Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber
hongkongfp.comI'm honestly surprised it took this long to see something like this. I remember the day Hong Kong was turned over to China. I watched it live on the news. The Hong Kong people were most definitely not happy.
I'll bet at least 1/3 of the protestors weren't even born when that happened. But they have access to both oral and written history about how things used to be.
Information is a powerful thing. I hope they succeed in pushing back on China's takeover.
twenty years ago, many believed in the idea "One country, two systems", "50 years unchanged"
No they didn't. People left in droves to Canada then.
I don’t see how this comment (or rather the second sentence of it) and the one above conflict: Many people didn’t believe it and went to Canada. Many people did believe and didn’t go to Canada.
These don’t feel mutually exclusive to me.
Many people didn't believe and weren't in positions to leave
You might almost think it was intended to provoke a reaction.
So much so it smells like a false flag op. They were left pretty much alone for about 12 hours, while they broke windows and shutters, since the first reports of broken windows came last night.
To justify the "entirely necessary but unavoidable" reaction coming soon?
The last time the HK police used force there was a massive backlash and the police were angry the government put them in that position to take the brunt of the people's anger.
There are very good non-conspiratorial reasons for the police to take their time, this time around. Plus there's always a subset of protestors who just want to destroy property and take a more aggressive stance (usually the younger ones), regardless of the predictable way it will be spun by opponents and perceived by the more moderate public. Not every act of violence or property destruction can be blamed on police provocateurs.
The last time police used force they used tear gas and rubber bullets, without warning, against an entirely peaceful demonstration. Like nkoren said previous demonstrations have been extra careful to consistently keep it peaceful.
This time they wait until the protest has effectively finished trashing the legislature, then go in with tear gas and have a big sign stuck on riot shields of "WARNING: TEAR SMOKE". Both police and protest seem to be taking a dramatically different approach. The peaceful demonstrations that have continued appear separate.
Maybe it is as presented, but it sure makes me suspicious given history.
Sure there’s will always be people that are suspicious which is a good thing. More eyes watching. But doesn’t mean it’s true or more plausible than alternative theories.
The evidence you presented could be spun either way.
Besides wanting to destroy property and take a more aggressive stance, there is a prevalent atmosphere of doomsday feeling among the protesting youth.
3 suicides over the last few days can be associated to the current unrest. I wouldn't say it's all the government's fault but it cannot be overlooked either.
They are desperate, while whether the current realities warrant that feeling is debatable, one cannot deny its existence.
God bless the grass that grows through cement. It's green and it's tender and it's easily bent. But after a while it lifts up its head, For the grass is living and the stone is dead
God bless the grass that's gentle and low, Its roots they are deep and its will is to grow. And God bless the truth, the friend of the poor, And the wild grass growing at the poor man's door.
This is not a false flag op.
Disclosure: I closely followed the forum where many of the high level discussions take place: lihkg.com (in Cantonese).
The protestors broke into the legislative council, partly in response to the no-response from the government after the large protests on 9 June, 12 June, and 16 June; and partly because of some recent desperate suicides towards no-response from the government (just two cases on 30 June, the day before 1 July).
There were lots of push back for breaking the windows even among the protestors, but eventually they did it just to enter the building. The protestors did not go further to break things: they left money for drinks in the fridge, and labeled artifacts for protection (in Cantonese [1]), so they remained civil except for breaking into the building.
They made a declaration [2] before they left and the police took over.
[1]: https://www.facebook.com/hksidestories/posts/245385840131281...
What is your response to this front page reddit post? https://old.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/c7xhih/protestors...
Here's a comparison between first second of video, last second (54'') of video, and a composite. Levels are adjusted for clarity because the original comparison is amateurish and more than a little disingenuous.
https://i.imgur.com/TVKFW4S.png
(1) It's pretty obvious there are 3 hands which everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring (you know, like a watch).
(2) Composite frame clearly show hands do not move at all throughout the video suggest the watch is in fact not wound / functional.
Interesting, thanks for the extra info.
Bloody disappointing if so, as it seems likely to get just the sort of heavy handed response that they're demonstrating over.
False flag op was my instant reaction as well. The original protestors were fastidious in their civic-mindedness. These are not them. These protestors are producing made-to-order photos for the Chinese press. When China steps in to "restore order", this will be why.
