This is a very solid round-up of what faceless accounts have been spamming all over Twitter since this story emerged.
These arguments are weak enough to strain credulity. Almost all of them can be answered by saying "the context is very different"
1. Yellow Vests - no overlap in what is being protested. Dissatisfaction with policy vs dissatisfaction with fundamental political rights = very different context.
2. Extradition with rule of law abiding country that isn't explicitly trying to silence your dissidents = very different context.
3. Assange situation is complex and one-off, and the charges are more complicated than just reporting on stuff. It is also being openly discussed, scrutinized and will be prosecuted openly in a legal system. What routinely happens with dissidents and party critics extradited to China is very different.
4. HK was under British rule for a long time and there is a large English-speaking base.
5. Narrative about HK has to do with categorically different political / economic freedoms than the mainland. There's subtlety beyond a comparison like "what will be the bigger GDP"
The "Assange situation" is not complex, and it's not one-off. He published numerous secret documents that were deeply embarrassing to the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and many other countries. He is being targeted for entirely political reasons, and the cooperation of the British and Ecuadorian authorities is likewise politically motivated. In the case of Britain, the motivation is twofold. Assange released documents about the UK government's actions, and the government wants to maintain good relations with the United States. In the case of Ecuador, the motivation is better relations with the United States and access to IMF loans.
The persecution of Assange is not one-off, because it sets a precedent for future prosecution of journalists in the United States, and it establishes that journalists are in danger in any country that has an extradition agreement with the United States.
Given all the concern about the Hong Kong extradition law being used to target critics of the Chinese government, I would expect the same people who oppose the HK law to also vigorously defend Julian Assange against extradition to the United States for political crimes.
Also after the recent Assange developments, there was the Australia ABC raid after another journalist/leaker, with a warrant to “view/change/delete” anything in the station. And 2 more journalists arrested in France, covering the yellow vests, possibly not “correctly”.
Those were not arguments, it is what I see and might consider fact. That I would like people to give their opinions or just think about it.
USA is law abiding? It is the country with more prisoners global and per capita. Doesn’t look good. And Guantanamo? Patriot act? Also not when bombing other countries. They have shown more than once USA powerful are above the law.
Perhaps they should not accept extradition to China and also rescind to USA.
The focus on the violent parts is intentional. HK poor people repressive police, France poor police violent protestors.
Both are supposedly peaceful with clashes with the police.
In France. 15 protestors dead, 0 policeman. 4000 injured. 8000 arrested.
Estimation was 282k one single time, and after lower than that. But it has been continuous, with people every week all over the country. And all unions and society sectors participating.
In Italy, they made headlines for months.
The italian vice-premier went to talk with some random GJ leaders.
Parties from the italian far right and far left went to demonstrate with the GJ.
If it didn't make the news where you live, I'm very surprised.
France has a democratic system, Hong Kong has no democratic way to get rid of Lam.
USA has due process, the right to council and many other fundamental human rights.
Most of the posters are in Chinese.
Brexit will be worse for the UK economically, leaving China would be good for HK democratically. And, also, the UK has an enshrined right to leave thanks to article 50, HK does not have that right at all.
It is never ok, but there is a clear difference in the extent to which it occurs, the legality of it and how it’s handled by the government. For example, Gui Minhai has also criticized the US government but they didn’t kidnap him and keep him from exercising his right to council.
Or is your argument that every country that has performed extra judicial punishments, no matter the circumstances or judicial proceedings that followed, is as unreliable in its protection of human rights as China?
> is as unreliable in its protection of human rights as China?
The US is vastly worse than China in this regard. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered by the US govt in the middle east in the past two decades alone. The US does OK (and yes, obviously much better than China) domestically, but their respect for human rights ends at the border.
And this is a discussion about domestic courts, that’s what’s relevant to this article because those are the ones HK would extradite to. Extraditing to an American court is far more in line with respecting human rights than to a Chinese court.
Chinese and English are both official languages of Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Basic Law (article 9) and the Official Languages Ordinance (chapter 5 of the Laws of Hong Kong).
Most of the signs were in either Chinese or bilingual (English on one side, Chinese on the other). Because we are a bilingual city but also so that western media could understand what we are protesting about.
Obviously the western media used photos of protestors displaying the English side because it's easier and more convenient to explain
* French yellow vests are ignored week after week. This is all over the place.
* HK already has extradiction with the USA.
* USA debacle demanding a journalist extradition to prosecute.
* Protesters posters are in english.
* Mainstream narrative, small HK will be successful independent. UK brexit will be terrible because it will be a insignificant country.