Topic: Thousands at Hong Kong protest as Occupy Central is launched

[JovaJova]

I also didn't get an answer from Jova about why it's important that there isn't universal suffrage and important there isn't an independent inquiry into the policing.

I’m not looking for an argument here. Like I said I am keen to understand the views of people who still support this violence and destruction. Do you really think the police have been over the top in their handling of these riots after months of watching how they have been unfolding and how do you think other countries would police similar situations where the rule of law is no longer being maintained ? I assume you also live in Hong Kong so have been close to the destruction ?

How can any government back down in the face of such flagrant abuse of the law ? For this movement to have any hope it needed to retain the widespread support it initially had through peaceful demonstrations and actually practicing what they preach by displaying democratic values. Mercury said it all much better than me but all sense of rational thinking has sadly been lost which means solutions to end the violence seem impossible.

[mercury]

Appreciate your opinion on this,  mercury,  as always.

Thank you. 

I’m not looking for an argument here. Like I said I am keen to understand the views of people who still support this violence and destruction. Do you really think the police have been over the top in their handling of these riots after months of watching how they have been unfolding and how do you think other countries would police similar situations where the rule of law is no longer being maintained ? I assume you also live in Hong Kong so have been close to the destruction ?

How can any government back down in the face of such flagrant abuse of the law ? For this movement to have any hope it needed to retain the widespread support it initially had through peaceful demonstrations and actually practicing what they preach by displaying democratic values. Mercury said it all much better than me but all sense of rational thinking has sadly been lost which means solutions to end the violence seem impossible.

Thank you.  You said so much better than I can in describing the situation, as I see it, of our city.

Reading some of the ensuing discussion just brought a wry smile.

An elderly friend, in her 70's and someone I respect a lot, yesterday said indignantly she won't condemn the rioters and does not mind the inconvenience in going to work. 

Inconvenience to work?  Don't trivialise what can be life and death now though going to work is a real issue for so many common people!

Arson -- rail stations, at least one of the street shops got residence on the upper floors.  Damage to rail tracks -- blocks, or doing a crack just so slightly so that it might not be spotted.  Heavy objects thrown from bridges:  onto a major highway with vehicles travelling 110 km below, at the cross harbour tunnel entrance which nearly missed a motorcyclist  (he's really really lucky).

As bad as the government is handling the crisis, there is no justification to do this to the common people.  NONE. 

We have 4-5 police shots on rioters in the past couple of months.  Typical of pro-rioter section to ignore the context: the policeman being out-numbered and attacked -- even without a weapon there were enough of rioters to punch and kick the policeman to death -- happened in a riot and months of extreme violence, and a couple of attempts to take the police gun. 

And do you know that people not in black, not being clothed as a reporter,  taking videos of the riots would get beaten up or forced to delete all photos / videos they took at the riots by the rioters?  Recently a Japanese tourist got beaten up because of this.  He’s in the news cos he’s a Japanese and the matter can’t be ignored - but is this reported in the western media?  We common people have got this treatment since day 1, so that only materials convenient to the rioters would get surfaced.  You may take a look at the videos of this youtuber – a young Canadian – back in Sep.  He got the videos, and he also got death threats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcw7lcZA7SE&list=LLm0Hk0e4YwPSKqpgy24wNGA&index=12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFwGqF3QlVc&list=LLm0Hk0e4YwPSKqpgy24wNGA&index=11

Why are the rioters above all reproach and the law?  Why are they above everyone else in society, as my beloved elderly friend would only have it?

Some of the most acrimonious acts in history were conducted by people who believe they are absolutely righteous and above all wrongs, that they would cease to have any restraint on what they do.  Cultural revolution comes to mind.  Mainland Chinese have learnt their lesson.  It is creeping on us, Hong Kong, right now.  It aggrieves me to no end.

At the end of the day, everyone can have his/ her own take on this.  I can only give mine.

[classycarra]

I’m not looking for an argument here. Like I said I am keen to understand the views of people who still support this violence and destruction.

Not looking for an argument didn't even last one sentence for you! If you don't want an argument, don't lie to put words in other peoples mouths by suggesting I'm pro violence and destruction.

You've made that up, and you're portraying my suggestion that an independent inquiry into the policing is some kind of insane request. You've also repeatedly not answered my question about why you think it's important that there isn't one?

It's very clear from your writing and your language that you are deeply engaged in an 'us and them' perception (and to be fair I can understand why given the strain on HK). Again, aside from not liking the actions of the violent people involved in the protests, can you explain your argument for why you believe it is important that Hong Kong doesn't have universal suffrage? Does it go beyond just not wanting to give protesters one of their requests?

Do you really think the police have been over the top in their handling of these riots after months of watching how they have been unfolding and how do you think other countries would police similar situations where the rule of law is no longer being maintained ? I assume you also live in Hong Kong so have been close to the destruction ?

Just to quickly address your point that's designed to attack my perspective (since you have been unable to argue against an inquiry and suffrage using justification), no I don't live in HK. My closest friends do and I visited for a few weeks earlier this year. However unlike you I'm not bringing that up to try to shut down discussion you can't agree with.

And yes I do think it's been over the top. And it's quite possible to hold this view and also believe that a lot of the police have no doubt been quite restrained on a lot of occasions. Having said that, that should be a given in a police officers job requirement. You don't want incendiary people in charge of maintaining order.

Just to quickly broach your point and Mercury's contextualising of the gunshots into protesters, I understand why the shots have taken place. As is the case around the world, cowards who are given guns are still cowards only now they are dangerous both to other people and to themselves. The traffic policeman shooting the 21 year old unarmed protester this week. Sure, maybe he was shitting himself that his gun was going to be taken. I can understand the concern. But why the fuck has that policeman been deployed with a gun? It's not good policing and it's dangerous predominantly for protesters, but also for the police.

Perhaps an inquiry could look into things such as the use/requirements for arms by HK police. It could look at off duty/non deployed police turning up at arranged protests with their weapons (or using their vehicles as weapons). It could examine why the police seemed not to mind gangsters beating up a train full of civilians. It could examine what the police are doing sending police in to violently engage with violent protesters, and work out why they've done that, and examine whether all those orders did was risk the police getting split up and being set upon all for the sake of beating up and maybe arresting a few people.

A big part of the reason for things turning more openly violent and hostile has been the open antagonism and violence of police, and their 'us and them' mentality which long precedes the protests recent more violent turn. Of course there have been many days of protest where police havent shot or brutalised a protester, but it seems an inconvenient fact is being ignored. HK police were launching tear gas, firing rubber bullets, dressed up in militarised riot gear, and beating up on people during their arrests for simply being present at a protest from pretty much the start of the demonstrations this year. To ignore the effect that has in terms of people's faith in the police and the government and faith in the rule of law, and to ignore their normalisation of violence being a contributor to violent weeks like this last one seems massively disingenuous to me.

[mercury]

Not looking for an argument didn't even last one sentence for you! If you don't want an argument, don't lie to put words in other peoples mouths by suggesting I'm pro violence and destruction.

You've made that up, and you're portraying my suggestion that an independent inquiry into the policing is some kind of insane request. You've also repeatedly not answered my question about why you think it's important that there isn't one?

It's very clear from your writing and your language that you are deeply engaged in an 'us and them' perception (and to be fair I can understand why given the strain on HK). Again, aside from not liking the actions of the violent people involved in the protests, can you explain your argument for why you believe it is important that Hong Kong doesn't have universal suffrage? Does it go beyond just not wanting to give protesters one of their requests?
Just to quickly address your point that's designed to attack my perspective (since you have been unable to argue against an inquiry and suffrage using justification), no I don't live in HK. My closest friends do and I visited for a few weeks earlier this year. However unlike you I'm not bringing that up to try to shut down discussion you can't agree with.

And yes I do think it's been over the top. And it's quite possible to hold this view and also believe that a lot of the police have no doubt been quite restrained on a lot of occasions. Having said that, that should be a given in a police officers job requirement. You don't want incendiary people in charge of maintaining order.

Just to quickly broach your point and Mercury's contextualising of the gunshots into protesters, I understand why the shots have taken place. As is the case around the world, cowards who are given guns are still cowards only now they are dangerous both to other people and to themselves. The traffic policeman shooting the 21 year old unarmed protester this week. Sure, maybe he was shitting himself that his gun was going to be taken. I can understand the concern. But why the fuck has that policeman been deployed with a gun? It's not good policing and it's dangerous predominantly for protesters, but also for the police.

