Please sign against article 23

Mentre lo costringevo ad ascoltare l'opera omnia di Toto Cutugno, John
invoco pieta' dicendo:

J> What is in the article 23 ? I am sure you wouldn't sign a check without
J> knowing who it goes to. So give us a link on article 23.

In this site there is everything you're searching for.

??>>
??>> For details:
??>> http://www.againstarticle23.org/en/newsdetails.php?id=112
??>>

Anyway, it's an article for:

1. Hongkong police have the right to break in a unit and carry
out a search without a search warrant from a court.
2. If Hongkong residents oppose wars, they could be charged
with treason.
3. The press could be charged for releasing state secret and
they cannot defend themselves with a clause on public
interests. This means another incident like SARS, the
press in Hongkong might not be able to report it.
4. If a Hongkong resident attends an association and it is
declared illegal in Mainland China, then this Hongkong
resident could face jail time (It is believed this code
is aiming at Falun Gong members).
5. For certain appeal cases, the government will appoint the
lawyer for the accused (that is, the accused cannot appoint
his/her own laywer), and the authority could keep the accused
and his/her lawyer from appearing in the court. The court
could accept certain evidences/testimonies which are not
accepted on normal conditions, and the authority can specify
that certain evidences be withheld from the accused and his/her
lawyer.
6. If a Hongkong resident criticizes the government and this speech
results in a riot, then he/she could be charged for "fanning up
a riot".
7. If Taiwan and Mainland China are engaged in a war, a Hongkong
resident could be considered "separating the motherland" even if
he/she supports status quo.

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-09 07:06:17 UTC

J> Well, this is a website that oppose article 23, can you suggest a
J> website which
J> has more detail of article 23 rather than just pieces pick and choose to
J> suit some
J> people's interpretation of article 23, if you want people signed up
J> gives a more
J> informed information. I am interested in article 23 in its official and
J> original form.

The official and original form was never released in english (not very good,
right...?). Anyway, in the HK SAR government site there is a lot of things
about it. Obviously in that site they say it's a good thing :-)

http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

Ribes cynosbati

2003-07-09 18:00:14 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki
Mentre lo costringevo ad ascoltare l'opera omnia di Toto Cutugno, John
J> What is in the article 23 ? I am sure you wouldn't sign a check without
J> knowing who it goes to. So give us a link on article 23.
In this site there is everything you're searching for.
??>>
??>> http://www.againstarticle23.org/en/newsdetails.php?id=112
??>>

I want to caution you that this page provides views from Australian
Falun Dafa organization -- so it might not be as "fair" as a
third-party one.

In another message in the Hongkong forums, I have located the content
of the proposed Article 23, with Chinese and English side-by-side in
the *.pdf file.

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-10 14:47:14 UTC

cl> Not everything. Here are some counter points:

cl> Compare proposed provision with similiar laws in UK, US, Can and Aus:
cl> http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/pamphlet/pamphlet6.htm

cl> Protection of rights and freedoms:
cl> http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/pamphlet/pamphlet3_3.htm

cl> Similiar topics can be found on:
cl> http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/pamphlet/index.htm

cl> And let me point out, as an example, article 32's provision on banking
cl> is very similiar to the banking provision stipulated in USA Patriot
cl> Act.

Some questions:

1) Do you think art.23 won't limit freedom of speech in HK? I mean, do you
think that, after art.23, it will be possible to write on a newspaper all
the same things of today?

2) If not, do you think it's right to limit freedom of speech and press? Do
you think HKers now have "too much freedom"?

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

charles liu

2003-07-11 02:03:19 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki

Post by Senbee Norimaki
Mentre lo costringevo ad ascoltare l'opera omnia di Toto Cutugno, John
In this site there is everything you're searching for.

http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/pamphlet/pamphlet6.htm
http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/pamphlet/pamphlet3_3.htm
http://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/pamphlet/index.htm
And let me point out, as an example, article 32's provision on banking
is very similiar to the banking provision stipulated in USA Patriot
Act.

Some people pass their mortgage applications easily, and some have to
present a lot of guarantors. The difference is in credibility.

And in what way has the SAR government lacked credibility? I mean
besides your "guilt by association with PRC"? Did SAR send FLGer to
reeducation camp? Crack down on democracy movement?

The difference is your accusation has no credibility. Guilt by
assocaition? That's gestapo crap. BTW, USA Patriot Act has provision
to presume family members of suspected terrorist to be guilty by
association.

Ribes cynosbati

2003-07-11 06:27:15 UTC

Some people pass their mortgage applications easily, and some have to
present a lot of guarantors. The difference is in credibility.

And in what way has the SAR government lacked credibility? I mean
besides your "guilt by association with PRC"? Did SAR send FLGer to
reeducation camp? Crack down on democracy movement?

Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

Post by charles liu
The difference is your accusation has no credibility. Guilt by
assocaition? That's gestapo crap. BTW, USA Patriot Act has provision
to presume family members of suspected terrorist to be guilty by
association.

Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

Ribes cynosbati

2003-07-12 01:37:29 UTC

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

Just one little e.g., Regina Yip is the Sec. for Security, who
led the propaganda for art. 23. When asked about democracy, she
responded that democracy is dangerous, Hitler was elected thru
democracy. Became a laughingstock.

It will be appreciated for you to share more information about Regina
Yip's comment on democracy. Jokes like this should be preserved in
the cyberspace for a longer time.

Maybe today Beijing is still surprised why Hongkong residents do not
like Article 23. There was a Chinese story, something like the
following. A guy was selling great wine, but to his surprise few
people visit his shop and buy his great product. He was puzzled and
one day he asked his friends why. His friend replies, "You keep such
a bad dog in front of your shop. How will anyone be interested to be
your customer?"

Now the customers are not even sure how great the wine is, and there
is a barking dog in front of the shop.

Wing C Ng

2003-07-12 17:17:21 UTC

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

It will be appreciated for you to share more information about Regina
Yip's comment on democracy. Jokes like this should be preserved in
the cyberspace for a longer time.
Maybe today Beijing is still surprised why Hongkong residents do not
like Article 23. There was a Chinese story, something like the
following. A guy was selling great wine, but to his surprise few
people visit his shop and buy his great product. He was puzzled and
one day he asked his friends why. His friend replies, "You keep such
a bad dog in front of your shop. How will anyone be interested to be
your customer?"
Now the customers are not even sure how great the wine is, and there
is a barking dog in front of the shop.

The original art. 23 was not a good thing - it was put into the
Basic Law by the hardliners to discourage things like supporting
dem. in China. But the proposed legislation goes way beyond, by
putting in garbage. Not clear who did this, 1) Beijing told HK
gov. to do this, 2) HK gov. wants to ingratiate itself with Beijing
by acting tough on art. 23. Will never know, until docs are
available upon change of regime.

Then C.H. Tung made it worse by appointing mad dogs like Reginaa
Yip to "sell" it. Now even pro-Beijing politicians, allies of CHT,
call for replacement of Regina Yip. She is too nutty.

Wing

LT Lee

2003-07-12 08:20:24 UTC

Some people pass their mortgage applications easily, and some have to
present a lot of guarantors. The difference is in credibility.

And in what way has the SAR government lacked credibility? I mean
besides your "guilt by association with PRC"? Did SAR send FLGer to
reeducation camp? Crack down on democracy movement?

Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

Is she wrong? Was Hilter the result of democracy?
This is one European view.

In EUROPE: A HISTORY, Norman Davies wrote:

"... In September 1930, in the interests democracy, one minority
Chancellor persuaded President Hindenburg to activate article 48 of
the
Weimar Constitution. Henceforth, the German president could 'use armed
force to restore order and safety' and suspend 'the fundamental rights
of the citizens'. It was an instrument which others could exploit to
overthrow democracy.

The sequence of events was crucial. ... In June 1932 another minority
Chancellor, Franz von Papen, gained the support of the Reichstag by
working with the Nazi deputies. Six monthe later, he cooked up another
combination: he decided to make Hilter Chancellor, with himself as
Vice-
Chancellor, and to put three Nazi ministers out of twelve into the
Cabinet. President Hindenburg, and the German right in general,
thought
it was a clever idea...

Less than a month later, and a week before the next elections, a
mysterious fire demolished the Reichstag building. The Nazi proclaimed
a Red plot, arrested communist leaders, won 44 percent of the popular
vote ... In October Hilter organized a plebiscite to approve Germany's
withdrawal from the League of Nations and from the Disarmament
Conference. He received 96.3 per cent support. In August 1934, ... he
called another plebiscite to approve his own elevation to the new
party-
state position of 'Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor' with full emergency
power. This time he received 90 per cent support..." (p. 967)

The german voters were given a voice. They spoke out by casting their
votes. They gave Hilter 90 percent of their support. Was that
democratic?

What can we learn from Hilter and democracy? Historian Norman Davis
commented further:

"Hilter's democratic triumph exposed the true nature of democracy.
Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or as bad, as the
principles of the people who operate it. In the hands of liberate and
tolerant people, it will produce a liberal and tolerant government; in
the hands of cannibals, a government of cannibals. In Germany in 1933-
4, it produced a Nazi government because the prevailing culture of
Germany's voters did not give priority to the exclusion of gangsters."
(p.969)

There cannot be a dictator in a democratic

Why don't you simply say democratic must produce a benevolent God?
Sorry. You are expressing an idealism about democracy. You are not
describing the reality of democracy. Idealism is good. But is it
realistic?

