My response to a commenter on the NYT article, who just said:
[Re the universal suffrage question, see my immediately preceding post]
 |
| Posted 28 October 03:50 UT |
@L: The government in Hong Kong didn’t “suddenly become China”. The changeover of sovereignty happened *22 years ago* and since then Hong Kong has ruled itself under “one country two systems”. We maintain every freedom that we had under the British: freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of capital, freedom of trade, freedom of surfing the internet. (and now, it seems, freedom to vandalise).
These freedoms are real and not fantasy. I’ve lived in Hong Kong for over forty years, and have enjoyed enjoying said freedoms.
Protesters say they are worried by “Beijing interference” but it’s more like the increasing numbers of mainlanders in Hong Kong and their different habits that they object to. This objection is a nativist, xenophobic attitude. If it were expressed in the West it would be hammered for being “bigoted”. (As was John Cleese when he said “London is no longer English”)
The likeliest outcome of ongoing violence by these teenage millenarians — romanticised in this article — is *less* Freedom and *less* Democracy.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Our street violence ought not be romanticised, celebrated and cheered on by the likes of the NYT. [Re the universal suffrage question, see my immediately preceding post]