A big part of the reason for things turning more openly violent and hostile has been the open antagonism and violence of police. Of course there have been many days of protest where police havent shot or brutalised a protester,  :duhbut it seems an inconvenient fact is being ignored. HK police were launching tear gas and rubber bullets and dressed up in militarised riot gear and beating up on people during their arrests for simply being present at a protest from pretty much the start of the demonstrations this year. To ignore the effect that has in terms of people's faith in the police and the government, and to ignore their normalisation of violence being a contributor to violent weeks like this last one seems massively disingenuous to me.

I was shown a photo by a loved one about fishes in the harbour supposedly being poisoned by tear gas and blue water from water canons.

Would it be better if we have no riots, so as not the need to use tear gas or water canons? 

The police shot some rounds rubber bullets at the start of the protest -- when it was still more a protest, back in June.  Since they were heavily criticised, they only resorted to use it again recently, when violence has escalated several levels above. 

Stop the blame game.

Indeed one of the ugliest qualities of Hong Kong exposed this summer is the blame game... much as the mishandling by the government on the whole thing, the pro-rioters sector always said the fault of the police and government, as if a gun was held on the rioters' head  to throw petrol bomb, to set fire, to damage the rail, or to go on to the streets to beat up the police and everyone who dares to disagree.

Those policemen who have used undue violence or have been abusive will be investigated.  Just like the seven policemen who beat up a protestor during the Occupy Central who were sued and those found guilty by the court sentenced to prison.  As everyone who has broken the law should be. 

The sad facts are, our rule of law have been weakened for worse by the "違法達義 Go Against the Law for Justice ideology" from Occupy Central which directly cause what happening today.  And I've not engaged in discussion with my elderly friend cos I would be seen as the "them" against her and your "us"... I just treasure the friendship with her. 
 

[JovaJova]

@ Classycara,

Apologies if my previous post did come across as tarring you with a broad brush of supporting the current violence. That was not my real intention. Clearly we are all talking to people on a daily basis who have differing views of what is happening. I personally cannot comprehend what these people are doing to their own city and their own people. The part that really tips it over the edge for me is the hatred towards anything or anyone Chinese. Beating up Chinese people for being Chinese, destroying Chinese institutions throughout the city. This is such an incredibly sad development to the movement. I also abhor the narrative that seeks to paint China as the devil in this scenario. It is unfounded fear mongering.

Having lived in Hong Kong for over six years now, the Hong Kong I know is one of the safest cities in the world and Hong Kongers themselves are some of the most timid people you could ever meet. What is pushing them to lose their minds and risk their future like this is difficult to fully comprehend. It is so incredibly sad watching this truly unique city tear itself apart.

It is not for me to talk about universal suffrage, this was already done to death earlier in the thread. What I see is a city with an extremely high level of democracy and autonomy with a population who are letting their unknown future and social ills turn into fear and ultimately this violence.

My view on the police is that I sympathise heavily with the current plight they find themselves in. Having watched hour upon hour of live footage, day after day, my own view is that the police are showing remarkable restraint in the face of extreme goading from the rioters (thousands of petrol bombs as an example). Quite clearly there will be wrongs on both sides and I am sure there are very valid complaints from the rioters that the police have been overly aggressive in certain situations. But my watching of the situation sees the rioters as the aggressors, not the police.  There is already an independent police complaints commission in Hong Kong, the rioters just choose to not accept that it is independent.

[classycarra]

The police shot some rounds rubber bullets at the start of the protest -- when it was still more a protest, back in June.  Since they were heavily criticised, they only resorted to use it again recently, when violence has escalated several levels above. 

The police shot a journalist, wearing a high visibility press vest, from 12 metres away at the start of October. Of course she wasn't being violent. On that day police say they fired 900 rubber bullets and 1400 tear gas rounds (source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49910636)

You're forgetting the added context that even if that were the case about rarely resorting to rubber bullets since then, they have resorted to using live rounds. So it's not exactly an example of deescalation or restraint.

Stop the blame game.

Indeed one of the ugliest qualities of Hong Kong exposed this summer is the blame game... much as the mishandling by the government on the whole thing, the pro-rioters sector always said the fault of the police and government, as if a gun was held on the rioters' head  to throw petrol bomb, to set fire, to damage the rail, or to go on to the streets to beat up the police and everyone who dares to disagree.

Absolutely. People seem to forget that the person on the other side is still a fellow human.

Those policemen who have used undue violence or have been abusive will be investigated.  Just like the seven policemen who beat up a protestor during the Occupy Central who were sued and those found guilty by the court sentenced to prison.  As everyone who has broken the law should be.

Would love to be wrong, but I can't say I agree with you here. Do you have any evidence of serious and neutral/non-political investigation? What examples do we have so far of neutral investigation and prosecution of police officers in the past six months?

The man who used his motorbike to knock down protesters this week is suspended and under investigation 'by police officers at the New Territories headquarters' - can one rationally expect the investigation to be neutral?

You mentioned the use of blue dyed water - why did police shoot these people outside a mosque? Why, after they dispersed, were they then shot as moving away from the cannon? Is the officer in charge of the cannon under investigation (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hong_Kong_Police_Attack_Kowloon_Mosque.gif )

As you said, we need to end the blame game - it's important to also note that the rule of law has been significantly weakened by law enforcement and the government too.

[classycarra]

@ Classycara,

Apologies if my previous post did come across as tarring you with a broad brush of supporting the current violence. That was not my real intention.

Cheers for explaining and apologising mate. I know it wasn't your intention at all, I just wanted to illustrate how easily we humans can fall into the 'us and them' trap of thinking someone who views things differently is inherently wrong or must hold other negative views that are associated with 'them'. Before we'd even kicked off our discussion you had unintentionally considered me as someone holding a very hostile view.

I appreciate both you and Mercury posting by the way. It must have been an incredibly emotional week, in an already difficult year.

Quite clearly there will be wrongs on both sides and I am sure there are very valid complaints from the rioters that the police have been overly aggressive in certain situations. But my watching of the situation sees the rioters as the aggressors, not the police.  There is already an independent police complaints commission in Hong Kong, the rioters just choose to not accept that it is independent.

The UN Human Rights Commission have said the IPCC lacks independence. Given it's members are all politically appointed by the Chief Executive and Lam's predecessors, and it can't even summon witnesses to investigate, I'm inclined to agree with the UN and the protesters.

Funnily enough Barry Chin Chi-yung, an anti-Occupy politician and activist, was appointed to the 'independent' commission in 2015.

Source :If you'll excuse the wikipedia link (used because the UN website is a PDF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Police_Complaints_Council#cite_ref-7

It is not for me to talk about universal suffrage, this was already done to death earlier in the thread. What I see is a city with an extremely high level of democracy and autonomy with a population who are letting their unknown future and social ills turn into fear and ultimately this violence.

The Economist's intellegence unit labels it a 'flawed democracy' and ranks it 71st in the world. You and I clearly have divergent views of what counts as "extremely high levels of democracy and autonomy"
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2131385/hong-kong-ties-namibia-and-paraguay-flawed-democracies-city

Do you have suffrage Jova?

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Just to quickly broach your point and Mercury's contextualising of the gunshots into protesters, I understand why the shots have taken place. As is the case around the world, cowards who are given guns are still cowards only now they are dangerous both to other people and to themselves. The traffic policeman shooting the 21 year old unarmed protester this week. Sure, maybe he was shitting himself that his gun was going to be taken. I can understand the concern. But why the fuck has that policeman been deployed with a gun? It's not good policing and it's dangerous predominantly for protesters, but also for the police.

Perhaps an inquiry could look into things such as the use/requirements for arms by HK police. It could look at off duty/non deployed police turning up at arranged protests with their weapons (or using their vehicles as weapons). It could examine why the police seemed not to mind gangsters beating up a train full of civilians. It could examine what the police are doing sending police in to violently engage with violent protesters, and work out why they've done that, and examine whether all those orders did was risk the police getting split up and being set upon all for the sake of beating up and maybe arresting a few people.

