
Hong Kong protests: Authorities to announce face mask ban - sjcsjc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49918889
======
calderarrow
During the American revolutionary war, France was a tremendous ally and
instrumental to the colonies’ secession from Britain. The Marquis de Lafayette
came over to fight for us, without pay, in his early 20s, forgoing his
family’s desires and aristocratic opportunities. His family was so opposed to
him going to the colonies, that local governments were involved in finding and
preventing him from boarding ships. He eventually made his way over here, and
fought for glory and because of his own sense of morality.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the HK scenario and wondering what I can
do, but I can’t shake a nagging feeling that I could simply go over there and
fight alongside the protestors. I often deflect with observations like “I
don’t speak the language,” or “I don’t know what I would do to help,” and yet
the thought keeps coming back.

I wonder whether Lafayette would have done the same if he were alive in our
time. I think the answer is he would, and that I am more of a coward than I
want to believe.

~~~
thewholeview
While I have full respect for you to preach what you believe in, I'd like to
urge the consideration for a detachment of promotion for democracy with
regards to morality.

Whichever mode of governance is simple a practice of value proposition that a
particular regime sees as fit for their particular regional control/political
reign.

While democracy has its ostensible upsides, is such a protest at length really
what's on the high moral ground?

Many protestors are students who have a large amount of time, but have only
seen less of this world, albeit believing in an idealistic view. The ones who
suffer are the ones who reside in HK and are running out of methods to meet
ends for their family that they have to feed. Consider the bus drivers for the
tourism industry that are basically out of job and are powerless as figuring
out what's the best course of action at this moment?

Sure, maybe you can say a change is in dire need, via a certain perspective,
it's absolutely respectable, though in the wake of being respectful for the
whole population and the region, is such a protest which has lasted over 100
days truly the right course of action?

Think for the HKers, is it truly better to pursue an unstable democracy in the
merit of preaching a perceived sense of idealism, or is it perhaps better to
focus on economic growth and enabling an entire population to a higher living
standard? Nobody has the correct answer and it's definitely up to every single
one of us individually to consider.

Disclaimer: I am a Chinese so I may indeed have perceived bias, or just bias.
Feel free to have a rational discussion with me and educate me on other
perspectives, or even downvote me, all opinions are welcomed and respected.

~~~
kmonsen
I think people of HK have tried other more peaceful approaches in the past and
have received nothing in return from Beijing.

Do you have any propositions of what citizens of HK, or China, can do to get
more freedoms like freedom of speech or from random arrests on trumped up
charges which is how the current situation started? I don't think anyone in HK
want to be in this situation but for many they see it as a last choice they
are willing to risk their life for.

~~~
thewholeview
I think the concept of "freedom of speech" is highly subjective. If you go to
China you would find very little consideration for a lack of freedom of speech
aside from a few radicals whose mission is to cause turbulence to the existing
regime.

In Beijing, you can walk in many taxis and hear the driver blabber on to no
end regarding the state of existence in China and state defamatory words
regarding the Communist, the past, or the current presidency.

In contrast, in America I often find myself in fear of coming forth and
stating any merit that I thought of the potential Trump presidency, and the
now presidency. In professional careers I'd fear a sense of being seen as a
"demoral" person and I would fear for silent retaliation.

Propaganda and ideology come hand in hand, I certainly do not disregard
Chinese propaganda, but likewise I am no different to the narrative on China's
own political structure that's becoming ever stronger in the West since the
uprising of China.

On the other hand, what is true "freedom of speech"? The narrative has been
sounding more and more to me like a "freedom to uprise and overthrow the
government". Due to my limited existence in the world, I can't claim merit or
demerit to such ideal. But I am simply no fan of chaos caused due to the act
of "trying to overthrow a government to seek ideal in the face of perceived
oppression", especially when an entire region is almost shut down and hurt for
many months.

~~~
plazmaphyujin
This is a total misunderstanding of freedom of speech and the first amendment.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything to anyone and
never face consequences for your choices. The concept of freedom is to be free
from the government officially and legally restricting your right to publicly
address your grievances.

