Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!

Brumby · Jan 18, 2015

superdog said:
Nope, you didn't just say it was in the Basic Law, you said it was "embodied in the Joint British Sino declaration and confirmed in the Basic Law". That's why I was first telling you, it wasn't embodied in the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all. Don't believe me? You can go check the document yourself.

When I said embodied, the meaning was that it laid the framework from which the details were confirmed in The Basic Law including the term universal suffrage. If you are saying that the term "universal suffrage" was not mentioned in the Joint Declaration then I concur because it was a statement of intention (lacking details) and not a legal document. However it should be noted that the following pertinent statement was made and I quote " The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally."

superdog said:
Furthermore, your post was clearly made as a rebuttal to what AssassinsMace said, in which he was arguing with another member about the denial of universal suffrage and the breaching of Sino-British agreements. We all know (well, I hope you know, after so many pages of discussion) the only thing being denied were the specific demands made by the OC camp, mainly the demand to change nomination requirements for 2017 CE election. Nobody denied the idea of universal suffrage as defined in the Basic Law, nobody threatens to change or ignore the law and stop pursuing reforms to achieve more universal suffrage down the road. The general idea of universal suffrage was never the focus of debate or the cause of conflict in HK, unless one only read the headlines and dumbed-down descriptions from some of the English media, then it might look like it was. That's why I have been saying it loud and clear again and again, it was the specific demands made by the OC crowd that were being denied and debated.

The context to me is simply basic reading of AssassinsMace's statement and that is common denial of universal suffrage as the British did. That in my view is simply not factually comparable because universal suffrage is contained in the Basic Law. There is simply no such binding legal obligation on the British. Any attempt to link it to some other context or discussion is just your view - not mine.

superdog said:
This is the context of the whole conflict, if you want to seriously discuss it then you need to take the context into account. Of course you can simply say that regardless of the OC movement, universal suffrage is the right idea and they need to pursue it in accordance to the Basic Law, I would totally agree with you on that statement alone. But lets be honest, anyone can see you're not just simply saying that. You're discussing things under a thread called Occupy Central, in which you tried to make a rebuttal to other people's argument related to Occupy Central, more specifically, about the alleged denial of universal suffrage and breach of Sino-British agreements (by not caving to the demands from OC), claims created and publicized by the OC camp to gain support. Then when I pointed out a factual error in your statement, as well as the difference between what was embodied in the Basic Law and what was demanded (and denied), your response was to accuse me of "engage in the frivolous distraction" because I was "attempting to link it to the OC demands", as if suddenly your rebuttal had nothing to do with OC? Please.

You are making up a narrative beyond what I have said and inferring an intention that is a creation of your own imagination. What I have said is clearly on record. Anything beyond that is your creation and that is for the record.

flyzies · Jan 18, 2015

superdog said:
Nope, you didn't just say it was in the Basic Law, you said it was "embodied in the Joint British Sino declaration and confirmed in the Basic Law". That's why I was first telling you, it wasn't embodied in the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all. Don't believe me? You can go check the document yourself. Furthermore, your post was clearly made as a rebuttal to what AssassinsMace said, in which he was arguing with another member about the denial of universal suffrage and the breaching of Sino-British agreements. We all know (well, I hope you know, after so many pages of discussion) the only thing being denied were the specific demands made by the OC camp, mainly the demand to change nomination requirements for 2017 CE election. Nobody denied the idea of universal suffrage as defined in the Basic Law, nobody threatens to change or ignore the law and stop pursuing reforms to achieve more universal suffrage down the road. The general idea of universal suffrage was never the focus of debate or the cause of conflict in HK, unless one only read the headlines and dumbed-down descriptions from some of the English media, then it might look like it was. That's why I have been saying it loud and clear again and again, it was the specific demands made by the OC crowd that were being denied and debated.

This is the context of the whole conflict, if you want to seriously discuss it then you need to take the context into account. Of course you can simply say that regardless of the OC movement, universal suffrage is the right idea and they need to pursue it in accordance to the Basic Law, I would totally agree with you on that statement alone. But lets be honest, anyone can see you're not just simply saying that. You're discussing things under a thread called Occupy Central, in which you tried to make a rebuttal to other people's argument related to Occupy Central, more specifically, about the alleged denial of universal suffrage and breach of Sino-British agreements (by not caving to the demands from OC), claims created and publicized by the OC camp to gain support. Then when I pointed out a factual error in your statement, as well as the difference between what was embodied in the Basic Law and what was demanded (and denied), your response was to accuse me of "engage in the frivolous distraction" because I was "attempting to link it to the OC demands", as if suddenly your rebuttal had nothing to do with OC? Please.

