For today, cutting and pasting does imply endorsement!
Alex Lo on the nonsense of nominating Hong Kong protesters for the Nobel Peace prize. Still, the prize has gone to all sorts of dodgy recipients over the years. Below is Alex in today’s South China Morning Post. Link at the end:
The latest from the protest front: 2.6 tonnes of explosives seized and 17 people arrested in relation to three earlier bomb plots at public facilities. Maybe you can argue those violent elements should not be linked to the protest movement, which has been peaceful.
After all, there is the self-styled “peaceful, rational and non-violent” movement. But then, there is the “brave and confrontational” wing of the movement. These are the black-clad protesters and rioters who clashed with police, threw petrol bombs, set up roadblocks, vandalised businesses with ties to mainland Chinese interests or otherwise labelled as “blue ribbon” and beat up passers-by who happened to say the wrong things or looked the wrong way.
An elderly street cleaner was killed by a brick thrown by an unidentified protester. It was also a protester or protesters who set a man on fire for arguing with them.
But you can’t lay the blame for the violence on the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” movement, you say. Well, actually, they lay the blame on themselves. From the very start, they said there would be a “united front”, no matter what. So, no criticism, no dissension and no public airing of differences; whatever other protesters do, you must support them.
Sure enough, over the past eight months, the movement itself has condoned violence, vandalism and vigilantism, if not committed them. Whatever noble intentions it might have had, it has compromised itself by using the ends to justify the means.
Nominating such a violent protest movement for the Nobel Peace Prize? Now that’s a joke. You know what will be an even greater joke? It’s if they win it.
Alex Lo on the nonsense of nominating Hong Kong protesters for the Nobel Peace prize. Still, the prize has gone to all sorts of dodgy recipients over the years. Below is Alex in today’s South China Morning Post. Link at the end:
Soon after Democratic Party lawmaker Ted Hui Chi-fung confirmed that Hong Kong protesters had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, police conducted anti-terrorist raids at multiple locations in relations to recent protest bombings.Hui was in Scandinavia recently and met Norwegian Liberal Party lawmaker Guri Melby, who told him she had nominated Hong Kong people for the honour. How she came to such a conclusion is anyone’s guess. Perhaps Hui put her up to it, who knows? I am sure she is a well-meaning person, if only she would stick to things she knows about.
This is not the first time such nominations have been politicised for Hong Kong. But whatever you think about the anti-government protest movement since June, it is, I think it’s fair to say, anything but peaceful.
The latest from the protest front: 2.6 tonnes of explosives seized and 17 people arrested in relation to three earlier bomb plots at public facilities. Maybe you can argue those violent elements should not be linked to the protest movement, which has been peaceful.
After all, there is the self-styled “peaceful, rational and non-violent” movement. But then, there is the “brave and confrontational” wing of the movement. These are the black-clad protesters and rioters who clashed with police, threw petrol bombs, set up roadblocks, vandalised businesses with ties to mainland Chinese interests or otherwise labelled as “blue ribbon” and beat up passers-by who happened to say the wrong things or looked the wrong way.
An elderly street cleaner was killed by a brick thrown by an unidentified protester. It was also a protester or protesters who set a man on fire for arguing with them.
But you can’t lay the blame for the violence on the “peaceful, rational and non-violent” movement, you say. Well, actually, they lay the blame on themselves. From the very start, they said there would be a “united front”, no matter what. So, no criticism, no dissension and no public airing of differences; whatever other protesters do, you must support them.
Sure enough, over the past eight months, the movement itself has condoned violence, vandalism and vigilantism, if not committed them. Whatever noble intentions it might have had, it has compromised itself by using the ends to justify the means.
Nominating such a violent protest movement for the Nobel Peace Prize? Now that’s a joke. You know what will be an even greater joke? It’s if they win it.