China's citizens do not have this freedom. Just because taxi drivers are not
afraid to express themselves in the privacy of their cab to other citizens
does not mean they wouldn't fear for their livelihood to say the same thing on
a stage where it would actually make a difference.

True freedom of speech is this:

In America, anyone can stand in the middle of a public square and shout
whatever they want about the government and the police will do nothing. Other
people are then allowed to also shout and demonstrate that that person is an
idiot, or maybe right, but the government never gets involved.

In China, any demonstration like this is swiftly punished by authorities. On
an exchange trip I went on about ~10 years ago an American college student
decided it was good idea to shout "Free Tibet!" over and over in the middle of
Tiananmen square. An unmarked white van appeared in < 5 minutes and he was
gone. He was unharmed but that evening he was on the first flight back to
America.

People may hate you and retaliate against you in America for what you say, but
they cannot and will never arrest you.

That is freedom of speech.

~~~
alasdair_
>People may hate you and retaliate against you in America for what you say,
but they cannot and will never arrest you.

Edward Snowden is in exile because of the things he had to say about America.
The publishers of his book are being sued to ensure he is financially crippled
and unable to support himself.

Sure, the charge is something other than speaking but the effect is the same.
I'm sure in China people who are arrested for speaking out are not charged
with the crime of "free speech" either but are instead charged with some other
crime. The effect is similar.

I'm still happy to live in the USA over China but I still think that we can do
better on this front.

~~~
djdjjdjdj
> Edward Snowden is in exile because of the things he had to say about America

This is a false comparison. Edward Snowden is in exile for revealing state
secrets. That’s different from freedom of speech. He is not targeted because
of what he said, but _revealing_ state secrets. It’s distinct from freedom of
speech.

------
kire2345
It has long been illegal to wear face masks at protests in Germany, as well as
wearing things like bike helmets or other protection against police force.
They call it "protection weapon" or "passive weapon". German police usually
films every attendee of a protest.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law)

~~~
ajnin
Same in France. They make it illegal to bring respiratory masks or saline
solution to protests, then they flood them with tear gas; they launch
military-grade grenades (GLI-F4) into crowds, harming and maiming
indiscriminately, and prosecute those who kick them back. And when people stop
going to protests they can claim that they won the battle of ideas.

~~~
rjbwork
Liberté, égalité, fraternité, indeed.

------
CharlesColeman
Will this have any practical effect on the protests? Haven't the authorities
already declared that protesters are engaged in illegal activity, so what's
one more act of civil disobedience?

Also, aren't the "masks" worn by many of the protesters the kind of thing
that's often worn in Asia for hygiene and pollution reasons, so this would ban
even innocent behavior?

~~~
samlevine
Make everything illegal and selectively enforce against people the state
doesn't like is a viable strategy for an authoritarian government.

This might be a problem for the HK government, but I'm not sure rule of law is
as big of a selling point to global capital as it used to be.

------
sixothree
I think it odd that we have to look at another country losing its rights to
understand the feeling of loss. Much of what they have been doing in Hong Kong
would never have been allowed here in America.

~~~
kmonsen
Can you come with some concrete examples of what would have not been allowed?
The US is still a very free country with robust freedom of speech and mostly
fair and open court cases.

~~~
jlmorton
If protesters in the US were throwing petrol bombs, the police in the US would
begin shooting people en masse.

If there were months of mass protests in the US, the national guard would be
called in to stop them, with full military equipment. This is what happened in
Ferguson, for instance, and the police there did shoot and kill at least one
protester.

What happens domestically, we refer to as riots. What happens internationally,
we refer to as protests. During the LA Riots, over 10,000 national guard
troops were called in, and the police and Guardsmen killed at least ten people
- either rioters, or protesters, depending on your perspective.