Perfectly put!
The OC camp's demands, despite screaming for the following and implementation of the Basic Law, actually goes against it.

MwRYum · Jan 18, 2015

Brumby said:
This development is interesting but I did not pick up the news from any of the news outlet. Do you have a link that reported on this?

You couldn't find that in English of course because the pro-insurgency media self-censored it. In English you can find one from the HKPF made on Dec 1st. Given that was announced as part of the press conference, I'll only highlight the part relevant to the discussion:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Opening remarks by Police Chief Superintendent at press conference
.....
In addition, Police raided a residential flat in Tai Kok Tsui yesterday. Police seized three modified air guns and a large number of makeshift wooden shields. There were reasons to believe that these equipment would be used in the illegally occupied areas. In the operation, Police arrested four males and one female for the offences of ‘possession of firearms without license’ and ‘possession of instruments fit for unlawful purpose’. The case is now being investigated by a Crime Wing unit.
.....

However, you can still retrieve it in Chinese...I know this is from a pro-government newspaper...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

警破激進派再謀占旺武器庫
2014-12-01 13:27:44|
來源：大公網|

圖：激進派「昭明公主」被探員押走時不斷怪叫，胡言亂語。

　　Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
12月1日訊「占中」示威頻頻造成暴力衝突。警方追查滋事分子活動，昨日在大角咀破獲「兵器庫」，揭發激進滋事分子暗中製造大量武器，預備「重奪」旺角示威區，暴力衝擊警方。事件中，檢獲多達32個木盾及三支改裝氣槍，五名被捕男女中，包括鼓吹「城邦論」、綽號「昭明公主」的長發青年。

　　警方西區情報組荀寶珍督察指，被捕四男一女（21至26歲），涉嫌非法管有槍械以及管有工具可作非法用途而遭扣查。其中一蓄及腰長發，身穿黑衣，外表打扮怪異青年，被押返警署時，仍不斷高呼「支持旺角！支持金鍾！彼邦必定戰勝歸來！」等口號。

　　疑人策動「光復十字路」

　　消息指，該青年網名「楊芷晴」，追隨主張「城邦論」的大學講師陳雲多年，行為極為激進，被封為「昭明公主」；陳雲又經常透過互聯網，散布鼓吹
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
自治
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
，被網民封為「國師」。

　　據網友起底，楊芷晴除了是陳雲弟子，也是網媒「輔仁媒體」後台技術人員，同時亦是「熱血時報」網台節目「笑死羊」主持。他多次受陳雲指使在旺角衝鋒陷陣，更策動所謂的「十二點光復十字路」行動，挑撥「佔旺」民眾與警方衝突，更導致多名警員和示威者頭破血流。

　　警方在行動中，搜出32個以木板、膠管、軟膠墊製成木盾，另有大批材料，估計可進一步製作逾百個木盾。另有兩支自動步槍氣槍及一支半自動手槍氣槍，全部懷疑曾作非法改裝。警方相信有人預備用上述武器，衝擊警方重奪旺角非法示威區。

　　非法「占中」武器庫，位於大角咀必發道83號一幢服務式住宅大廈15樓，約400平方呎，可供短期月租，租客身份及租金來源，有待追查。街坊透露，約一星期前開始，經常有多名可疑青年男女出入案發單位，深夜仍然傳出噪音，擾人清夢。

　　警方較早時接獲線報，懷疑有人在上址製造及藏有武器，昨午一時許，派員掩至突擊搜查，揭發有人密鑼緊鼓生產木盾，另藏有多支氣槍，相信預備作非法佔領旺角示威區，衝擊警方武器物資用途。警方當場將涉案男女逮捕。

Yes that was happenings during the insurgency, but pretty much got brushed aside by the pro-insurgency media, just like the reports on HKUSU's publications advocates separatism.

So lads, you gotta work harder to convince people like me that those "protesters" are indeed nice boys and girls, because by what I know they're anything but, and you lot mostly lived half a world away, force fed by pro-insurgency propaganda.

superdog · Jan 18, 2015

Brumby said:
You are making up a narrative beyond what I have said and inferring an intention that is a creation of your own imagination. What I have said is clearly on record. Anything beyond that is your creation and that is for the record.

I am providing the context to what was actually happening and what was being debated, which was relevant to the the words you quoted and commented on. But if you insist that you were simply critiquing a short hypothetical statement cut out from a discussion thread without considering any real-world context whatsoever (such as what was being denied and what was stated in the Basic Law), then yes, there won't be much to talk about because the critique itself would be completely meaningless. In that sense, literally anything I said would become a distraction.

Brumby · Jan 18, 2015

MwRYum said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes that was happenings during the insurgency, but pretty much got brushed aside by the pro-insurgency media, just like the reports on HKUSU's publications advocates separatism.