My guess is that this is legitimate, but a strategy like the Republicans used in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that your little city can't defeat the PLA. What you can do is make yourself ungovernable without making China do things that would tarnish their world reputation. If China quells this protest, but in the process turns Hong Kong into another Xinjiang (including the "reeducation" camps for protesters, and the invasive surveillance on the rest of them, most of whom were alive during British rule), all in violation of the treaty with the UK, then they lose.
Since the world already turned a blind eye to Xinjiang, what makes you believe they won't turn a blind eye to Hong Kong?
Xinjiang isn’t a major finance hub.
And this is good for Hong Kong how?
People need to get over the reality that One Country Two Systems was meant to be a transition, not a permanent condition. Legally. The most legitimate path that is not tinged with racism or colonialism is to use that time to make sure China becomes a prosperous and free country that everybody wants to live in, as it should be.
The point is that China has external pressure not to do that.
And much stronger internal preasure to do this disregarding externalities
The trick with running an autoracy is that it has to be absolute. If one city could disobey and contend the rulers then others will follow.
I would expect few car bombs to follow soon. Terrorism is such a tabu in the West that it would give China carte blanche in HK.
> The original protestors were fastidious in their civic-mindedness.
General question: What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows?
How do you apply that process for determining the nature of protests in your local city?
I ask, because I've never been to, seen, heard of, or read about a protest whose nature was not in dispute by conflicting media. The side that a publication supports is nearly always framed as a group of angels, while the opposing side frames it as a bunch of savages, that were rightfully put in their place by a police response.
> What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows?
Whether they smash windows and vandalise, or not.
1. How do you know that is actually done by the protestors, or some unaffiliated hooligans?
2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source.
Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension - and is a distraction, used to condemn some protests (that you politically oppose) as illegitimate, and to endorse others, as legitimate?
Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans, either planted, embedded, or just standing on the sidelines. I postulate that it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances.
Or, you know, throwing tea into a harbour.
I'm not up on US history really, but tea was expensive at the time and it was other people's tea being destroyed, so that might well be vandalism. Happy to be corrected though.
Maybe. But there was also a mass peaceful demonstration held concurrently (more or less for the same cause), the protesters waited till most of those demonstrators had left, or enough of them who left behind to support them, before action.
One really needs to look at the whole picture to gain some perspective on this recent "sudden" raise of civil disobedience in HK.
"False flag" gets thrown around far too often, compared to the number of proven cases. And, yes, we would have some amount of history to study for such cases: many files of bygone governments like East Germany, the Nazis, or Apartheid South Africa, as well as de-classified files in the US and other western nations.
The problem with insinuating "false flag" is that it gives everyone license to believe whatever better fits their existing narrative. I remember the possibility being raised, on HN, for the murder in Charlottesville, for example.
In this specific case, it is quite obviously false. Entering & occupying the legislative chamber, with no injuries and rather minor damages, just isn't enough of a pretext for a violent reaction to be considered proportional.
Not sure what part you think is a false flag. Hong Kong has a history of protests against China. That would basically have been HK government admitting that Chinese law supersedes HK law.
Could you imagine the UK passing a law that Brussels has jurisdiction over UK citizens? The brexiters would go absolutely nuts. HK has a history of resisting Chinese attempts to impose One China on them.
> Could you imagine the UK passing a law that Brussels has jurisdiction over UK citizens?
This is already the case, right? Per Wikipedia:
"A regulation is a legal act of the European Union that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously."
Yeah. But, in OP’s defense, Brexiteers have already gone nuts as well.
That seems to be a common opinion on the ground, apparently.
Feels unlikely. Does China really want to sent troops into Hong Kong? Trump is not a civic minded person, but I imagine such an action would not play well towards their current PR and economic troubles for trade deals.
It also creates a genuine likelihood of raising anti Chinese sentiment and increasing the threat of violent resistance.
> Does China really want to sent troops into Hong Kong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Hon...
Interesting but not really contradictory. The fact that there are physically troops there isn’t all that significant. This Wikipedia suggests they’re not allowed to interfere and that they’re not supposed to support public order. Deploying these troops would be maybe slightly less controversial than new soldiers but still highly frowned upon. Sending Chinese troops to put down protestors would probably rally another third of the city state to the cause.
The garrison troops have yet to interfere in the domestic affairs of Hong Kong, at least directly.
If and when they do, it will be unlikely to end well.
So protestors wear yellow and white helmets?
Press wear a more heavily reinforced helmet w/ possible other colors? If True, thats so cool that they are organized enough to agree the protestors wear helmets!
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/02/breaking-tear-gas-depl...