Robert Wiebe, Professor of history at Northwestern Univ did an
exhaustive study on democracy. He concluded that:

"Democracy is not a facet of political economy, nor does it favor
capitalism, socialism, or any of their variants. Its separability, its
adaptability to many settings, helps to account for its global force.
Democracy is not a set of social outcomes. It promises no one good
health, adequate leisure, a rising standard of living, or equalization
of rewards. Democracy is not synonymous with a particular array of
supports - two party politics, constitutions, a vigorous press,
abundant voluntary associations, and the like. No institutional
context can stand proxy for popular self-government. Nor does
democracy contain cures for cruelty and oppression: it has no corner
on compassionate impulses or social sensitivities. Although it has
some theoretical affinity for doctrines of liberty, equality, and
fairness - hence the frequency with which these terms show up in
discussion of democracy - it does not provide reliable, concrete
support for any of these grand concepts. Democracy, in other words,
reveals our humanity, not our salvation..." He ended the above
paragraph with an emphatic "We may not like it." (SELF-RULE: A
cultural History of American Democracy, 1995 by Robert Wiebe)

In short, democracy reveals our humanity and inhumanity. It is as good
and as
bad as the citizens. It is a system aspires to be the average. It is a
system without direction. It has inherently no good and bad. All
things are to be defined by the citizens.

Wing

LT Lee

2003-07-12 22:40:14 UTC

Post by LT Lee

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

Is she wrong? Was Hilter the result of democracy?
This is one European view.

It is precisely a laughingstock because nuts on this group
have advocated this view for years, and I've seen it soooooo
many times. So I don't need to see it again.
I did agree that Hitler got power legitimately within the rules
of the Weimar Republic, which point some people disagreed
about.

You saw it "soooooo many times" means it is wrong.
If you are posting here for the purpose of discussion, please explain.

Wing

charles liu

2003-07-14 05:36:31 UTC

Some people pass their mortgage applications easily, and some have to
present a lot of guarantors. The difference is in credibility.

And in what way has the SAR government lacked credibility? I mean
besides your "guilt by association with PRC"? Did SAR send FLGer to
reeducation camp? Crack down on democracy movement?

Good question. But you should ask the Hongkong protesters why they
did not trust SAR, not me.

Wow, good to know; I've never heard of this. Well another little e.g.,
Thomas Jefferson, one of America's founding fathers, said real
democracy should be feared, as it is "tyranny of the majority".

Wing

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-15 17:05:25 UTC

cl> Wow, good to know; I've never heard of this. Well another little e.g.,
cl> Thomas Jefferson, one of America's founding fathers, said real
cl> democracy should be feared, as it is "tyranny of the majority".

All these posts make me understand one thing: people who are not critical
towards art.23 actually don't like democracy, and they even think Hong Kong
people have too much freedom.

It makes me think art.23 actually limitates democracy and freedom.

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

charles liu

2003-07-16 07:41:40 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki
cl> Wow, good to know; I've never heard of this. Well another little e.g.,
cl> Thomas Jefferson, one of America's founding fathers, said real
cl> democracy should be feared, as it is "tyranny of the majority".
All these posts make me understand one thing: people who are not critical
towards art.23 actually don't like democracy, and they even think Hong Kong
people have too much freedom.
It makes me think art.23 actually limitates democracy and freedom.

Here's another liitl e.g., Art. 23 has not jailed a single person. I
don't know how you can say "actually" when the bill hasn't even
passed.

Why does US, UK, Canada, Australia all have similiar security law? Is
it because such law is necessary in light of today's unstable,
dangerous world political environment?

I'm not talking about terrorism, I'm talking about mighty nations with
overwhelming military power and will to strike overtly and covertly.
Never mind Afganistan and Iraq, do you know what happened to Venezeula
recently? Their democraticlly elected president, Chavez, was nearly
toppled by CIA covert operation to destablize their sovereignty, to
prevent him from nationalize Venezeula's oil industry to benefit the
poor Venezeulans (and preserve the oil oligogs linked to Big Texas
Oil, and currupt union linked to US labor union AFL-CIO.)

US has law against foreign involvement in American politics (recalling
the Gore "buddist money" scandle), yet US Congress overtly funds
oversea political groups and influences other's sovereignty and
politics.