A big part of the reason for things turning more openly violent and hostile has been the open antagonism and violence of police, and their 'us and them' mentality which long precedes the protests recent more violent turn. Of course there have been many days of protest where police havent shot or brutalised a protester, but it seems an inconvenient fact is being ignored. HK police were launching tear gas, firing rubber bullets, dressed up in militarised riot gear, and beating up on people during their arrests for simply being present at a protest from pretty much the start of the demonstrations this year. To ignore the effect that has in terms of people's faith in the police and the government and faith in the rule of law, and to ignore their normalisation of violence being a contributor to violent weeks like this last one seems massively disingenuous to me.

Just to address the shooting by the policeman as I saw the vid recently:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-zINR8YZHo

Full vid,  including shot. The sequence was,  at the start,  you can see that he's just chased off a few,  white hoodie walks right up,  the policeman doesn't fire when he's already entitled to,  subdues white hoodie,  black hoodie walks right up, reaches for the gun,  the officer uses his shot.

It was not some random loss of control,   it was controlled,  with the shot as the last option.

These kids aren' t brave walking up to a gun, it's pointed at you to warn you,  take the information and back off. But no.

No enforcement unit is going to find him guilty,  if anything he'll be commended for not taking the first shot.

The rest of your queries / analysis about carrying live ammunition work just fine in peacetime.  At this point though,  the police are facing arrows,  petrol bombs etc.  There are things to look at in terms of how they got here,  but at this point,  if you're not packing live ammunition you're not being run properly.

All things considered,  the HK police aren't the issue anymore imo,  even if they could have done things better at the beginning.  I find the restraint shown in the latter phase remarkable.

[Sangria]

Just to quickly broach your point and Mercury's contextualising of the gunshots into protesters, I understand why the shots have taken place. As is the case around the world, cowards who are given guns are still cowards only now they are dangerous both to other people and to themselves. The traffic policeman shooting the 21 year old unarmed protester this week. Sure, maybe he was shitting himself that his gun was going to be taken. I can understand the concern. But why the fuck has that policeman been deployed with a gun? It's not good policing and it's dangerous predominantly for protesters, but also for the police.

Aren't all HK police armed as a matter of course?

[classycarra]

Aren't all HK police armed as a matter of course?

Yep. And we're seeing now how dangerous that is.

[classycarra]

Full vid,  including shot. The sequence was,  at the start,  you can see that he's just chased off a few,  white hoodie walks right up,  the policeman doesn't fire when he's already entitled to

You live in the US, don't you? Must be truly desensitised to gun violence to suggest that he's entitled to shoot an unarmed guy for taking a few steps towards him.

Also in the interest of clarity, you can say white hoodie walks up and HK policeman also steps into him after choosing not to back away to where his colleague is safely standing

,  subdues white hoodie,

Laughable use of "subdue". Guy steps into white hoodie who has his hands down and grabs him so that there is now a guaranteed scuffle when there wasn't one (but perhaps could have become one) before.

black hoodie walks right up, reaches for the gun,  the officer uses his shot.

Looks a lot more like slapping it away from being pointed directly at him than reaching for it, though I can understand the police officer's fear after he escalated things.

It was not some random loss of control,   it was controlled,  with the shot as the last option.

Yes it wasn't random, but no that wasn't a case of exploring all the options before taking the final option to shoot someone.

Police unsafely moving in to engage unarmed person instead of regrouping with his colleague. Not a single warning shot. No cooperation with the second officer to diffuse the closer coming together that the first officer ensured.

The control on show that you mention was how to use a gun to hurt people on the off chance you might be physically engaged. One would hope/demand that their armed police were more thoughtful than fearful - firstly in terms of easing/quelling unrest instead of provoking it and secondly in their use of extreme force.

These kids aren' t brave walking up to a gun, it's pointed at you to warn you,  take the information and back off. But no.

I don't think anyone claimed the kids were brave, although it's obvious that the guy who got shot is a less fearful and more brave individual than the policeman who grabbed the boy in white and then shot him for standing close to him.

All things considered,  the HK police aren't the issue anymore imo,  even if they could have done things better at the beginning.  I find the restraint shown in the latter phase remarkable.

Easy to say and plenty to agree with, in terms of triaging the scale of the problems now, but if you survey the people in HK not active in rioting now I'm sure you wouldn't find such simple analysis as 'the HK police aren't the problem anymore'. Nor is it possible to assess the situation in such a vacuum of 'oh well yeah the police did some shit a while back but this is way worse'. It's recency bias for a start. And on top of that us and them rhetoric like this isn't conducive to sorting out the problems in HK at the moment, including violent police and violent rioters.

[mercury]

Yep. And we're seeing now how dangerous that is.

I do not agree and Jova and Surfer has responded.  I'll leave people to make their own call on whether it's police restraint or violence.

A flawed democracy -- so flawed that the freedoms, rule of law, safety etc we enjoy are on par if not more than the western developed democracies?

Until the riots, that is. 

Now, common people like me in real danger if I say I'm a Chinese on the street.    Family of the police being threaten for being the family of the police  --  police residential quarters surrounded and vandalised, threats on the internet "the family will pay" (I feel dirty just by writing it.)

Which is more flawed? 

I'll run a thousand miles from a "democracy" run by these rioters and their supporters. 

[classycarra]

I do not agree and Jova and Surfer has responded.  I'll leave people to make their own call on whether it's police restraint or violence.

That's not what I'm talking about. Do you not agree that every officer carrying a gun, instead of only residing with specialists, has exacerbated violence recently?

A flawed democracy -- so flawed that the freedoms, rule of law, safety etc we enjoy are on par if not more than the western developed democracies?

Be interested in reading some analysis and evidence for this claim.

I'll run a thousand miles from a "democracy" run by these rioters and their supporters. 

It sounds like something you have plenty in common with protesters who are fed up with "democracy" run by Carrie Lam et al then

Now, common people like me in real danger if I say I'm a Chinese on the street.    Family of the police being threaten for being the family of the police  --  police residential quarters surrounded and vandalised, threats on the internet "the family will pay" (I feel dirty just by writing it.)

Yep, that's horrible to hear. That's why it's vitally important that people in HK come together and work on what they have in common, and work to negotiate with everyone in order to improve things for everyone there.

Things can't keep escalating. The solution isn't in saying 'well it's all the protesters/police fault, therefore noone else needs to take responsibility for their actions'.

[mercury]

Be interested in reading some analysis and evidence for this claim.

 

freedom of press, freedom of speech, safest city in the world, rule of law... you go research.

We do not have that one pure vote, this is sure

[classycarra]

 

freedom of press, freedom of speech, safest city in the world, rule of law... you go research.

We do not have that one pure vote, this is sure

I did, I gave you the link. It ranks 75 in the world, and discredits your suggestion that it's more democratic than much of the western world. It's ranked as a 'flawed democracy'. It cites a lack of press freedom too.

Sure it's (usually) very safe, but I would have thought you'd agree that electoral systems and institutional independence rank as a far more pertinent measure of democracy

[Sangria]

That's not what I'm talking about. Do you not agree that every officer carrying a gun, instead of only residing with specialists, has exacerbated violence recently?
 
Be interested in reading some analysis and evidence for this claim.
It sounds like something you have plenty in common with protesters who are fed up with "democracy" run by Carrie Lam et al then
Yep, that's horrible to hear. That's why it's vitally important that people in HK come together and work on what they have in common, and work to negotiate with everyone in order to improve things for everyone there.

Things can't keep escalating. The solution isn't in saying 'well it's all the protesters/police fault, therefore noone else needs to take responsibility for their actions'.

The violence doesn't seem that much worse, if at all, than the 1960s, when it was Communists wanting the foreign British out and Hong Kong returned to China. Nowadays it's the Chinese out and Hong Kong returned to the British. The common theme seems to be that violent demonstrations are mainly driven by students.

I think we Brits are spoiled by a history of peaceful protest. If anything, Hong Kong seems to look to the rather more muscular Parisian history of protests. There's certainly a filmic tradition of referencing periods of violent protests (meaning the 1960s in the past, and I suspect the current period in the future), which there is no analogue for in the UK.

[mercury]

By the way, just discovered I miss the question about every policeman carrying a gun which may excerbate the situation here.

