonomous Region” of the “People’s Republic” of China, destined under treaty to fall entirely under Beijing’s jackboot in 2047. But in spirit, in character, in history, in the inheritance of British rule of law, and for another full 28 years according to China’s promise of “One Country, Two Systems,” Hong Kong is one of our own, still part of the Free World. If we do not stand up for its people, China’s rulers will all too likely read that abandonment as one more sign of Western weakness, one more invitation to commit the next act of aggression.
The argument against this law ought to be obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the Chinese Communist Party grinding machine that is China’s system of “justice.” China is one of the most repressive countries on earth; host to the digital “Great Firewall,” home to an Orwellian new system of “social credit,” domain of the increasingly repressive rule of de facto president-for-life, Xi Jinping. China is a polity where for years now the murderous rule of communism has been morphing into a brutal techno-tyranny with ambitions to become the dominant world power of the 21st century.
China’s ruling party, with its monopoly on power, has a record of treating peaceful political dissent not as a right, but as a crime
China’s ruling party, with its monopoly on power, has a record of treating peaceful political dissent not as a right, but as a crime. In practice, there is no free speech, no freedom of assembly, no right to call for genuine democracy—let alone implement it. Outside China, the Tiananmen uprising of 1989 is remembered with honor; inside China, the government wants it stuffed down the memory hole. Under Beijing’s approach to “law,” China’s Nobel peace laureate, repeatedly-jailed democratic dissident Liu Xiaobo, was well into serving an 11-year prison sentence when he died of cancer in 2017.
Hong Kong, by contrast, has official claim to membership of the Free World until at least 2047, under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, the bilateral treaty that laid out the basic conditions for Britain’s handover in 1997 of colonial Hong Kong to China. Hong Kong, by way of its broader history and character, has long been deserving of far better treatment than anything Britain and China agreed to in that deal—which China now seems bent on dishonoring.
Here I would add a few words about Hong Kong’s history, which has perhaps already affected today’s world more than we realize. I speak as someone who first beheld (and loved) Hong Kong while traveling through as a teenager in 1969, then returned and lived there from 1986-1993, working as editorial page editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal. That was a front row seat for some of this history as it played out.
Hong Kong in the post-World War II decades of the 20th century became one of the marvels of the globe. As a British Crown Colony with a magnificent harbor, Hong Kong married British rule of law to free trade. This mix, combined with the enterprise of the Chinese—including many who had fled the repression of communist rule in mainland China—turned Hong Kong into one of the world’s great cities, a thriving hub of commerce, an economic powerhouse. Hong Kong was not a democracy. It was ruled by a British governor. But that governor was answerable to Britain’s system of democracy and law. That arrangement went a great distance toward acquainting Hong Kong’s people with the rights, freedoms and institutions of the Free World.
China’s promise of 50 years of “One Country, Two Systems” served as a convenient fig leaf for Britain to claim it had not simply abandoned Hong Kong to China’s mercies
And so came the 1980s, part of the post-colonial era, in which almost everywhere else on earth, colonial subjugation had become a prelude to independence. Hong Kong, by then a polity of millions, was richly qualified for independence. It was far better prepared for self-rule than most. But China, which had ceded Hong Kong in perpetuity to Britain in the 19th century Opium Wars, wanted Hong Kong back. A diplomatic showdown took place. In London, there was great interest in the growing China trade, and little appetite for a serious confrontation to protect a colony that one way or another Britain in the post-colonial era was likely to give up. In what amounted to a cold political calculation, Britain’s then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher backed down and cut a deal—the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration—to hand over Hong Kong to China in 1997.
There was, of course, the awkward problem that while Britain had been broadly divesting itself of empire by way of giving independence to its colonies, in this case, the plan was to hand over the Crown Colony of Hong Kong to a monstrously repressive dictatorship. So, in the name of protecting Hong Kong, the British cut a deal with China that for 50 years following the 1997 handover—until 2047—Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Beijing would leave Hong Kong to manage its own domestic affairs, under its own rule of law.
It was always highly doubtful that China would honor this deal. China’s promise of 50 years of “One Country, Two Systems” served as a convenient fig leaf for Britain to claim it had not simply abandoned Hong Kong to China’s mercies. But once the British struck the Union Jack in 1997, it was always going to be a desperately unequal struggle between the desire of Hong Kong’s people to protect their rights and liberties, and the preference of Beijing to crush any dissent within its dominions—especially anything that might inspire similar dissent within mainland China itself.
Beijing surely understood the real nature and meaning of the Hong Kong handover, and read its implicit betrayal of Hong Kong’s people as a sign that the great Western democracies, when challenged, would not stand up for their own. The handover of Hong Kong was one of the early green lights along the path of predatory behavior that China’s tyranny is now traveling at speed—from cyber warfare, to other forms of rapid military modernization and buildup, to the construction of artificial islands topped with military bases to threaten freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, to debt traps and influence operations along the “Belt and Road Initiative” and way beyond, reaching into American towns, businesses, politics and universities.
Hong Kong’s best hope was always to deflect as long as possible the encroachments of Beijing’s despotic system. For years already, this has entailed a defiant retreat, step by step, in which some of Hong Kong’s people have heroically taken the risks of speaking up, of engaging in public protest, as they have been step by step badgered, bullied, threatened and prosecuted for their efforts. The fleeting hope of Hong Kong’s people having a real say in the choosing of their own chief executive gave way years ago to a China-choreographed arrangement in which Beijing effectively makes the pick. Thus did Carrie Lam become the local top boss in 2017, the same Lam now making the mind-bending claim that Hong Kong’s legal system would be greatly improved by a law enabling extradition to mainland China.
For Hong Kong, the real prospect would be a reign of fear. Anyone targeted by China as a “criminal” could face extradition, to be dealt with under the same brand of “justice” that consigned China’s Nobel peace laureate to prison. The implications for peaceful dissent of any kind are chilling.
Hong Kong’s people have no way to replace Carrie Lam via the ballot box. So they did what they could, while they still have some freedom to do so. Last Sunday, in a city of seven million, some one million demonstrators marched through the streets to protest the proposed extradition law. In the press, this has been dubbed Hong Kong’s “last stand.”
How, precisely, China (or Hong Kong’s titular boss, Ms. Lam) might be compelled to scrap this proposed extradition law is a question perhaps best left to President Trump’s national security team. But if America, Britain and the rest of the world’s great democracies do not stand squarely, clearly and convincingly with the heroes of Hong Kong, there is a great danger that China will read the further abandonment of Hong Kong’s people as yet another signal that the Free World will not defend its own. For that, not so far down the road, there’s almost certainly a steep price to be paid by all of us.
Claudia Rosett is a foreign policy fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum, and author of the Encounter Books Broadside, What To Do About the UN.
Hope the good people of Hong Kong force Carrie to take it on the LAM to Red China where she can be taken care of by her communist masters (and “taken care” of means a lot of different things in Communist China, up to and including a firing squad, concentration camps, poison, suicide by shooting oneself in the back of the head, twice, etc.
Please educate yourself with all the widely available info before you spread your falsehoods. Your entire post is nothing but BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
