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

Status
Not open for further replies.

shen

Senior Member
[video=youtube;cytXmKov3dU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cytXmKov3dU&list=UUqUhYNPzxfRwD73W84xMUSQ[/video]

HK Taxi Drivers and Operators Association representatives read High Court injunction. Protesters reply with foul language. Police mediate and maintain order.

【高院禁制令】運輸業界申請禁制令 晏畫踩場同示威者對罵

的士司機從業員總會代表,與香港計程車會代表入稟高等法院,要求頒令,禁止任何人佔領*或煽動他人佔據旺角 一帶道路,高院下午緊急開庭處理申請,於傍晚頒布臨時禁制令。

的士業界一批代表下午到旺角佔領區,抗議示威者阻礙馬路,亦打爛司機飯碗,要求他們立*即撤走;的士業界高 叫口號期間,示威者以粗言穢語回應,雙方對罵,要由警員分隔及調停*。
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Hong Kong’s High Court issued an interim injunction banning protesters from occupying a road in Mong Kok district as the police said assembly at the site may veer into “a riot.”

After a weekend of clashes in the densely populated district, the court issued a summons today against anyone occupying or blocking Argyle Street, one of the roads occupied by protesters. Closely-held Chiu Luen Public Light Bus Company Ltd. was the plaintiff.

“Mong Kok remains a high-risk area,” said Hui Chun-tak, chief superintendent of the Police Public Relations Branch at a briefing today. “The illegal assembly is on the verge of turning into a riot.”

Mong Kok has been the scene of some of the worst violence since demonstrations began. Police used batons, shields and pepper spray on Oct. 17 and Oct. 18 after crowds estimated at around 9,000 poured into the streets to take back areas that had been cleared. On Oct. 3, at least 37 people were injured after hundreds of men attacked demonstrators in the area.

The pro-democracy demonstrations that began across the city on Sept. 26 have created mounting headaches for Hong Kong’s transportation sector. Blockaded roads at the three protest sites have disrupted 40 percent of bus routes, and revenue for members of the Hong Kong Taxi Owners’ Association dropped 30 percent since the beginning of the protests.
 

shen

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


When the US has been mentioned at all in recent weeks in Hong Kong, it has been held up as an example of a flawed democracy, no matter what side of the “Umbrella Movement” camp they’re in. As one anti-Occupy protester told a Huffington Post reporter at a protest against the “Apple Daily,” a pro-democracy newspaper:

"Hong Kongers don’t need freedom and democracy. It’s fake. You Americans beat black people to death" at Apple DailyHQ pic.twitter.com/Kb8fXI5DPV

— Matthew Sheehan (@mattsheehan88) October 14, 2014

It’s not just the anti-protest groups that are citing the US as an example not to emulate. When Quartz asked Emily Lau, one of the most outspoken pro-democracy legislators in the city, whether the recent Hong Kong police beating of a protester was a sign of the city’s rule of law breaking down, she said “Of course,” then added: “It’s not America where you have police killing people. In Hong Kong we are not used to this.”
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Hong Kong’s politicians took a hit to their approval ratings in a poll released Tuesday, three weeks into pro-democracy street protests that have brought the city to a halt. The poll suggests "that the recent mass movement has taken its toll on councilors from all camps," according to the polltakers at Hong Kong University.
ADVERTISEMENT

Seven out of 10 “top” Legislative Councilors, meaning the most well known in Hong Kong, saw their approval numbers drop from three months ago. The top four members marked their lowest approval ratings since 2008, 2006, 1994 and 1995, respectively. Leung Kwok-hung, the theatrical pro-democracy legislator known as “Long Hair,” was the only council member to rise in popularity. He gained two percentage points, up from 37.9 percent approval in July.

Since September, protesters have occupied the streets of some of Hong Kong’s most prosperous and popular districts to demand fully democratic elections for chief executive, the top spot in Hong Kong’s leadership. The unrest came after the Chinese government announced it would screen potential candidates in 2017 to ensure loyalty to Beijing. The protest movement, known as Occupy Central, brought tens of thousands of young people to the streets after police violently reacted to the first wave of protests. Hong Kong’s leadership agreed to talk with protesters after a week of protests to lift the city out of crisis.

Student protest leaders and Hong Kong’s leadership started those negotiations Tuesday. The city's embattled chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, said there was room for negotiations but reiterated that Beijing wouldn't allow for fully democratic elections for his successor in 2017. “There's room to make the nominating committee more democratic, and this is one of the things we very much want to talk to not just the students but the community at large about,” Leung said.