No.  The question is a red herring as Hong Kong police has never been gun slinging shot happy like the US.  Indeed we have every patrolling officer carrying a gun, at least for men since the 70's (that when I know something when I was a kid) and later for all ie including women later in the 80's or 90's and never have had any problem.  The problem is the violence on the street. 

[classycarra]

By the way, just discovered I miss the question about every policeman carrying a gun which may excerbate the situation here.

No.  The question is a red herring as Hong Kong police has never been gun slinging shot happy like the US.  Indeed we have every patrolling officer carrying a gun, at least for men since the 70's (that when I know something when I was a kid) and later for all ie including women later in the 80's or 90's and never have had any problem.  The problem is the violence on the street. 

But I wasn't talking about the periods of peace, nor did I claim they are trigger happy. "Never had any problems" is objectively incorrect, given the past six months. It seems pretty clear from HK police statements that fear of losing their firearm has played a key role in the shooting of several unarmed (and one armed) protesters by HK police. I would have thought that made it pretty self evident.

[Kashinoda]

@ Classycara,

Apologies if my previous post did come across as tarring you with a broad brush of supporting the current violence. That was not my real intention. Clearly we are all talking to people on a daily basis who have differing views of what is happening. I personally cannot comprehend what these people are doing to their own city and their own people. The part that really tips it over the edge for me is the hatred towards anything or anyone Chinese. Beating up Chinese people for being Chinese, destroying Chinese institutions throughout the city. This is such an incredibly sad development to the movement. I also abhor the narrative that seeks to paint China as the devil in this scenario. It is unfounded fear mongering.

Having lived in Hong Kong for over six years now, the Hong Kong I know is one of the safest cities in the world and Hong Kongers themselves are some of the most timid people you could ever meet. What is pushing them to lose their minds and risk their future like this is difficult to fully comprehend. It is so incredibly sad watching this truly unique city tear itself apart.

It is not for me to talk about universal suffrage, this was already done to death earlier in the thread. What I see is a city with an extremely high level of democracy and autonomy with a population who are letting their unknown future and social ills turn into fear and ultimately this violence.

My view on the police is that I sympathise heavily with the current plight they find themselves in. Having watched hour upon hour of live footage, day after day, my own view is that the police are showing remarkable restraint in the face of extreme goading from the rioters (thousands of petrol bombs as an example). Quite clearly there will be wrongs on both sides and I am sure there are very valid complaints from the rioters that the police have been overly aggressive in certain situations. But my watching of the situation sees the rioters as the aggressors, not the police.  There is already an independent police complaints commission in Hong Kong, the rioters just choose to not accept that it is independent.

I've been a frequent visitor to Hong Kong for the best part of two decades and I've lived and worked out there too. I've had friends involved in the some of the early protests, others who have decided to leave and one that's asked me for a 'way out' to the UK.

In this thread you've painted Hong Kong as a lovely place to live and that these youngsters are throwing their future away for nothing. Hong Kong maybe a nice place to live if you're an expat living in Mid Levels or  Discovery Bay but for you're average civilian it's fucking shit and has gotten progressively more so at a rapid rate.

There's a whole lot as to why this has happened but chief among them is China's tightening of the grip. China used to be hands off, Hong Kong was the gateway to the West and a prized asset. But as China grew, Hong Kong becoming less important, upsetting the apple cart no longer seemed a huge risk. The border has been slowly eroding through the last decade, China is systematically influencing all parts of society. Since you've been living in Hong Kong you'll only have ever known that the Chinese national anthem plays before the nightly news - and that that news is now in Mandarin. When I was there in 2008 both of these were not true. That's just a tip in the iceberg really.

I mean if you take a look at the polling data you could see this coming a mile off, the extradition bill was the straw that broke the camel's back:


To try and make out people are being brainwashed and that China is somehow the good guy here is baffling. Yes it's escalated to ridiculous levels but it was allowed to get here in the first place.

You didn't bother replying to my earlier post about the ethnic cleansing and concentration camps in Xinjiang, or the big brother social scoring system being rolled out in the mainland. The Chinese government are deplorable in every way, there's no nuance here. If I was a youngster in Hong Kong I'd be massively fucking worried about my future too.

[skipper757]

Disclaimer:  Chinese-American here (went to HK earlier this year but not up to date)

I think some of the frustration from HKers at the protests is some of the senseless activity that happens.  Now things have clearly escalated, and the HKPF have significant culpability here.

Anti-extradition bill protest turns violent in Hong Kong (June 12)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHyJpdxPNVY

Protesters storm Hong Kong legislature (SCMP July 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwri6IdskNo

Hongkongers sympathize with LegCo Vandals (SCMP July 4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiGXNuw5Ino

Rod-wielding mob launches brutal attack on protesters in Hong Kong station (SCMP July 12)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtfZeC8ltfs

Things escalated, and the police were useless in the July 12 attack.  You see HKers support the protesters.  The trust in the police went down significantly and rightfully so.

But what has concerned some is the violence and disruption that's seen today that causes chaos among the general population.  Stories of people being attacked for speaking Mandarin, a Japanese tourist attacked because it was thought he was from the mainland, someone being set on fire, someone hit by a brick in the clashes.

Here's some of the videos:

Hong Kong protesters are 'baying for blood' as mobs attack civilians (Sky News September 22:  WARNING:  video has violence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk4P1oeItOA

Chinese office worker punched by Hong Kong protesters (CNA Singapore October 6)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfVlZrHx1c

Hong Kong protesters set fire to Christmas tree in Festival Walk mall (CNA Singapore November 13)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHoWZgKvuA

Hong Kong protesters throw molotov cocktails at police and set Christmas tree alight (Telegraph November 13; don't really want to link the Telegraph here but it's a Western news source covering)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXVQNyDDpgA

Hong Kong protests: student shot and man set on fire during clashes (The Guardian November 11; WARNING of violence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk-6atPXx1U

Elderly woman vents frustration at Hong Kong protesters (SCMP October 7)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPYuGYLesx0

Chinese soldiers and residents help clear streets after a week of intense protest in Hong Kong (SCMP November 16)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qri9ac3E3dM

The police and government inaction (and incompetence) clearly contributed to the escalation, but setting civilians on fire?  Christmas tree on fire?  Punching people?
The PLA being involved in clean up is questionable (there's some legal grey area here as they're garrisoned in HK but can only do certain things), but that video doesn't exactly paint the protesters in a good light, especially if that's a group throwing flaming objects at civilians in the street.

The protests aren't just people demonstrating in front of the legislature or at universities, etc, but it devolved into groups causing potential harm for everyday people, especially for those that don't support the protests.  Some in Hong Kong may be asking why protesters are doing some of these things?

Here's an interview summary with a student protester activist (Joey Siu) in the DW (German news) with some quotes below.  I haven't listened to the entire interview, so maybe some of this has been taken out of context (you'd hope so), but here it is anyway:
https://www.dw.com/en/hong-kong-will-violence-kill-the-pro-democracy-movement/a-51134455

At one point, she says one of the principles among protesters is "about no splitting and no condemning any of our protesters, even though the level of violence they use seems to be … escalating."

The protests originated in a democratic fashion against a legislature/government that was overstepping, but the protests today may concern some Hong Kong residents, even those that support the protests and are against the CCP.

I don't know the situation on the ground, but if violence continues, it could divide the population, which will play right into the CCP's hands.

Protesters Mood

I listened to Ira Glass' This American Life radio program, which had a series of stories on the HK protests, with interviews with HK protesters, which follows them through Hong Kong on their protests.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/686/umbrellas-up

I listened to a few of the acts as part of this special.  Act I was interesting as it interviews HKers born in 1997 (year of the handover) as part of the "Cursed Generation."  You can definitely hear their frustration and sadness from them as they fear for their future.  But there's also a sense of "us vs. them" that I don't think helps.

The story of more Mandarin being spoken than Cantonese (as Kashinoda also noted above) was definitely interesting.  But what the program fails to note is that Cantonese is well.... Chinese.  Ira Glass tells listeners that Cantonese is spoken in HK and Mandarin is what is spoken on the mainland, but it is more complicated than that.  But right away it sets up a "us vs. them" mentality to the listener.  Another part of the Act I (where Glass even warns listeners of bigoted views) has a protester explain just how much she can't stand mainlanders, calling them "less civilized," "weird," and how she can't stand to be around them.  Once again, it's a "us vs. them" mentality.  The mainlanders have a perception that HK has a superiority attitude towards mainlanders.  I always thought that was way overblown.  I mean, there's no doubt HK has been far more advanced over the years and has a much higher standard of living , but I didn't really think too much of it.  After all, real estate tycoons, business people, store owners, cab drivers, etc will woo mainlanders to spend money in HK.  But this young activist's view was pretty eye-opening, and I wonder how many of the stories of protesters beating people up for speaking Mandarin are true.  I mean, if people are harboring these types of views with us vs. them mentality, it makes it more believable (even if I found some of the stories dubious at first). 