~~~
colejohnson66
IMO, once you are no longer peaceful, you are rioting. You can’t claim to be
protesting if you’re running around lighting cars on fire because you’re
harming innocent bystanders. Once you harm someone who is not involved, you’re
rioting.

~~~
jlmorton
And that's a perfectly defensible position, as long you apply it equally.

Many of the protests in Hong Kong have been anything but peaceful. They are
throwing Molotov cocktails, destroying buildings, smashing and flipping cars,
setting fires, breaking into the Legislative Council building, taking over the
airport, physically attacking the police.

In Hong Kong, the protests began over an extradition bill which would have
subjected Hong Kongers to Mainland China's opaque justice system. That's a
pretty good cause for protest, but it doesn't strike me as significantly more
noble than wanting the police in the US to stop shooting young black men, for
instance.

Here's my weird position: I support the Hong Kong protesters and their goals,
and even their methods. At the same time, I think it's weird that Western
media consistently portrays the police in Hong Kong as aggressive. To my mind,
they've been significantly _more restrained_ than the police in most Western
countries would be.

If people are rioting, it's perfectly natural the police would take aggressive
actions to stop that. No one gets to decide that it's okay to riot without
repercussion.

At the same time, some of the fastest positive change that has happened in
society came as a result of rioting. Only history gets to decide if it was
justified.

~~~
joyeuse6701
You're right, but I imagine that is more of a racial thing. White protestors
get away with much more it seems than the black.

------
ChrisAntaki
I have so much respect for those protesters.

~~~
loceng
Agreed. They've been educated about history and understand what's at stake. I
wish the rest of democratic societies would already be taking a strong stand
with them. The tyrannical powers in control of China at the moment, much like
Trump's rise, will be countered at the HK situations wakens us to the
behaviour of China's tyrants until now relative limited light being shone on
their bad behaviours.

Edit: Especially curious if downvotes in heavily political, democracy vs.
tyrant topics are legitimate or suppression; another reason downvote mechanism
is terrible: if you have something legitimate to counter, then spend any
effort writing something qualitative.

~~~
scohesc
Please don't compare the Chinese government's actions to the Trump
administration. They're not even remotely close.

~~~
squarefoot
They aren't close because they don't need to at the moment. All "western"
nations populations have been divided and conquered long time ago so that for
every group of righties/lefties protesting down the street there's an opposed
lefties/righties countering group somewhere making the news, so that for any
50% of the population the enemy becomes the other 50%, not the rulers, and
thanks to well crafted propaganda the reasons for protesting usually reflect
that. This is done on purpose of course. The day any western government fails
at dividing people and does something that can unite all protesters is the day
you will see police and the military shooting at people. In every country or
culture the 1st rule for any government officer is protect the status quo at
all cost (then picture as traitors whose who refuse to). People start to die
when they no longer are lured into fighting against their peers, and both them
and police (which now is seen rather as enemy than external player) refuse to
back off.

Give people enough important motives to protest united against their
government (that is, no food, no house, no jobs) and you will see bullets and
corpses pretty soon, no matter their nationality/religion/color/sex/whatever.
Maintaining the status quo at all costs against well motivated protesters
always escalates into violence and deaths; it happened in 3rd world countries
and in one of the most developed places in the world, why should we believe it
can't happen to us?

~~~
loceng
The scenario you paint here would only be true if a society's population truly
were "enemies" and holding very different human beliefs, wants - which
fortunately isn't the case - because the people of a nation evolve together
generally; the problem arises when you mix two different people from different
nations with different cultures, where this "50/50" destructive behaviour can
exist - say when the native Americans were mostly wiped out, another scenario
would be if somehow you dropped 10%+ of China's population into America all of
a sudden or vice-versa. Historically this was a common war tactic - and still
to this day we can see it in Canada, for example, with student protestors who
are pro-China, indoctrinated into pro-China doctrine - the hypocrisy of having
the freedom to protest in support of a nation state who disallows free speech
and reigns supreme with censorship; we can't judge these people harshly, with
compassion we understand they've been indoctrinated - their own safety and
that of their friends and family may also rest in the balance - and it makes
me feel like an important part of immigration should be education to de-
brainwash them to make sure they understand these mechanisms of tyrants,
suppression-repression of freedom, of control.