To protect China's sovereingty from appearant foreign influence and
attempts to compromize their national sovereignty, these measures can
be argued as necessary evil.

charles liu

2003-07-17 02:26:01 UTC

cl> Here's another liitl e.g., Art. 23 has not jailed a single person. I
cl> don't know how you can say "actually" when the bill hasn't even
cl> passed.
cl> Why does US, UK, Canada, Australia all have similiar security law? Is
cl> it because such law is necessary in light of today's unstable,
cl> dangerous world political environment?
OK, I'll repeat it for the 10th time: *IF* art.23 is *just* what you say,
It's ok. But, since the Chinese regime is not an example of human rights and
freedom,

Neither is US and a lot of other country? So what's your point?

Hong Kong people want to be SURE art.23 won't limit their FREEDOM
of THOUGHT and SPEECH and ASSOCIATION. To sign, means only to ask guarantees
about it.
1) do you think that, after art.23 is approved, I'll be able to write on a
newspaper sentences like "Chinese Communist Party doesn't respect human
rights"?

Yes. And your statement is just about as true as "US government
doesn't respect human rights". So what's your point.

Do you think Amnesty International will be closed in Hong Kong
after art.23?

I don't know. Do you think AI wouldn't be listed as a terrorist
organization if it criticized US the same way it criticize China with
regards to Native American Independence, Iraq, Venezeula?

Do you think movies and press will be censored as like in
China after art.23?

I would guess largely unchanged.

2) If yes, do you think it's right?

I'll repeat my opinion again - stating art 23 may be prone to abuse is
one thing. Stating it will do this and that, without solid proof is
another.

3) If no, do you think it's right to *ask* guarantees about it?

Where's the gaurantee for USA PA? Matter of fact is there guarantee
issued from any other countries regarding their laws? Don't you think
it's a bit unfair to only ask PRC/SAR? No country in the world
provides guarantee, not even US Constitution, so easily
revoked/compromised by USA PA.

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-17 07:28:55 UTC

??>> OK, I'll repeat it for the 10th time: *IF* art.23 is *just* what you
??>> say, It's ok. But, since the Chinese regime is not an example of human
??>> rights and freedom,

cl> Neither is US and a lot of other country? So what's your point?

My point is: we have to fight this cohercitive laws, everywhere they are. I
fight US PA as like as art.23.

cl> Do you think AI wouldn't be listed as a terrorist
cl> organization if it criticized US the same way it criticize China with
cl> regards to Native American Independence, Iraq, Venezeula?

Ok, now I understand your point and I begin to agree. But let me tell you:
you are too optimist. Infact, I don't believe an association like Amnesty
International will be able to live after art.23. Remember that in China
Amnesty International is considered to be a subversive association and it's
forbidden. The web site is banned as well.

??>> Do you think movies and press will be censored as like in
??>> China after art.23?

cl> I would guess largely unchanged.

I don't think so. And I'm pretty sure movie censorship will change as well.
Anyway, I'm glad to see you want freedom too: I was suspecting you are one
of those people who think HKers have too much freedom and they have to be
censored like in China. Fortunatly you're not. So forgive me for the polemic
tones in other posts: the fault is mine (my english is not very good:
unfortunatly I'm Italian...)

??>> 2) If yes, do you think it's right?

cl> I'll repeat my opinion again - stating art 23 may be prone to abuse is
cl> one thing. Stating it will do this and that, without solid proof is
cl> another.

Sure, you're right! But what's wrong to ask guarantees? You say: US PA is
equal and Americans didn't need guarantees. I say: the situation is
different (US does a lot of bad things abroad but it always let most of
American - not all, ok - to be free), and HKers are really frightened by the
Communist regime so I understand them when they want this kind of laws to be
absolutly clear and detailed about what they will be able to do and what
not.

cl> Don't you think
cl> it's a bit unfair to only ask PRC/SAR?

As I told you, I don't ask only for them. But we were talking about it.

cl> No country in the world provides guarantee, not even US Constitution,
cl> so easily revoked/compromised by USA PA.

When I talk about guarantee I just talk about detailed and clear laws. The
art.23, as it was written, was too unclear and so it was very frightening
(consider HKers live close to one of the bloodiest regimes of the world).
Most of all: Americans didn't protest very much about US PA. If they want
it, it's their business, but art.23 was strongly criticized bt 600.000
people, and the city of HK is one million people...! It means SIXTY PERCENT
of people don't want it. If democracy has a meaning, this is time to
understand it.

I would really like there was a referendum.

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

charles liu

2003-07-17 14:56:43 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki
??>> OK, I'll repeat it for the 10th time: *IF* art.23 is *just* what you
??>> say, It's ok. But, since the Chinese regime is not an example of human
??>> rights and freedom,
cl> Neither is US and a lot of other country? So what's your point?
My point is: we have to fight this cohercitive laws, everywhere they are. I
fight US PA as like as art.23.