The activist interviewed here also calls her generation brave and criticizes her parents' generation for not protesting.  It seems like a perfect connection to the frustration of young people worldwide ("Ok Boomer").  But what fails to be included is context.  If she was born in 1997 and assuming her parents were 30 when they had her, what and when were they supposed to protest?  Let's say in 1984 (during the talks) when they weren't even adults?  Who would HKers protest then?  Thatcher?  Deng?  CCP?  The Tories?  The Colonial Governor?  The Queen?  By the time it was the handover in 1997, her parents were, you know, pregnant with her and preoccupied with her upbringing.  Even then, China in 1997 was very different than China in 1967 or 1984.  Some HKers may have hoped that as China continued to liberalize, they would be ok.  The intrusions have happened more recently, so it seemed unfair that she were so angry at her parents for not doing enough.  It still feels like a "us vs. them" mentality.

The frustration is palpable and understandable.  After all, Hong Kong is regarded as a success and a miracle.  But it was a British colony that would eventually be returned to a less democratic, less liberal government.  Its location as a gateway to the mainland with British freedoms gave it rise as one of the most successful cities in the world.  But the British never gave HKers citizenship.  Nor did they give HKers much of an option on return to the mainland (nor did it have any choice really).  The CCP needs to respect "1 country, 2 systems," and indeed that's where it and the HK government has failed its citizens.  It's no surprise there's anger among the young generation.  But in the end, governments and politicians care about their own interests.  Look at Ted Cruz making a big PR move out of the HK protests.  Does he truly care about democracy and freedoms?  Maybe American citizens do, but his past actions suggest that he works for his own interests.  Supporting HK protests helps with public sentiment in America, particularly ahead of the 2020 elections, especially amidst a trade war.  But if China and the US work out an agreement (e.g. China removes some tariffs on Iowa farm products, removes Carrie Lam and replaces her with another Beijing puppet, and pulls out of some merger deals, and USA removes some tariffs and pulls the HK Democracy Bill), then Hong Kong will have no say anyway.

It's really tough.  There could be a perception that the protests will harm Hong Kong's economy and in turn its leverage.  Right now, Hong Kong is still very important to the CCP and also provides a haven for mainlanders to invest, move money, etc.  Hong Kong is vital, regardless of what mainlanders might say.  But there's no doubt China is trying to push up Shanghai, Shenzhen, and other cities.  If Hong Kong loses economic influence, its leverage against mainland China decreases.  If it's no longer as strategically important, it'll receive even less international support.  Look at other protests around the world.  Some of those governments are western allies and some aren't.  There's a lot of anti-democratic behavior, but those places are not as influential or mainstream, so politicians don't use them as leverage nearly as much.  But if the protesters do nothing, then China can encroach further and further, and there will be nothing the protesters can do years down the road anyway.

And that's the point I think.  Protesters don't see any future.  Countries don't want to upset the CCP, so they posture and play games (which the CCP is happy to partake in), but HK slips slowly away.  The police have escalated, and some protesters respond in kind.  The protesters have a "us vs. them" and "now or never' mentality, which rubs some initial supporters the wrong way.  Many civilians are angry and tired of the disruptions.  The protesters may get isolated, and it only strengthens their resolve.  Meanwhile, the inept government does little, the CCP sits back, and western governments profess their "support" ahead of elections, but it'll get swept away when they can bargain with the CCP.

I think the protesters can continue to win hearts and minds, but only if they tone down some of the senseless stuff and act more willing to negotiate (or at least seem more willing to talk).  Continue to put pressure on Lam and the government through public channels and support.  The lack of leaders that can influence the movement probably doesn't help either.  It just seems to be spiraling out of the control.

Throwing molotov cocktails at police and civilians won't do them any good.

[mercury]

I've been a frequent visitor to Hong Kong for the best part of two decades and I've lived and worked out there too. I've had friends involved in the some of the early protests, others who have decided to leave and one that's asked me for a 'way out' to the UK.

In this thread you've painted Hong Kong as a lovely place to live and that these youngsters are throwing their future away for nothing. Hong Kong maybe a nice place to live if you're an expat living in Mid Levels or  Discovery Bay but for you're average civilian it's fucking shit and has gotten progressively more so at a rapid rate.

There's a whole lot as to why this has happened but chief among them is China's tightening of the grip. China used to be hands off, Hong Kong was the gateway to the West and a prized asset. But as China grew, Hong Kong becoming less important, upsetting the apple cart no longer seemed a huge risk. The border has been slowly eroding through the last decade, China is systematically influencing all parts of society. Since you've been living in Hong Kong you'll only have ever known that the Chinese national anthem plays before the nightly news - and that that news is now in Mandarin. When I was there in 2008 both of these were not true. That's just a tip in the iceberg really.

I mean if you take a look at the polling data you could see this coming a mile off, the extradition bill was the straw that broke the camel's back:


To try and make out people are being brainwashed and that China is somehow the good guy here is baffling. Yes it's escalated to ridiculous levels but it was allowed to get here in the first place.

You didn't bother replying to my earlier post about the ethnic cleansing and concentration camps in Xinjiang, or the big brother social scoring system being rolled out in the mainland. The Chinese government are deplorable in every way, there's no nuance here. If I was a youngster in Hong Kong I'd be massively fucking worried about my future too.

Hong Kong is not Xinjiang and we have all the freedoms except for that one vote.  I am not dressing up China and its flaws but to emulate us to Xinjiang is rubbish.

I fully understand the difficulties of living in Hong Kong. I'm one of those not abling to buy a flat when all my mates, my generation, have done.   

But to use all these to justify the violence of the rioters? I have more respect if they go throw a petrol bomb on Carrie Lam's residence.  But no, they are taking it out on the common people and already an innocent old man has died at their hands and barely acknowledged. Yes Hong Kong people have shown some qualities in the recent events - persistence, organization, etc, but the uglinesses are equally if not more damning. 

I fully understand the underlying factor is the refusal to accept Hong Kong as part of China.  This is naive and the self delusion of the rioters and their supporters are quite on display:  "not using China's water, electricity, or buying the pork and food"  They can't even not take a shower every day. ..."Hong Kong is irreplacable and China will buckle".  Please get informed or a brain check.  Do they know that London has surpassed Hong Kong as the largest offshore RMB centre, by a margin? 

This and all the violence  would not bring anything progressive to Hong Kong. Learning to deal and  negotiate with China will.  We do - or "did", after the riots - have some leverage. 

I had high hopes when Civic Party first came into being, as someone who could represent the people to engage and negotiate with China.  But no, like all other elected democrats they push China away at every opportunity.  Source of financials is one reason, and the psyche of the people that elected them is the key.  And I'll not bore everyone - and myself - with the local political and social dynamics.  Hong Kong people have been behaving like a mixture of an ostrich in the sand and a spoilt child.  So we are where we are today and we shall get worse not better, for a long time.

With this, I rest my case one more time.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

I'm not in the US.

Disagree with pretty much all of that,  and that's just fine.

There's a whole lot as to why this has happened but chief among them is China's tightening of the grip. China used to be hands off, Hong Kong was the gateway to the West and a prized asset. But as China grew, Hong Kong becoming less important, upsetting the apple cart no longer seemed a huge risk. The border has been slowly eroding through the last decade, China is systematically influencing all parts of society. Since you've been living in Hong Kong you'll only have ever known that the Chinese national anthem plays before the nightly news - and that that news is now in Mandarin. When I was there in 2008 both of these were not true. That's just a tip in the iceberg really.

The crux of it,  is how does China exerting its influence affect the quality of life of Hong Kongers,  isn't it.  Now through work I'm acquainted with the financial sectors of both countries,  but no more.  Issues for the poor and middle class with Hong Kong' s real estate prices,  cost of living,  social safety net,  medical access are well documented, and I've heard of the first two issues since the 90s.