Otherwise you paint an unrealistic, bleak picture which isn't grounded in
reality if there's optimism and humanity included.

~~~
squarefoot
"Otherwise you paint an unrealistic, bleak picture which isn't grounded in
reality if there's optimism and humanity included."

True, still many western countries had examples of episodic police brutality
causing tortures [1] and fatalities among protestors, and probably it was
other people humanity and optimism, along with public outrage, to keep these
events episodic. But the point is: what happens if after the first protestor
dies the crowd doesn't disperse and the public is too distracted? I don't see
either police or the military saying "oh sorry, we pushed it too much... feel
free to continue but please don't smash windows". I also see as a revealing
sign of corruption the almost ubiquitous police immunity: keeping them
untouchable is what ensures their total alignment to the higher powers.

[1] plenty of examples in the 60s, also search for "genoa 2001 diaz": the
Wikipedia article sums up pretty well what happened, and there are some rather
graphic videos around showing it. That carnage, whose most explicit videos
needed some time before surfacing, didn't make the news globally as it should
have probably for happening less than 2 months before 9/11, an event which
obviously hit the reset button on just about everything.

~~~
loceng
The biggest difference between now and "then" is the internet and our
connectivity, audio and video + live streaming for real-time evidence
gathering; yes, I'm aware bad actors are capable of signal jamming in an area
or at scale, or taking down the internet - is why the democratic nations and
people that are free must strengthen in case of a future confrontation with
these bad actors, and likewise technology like mesh networks are expanding -
although a nation could block mesh networks too with enough effort - and
really then blocking communications is more a signal to the rest of the world
that we're dealing with a tyrannical government.

------
notTyler
It really feels like democracy is slowly dying all over the world.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> It really feels like democracy is slowly dying all over the world.

If it seems that way, it's because we've stopped fighting for it. Any _regime_
without some basic level of true democratic representation and civil liberties
should be the subject of official embargoes and individual boycotts.
Unfortunately, many have sold out democracy to please the all-important
shareholders or just to take advantage of cheap stuff.

~~~
redisman
The supremely naive "end of history"-era thinking has a lot of inertia. Now
it's unclear who's left to fight for Democracy as the old champions are all
dead and current generations have no concept of what that would even mean
since they've just been reaping the rewards their whole lives.

~~~
authoritarian
Ah yes, all us youngings reaping the rewards of those that have come before
us. Insane housing and real estate prices that few can afford, insane
university tuition that few can afford, the pharmaceutical industry pushing
dangerous drugs with impunity, the war on drugs costing trillions of dollars
and leading to the militarization of police and a massive amount of
incarcerated non-violent offenders, the destruction of the environment being
covered up and lobbied for by massive oil and gas corporations, social
security being depleted before I'll ever get to utilize it, huge downturns in
the economy caused by irresponsible spending and lending, and countless other
"rewards" from the older generations that we now have to fix while
simultaneously getting whined at about how we're all lazy slackers that are
really causing the downfall of society. I don't buy into the "end of history"
thinking, but it is incredible how many people take no responsibility for
things that happened during their life time and completely ignore all of the
extreme negative impacts those had on younger generations and society as a
whole

~~~
ethbro
And what have we done about that? I'm technically Gen Y, and I'll be the first
to admit that with regards to protesting my generation seems:

\- Uninformed

\- Undisciplined

\- Lazy

\- Uncoordinated

People were self-organizing large civil society organizations and marching
through clouds of tear gas and worse in the 1960-90s... and yet this current
generation seems to think that posting a rant on Facebook is valuable?

Incoherent, naive anger is useless.

~~~
rjbwork
Most of us just don't think we CAN do anything. It seems the world is run by
the rich for the rich. We vote but we don't feel that anything we can do
actually will effect any change.

~~~
ethbro
One could make the argument that wealth inequality is higher than it was in
previous eras.

But there's always been a major disparity between capital owners and everyone
else. Even in the 60s. And certainly at the turn of the century (1850-1920),
when US antitrust law was actually first created.

So maybe media centralization? But the 1960s featured a limited number of
media channels controlled by a few owners (albeit with some paragons of
objective, journalistic integrity). And the turn of the century was the heyday
of centralized newspaper control.

I'm honestly casting about for an external _why_ and am hard-pressed to
enunciate a coherent narrative.

And in lieu of one, the only thing that's left are that people simply _aren
't_ actively protesting.

Whether they're making that choice because of hopelessness or laziness, I
don't really care. Because ultimately, it's a _choice_.

Make the other one.

(And it seems we might finally be, with regards to climate)

