For comparison, the Yellow Vests movement in France obtained basically none of their demands after months of protests. Some demands were partially implemented by the government, but I can't think of any demand that has been effectively fully approved and implemented.
For comparison the yellow vest represented not even a percent of the population during the biggest event, and barely a few thousands most of the time in a country of almost 70 millions. They didn’t represent the majority at all and while Macron approval rating may seem low at just above 30% it’s still the highest rated party leader left or right wing. It’s a long going protest of a vocal minority (which doesn’t say anything about them being right or wrong, but the government cannot completely change its stance because a small minority blocks the streets and ask for it.
At their highest the HK protest had like half the population in the street.
> Can someone translate / explain [five demands, not one less]?
From the article:
“Apart from the formal withdrawal of the legislation, the protesters have asked for the government to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate police conduct in tackling the protests, grant amnesty to those who have been arrested, stop characterising the protests as riots, and restart the city’s stalled political reform process.”
All that said, this is just a slogan. Different protesters put weight on different elements of this menu. Each concession takes people off the street. Given how reasonable many of the demands are, it makes sense for someone to be an adult in the room to Xi’s pettiness.
The problem is that some of these demands are unrealistic and some are downright unreasonable.
Full democracy is a legitimate demand but one that you need to be extremely optimistic, to say the least, to believe that the central government will agree to budge on.
On the other hand, demands regarding rioting are unreasonable. There objectively has been rioting going on and no government will accept to send the message that it is acceptable to throw petrol bombs or to ransack government buildings, or to use violence in general. The only leeway in these cases is usually the penalty courts hand: Very heavy to send a message or relatively light to appease.
If the economy suffers too much, there will be real internal pressure against protesters, especially against any violence.
If the bill is indeed withdrawn it allows protesters to stop while claiming a victory. This does not mean giving up on broader democratic demands but allows them to catch their breath and ponder a long term strategy.
> There objectively has been rioting going on and no government will accept to send the message that it is acceptable to throw petrol bombs or to ransack government buildings, or to use violence in general
I believe most protesters would agree with that. The fear is authorities using riot laws against peaceful protesters.
If I understand HK law correctly there are 2 offences: taking part in a an "illegal assembly" and "rioting".
Rioting involves violence and I don't see the government budge on that. The fact that the protesters' demands mention a blanket amnesty and use the term 'riot' makes the demand unpalatable.
Regarding illegal assemblies there might be leeway in how strictly people are charged, or whether charges are dropped in many cases.
Hong Kong almost passed a law allowing extradition to China, a country lacking the rule of law. This is why the legal code failed to mollify the population. It was the law itself the protesters were protecting.
Some western countries have extradition treaties with mainland China.
Beyond the obvious lack of trust the issue with such treaty is the procedure. Indeed it could give a say to HK courts or it could simply create a simple procedure where HK courts have no say beyond checking that the right forms were filled. I don't know how the bill was drafted.
In general, it is not unreasonable for HK to have extradition procedures with the rest of China at large (mainland, Taiwan, Macau) but again, the devil is in the details.
(Note that HK is formally part of the PRC, so saying "HK extradition to China" may ruffle some feathers).
> Some western countries have extradition treaties with mainland China
Few, and with strict legal and political supervision [1]. The proposed law would have single-handedly smothered Hong Kong’s rule of law and stability. It was a stupid, unnecessary move pursued solely for Xi’s political concerns.
> HK is formally part of the PRC
Hong Kong is Chinese territory from a military perspective. Civically, legally and administratively, it is separate.
Hong Kongers used to identify as Chinese. But due to Xi’s hamfistedness over the past few months, that is no longer the case.
The list does not strike me as "few", which is by the way irrelevant to the point... As I said the devil is in the details, not the principle.
HK is part of the PRC, that's what many people miss. It is granted special status within the PRC by a national law. Hence the official name "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China".
This is quite different from what, e.g. British people might expect. For example HK was never part of the UK and Gibraltar today is not part of the UK.