As far as I'm aware:
The HKMA sets the interest rates,  which control access to credit,  significantly affecting the real estate ecosystem.  Your various government departments set the funding and initiatives for low cost housing,  supervise the real estate industry,   decide on your social safety net,  your medical system.

What has China done to the above after 1997 to cause the fear and worry you see now?  I promise not to randomly interject with google,    I would actually like to listen to what the likes of you,  Jova and especially mercury have to say(iirc she has already talked about the real estate tycoons having undue influence over the market)

[JovaJova]

I'm not in the US.

Disagree with pretty much all of that,  and that's just fine.

The crux of it,  is how does China exerting its influence affect the quality of life of Hong Kongers,  isn't it.  Now through work I'm acquainted with the financial sectors of both countries,  but no more.  Issues for the poor and middle class with Hong Kong' s real estate prices,  cost of living,  social safety net,  medical access are well documented, and I've heard of the first two issues since the 90s.

As far as I'm aware:
The HKMA sets the interest rates,  which control access to credit,  significantly affecting the real estate ecosystem.  Your various government departments set the funding and initiatives for low cost housing,  supervise the real estate industry,   decide on your social safety net,  your medical system.

What has China done to the above after 1997 to cause the fear and worry you see now?  I promise not to randomly interject with google,    I would actually like to listen to what the likes of you,  Jova and especially mercury have to say(iirc she has already talked about the real estate tycoons having undue influence over the market)

I would love to hear more on this particular question from Kashinoda as well. How does anything that China have done to Hong Kong impact the lives of the average Hong Kong kid you see out obliterating TST tonight ?

I can only share my experience (which admittedly is one of an expat only), but I live in a city that feels 100% free in almost every meaningful and conceivable way from freedom of speech to an independent judiciary to freedom of trade. I barely remember even seeing a policeman in 5 years before the rioters appeared. It is / was one of the safest cities in the world. Almost no tax, ridiculously cheap public healthcare etc. I don't feel even 0.000000001% of China's shadow creeping into anything that happens in daily life.

@ Kashinoda, nobody can defend China's human rights abuses, both past and present. But this has no relevance to what is currently happening in Hong Kong, other than the fact that the fear of an unknown future is permeating into violence. Hong Kong is the golden goose and favoured child. It held all the aces before this carnage began. China is an easy target, especially among the foreign media, but the underlying root causes are all Hong Kong's own. And China are leaving Hong Kong to try to sort out their own mess (for the time being at least) which clearly isn't going great. The social issues are no different to those that manifest in most countries in the world with the difference in Hong Kong being the enormous and rapid success of capitalism that has resulted in this massive income inequality gap, and the scarcity of land and housing resulting in the most expensive property market in the world.  This has nothing to do with China other than China is a key contributor to Hong Kong's success.

The sad irony of what is now happening is that the rioters have become the very thing they say are protesting against, an oppressive anti democratic mob.

[classycarra]

Do you work in the financial services sector Jova?

[Kashinoda]

I haven't actually said the current situation is justified, most of my input on this thread came when the situation was more 'reasonable'. I've chimed back in because of what I can see are misconceptions about Hong Kong and China.

To say Hong Kong's social problems are nothing to do with China is a paradoxical statement. The widely known issues (housing, social care for the elderly, quality of life) get worse every year amidst a Beijing backed Chief Executive. The people don't have much power to change that (the crux of the issue), China is in control and people are being worked into the ground while the situation continues to slide.

I too always felt safe in Hong Kong but take a look around, people are fucking miserable, no one wants to have children and many live in a small flat with 3 generations to care for. I'm not even talking about the working class here, my ex earns £30,000 a year and is stuck like this.

Low tax is great but the model HK uses to generate public funds is to lease land to property tycoons and everything has skyrocketed - the system doesn't work any more. Imagine paying London rental prices in bloody Tuen Mun when 75% of the country you live in is unclaimed natural land begging to be used, land is not a scarcity. There's literally a market now for short stay rooms where young people can go and fuck, only in Hong Kong is this a necessity.

The whole thing is a mess and people are powerless. When you include things such as the extradition bill and other cultural changes China have been enforcing/attempting over the years (ranging from propaganda based curriculum changes to the attempted erosion of Cantonese and more) it all becomes a bit of a boiling pot - this was coming a mile off.

[Macphisto80]

Just to address the shooting by the policeman as I saw the vid recently:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-zINR8YZHo

Full vid,  including shot. The sequence was,  at the start,  you can see that he's just chased off a few,  white hoodie walks right up,  the policeman doesn't fire when he's already entitled to,  subdues white hoodie,  black hoodie walks right up, reaches for the gun,  the officer uses his shot.

It was not some random loss of control,   it was controlled,  with the shot as the last option.

These kids aren' t brave walking up to a gun, it's pointed at you to warn you,  take the information and back off. But no.

No enforcement unit is going to find him guilty,  if anything he'll be commended for not taking the first shot.

The rest of your queries / analysis about carrying live ammunition work just fine in peacetime.  At this point though,  the police are facing arrows,  petrol bombs etc.  There are things to look at in terms of how they got here,  but at this point,  if you're not packing live ammunition you're not being run properly.

All things considered,  the HK police aren't the issue anymore imo,  even if they could have done things better at the beginning.  I find the restraint shown in the latter phase remarkable.

Yeah, that was something that I noticed instantly, and was conveniently left out by the news over here. If you reach out and try to snap a gun away from a police man, or any other kind of armed force, then you can't complain when you get shot. He's lucky he didn't shoot him dead.

I'm actually amazed at the restraint the Chinese  amd HK police have shown in all of this. I mean, as has already been stated, these kids are running about wrecking everything in sight, and if you disagree with them, you're getting a kicking or worse. I saw a recent video of a man being doused in something and set on fire because he was in dispute with a group of them. Luckily he managed to get his clothes off, and he survived, but it was fucking atrocious to watch. Now more recently the protesters are upping the ante and have started using petrol bombs, crossbows and archery bows. Petrol bombs, bricks and slingshots, are one thing, but bows and arrows? Do they want to die or something?

[classycarra]

Yeah, that was something that I noticed instantly, and was conveniently left out by the news over here. If you reach out and try to snap a gun away from a police man, or any other kind of armed force, then you can't complain when you get shot. He's lucky he didn't shoot him dead.

On the other hand if you see an officer 'come back for more' once a situation is over - including stepping into and pressing a gun into a guys chest, before he then grabs him as a shield and points the gun at you - you might imagine that the guy is willing to use it regardless of your actions.

I don't think potentially pushing the gun away from being pointed right at you from a visibly erratic, stressed and scared officer is something crazy to do

[leroy]

I also abhor the narrative that seeks to paint China as the devil in this scenario. It is unfounded fear mongering.

I hesitate to pick out a small part of a large post but this caught my eye.  You think anxiety and fear of state apparatuses is "unfounded fear mongering"?  This at the same time over a million uighurs are in detention elsewhere in China?

[JovaJova]

I hesitate to pick out a small part of a large post but this caught my eye.  You think anxiety and fear of state apparatuses is "unfounded fear mongering"?  This at the same time over a million uighurs are in detention elsewhere in China?

Already addressed above. Two entirely unrelated events. If you live in Hong Kong you would know this.

[leroy]

Already addressed above. Two entirely unrelated events. If you live in Hong Kong you would know this.

I'm sorry but you can't divorce the current and historical actions of a government when considering civil unrest.  It's all inter-related.  If you are currently watching your government repress and brutalise a group of it's citizens then it is not unreasonable to be fearful that you might be in for some of that in the future.  I think it's particularly relevant given that the trigger for protests to start was the extradition law being introduced. I.e. The fear of the state removing people from their homes unlawfully/unethically (or however you want to phrase it) and imprisoning them.

If the situation had started as it is now - increasingly violent & destructive - then perhaps you could look at it in isolation but that's not what happened right?  This round of unrest started (as is my understanding) entirely peacefully but was essentially ignored by local and Beijing authorities.  The spiral from there to where we are now is pretty predictable no?  The narratives on both sides could have been written before the first protester left their home.