No you don't. You hold HK SAR to a different standard than US
government, despite of the fact US government has far worse HR record
than HK SAR since 1997. Also search the newsgroup archive and compare
how many posts you've made on Art 23 vs. USA PA.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
cl> Do you think AI wouldn't be listed as a terrorist
cl> organization if it criticized US the same way it criticize China with
cl> regards to Native American Independence, Iraq, Venezeula?
Ok, now I understand your point and I begin to agree.

If you can agree, even in part, then you need to examine what caused
you to believe otherwise before. Do you think it's possible your
conclusion was drawn without equal consideration of all facts?

My friend, could it be you've been victim of propaganda? Propaganda
blinds you from the contrarian views, something required for critical
examination.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
you are too optimist. Infact, I don't believe an association like Amnesty
International will be able to live after art.23. Remember that in China
Amnesty International is considered to be a subversive association and it's
forbidden. The web site is banned as well.
??>> Do you think movies and press will be censored as like in
??>> China after art.23?
cl> I would guess largely unchanged.
I don't think so.

I disagree. I do not see any evidence HK SAR would go after its movie
industry.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
And I'm pretty sure movie censorship will change as well.

Why? Nowhere in Art 23 did it mention movie censor board. Show some
evidence.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
Anyway, I'm glad to see you want freedom too: I was suspecting you are one
of those people who think HKers have too much freedom and they have to be
censored like in China. Fortunatly you're not. So forgive me for the polemic
unfortunatly I'm Italian...)
??>> 2) If yes, do you think it's right?
cl> I'll repeat my opinion again - stating art 23 may be prone to abuse is
cl> one thing. Stating it will do this and that, without solid proof is
cl> another.
Sure, you're right! But what's wrong to ask guarantees?

What's wrong is you ask of no one else of the same guarantee. Holding
China or HK SAR to a different standard is unreasonable. Why not
respect Chinese people's self-determination and their flawed political
process? Many nations around the world has flawed political process.
What perfect political process created USA PA? What perfect political
process gave Berlusconi power?

Just as you would demand of others to respect yours. Do you think
Italy would appreciate US invasion or CIA intervention to solve thier
problems?

Berlusconi is a criminal and he dominates Italian politics via media
monopoly! Berlusconi commands the Italian army with lot of WMD!! Italy
is a threat to the world!!! Yes, we must invade Italy and liberate the
poor, suffering Italians whom are inferior human beings incapable of
solving their own problems.

(This is a joke, but just replace Berlusconi with CCP/Saddam, Italian
with Chinese/Iraqi - we have exactely what people are saying.)

Post by Senbee Norimaki
You say: US PA is
equal and Americans didn't need guarantees. I say: the situation is
different (US does a lot of bad things abroad but it always let most of
American - not all, ok - to be free),

Are you saying since US' HR abuse is directed towards others, it is
better than China's HR abuse directed at herself? I would argue
abusing others is worse. Some might say the reactionary environment
that stops China's political progress is a product of America's
empiralistic abuse of China and 1.3 billion Chinese people's civil
rights.

Do you think US support of dictators like Chili's Pinochet, Iraq's
Saddam Husaine, Iran's Shah, Panama's Noriega - are helpful to further
democracy in these Countries? Yet US accuses these countries for lack
of democracy.

You don't see this as selfish and wrong? If you do then re-examine
your feelings towards China and HK, as I feel they too are victims of
America's unilatteralism, imperialism, interventionism.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
and HKers are really frightened by the
Communist regime so I understand them when they want this kind of laws to be
absolutly clear and detailed about what they will be able to do and what
not.
cl> Don't you think
cl> it's a bit unfair to only ask PRC/SAR?
As I told you, I don't ask only for them. But we were talking about it.
cl> No country in the world provides guarantee, not even US Constitution,
cl> so easily revoked/compromised by USA PA.
When I talk about guarantee I just talk about detailed and clear laws.

No government in the world gaurnatee their laws to be detailed and
clear. Why do you think it's fair to hold HK SAR to a different
standard?

Post by Senbee Norimaki
The
art.23, as it was written, was too unclear and so it was very frightening
(consider HKers live close to one of the bloodiest regimes of the world).
Most of all: Americans didn't protest very much about US PA. If they want
it, it's their business, but art.23 was strongly criticized bt 600.000
people, and the city of HK is one million people...! It means SIXTY PERCENT
of people don't want it. If democracy has a meaning, this is time to
understand it.
I would really like there was a referendum.

As soon as referendum is required in USA for passing security law,
then I'll agree with you it's fair to demand HK SAR (or PRC gov) to
pass security law via referendum. I hope you see why I feel it's wrong
to say China is worse than others. This is such a politically biased
view of China and the Chinese people.

China isn't any different than other countries, she has problems;
Chinese people are not any different than other people, they try their
best to do what they feel as best for them, on their own schedule and
agenda.