The protesters had left and the police has reclaimed the building.
Apparently the police are also rounding up people leaving via the metro.
Any time protesters start throwing “unidentified liquids” my mind makes some gross assumptions. Maybe I’ve spent too long in SF.
Piss is probably preferable to acid.
Throwing acid is not exactly unheard of in HK - often cases against women.
Thankfully there's no indication of that.
My first thought as well. And the reason I’ll never go to the Hong Kong Sevens even though I hear it’s awesome.
FWIW, the BBC World Service coverage of this has been... disappointing.
During the time the protestors were raising the British flag in the legislative chamber, the World Service was doing an in-depth report on Taylor Swift's latest social media rant, and interviewing some blogger about Ivanka Trump.
I remember when the BBC was the go-to place for breaking world news.
Perhaps, they are stalling until political leadership can suggest an angle to take on the events.
The BBC has all kinds of problems. Waiting for a 'line to take' from politicians is emphatically not one of them.
That is good to hear. As an American, I’m not sure how independently the editorial choices are made at the BBC.
In that case, it may be better not to throw out accusations. People are cynical and mistrusting enough. No need to feed the believe that every politician is corrupt and every journalists lying.
I think you’re casting too dark a shade on my comment. Independent new publications like the BBC, NPR, New York Times, etc. will always be in discussion with - and often reliant on information provided by - politicians on world events. It’s part of the process of news making.
What exactly is the sentiment of raising the old British HK flag?
Is it like that would be a preferred status of HK?
Is is like a reference to former puppets running HK, who now report to Beijing instead of Britain?
Is it just trolling?
From what I understand, they largely romanticize the times when Hong Kong was a British colony. However, it seems clear that what the protesters are asking for is ideologically more in-line with a British/Western conception of a democratic society. And because Hong Kong will never be independent and the CCP never democratic, raising the British HK flag is the last thing they can hold on to.
I see it as a testament to their desperation.
Interesting.
When I talk to HK citizens I don't really get the sense of desperation. I get the sense of complacency and imaging everything is going to be okay. Carrie Lam has certainly crossed an ideological line, I still think we are projecting our perspective of how Hong Kong citizens are supposed to feel.
It's certainly newsworthy. Perhaps even a journalist might even have asked them...
I watched (on reuters) the police come in with tear gas and beat sticks and riot shields and beat/gas the entire crowd away, with a sign reading 'WARNING: TEAR GAS'. Even though the legislative chamber seemed relatively empty compared to the large crowd outside milling about and continuing the peaceful protest...
Those protesters, trying to avoid arrest, left before the police re-occupied the building.
Yeah, it was just strange to see the police marching on the streets like that.
I really hope Hong Kong gains independence from China. They do not want to be part of that regime. Hong Kong currently participates in some United Nations committees, but is not recognized as a country.
Have there been any political leaders in Hong Kong who have publicly opposed returning to China or who have requested recognition by other UN member States?
I was born in Hong Kong but don't live there anymore, although I still visit regularly.
That's a very simplistic view. Many people who oppose the Chinese government do not support complete independence. If there's a referendum on this I expect it to fail on a large margin.
This sounds like a complete no-go. Would the rest of the world accept HK as an independent state? Look how they're accepting Taiwan. Now add that China has actual agreements on the status of HK and Macau.
>> During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong
The eyes of the world indeed do "know what China is like". They do not care. Should HK move towards independence, tanks will roll south and the world will do nothing.
It amazes me when suddenly something matters or it doesn’t. There were outcries over Crimea until there suddenly weren’t. There were no outcries over Syria until there suddenly were.
I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way higher, and I don't think that straight up capture of Hong Kong (Crimea-style) will go over nearly as well.
P.S. Also, not that it makes the situation any less reprehensible, keep in mind that heavy majority of Crimea population at the time of capture was ethnically Russian and was supportive of RF actions. Hong Kong residents, on the other hand, seem to be way less supportive of PRC.
The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.
They didn't handicap them. HK's status was entirely based on the fact that it was the entry to do business with China. Shanghai and China becoming more open (for example, foreign investors being able to invest in Chinese securities) made HK less important, and the Umbrella Revolution made HK less relevant (bankers don't like risk).
Edit - And this most recent round of demonstrations is the nail in the coffin. No business would ever do business in HK now with the political uncertainty, easier to simply set up shop in Shanghai or form a JV.
