I see. Well, as you know, I know nothing about this stuff. Just felt like commenting.

I feel for the protesters. They're so peaceful, maybe too peaceful, standing with their hands up while the police were doing the charging.

Well, they were protesting, right? Causing a public incident; upsetting the balance in society. The police are their to readjust the status quo.

It's the opposite. The protesters were trying to restore the status quo. Civic Square was a 24/7 open space for public assemblies, symbolic of people's right to petition the government. It was the place where the young students sat in to protest the "national education" curriculum two years ago. Now the space is fenced off from the public under CY Leung. It's widely seen as a step-back for free speech in HK. People are enraged the gov shuts itself off from the people.

Ok, I see. I'm not going to comment in this thread again.

Oh no. Your comments keep this thread alive.

Is this in the news where you live?

People keep pouring in to support protesters. Organizer estimate: 50,000


From Admiralty MTR Station



Ariel views of the government hq

Live feed:

I actually don't watch the news here on the account that I cannot understand anything that's said. But I caught some news a few months back and the protests were on it then, so I guess it would be on it now too.

I asked because news media from mainland China are largely missing from the live stream videos I saw.

Game plan:



They are defending on three fronts (blue v red). Main stage (black) is near to the intersection. First aid (green) and supplies (orange) stations are scattered around. (Post 852)


Occurrences of pepper-spray attacks and police charging in anti-riot gear on 9/26, 9/27 (Apple Daily)

Mazes of iron barricades were built as shields to fend off immediate police aggression.


@tomgrundy


@ProfSuryaDeva


@LeoAW

China wont move shit. They didnt in Tibet, Xingyang and the rest of China and Hongkong is now part of it.

I feel sorry for the people in Hongkong. But they did know what China is going to do and will do with all force.

Well, I mean, they must have known that one day China will take back Hong Kong and it would be part of Chinese rule again.

What is China's argument for not honoring its commitment to 50 years of proprietary democracy in Hong Kong? Is the argument that there is a democracy, just candidates are pre-selected?

The upcoming 2017 election will be a democratic one where voters will choose the candidate but there will be 2 or 3 pre-selected candidates chosen from a special nominating committee.

The heart of the protest is about this. The pro democracy group does not want any nominating committee. They want the public to choose and nominate themselves (something that is not reasonable IMO).

Good question. About a year ago, Beijing officials mentioned "Love China, love Hong Kong" as a basic requirement for the Chief Executive (head of HK government). A CE cannot "antagonize" Beijing, they also said. Their hidden agenda was for them to vet candidates before a popular vote. Those phrases were nowhere to be found in any document and had no legal basis.

One month before the August NPC decision, Beijing loyalists tried to frame the CE election as a national security issue. They argued a strict nominating process is needed to prevent influences from foreign powers.

A quote from Lu Ping, a top China official in Hong Kong in 1993:



Interesting, isn't it?

That's not true. Most pan-democrats want a nomination process that reflects the will of the people. They advocate public nomination of candidates as a way to guarantee popular candidates can get on the ballot.

Beijing doesn't want that, because they fear pan-democrats will get on the ballot through public nomination and eventually win (Pan-dems had 55% of votes cast in the 2012 legislative election; pro-Beijing camp got 42%). So the NPC laid down a strict framework to pre-screen candidates before popular vote.

The framework:

1. The structure of the nominating committee to vet candidates will be similar to that of the present Election Committee system, which is dominated by Beijing loyalists and big businesses (only 15% of the members are pro-dems).

2. To get on the balllot, a candidate must be approved by more than 50% of the members of the aforementioned nominating committee.

3. Only two or three candidates will be nominated.

As you can see, there is no way a pan-democrat can get nominated under the system. And these guidelines do not make any logical sense. How could you guarantee that 2 or 3 candidates get selected with a 50% threshold? Most of all, it's unfair and unrepresentative of the people.