I hope you'll stop believing propaganda (yes, even from Amenisty
International) you see around you without validating them critically.

Don't you think it's unfair to hold HK SAR to a different standard
from the rest of the world? Why do you think security laws, by nature
are protective/parental, can be created by pure democracy and still
achieve assurance of security?

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-18 17:33:04 UTC

??>>
??>> My point is: we have to fight this cohercitive laws, everywhere they
??>> are. I fight US PA as like as art.23.

cl> No you don't. You hold HK SAR to a different standard than US
cl> government, despite of the fact US government has far worse HR record
cl> than HK SAR since 1997. Also search the newsgroup archive and compare
cl> how many posts you've made on Art 23 vs. USA PA.

I did, I did. I'm in Amnesty International and I used to do it.
In this moment, I'm using Internet more than in the past, and moreover I
feel very close to the HK problems because my gf is from HK and I want to
live there. That's why I ASKED in the *HK newsgroup* to gently sign the
petition against a *HK law* I think will decrease HKer's freedom. According
to you, I have rights to ask to sign against art.23 ONLY if I ask to sign
against US PA in US newsgroup, against Korean law on Korean ng, against
Namibian regime in Namibian ng, against Laos regime in Laos ng and so on, as
well? Ah ah ah.... Please!

cl> If you can agree, even in part, then you need to examine what caused
cl> you to believe otherwise before. Do you think it's possible your
cl> conclusion was drawn without equal consideration of all facts?

cl> My friend, could it be you've been victim of propaganda? Propaganda
cl> blinds you from the contrarian views, something required for critical
cl> examination.

Let's summarize: I agree about your comparison between some other country
laws and art.23, and I agree with you when you say that, if art.23 really
limitates HK's freedom, it's wrong. What I don't agree is when you say
art.23 won't limitate HK's freedom. The only propaganda I saw was to
demonstrate art.23 is good:
1) lots, tons of government pages about good effects of art.23
2) complete silence about 1st July parade, in Chinese newspapers
3) subversion accusations by Chinese propaganda against parade's promoters

What I see is that official propaganda is trying to demonstrate art.23 is a
good thing. I've never seen any other propaganda than this.
Instead, who says art.23 is bad? PEOPLE, human rights associations,
independent journalists, no-profit and no-political associations... NOT
propaganda!

cl> I disagree. I do not see any evidence HK SAR would go after its movie
cl> industry.

Imagine a movie where you can see bad things made by the government, or made
by Chinese Communist Party. After art.23 those movies can be said as
"subversive". As like as in China.

cl> Why? Nowhere in Art 23 did it mention movie censor board. Show some
cl> evidence.

Point 4:
4. If a Hongkong resident attends an association and it is
declared illegal in Mainland China, then this Hongkong
resident could face jail time

This is the worst point. For this, you can close human rights associations,
independent studio movie productions, and so on.

Tha parade and the petition convinced to CANCEL this point. I am glad.
That's why sometimes parades and petitions are useful.

cl> Just as you would demand of others to respect yours. Do you think
cl> Italy would appreciate US invasion or CIA intervention to solve thier
cl> problems?

cl> Berlusconi is a criminal and he dominates Italian politics via media
cl> monopoly! Berlusconi commands the Italian army with lot of WMD!! Italy
cl> is a threat to the world!!! Yes, we must invade Italy and liberate the
cl> poor, suffering Italians whom are inferior human beings incapable of
cl> solving their own problems.

cl> (This is a joke, but just replace Berlusconi with CCP/Saddam, Italian
cl> with Chinese/Iraqi - we have exactely what people are saying.)

:-) Well, let me tell you: if someone attacks Italy to free us from
Berlusconi, I would be VERY glad ^____^

Out of the joke, let's say: in Italy we have some idiot laws imposed by
foreign countries (expecially by Vatican). I, and lot of Italians, would be
very very very glad if the International Right would be able to help us to
cancel these laws.
And, actually, something similar is happening: a lot of European directives
are finally able to change some idiot Italian laws imposed by US or Vatican.

If you look in the International Radical Party for example, or in the
Amnesty International site, you can see some petitions about Italy. I agree
with some of them, and I signed them as well.

cl> Are you saying since US' HR abuse is directed towards others, it is
cl> better than China's HR abuse directed at herself? I would argue
cl> abusing others is worse. Some might say the reactionary environment
cl> that stops China's political progress is a product of America's
cl> empiralistic abuse of China and 1.3 billion Chinese people's civil
cl> rights.

But art.23 is a law imposed (they say "suggested") by Beijing. And HK people
don't want it.

cl> Do you think US support of dictators like Chili's Pinochet, Iraq's
cl> Saddam Husaine, Iran's Shah, Panama's Noriega - are helpful to further
cl> democracy in these Countries? Yet US accuses these countries for lack
cl> of democracy.