The point being that opposing "HK" and "China" as is often the case in western media is inaccurate and perhaps not productive as it sometimes seems intended solely at annoying the Chinese government.
> Few, and with strict legal and political supervision
The strict supervision is the key here - there could not be true supervision of an extradition treaty with China when the executive is appointed BY mainland China.
"breach of the peace"... Considering that the legal system is descended from the British system (and actually this law dates from British rule), this means:
"when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance" [1]
This is legal speak to mean violence against people or property.
I'm wondering how a social worker could be on "active duty", let alone in a violent protest. I'm also wondering how a member of the emergency services on duty could be arrested.
Without details your claims do not make much sense, including your claims about precedents and likelihood of conviction.
I might be misremembering the likelihood of being convicted with "riot", but from what I can remember, several people were convicted with riot in the 2016 unrest; they were later acquitted several years later through costly appeals.
Not the person you're replying to, but in some ways it is.
Part of Hong Kong Basic Law (their Constitution, which was adopted during the handover process) stipulates that "the ultimate aim" is elections by universal suffrage for both the Chief Executive as well as the Legislative Council. So the demand for universal suffrage is simply asking the government to make good on their promises from 1990/1997.
One of the reasons that the extradition bill caused such an uproar in the city is that Hong Kong citizens are protected by rule of law in a way that doesn't exist in China. The law has clear definitions and punishment for rioting, and the actions of some protesters could very well fall into that category. So to ask for all rioting charges to be dropped is asking for the government to give in to mob rule. (Caveat—I don't think the rioting charge would be as big of a deal as it is if it didn't carry a 10 year prison sentence. But it's hard for the protesters to ask for anything less than blanket amnesty... Without looking at a specific case, where do you draw the line? What sort of punishment is reasonable?)
Third and Fourth are ridiculous. I'm sorry but you don't set things on fire on the streets, bite people's finger off, throw petrol bombs, tie up people at the airport and say hey guys please grant amnesty, this wasn't a riot. Please grow up and take responsibility. If you choose to make those actions you take the consequences for them.
Fifth, I can understand and dialogue can start and bickering in legislation, whatever, depending on definition this is achievable, but if you expect a democracy overnight then I have a strong urge to post a link to a music video.
Hense, as per my comments below, demanding all five demands to be satisfied is not constructive and to some degree immature.
It is not an amnesty. It is a necessary condition for a return to peace. There is zero incentive to stop for the protesters if they are going to be jailed for protesting. The alternative is an ever escalating oppression-protest cycle.
There's an unequal power dynamic. There's been excessive aggression on both sides. There are many example of the police using far excessive force, of shooting tear gas in MTR stations, of terrorizing innocent bystanders when going after protesters.
If the protestors are prosecuted for what they did, but the police get to walk away, it's unacceptable to them. They won't accept it.
You do list quite a few allegations against protestors. Let me remind you that the level of police brutality is unprecedented during this 86 days.[1] All these events have made meeting the five demands becoming the least HKSAR govt. aka CCP can do to calm the society down. Asking Hongkongers to take it as is now is not constructive and to some degree immature. I urge the govt please grow up and take responsibility.
You're correct, assault is assault and should be punished. Incidentally, most of the more intense violence I've witnessed has been from the HK police: a quick selection from the front page of https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/
It's referring to the manifesto of the protesters.
There's the usual boilerplate about releasing arrested demonstrators, arresting the cops who bashed them up, and sacking the government.
There are two big demands. The first is withdrawing this bill, which has reportedly been granted. That's a big deal. The communists have let the "terrorists" win.
The second demand is Australian quality democracy in Hong Kong. If they get that, it will be a massive, world historical deal.
At least everyone now has an excuse to stop throwing Molotov cocktails.
If you say something is a joke, and post an opinion through a music video. You cannot then claim your opinion is logical. Protestors opinions cannot be reduced to a joke without any explanation.
五大訴求，缺一不可。