China didn't handicap shit. Hong Kong's rise in the first place was entirely due to China's self-inflicted communism and external sanctions in the first decades after the Revolution. (Shanghai was the Paris of the East before that.) Ever since that stopped, Hong Kong was no longer as important by default. Hong Kong's special status was always predicated on somehow China failing, including now (rule of law, etc.).
This is why the underlying sentiment of Hong Kong independence is especially offensive to Chinese sensibilities.
That's the real leverage. Hong Kong's true potential is still there to be uncovered, and people remember how flourishing it was back then. Imagine how it could all blow up to even higher highs if the PRC rule was completely gone from Hong Kong. I feel like if that gate opens in the near future (i know, wishful thinking), HK will have its new golden age, as companies and individuals will not need to worry about PRC influence on HK anymore.
HK used to flourish because it was the access point between China and the West. If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore... what "higher highs" are you anticipating, exactly?
>If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore
Becoming independent from China != completely severing ties with China. Also, I think these days a better served purpose of HK is as the access point to the whole Asian/SEA region, rather than the access point to China alone.
Also, HK seems to be (from an outsider perspective) one of the most (if not the most) "westernized" cities in the region, with the proliferation of English language and all, so I can totally see it becoming the central hub in the Asian/SEA region for a lot of companies from the west.
Hm. I guess I just don't see China allowing that kind of relationship with an independent HK. HK is also so incredibly close to China geographically, economically, and even culturally that it's hard to wrap my mind around the concept of HK independence.
HK as an Asia/SEA hub is a reasonable point, but Singapore already serves that role and is much less reliant on China.
What is it about post-colonial westerners that makes them not able to grok that the world, but especially Asia, no longer exists to serve westerners?
Should there be a most "easternized" city in the heart of Europe that should have a prolific Mandarin speaker base?
You've been repeatedly crossing into flamewar on these topics. We've asked you many times before not to do that, and even told you we'd ban you if you did it again. Would you please stop doing this on HN? It's abusive, no matter how wrong and ignorant others' comments are or you feel they are.
> While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict.
There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then). In HK the situation is completely different: people know what kind of country China is, and will fight for whatever rights they still have.
>There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then)
We do not know what people of Crimea wanted. Nobody during military occupation of Crimea asked their opinion.
I don't know about people in general, but those I spoke to a few years before the invasion told me on numerous occasion that they would prefer that Crimea belonged to Russia, and that they would be much better off then. of course, this doesn't mean they supported the invasion in any way, it was just an opinion.
After the invasion cam ethe period of disillusionment. It turned out the situation only changed for worse. But nobody should be surprised there was practically no opposition when Russians took over Crimea.
I had briefly mentioned this in the "P.S." section of my original comment, but I appreciate you adding more concrete and specific examples.
The Tatar minority in Crimea, on the other hand, did not like the idea of being Russian subjects much at all.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116814/crimean-tatars-primer...
So a minority should dictate international relations? A minority that aren't even indigenous and whose only history of statehood was being a vassal of the Ottomans that captured and sold Slavs as slaves... Why should they dictate what happens between Ukraine or Russia?
The US has a lot of people whose history of statehood traces back to slavery. They still get a right to vote on their future.
Yes, they do. But the Crimean Tatars are what, 15% at most? Some people are acting like they should decide for everyone.
More than 15% of Ukrainians opposed Maidan (including Crimeans). Yet they were subjected to it.
No one from people not Ukrainians, not Tatars and not Russians had option to decide there future during the occupation process. There were just occupied by Russian military. It was military operation not decision of local population.
And also yes minority have there rights.
I do not understand why that message was down voted. Tatars are really the oldest owner of Crimea and they do not support Russia. They remember many bad from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat... And now too nobody asked them if they want to be part of Russia or not.
Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
>Crimea is occupated and this is reality. All other talks about how much Crimea is more Russian sounds like a Russian propaganda.
While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
>Semi-related (not trying to detract from your point): interestingly enough, there is a whole Tatar state within Russia that many people might not be aware of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
Tatars from Tatarstan and Tatars from Crimea share only name, they are different nationalities.
>While I am very opposed to the capture of Crimea by RF, I feel you are being disingenuous when you say that. According to the latest census, russians make up 67.9% of Crimean population, while tatars make up just 12.6% [1]. Those numbers seem to support the point that Crimea is indeed majority russian, with tatars being outnumbered by almost a factor of 6.
This logic is totally misleading. If there are more Russians it does not make Crimea Russian.