So lads, you gotta work harder to convince people like me that those "protesters" are indeed nice boys and girls, because by what I know they're anything but, and you lot mostly lived half a world away, force fed by pro-insurgency propaganda.

I looked into the link that you provided and the police report stated 3 modified air guns were seized. I think we need to put in perspective the number of firearms a year that are seized in HK. Unfortunately I couldn't find the number but found the number that was seized in Guangdong in one single operation last year. It was 12,115 assorted guns.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think you are probably stretching imagination a bit too far that 3 seized modified air guns is a case of insurgency. By that measure, there is probably a revolution in Guangdong - LOL.

SampanViking · Jan 18, 2015

Some interesting comments last 24 hours and some less useful ones as well.
Lets keep the personality out the argument and not let hot headed passion spoil an otherwise informative thread

superdog · Jan 18, 2015

Brumby said:
I looked into the link that you provided and the police report stated 3 modified air guns were seized. I think we need to put in perspective the number of firearms a year that are seized in HK. Unfortunately I couldn't find the number but found the number that was seized in Guangdong in one single operation last year. It was 12,115 assorted guns.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think you are probably stretching imagination a bit too far that 3 seized modified air guns is a case of insurgency. By that measure, there is probably a revolution in Guangdong - LOL.

I think the main concern was not that they could have enough weapon to conduct an armed uprising, but that a small number of radicals might be planning to use weapons to produce chaos and instigate a bloody conflict. So it's not the number of weapon that matters the most, but the fact that they were confiscated from youngsters closely connected to the separatist movement.

PanAsian · Jan 18, 2015

Mr T said:
You're forgetting that (half?) the legislators are still appointed via the functional constituencies, which is most certainly not universal suffrage. As for the Chief Executive, it's not really universal suffrage if the nomination process is so controlled that the voters get to choose between a pro-Beijing suit, a pro-Beijing suit, or a pro-Beijing suit. Look at Leung.

Actually you're forgetting what universal suffrage means. All universal suffrage means is one person one vote, it doesn't specify what it has to be used for, it doesn't specify what qualifies a person for universal suffrage (for example commonly accepted qualifiers are age and citizenship), it also does not specify how the rest of the system of governance works.

You are presuming that the nomination process limits candidates to pro-Beijing suits, you are also presuming that such a suit looks out for the interests of rich HK and interest groups rather than ordinary people, neither of which are a given. The nomination process calls for candidates who are pro-China and pro-HK who represent the interests of HK overall including the interests of ordinary people, nothing precludes this.

Mr T · Jan 18, 2015

PanAsian said:
Actually you're forgetting what universal suffrage means. All universal suffrage means is one person one vote

1. Members of the functional constituencies get more than one vote, because they can also vote for the directly-elected legislators.
2. Universal suffrage also means that votes are weighted equally (as equally as it possible), so for example one person's vote isn't in a very small constituency where he or she has disproportionate influence. For example, the Heung Yee Kuk functional constituency has an electorate of about 150 odd people.

Either way, the functional constituencies aren't democratic.

You are presuming that the nomination process limits candidates to pro-Beijing suits

I expect that it will, because otherwise Beijing wouldn't be defending it so vehemently. It's also worth noting that although the Chief Executive committee has in the past allowed pro-Democrats to stand, they've thrown their weight heavily behind the pro-Beijing establishment figure at the actual election. Given the rules limit the number of candidates and requires candidates to have the support of more than 50% of the committee, it seems hard to see how a pro-democracy candidate - or at least one with any charisma who is therefore a threat to the pro-Beijing candidate(s) - will get nominated.

The nomination process calls for candidates who are pro-China and pro-HK

What if a candidate states that the interests of HK sometimes requires putting the interests of China second? Whatever Beijing wants isn't necessarily what's best for HK or what the people living there want. All successful mayors/leaders of cities have to be willing to argue with national leaders for things like resources or autonomy.

So far I think the impression is that the Chief Executives just do what they're told by Beijing. Which is why there is pressure for a more flexible nomination process, to ensure the electorate has a real choice.

delft · Jan 18, 2015

2. Universal suffrage also means that votes are weighted equally (as equally as it possible), so for example one person's vote isn't in a very small constituency where he or she has disproportionate influence.

That would disqualify quite a few "democratic" countries. Japanese country constituencies are notoriously much smaller than city ones. US politics are disfigured by gerrymandering. Just mentioning the two most notorious ones.

Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!

Brumby

Major

flyzies

Junior Member

MwRYum

Major

superdog

Junior Member

Brumby

Major

SampanViking

The Capitalist

superdog

Junior Member

PanAsian

Major

Mr T

Senior Member

delft

Brigadier