[Redcap]

I'm sorry but you can't divorce the current and historical actions of a government when considering civil unrest.  It's all inter-related.  If you are currently watching your government repress and brutalise a group of it's citizens then it is not unreasonable to be fearful that you might be in for some of that in the future.  I think it's particularly relevant given that the trigger for protests to start was the extradition law being introduced. I.e. The fear of the state removing people from their homes unlawfully/unethically (or however you want to phrase it) and imprisoning them.

If the situation had started as it is now - increasingly violent & destructive - then perhaps you could look at it in isolation but that's not what happened right?  This round of unrest started (as is my understanding) entirely peacefully but was essentially ignored by local and Beijing authorities.  The spiral from there to where we are now is pretty predictable no?  The narratives on both sides could have been written before the first protester left their home.

I'd agree with that.

I think there's plenty of cause for the anxiety on the part of the protesters and they were well within their rights to protest peacefully for as long as they liked. It took a lot of gumption for them to stand up to the extradition bill and they were successful in getting it withdrawn. That's as good an example of direct action making a difference as you can find in recent history.

Where they've lost me though, is the violence. There's no world in which anyone sets another civilian on fire for disagreeing with you politically, and you get my support.

I sympathise with the protesters' cause. I'm inspired by their bravery and their passion. But with all due respect I think what's happening now, can no longer be regarded as a peaceful protest movement, much less a protest movement that represents a majority of Hong Kong.

We're no longer seeing the millions of people marching that we saw in June. What we're seeing is remnants of the movement - the most angry and diehard. That I also don't have a problem with, except that I think these guys are feeding off each other's vitriol and increasingly willing to escalate matters further and further - an angry, violent mob.

I'm reading some comments online about the police wanting an excuse to turn this into Tiananmen, which reflects such a poor understanding of the situation. The Hong Kong police don't want to slaughter their fellow Hong Kongers, because that's mad. And for that matter, the CCP (which I have no love for) doesn't want to massacre anyone, because it would cause tremendous harm to its legitimacy on the world stage. And besides, if they needed an excuse, I think police getting shot by arrows plus many more getting injured is probably more than sufficient excuse to start spraying bullets in the heat of a skirmish. And that's why we haven't seen any kind of uncontrolled bloodshed. The media is reporting on the tear gas and rubber bullets, as if they cross some sort of unalienable human rights line, when these are very standard tools of managing a disorderly and violent crowd.

But with all that said, I feel like this is reaching a point where bloodshed might become inevitable. As more and more protesters drop off because they've run out of gas or don't want to continue risking their freedom, we're only going to see the pool of protesters that remain getting more and more radical. At that point, how will the police actually keep things under control? I think the worst case scenario, which isn't out of a question, given the heightened state of emotions, is a mass suicide during a standoff like the one at Polytechnic University. That's the sort of outcome that police will not be able to do anything about.

[leroy]

At some point it becomes self fulfilling or an orchestrated disaster depending on how much agitation from police or government you believe has taken place. 

As you say the people left out there are the most angry, the most diehard but also the most fearful, the most desperate, the most despairing of the future.  If you've already been flagged for non-violent protest as "rioters" then what is the barrier to actual rioting?  From there every additional act (from both sides) just leads inevitably to here.  I'm not trying to excuse the all of the violence from the protesters.  I just think that it's the logical progression based on what the Hong Kong government & CCP have done.

You say the Police and CCP don't want to slaughter anyone and that is undoubtedly true. However the specter of Tiananmen is real.  I'm sure the troops involved didn't want to kill. I'm sure the CCP didn't want to order it.  However they did order it, and they did slaughter those people.

 Like you I don't see this ending without a serious tragedy (as though the deaths and injuries so far aren't bad enough).  Thought that as soon as I saw the live footage from the Legislative Council building being invaded.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Cheers for the detailed responses,  both.

[Redcap]

At some point it becomes self fulfilling or an orchestrated disaster depending on how much agitation from police or government you believe has taken place. 

As you say the people left out there are the most angry, the most diehard but also the most fearful, the most desperate, the most despairing of the future.  If you've already been flagged for non-violent protest as "rioters" then what is the barrier to actual rioting?  From there every additional act (from both sides) just leads inevitably to here.  I'm not trying to excuse the all of the violence from the protesters.  I just think that it's the logical progression based on what the Hong Kong government & CCP have done.

You say the Police and CCP don't want to slaughter anyone and that is undoubtedly true. However the specter of Tiananmen is real.  I'm sure the troops involved didn't want to kill. I'm sure the CCP didn't want to order it.  However they did order it, and they did slaughter those people.

 Like you I don't see this ending without a serious tragedy (as though the deaths and injuries so far aren't bad enough).  Thought that as soon as I saw the live footage from the Legislative Council building being invaded.

I think it's pretty clear that they're already rioters at this stage. They've been rioting since the first day they started smashing up businesses and throwing Molotov cocktails at trains. I'll tell you who never went this far until the very end - the Tiananmen protesters. You just have to accept that this is bad behaviour from these protesters and leave it at that. You can't blame all of the bad behaviour on both sides on the CCP.

As for the CCP not wanting to order the killing at Tiananmen, you have to remember that China was a very different country then with basically no international presence. The stakes are a lot higher now for them. And I also wouldn't be so quick to draw equivalence between the police and the PLA. Again, you have to remember that after over 5 months of rioting the police have killed exactly zero protesters, which is an amazing feat when they're up against genuinely angry, violent people. If they haven't killed anyone now, what do you think they're waiting for?

[classycarra]

Do you work in the financial services sector Jova?

Jova did you miss my question?

[Macphisto80]

On the other hand if you see an officer 'come back for more' once a situation is over - including stepping into and pressing a gun into a guys chest, before he then grabs him as a shield and points the gun at you - you might imagine that the guy is willing to use it regardless of your actions.

I don't think potentially pushing the gun away from being pointed right at you from a visibly erratic, stressed and scared officer is something crazy to do

He's brazenly, almost cockely, walking up to him despite him having a gun pointed at him - which most people would take as a sign to back off - and he tries to snatch the gun from his hand. I don't care where you're from, you do that anywhere and a police officer will feel he has the right to open fire. It's probably the first thing the get warned about when they're training to be a cop: never get your gun taken and used against you. It's pretty much common sense. Not only that, but imagine being a cop in that situation, surrounded and outnumbered. You're going to shit yourself. That cop could have shot him in the face, but he aimed low. I don't see anything in that video that looked unjustified.

[Macphisto80]

I'd agree with that.

I think there's plenty of cause for the anxiety on the part of the protesters and they were well within their rights to protest peacefully for as long as they liked. It took a lot of gumption for them to stand up to the extradition bill and they were successful in getting it withdrawn. That's as good an example of direct action making a difference as you can find in recent history.

Where they've lost me though, is the violence. There's no world in which anyone sets another civilian on fire for disagreeing with you politically, and you get my support.

I sympathise with the protesters' cause. I'm inspired by their bravery and their passion. But with all due respect I think what's happening now, can no longer be regarded as a peaceful protest movement, much less a protest movement that represents a majority of Hong Kong.

We're no longer seeing the millions of people marching that we saw in June. What we're seeing is remnants of the movement - the most angry and diehard. That I also don't have a problem with, except that I think these guys are feeding off each other's vitriol and increasingly willing to escalate matters further and further - an angry, violent mob.

I'm reading some comments online about the police wanting an excuse to turn this into Tiananmen, which reflects such a poor understanding of the situation. The Hong Kong police don't want to slaughter their fellow Hong Kongers, because that's mad. And for that matter, the CCP (which I have no love for) doesn't want to massacre anyone, because it would cause tremendous harm to its legitimacy on the world stage. And besides, if they needed an excuse, I think police getting shot by arrows plus many more getting injured is probably more than sufficient excuse to start spraying bullets in the heat of a skirmish. And that's why we haven't seen any kind of uncontrolled bloodshed. The media is reporting on the tear gas and rubber bullets, as if they cross some sort of unalienable human rights line, when these are very standard tools of managing a disorderly and violent crowd.

But with all that said, I feel like this is reaching a point where bloodshed might become inevitable. As more and more protesters drop off because they've run out of gas or don't want to continue risking their freedom, we're only going to see the pool of protesters that remain getting more and more radical. At that point, how will the police actually keep things under control? I think the worst case scenario, which isn't out of a question, given the heightened state of emotions, is a mass suicide during a standoff like the one at Polytechnic University. That's the sort of outcome that police will not be able to do anything about.