Sure, US foreign politics is f*****g idiot. I've always been blaming it.

cl> You don't see this as selfish and wrong? If you do then re-examine
cl> your feelings towards China and HK, as I feel they too are victims of
cl> America's unilatteralism, imperialism, interventionism.

Why? China is trying to put its dirty hands on HK, on Nepal and so on, as
like as US is doing with Iraq and Afghanistan and so on. If it's not enough,
inside China human rights are less respected than in US, so the situation
for HKers can be even worst than Iraqi people (at least in HK they don't
have a bloody tyrann to be liberated from).
Actually HK people don't like Americans: they blame US Iraq war. For the
same reason, they blame China politics towards HK when they want to close
the "according-to-China" subversive associations in Hong Kong..!

cl>>> Don't you think
cl>>> it's a bit unfair to only ask PRC/SAR?

No, why? We are in the HK newgroup, we're talking about HK... Unfair is to
change topic!

cl> China isn't any different than other countries, she has problems;
cl> Chinese people are not any different than other people, they try their
cl> best to do what they feel as best for them, on their own schedule and
cl> agenda.

I don't agree. I don't know about intentions, but the method is wrong. As I
said, you can't go on making people glad by keeping them in the total
ignorance about what happens abroad and strongly limitating their freedom
and human rights, even killing them for their opinion (always remember
Tienanmen massacre). China is a bad regime and Chinese people, good great
lovely Chinese people are the first victim of this situation.
You say US is equal. I say: this detail doesn't change the fact China is a
bad regime.

cl> I hope you'll stop believing propaganda (yes, even from Amenisty
cl> International) you see around you without validating them critically.

How can you thing Amnesty International is propaganda? It's a no prift,
international association. It lives in Holland, US, HK, Africa, Russia,
everywhere in the world except where it's considered subversive by some
satrapic regime... Or you think A.I. can be victim of an International plot,
conspiracy, design...?

cl> Don't you think it's unfair to hold HK SAR to a different standard
cl> from the rest of the world? Why do you think security laws, by nature
cl> are protective/parental, can be created by pure democracy and still
cl> achieve assurance of security?

Good point. This is a good question.
I answer: I agree sometimes there are some things that are not good to be
decided by people, and it's better the govern takes the decision. BUT the
govern has to be DEMOCRATICALLY elected by people! Let's people - ALL HK
PEOPLE - democratically elect their president, and you won't see any regrets
if he decides any sort of art.23...

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

charles liu

2003-07-08 23:58:41 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki
http://www.againstarticle23.org/en/
http://www.againstarticle23.org/en/newsdetails.php?id=112
Let's hope to avoid another Prague.

Let's hope to avoid another USA Patriot Act. For those who care about
HK's "Article 23" as much as America's own "Article 23", please sign
http://www.e-thepeople.org/petition/6505/view

Interestingly the U.S. Patriot Act does not ban this site from
existing to solicit opposition of the act. Can we say the same for
Hongkong Article 23? Do we have confidence in its allowing so?

Speak for yourself. I don't know, and great many HKer don't know. What
I do know is security laws exists in great many nations and tend to be
worded broadly, USA Patriot Act, for example.

Do Hongkong residents have the trust? That is the question.

What question? Many Americans do not trust USA Patriot Act, just as
many HKer do not trust Article 32. Hence my assertion if one is
fearful of draconian security laws that have the potential for abuse,
then such fear should be applied equally to all instances of such
laws.

Just asjk ACLU:

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301d.html
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

Comparing Article 32 with USA Patriot Act is in fact a voice against
Article 32, just ask all those Arabs held without charges (suspicion
of terrorism, material witness) and without notification. You think
stuff like this only happens in China?

Under provisions of USA Patriot Act, CCP-like abusive laws that were
pulled off the table years ago are back on again. Muslins are actually
arbitarily declared "enemy combatant" and denied right to lawyer in
America. You think stuff like this only happens in China?

Can Americans trust their government which have invaded other
countries on false pretext and stripped away their liberty like what
CCP is doing?

That is the anser to your question.

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-09 07:06:18 UTC

cl> Speak for yourself. I don't know, and great many HKer don't know. What
cl> I do know is security laws exists in great many nations and tend to be
cl> worded broadly, USA Patriot Act, for example.

Actually the point is not to delete article 23, but only to avoid it makes
HKers to lose their rights (freedom of speech, first of all).

And, anyway: until now there was no need of it in HK: how come now they
absolutely want an anti-subversion law? I mean, it's not a real proof, but
it surely makes me suspect it's just a way for China to start limiting HK
freedom.
Obviously, if article 23 is only a way to avoid terrorism and violent
association, it's a good thing. People in HK just ask: after article 23 is
approved, we want to be free to write and say whatever we want, like now.
The subscription just wants this.