The three-week-old protests, which have complicated movement in the city and blocked people from commuting, soured the opinions of some Hong Kong residents on the pro-democracy movement. Tensions have turned into clashes between protesters and anti-protest groups on a handful of occasions. Hong Kong police said they are prepared "for any riots."

The poll was taken in two stages in sample sizes of 1,012 and 1,013 with a response rate of 66.9 percent and 65.9 percent, respectively. Respondents chose the top 10 Legislative Council members “they knew best” from Oct. 6-9. Those names were then entered into the ratings part of the survey, which was taken from Oct. 13-16.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Piotr

Banned Idiot
News from:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


CY Leung says to consider disclosing evidence of external interference at appropriate time

2014-10-21 05:54:40 GMT2014-10-21 13:54:40(Beijing Time) Xinhua English
HONG KONG, Oct. 21 (Xinhua) -- Hong Kong's Chief Executive CY Leung said here on Tuesday that he would consider disclosing the evidence of external interference in the Occupy Central movement at an appropriate time, adding he was not merely speculating.

Speaking to the media before attending an Executive Council meeting Tuesday morning, Leung said Hong Kong, being a part of China, is a highly open city with a complicated international environment, and he believed the society is aware of the presence of external forces.

Leung said he was not merely speculating when he said during a TV interview on Sunday that there are external forces involved in the Occupy Central movement, adding that he has a duty to know such matters as head of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government.

He said any government must deal with such matters, and the questions on whether to disclose related evidence to the public and how to do so would be considered at an appropriate time.

Later in the day, government officials and student leaders will hold talks in a move to try to end Hong Kong's political crisis. Leung said the talk cannot solve all the problems at one time, but it would be a good start for constitutional reform discussions.

Thousands of protesters, mostly students, joined the Occupy Central movement on Sept. 28 to express their discontent with an electoral reform package for choosing the city's next leader.

According to Hong Kong's Basic Law and the top Chinese legislature's decisions, more than 5 million Hong Kongers can choose the chief executive in 2017 through a "one man, one vote" election, which had never been realized under the British colonial rule.
 

Piotr

Banned Idiot
And news from People's Daily Online:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Bringing Western Depocrisy to Hong Kong
By David Ferguson (People's Daily Online) 08:05, October 21, 2014
The Western media have secured their prize. Just as it seemed that the Hong Kong Occupy demonstrations were about to peter out, evidence emerged that one of the protestors had been detained and beaten by police. The officers accused have been suspended, and an investigation is under way. The story can return to the top of the front pages. The demonstrators can once more become the heroes of the day.

Owen Jones, a radical left-wing columnist for Britain’s Guardian newspaper, hailed the struggle of the demonstrators against“Beijing’s tyrants” with their “murderous record”. “The protestors have a simple, unarguable case”, he fulminated.

China’s leaders are not in fact ‘tyrants’, and if they have a ‘murderous record’, then that record is a distant past echo of the murderous record of the enlightened West - including the Labour Party that Mr Jones supports - which launched a war with Iraq in 2003 based on a pack of outrageous lies. The perpetrators of these lies have never been called to account. Eleven years later, thousands still die in Iraq every month as an aftermath of their actions. Eleven years later,the West is now dropping its bombs on Syria as a direct consequence. In between, they bombed Libya back to the stone age without even declaring war.

But these are arguments for another day. Let us stick to Hong Kong.

With all due respect to the whole of the West, the demonstrators do not have an “unarguable case”. China has reneged on nothing. China has stuck to the schedule to which it agreed in terms of the democratisation process in Hong Kong. While the demonstrators might wish it to be otherwise, China always reserved the right to continue to vet candidates for Hong Kong’s leadership at this stage, and China has every reason to do so.

You would have to be blind, deaf and stupid to pretend that America does not shove its interfering nose into every corner of the planet. You would have to be naive beyond belief to pretend that there is no American interference in the Hong Kong demonstrations, when the territory is riddled with ‘foundations’ and ‘endowments’ run by and financed by exactly the same people who have run the ‘Arab Spring’ and the ‘Colour Revolutions’ in Eastern Europe – movements which have brought mostly misery to their unfortunate beneficiaries.

‘Beijing’has a perfectly valid and legitimate case for continuing to vet candidates for the Hong Kong leadership. Beijing is not prepared to run the risk of Hong Kong falling under the control of someone who is a paid-for American stooge.

Let us extend the discussion a little. What is this democracy that America holds so dear, this democracy that America is so keen to offer to the rest of the world at the end of the barrel of a gun, this democracy for which the demonstrators of Hong Kong have taken to the streets?