It could end up fizzling out gradually the longer it goes on. Just so long as the army isn't introduced in numbers, then there'll be a real danger of some of the things you allude to.

[leroy]

I think it's pretty clear that they're already rioters at this stage. They've been rioting since the first day they started smashing up businesses and throwing Molotov cocktails at trains. I'll tell you who never went this far until the very end - the Tiananmen protesters. You just have to accept that this is bad behaviour from these protesters and leave it at that. You can't blame all of the bad behaviour on both sides on the CCP.

As for the CCP not wanting to order the killing at Tiananmen, you have to remember that China was a very different country then with basically no international presence. The stakes are a lot higher now for them. And I also wouldn't be so quick to draw equivalence between the police and the PLA. Again, you have to remember that after over 5 months of rioting the police have killed exactly zero protesters, which is an amazing feat when they're up against genuinely angry, violent people. If they haven't killed anyone now, what do you think they're waiting for?

I think you miss my point to a certain extent.  If you label peaceful or non-violent protesters "rioters", treat them as such legally (e.g. police powers, criminal charges etc), and ignore their legitimate concerns then you remove barriers and inhibitions.  I also expect more controlled and proportionate response from government than I do from protesters, disobedients, rioters, and so on.  I don't expect to see a half dozen cops beating someone prostrate & unresponsive on the ground regardless of what they've done.  I don't expect a government to basically tell it's citizens to go fuck themselves when literally millions of them have been on the streets to make themselves heard.  When their actions escalate a situation then yeah I apportion them more blame for where it leads.  The government(s) are the ones with the power here.  Don't get me wrong here you see this kind of thing everywhere in the world - I don't think HK/China is alone exceptional case on that front - and I would and do say the same about them.  You see a similar pattern here in Australia for example where our Government has for decades essentially tried to make protest and industrial action illegal.

Certainly Beijing in 1989 was not the same kind of global city that Hong Kong is in 2019.  The same kind of communication and information sharing wasn't available.  However that just changes the values in the equation and not the equation itself.  You could probably argue that the kind of damage that Tiananmen could have done to China in 89 is greater than a repeat anywhere would do to them today.  They are far more integrated & integral into the global economy now and a stand on principal would cause greater damage to the global economy than it would have in 89.  We've seen over and over again recently that the threat of economic exclusion or impediments from China is enough to suppress opinion and reaction from governments & companies around the world (with obvious exceptions from the likes of Trump paradoxically).  Just as it has been for the US for the better part of a century.

[classycarra]

He's brazenly, almost cockely, walking up to him despite him having a gun pointed at him - which most people would take as a sign to back off - and he tries to snatch the gun from his hand. I don't care where you're from, you do that anywhere and a police officer will feel he has the right to open fire. It's probably the first thing the get warned about when they're training to be a cop: never get your gun taken and used against you. It's pretty much common sense. Not only that, but imagine being a cop in that situation, surrounded and outnumbered. You're going to shit yourself. That cop could have shot him in the face, but he aimed low. I don't see anything in that video that looked unjustified.

On the other hand, the police man could have taken the fact that they had backed off (and so had he) as a sign. Instead he went back in needlessly, seemingly for his ego's sake, stepped into them after thinking he could intimidate them with his gun. As you say he's then shitting himself panicking, so grabs the guy in fear he's bitten off more than he can chew. Then he sees the other guy approaching and either trying to grab or slap away his gun. As you say, it's important not to have your weapon seized. Seems him getting it out as he's choosing to walk into a hostile situation wasn't wise and escalated things both for people at the other end of his gun and for his own fear of having it taken.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure his non-independent superiors will view it as a justifiable shooting. I just happen to think a bit more aspirationally that armed police should be better trained than him, shouldn't be so easily influenced by pride fear and ego, and especially shouldn't be on the receiving end of praise for showing 'restraint' when the chain of events that lead to the shooting came from him needlessly engaging a group of masked young rioters/protesters (haven't seen what they are alleged to have done).

At the end of the sequence of events, police have shot a few bullets into unarmed young people and have them restrained ready to take into custody - to join the other 4,489 people they've arrested during these protests and riots. Great achievement?

[Redcap]

I think you miss my point to a certain extent.  If you label peaceful or non-violent protesters "rioters", treat them as such legally (e.g. police powers, criminal charges etc), and ignore their legitimate concerns then you remove barriers and inhibitions.  I also expect more controlled and proportionate response from government than I do from protesters, disobedients, rioters, and so on.  I don't expect to see a half dozen cops beating someone prostrate & unresponsive on the ground regardless of what they've done.  I don't expect a government to basically tell it's citizens to go fuck themselves when literally millions of them have been on the streets to make themselves heard.  When their actions escalate a situation then yeah I apportion them more blame for where it leads.  The government(s) are the ones with the power here.  Don't get me wrong here you see this kind of thing everywhere in the world - I don't think HK/China is alone exceptional case on that front - and I would and do say the same about them.  You see a similar pattern here in Australia for example where our Government has for decades essentially tried to make protest and industrial action illegal.

I mean this is just factually incorrect though. The HK Government has withdrawn the extradition bill, which was the start of all of this, so I don't think they've told the people to fuck themselves. They've done exactly what the people have asked in the first place.

With respect to the other [html=https://yp.scmp.com/hongkongprotests5demands]four demands[/html], I think the first, most important thing to remember is that these demands were actually made 3 months ago and have been well overtaken by events since then. A number of the demands were made in reference to events of 12 June. With all of that in mind:

1) A commission of inquiry into police actions

Fair. I think this should occur. I very seriously doubt they will turn up anything because I imagine like every police force in the world, the HK police will protect their own. What's most likely to happen if an investigation did occur however is that police will give away a couple of scapegoats to appease the masses and no justice will be done. But I think it's important to support the perception of transparency.

2) Retracting the classification of protesters on 12 June as rioters

Again, as long as we're talking about the actions by protesters on 12 June, rather than all subsequent actions, I think this should occur. Events have spiraled well out of control since then and I think if the HK Government could have taken back that statement, they would have.

3) Amnesty for arrested protesters

I'd be supporting of amnesty for protesters up to and including when the first act of violence occurred. After that it's gotta be case by case, based on the actions of the individual. There are individuals that deserve some time behind bars for their actions.

4) Dual universal suffrage, meaning for both the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive

I'd love for this to occur, but I don't think even the protesters think this is a realistic outcome.

Certainly Beijing in 1989 was not the same kind of global city that Hong Kong is in 2019.  The same kind of communication and information sharing wasn't available.  However that just changes the values in the equation and not the equation itself.  You could probably argue that the kind of damage that Tiananmen could have done to China in 89 is greater than a repeat anywhere would do to them today.  They are far more integrated & integral into the global economy now and a stand on principal would cause greater damage to the global economy than it would have in 89.  We've seen over and over again recently that the threat of economic exclusion or impediments from China is enough to suppress opinion and reaction from governments & companies around the world (with obvious exceptions from the likes of Trump paradoxically).  Just as it has been for the US for the better part of a century.

I take your point that sanctions would have been more damaging to China in 1989. But China had no reputation in 1989 and in 2019 it's selling itself as an alternative hegemon to the US, and the world is very quickly bifurcating along Chinese/US lines. A massacre in Hong Kong would close many doors to China at a time when it's already increasingly being regarded as an adversary in many western countries. A lot of European countries, which are currently on the fence about China because they want trade to continue, would be forced to make decisions that they don't want to make. Australia too is in this boat, as a country that relies very heavily on China buying up its resourced, education and tourism exports. To be fair, I think the wealth that trade with China brings makes action against it to be very unlikely - Xinjiang is an excellent example of how very little has happened in spite of fairly clear and outrageous crimes against humanity. But there's a difference between Muslims disappearing - even in very large numbers, and the streets of Hong Kong, a former British colony, being turned red with blood. It just won't happen.

At the end of the sequence of events, police have shot a few bullets into unarmed young people and have them restrained ready to take into custody - to join the other 4,489 people they've arrested during these protests and riots. Great achievement?

I really don't know how you could take zero killings by police in over 5 months of protests, which are getting increasingly violent, as anything other than a great achievement. You have to look at the big picture.