> They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050.
This is I guess the core of the problem - how is this enforceable?
> That being said, there are limits to the tolerance
Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of cases where states defied and still defy federal statutes. I picked my example as something that seemed so extreme that it would be hard to tolerate unlike some of the other examples you mentioned.
> But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more.
My analogy breaks down at that level of detail, yes. My goal for that analogy was to describe something that:
- a minority of the population desires (RI vs. HK)
- is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)
I was not trying to match the direction of more freedoms or less freedoms or what have you.
Bottom line, and I am not condoning this - I used the word "unfortunately" - but I don't see much stopping China from pulling a Crimea here.
Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
> - is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)
Interestingly enough, the Chinese Constitution at one point arguably endowed even more rights onto the people than the American one:
"Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that 'citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.'[3] In the 1978 constitution, these rights were guaranteed, but so were the right to strike and the 'four big rights', often called the 'four bigs': to speak out freely, air views fully, hold great debates, and write big-character posters."[1]
Unfortunately that same Constitution also gives the government rights to take away other rights in the name of "protecting the [Communist] state," which is why authoritarian China is the China we know today.
I am not an expert on the Chinese Constitution nor a citizen of Hong Kong, but I think revolutionary HKers can make the argument that they are trying to live up to the original 1982 Constitution put forth before the rise of the CCP, which they may view as a totalitarian takeover of what was once their ideal legal system (since the CCP did not have such total control at the time of their British handoff).
This is I guess the core of the problem - how is this enforceable?
> That being said, there are limits to the tolerance
Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of cases where states defied and still defy federal statutes. I picked my example as something that seemed so extreme that it would be hard to tolerate unlike some of the other examples you mentioned.
> But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more.
My analogy breaks down at that level of detail, yes. My goal for that analogy was to describe something that:
- a minority of the population desires (RI vs. HK)
- is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)
I was not trying to match the direction of more freedoms or less freedoms or what have you.
Bottom line, and I am not condoning this - I used the word "unfortunately" - but I don't see much stopping China from pulling a Crimea here.
Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.