Well, for a start, Americans have precisely what the people of Hong Kong do not have – the right to a free vote. As the Americans like to put it: If you don’t like the leaders you’ve got then hell, you can just “vote ‘em out”!

But this much-vaunted right really has to be subject to a little more demanding scrutiny. Yes, you can vote them out. But who can you put in their place?

The truth about American democracy is this:

Point one.If you want access to any real power, you must belong to one of only two political parties. Unless you have the support of one of these two parties and their machines, you have no prospect whatsoever of ever acceding to any position of real political power.

Point two.Access to any position of real power is restricted to millionaires. No-one who is not already fabulously wealthy has any prospect whatsoever of ever acceding to any position of real political power.

Point three. It costs eye-watering sums of money to conduct a campaign for election to any position of real political power – more money than even most multi-millionaires can afford. So in order to even compete for such a position, you must first sell yourself to other vested interests who are willing to fund your campaign, and who will expect payback if you are successful.

So what does that make American democracy? It makes it the right to cast a vote, every couple of years or so, for one or the other of two millionaire representatives of their party machines, who have already sold themselves to wealthy influences whose interests may well be in direct conflict with your own. If you don’t like one millionaire representative of a party machine who has sold himself to wealthy influences, then you can vote for the other millionaire representative of a party machine who has sold himself to wealthy influences.

Of course you can vote for other people too. Anybody can stand for election in America. But since no-one who is not a millionaire representative of one of the two party machines has any prospects whatsoever of ever acceding to a position of power, if you are going to vote for someone else you might as well do this: Stay at home. Write down the name of an imaginary person on a piece of paper. Mark an ‘X’ beside that name. Throw the piece of paper in the bin.

You might as well do that because it is equally pointless, but it takes less time.

I’m not sure that I would want to fight and die for that kind of democracy. But I’m certain that neverwould I send great armies off to a country on the other side of the world to kill large numbers of people, just so that any survivors could enjoy such an arguable privilege.

So what then? What if you still want genuine change? What if you would still like the real possibility of placing someone in a position of power who is not a millionaire representative of one of the two party machines? Well, in addition to democracy, America enjoys freedom of speech and assembly. So if you can see no way of making change happen from within the system, you can take your case to the streets.

Which is precisely what a tiny group of people tried to do in America back in 2011. The ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement tried to take its campaign for real change to the streets. But it was forcibly prevented from ever establishing a presence on the streets or public squares of New York. Instead, a few hundred demonstrators formed a camp in the privately-owned Zuccotti Park, where they stayed for several weeks. Until, on November 15th 2011, in the dark of night, their camp was invaded and destroyed by New York Police in riot gear. Many of the demonstrators were beaten with clubs and tazered.

That is how America deals with a rag-bag collection of a few hundred demonstrators in a park, who have no structured agenda for change, and who enjoy little public support. One might wonder how America would deal with tens of thousands of demonstrators erecting barricades on the streets, with a structured agenda for change, who were beginning to win the attention and possibly even the support of the public.

The truth is such speculation is idle. No such course of events would ever be allowed to happen. No such movement would ever be allowed to grow. The whole point of the destruction of the Zuccotti Park camp was that it brought to an end the Occupy Wall Street protest long before it ever had the chance to develop any critical mass.

In Britain, too, the authorities know exactly how to deal with dissent that goes too public. Right at this moment there is something of an ‘Occupy’ protest going on in Parliament Square in London. Several hundred people are trying to use their much-vaunted freedom of speech to demonstrate in favour of fundamental change in British society - the sort of change that isn’t on offer from any of the mainstream political parties who have a stranglehold on political power through Britain’s antiquated ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system.

I would like to tell you what is happening there, but there’s very little I can say. The British media, who have so much to say on the subject of Hong Kong,seem rather reluctant to find space in their columns to provide any information on their own home-grown protests. On Monday 20th October - three days into the protest - the ever-liberal Guardian did finally manage to script a generous 255-word article, but the loud voices of the BBC have been strangely reluctant to express an opinion. Some prominent China-bashers, like the Daily Telegraph, appear to take the view that it would be best if the British public hears nothing at all about these events.

What I can glean from alternative social media is that the protest has been going on for all of three days, and it appears that the authorities have already sent large numbers of police to put a stop to it. Protesters are now being physically hauled away. In Britain, under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 it is a criminal offence to be in Parliament Square“in possession of items that might be used for sleeping”, and the police have deemed that anyone who is sitting on a tarpaulin to keep off the cold tarmac is guilty of ‘erecting a structure’.