It might be misleading, but not totally. You're totally right that nobody had anything to say, Putin made the decision for them. But the share of population isn't insignificant. Would you see it differentley if 99% of Crimeans were Russians? 100%? If so, where is the borderline? If not, how would it be different from a colony (that I hope all agree is an embarassing relic of the past)?
>> Tatars are really the oldest owner of Crimea and they do not support Russia...
Tatars are not the oldest owner of Crimea. 2500 years ago Crimea was a Greek colony, then it was part of a Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire [1] Mongols conquered Crimea only in 13th century.
Oldest that are living in that territory. No people from Persian Empire, then Roman Empire, then Byzantine Empire and Mongols at the moment living in Crimea.
The Greeks were around a for a millenia prior to the tatars, the majority were resettled to modern day Ukraine under the Russian Empire.
>The Greeks were around a for a millenia prior to the tatars, the majority were resettled to modern day Ukraine under the Russian Empire. Oldest that are living in that territory. No Greeks at the moment at Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...
Economic sanctions against Russia have not changed, nor have other consequences of their action in Crimea, such as their exclusion from G7 (formerly G8, formerly G7+1).
Sure, the topic has disappeared from the news. But that does not mean everything is back to normal. It just indicates the situation is frozen.
More generally, territorial expansion by force has been extremely rare in recent history, compared to previous times. That would indicate that the practice generally being frowned upon, and the available actions in response, are somewhat effective.
As to Syria, I remember hearing about it on the first day of protests. That's not to say it went well in any meaning of the word–there really aren't any good options once a government has decided to brutalise its own people. But it did get attention.
Like the whole idea of a social tipping point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)
Taiwan is poster child for the difference between "de facto" and "de jure". I don't think you could sum up the situation with Taiwan quite so simply.
Right, and Scotland wants to be independent from the UK, Catalonia from Spain, the Left Coast from the rest of the United States, and so on and so on.
Every country has secessionist movements, and no country wants to encourage that sort of thing abroad, lest it bite it in the ass domestically.
In each of those cases there's absolutely a process (albeit a long and arduous process) for secession. It's a process truly democratic countries need to have.
Don't forget that Scotland very nearly did leave the UK, with the government's consent, in 2014 (but the referendum didn't pass).
The Catalonia case is a bit murkier, since the Catalan government did not actually reach an agreement with the Spanish government before they went ahead with the referendum. Also because of irregularities seen by international observers during the referendum, the Catalonia referendum result was generally not recognized.
I don't think the USA has a legal process for secession.
Yeah, there's at least a supreme court precedent, set by Texas v. White. It outlawed unilateral succession, but ruled that "revolution or consent of the states" can lead to secession.
The whole point of secession, whether in the US, or Catalonia, or in China[1], is that you have reached a point where you are not able to come to a bilateral compromise on issues that affect you.
If you need bilateral support to exercise your right to self-determination, you don't actually, in practice, have any right to self-determination.
It's like saying that you have the freedom to leave your abusive job, but only as long as your boss lets you quit. That's not freedom, that's slavery.
[1] And yes, I am aware that the case in Scotland was a bit different. Props to the UK for being, as an outside observer, reasonable about the whole affair.
Do you think there is any scenario where it can be a bargaining chip that results in its independence?
1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power.
How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.
Uniting China has been the core political ideology for all major China dynasties across history, the same for CPC too. Let alone overthrowing the colonialism and getting independence is widely regarded as one of the greatest achievement and gives the legality of its governance.The resource deployed is chicken feed compared to the political crisis losing SARs.
Gaining more power is probably the only common thread among powerful men of all ideologies. "Uniting China" is just another way of saying "extend my control over more people." We shouldn't be surprised that expansionary rhetoric was common among all the major dynasties in what we today call China. This is not, however, a license to do so.
"To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic." -- Assassin's Creed
These kids fucked themselves so hard. Entering LegCo will enable the government to identify (and punish) the most radical elements under HK riot law. Covering their faces won't stop the government from identifying every mobile device that entered the building via cell tower, GPS and wifi router records. Throwing bricks in the public and blending in with the crowd on the street is one thing, entering an easily geofenced government building with identifiable mobile devices is another.
They probably used burner phones. At least, that's what people do in Germany.
German people break into the German parliament?
They want to be arrested as martyrs, that's the whole modus operandi. They want escalation beyond what the majority probably bargained for and it's not going to end well.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is 1) political, 2) on TV news constantly, 3) not really new since they've been protesting for days now