I should perhaps emphasise that I am not making any of this up in an attempt to be funny. This is all genuinely happening in a country that seems to spend half its time lording it over the Chinese government for its ‘repressive behaviour’ and denouncing the Chinese media for theirrefusal to report openly on events in China.

The Hong Kong Occupy demonstrators should be careful what they wish for. It is true that they do not have the same right that Americans do, to vote for one of two millionaires who have sold themselves to a group of financial interests, and then to vote a couple of years later for the other one. But tens of thousands of them have been allowed to conduct their protests on the streets of Hong Kong for weeks now, erecting barricades, causing obstructions, and disrupting the lives and the work of their fellow citizens, and their protests have been managed for the most part without violence.

Whereas if tens of thousands of Hong Kong Occupy protestorshad been out with their barricades on the streets of London, they would have been dispersed within day sand many of them would now be in prison.If they had been out with their barricades on the streets of New York, they would have been dispersed within days and many of them would now be in hospital, or the morgue.

That’s what I call depocrisy.
 
Last edited:

wtlh

Junior Member
Hong Kong protests: Activists share secrets at Oslo Freedom Forum

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Where might you find a North Korean defector, a self-confessed Serbian troublemaker, a Tiananmen Square protester and members of punk group Pussy Riot in the same room?

While Hong Kong's students continue their protests and stumbling negotiations with the territory's authorities, democracy activists from around the world, who have helped organise their struggle, gather together.

The Oslo Freedom Forum is one of the biggest meetings of human rights activists in the world, and this year its rather surreal proceedings have a different tension, as activists trying to take on Beijing's actions in Hong Kong seek to hold their ground.

Activists are furious at what they see as Beijing's proposals to fix the election of Hong Kong's next chief executive.

'Trained demonstrators'

However, far from being impromptu demonstrations, it is an open secret at this meeting in Norway that plans were hatched for the demonstrations nearly two years ago.

The ideas was to use non-violent action as a "weapon of mass destruction" to challenge the Chinese government.


Organisers prepared a plan to persuade 10,000 people on to the streets, to occupy roads in central Hong Kong, back in January 2013.

They believed that China's moves to control the Hong Kong election would provide a flashpoint where civil disobedience could be effective, and planned accordingly.

Their strategies were not just to plan the timing and nature of the demonstrations, but also how they would be run.

BBC Newsnight has been told many of those involved in the demonstrations, perhaps more than 1,000 of them, have been given specific training to help make the campaign as effective as possible.

Jamila Raqib, the executive director of the Albert Einstein Institution in New York, a human rights organisation, says: "Protesters were taught how to behave during a protest.

"How to keep ranks, how to speak to police, how to manage their own movement, how to use marshals in their movement, people who are specially trained.

"It was also how to behave when arrested - practical things like the need for food and water, movement can last longer when people are taken care of, and also how to manage a water cannon being used against you, and other types of police violence."

'New world race'

Jianili Yang, a Chinese academic, was part of the violent protests in Tiananmen Square 25 years ago.

He has been advising the Hong Kong demonstrators on an almost hourly basis.

He says that the students are better organised than the Tiananmen protesters ever were, with clearer, more effective structures for their action and clearer goals about what they are trying to achieve.

But he adds that responsibility for what happens next is not just down to the protesters themselves, not just down to other democracy activists like those gathered here in Oslo, but to the rest of the world.

Protests don't always work.

Serdja Popovic was one of the student leaders involved in overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic.

He has since trained activists in 40 countries, but he says the techniques of non-violent action that he advocates have led to successful and lasting change in only six or seven countries.

He argues that there is more need than ever for the methods of organisation and leadership to be shared.

He says that after the 20th Century military race, "what we are seeing now is a new world race - now it is 'can the good guys learn as well as the bad guys?'."

'Schmoozing for democracy'

Mr Popovic says whether in Georgia, Ukraine, Egypt or Hong Kong "you can look at these movements - and see the set of rules".

"You have to understand the rules of the non-military battlefield."

His work in Oslo, along with the writings of the American human rights activist, Gene Sharp, is in high demand.

There is something incongruous about the Oslo meeting - seeing Chinese dissidents, American computer hackers, activists from Africa, the Middle East and Russia trade information over champagne and canapés.

Like any conference, a good deal of the work is done after hours, even if it is schmoozing for democracy.

Two members of Russian opposition female punk group Pussy Riot, members of which were put in jail by President Putin, are here too.

They say they want to "make personal contacts" and meet others doing similar human rights work.

What this event shows is that struggles for democracy or human rights in the 21st Century rarely happen in isolation.

Activists, whether those on the streets of Hong Kong right now, or from other parts of the world, are sharing information and insights faster than ever before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top