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

charles liu

2003-07-11 02:03:00 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki
cl> Speak for yourself. I don't know, and great many HKer don't know. What
cl> I do know is security laws exists in great many nations and tend to be
cl> worded broadly, USA Patriot Act, for example.
Actually the point is not to delete article 23, but only to avoid it makes
HKers to lose their rights (freedom of speech, first of all).
And, anyway: until now there was no need of it in HK: how come now they
absolutely want an anti-subversion law?

Why? As US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would answer: "Why not"?

For 142 years under British subjugaton, HKer never had any political
right, and no such laws are needed to protect rights that do not
exist. LegCo election was in implemented until the 99 year lease
signed under gun point was about to expire and hand-over issue
presented itself. If the Crown did not love her colonial subject, she
would not have negotiated for today's LegCo with direct/indirect
voting rights.

Otherwise the queen would've issued everyone a British passport,
right?

Now UK's colonial imposition has ended, understandably there was a
huge political gap between what HK have and what Mainland have. Thus
the "1C2S" that integrates sovereignty but buffers political
differences. As a disjointed political entity of China, SAR by
definition should not, can not, will not, rely on PRC's standards of
national standard. Without SAR's own standard on national security,
the void would certainly be filled by PRC's law - by far much more
draconian.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
I mean, it's not a real proof, but
it surely makes me suspect it's just a way for China to start limiting HK
freedom.

Well, some say yes, some say no. But by comparing art 23 with USA
Patriot Act (which have in fact limited American's freedom,
particullarly Arab Americans) this is a valid concern.

However in light of today's unstable world and threat of terrorism,
one must error on the side of caution when it comes to national
security and well being of the citizens, right?

Above is the rationale presented by the Bush Administration on passing
of USA Patriot Act.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
Obviously, if article 23 is only a way to avoid terrorism and violent
association, it's a good thing. People in HK just ask: after article 23 is
approved, we want to be free to write and say whatever we want, like now.
The subscription just wants this.

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-11 07:06:34 UTC

cl> Now UK's colonial imposition has ended, understandably there was a
cl> huge political gap between what HK have and what Mainland have. Thus
cl> the "1C2S" that integrates sovereignty but buffers political
cl> differences. As a disjointed political entity of China, SAR by
cl> definition should not, can not, will not, rely on PRC's standards of
cl> national standard. Without SAR's own standard on national security,
cl> the void would certainly be filled by PRC's law - by far much more
cl> draconian.

Sure. If there is not a law about terrorism it has to be done. But the point
is: 600.000 people in HK think the art.23 is not an anti-terrorism law, but
a way to strongly limit their freedom of speech. You say it's similar to the
US law. I say: OK, I don't like the US law as well. And: US is very
different from China. The problem is art.23 is very blurred, it's not very
detailed so you can give it a lot of different interpretations. This law, in
the hands of PRC, can be easily used to close newspapers and human rights
associations, to censor movies, to control communications. Example: Amnesty
International for PRC is a subversive association!
Art.23 has to be strongly clear about what people can do and cannot do after
it's approved. That's what HK people want.

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

charles liu

2003-07-13 17:22:35 UTC

Post by Senbee Norimaki
cl> Now UK's colonial imposition has ended, understandably there was a
cl> huge political gap between what HK have and what Mainland have. Thus
cl> the "1C2S" that integrates sovereignty but buffers political
cl> differences. As a disjointed political entity of China, SAR by
cl> definition should not, can not, will not, rely on PRC's standards of
cl> national standard. Without SAR's own standard on national security,
cl> the void would certainly be filled by PRC's law - by far much more
cl> draconian.
Sure. If there is not a law about terrorism it has to be done. But the point
is: 600.000 people in HK think the art.23 is not an anti-terrorism law, but
a way to strongly limit their freedom of speech.

Do you have a magic ball that looks into the future? I'm not so sure
art 23 will "strongly limit HKer's freedom of speech". This is such a
subjective statement, and at most you have to admit the outcome is
debatable.

Now, saying it may be pron to abuse is different. Will nothing in the
world is perfect happienss with 100% gaurantee, especially when it
comes to democracy. Just look at all those arabs and muslins jailed in
America thanks to USA PA.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
You say it's similar to the
US law. I say: OK, I don't like the US law as well.

So will you sign the petition to repeal USA PA?

Post by Senbee Norimaki
And: US is very different from China.

I think if you ask those arabs and muslins jailed they'll tell you
it's not all that different.

Post by Senbee Norimaki
The problem is art.23 is very blurred, it's not very
detailed so you can give it a lot of different interpretations. This law, in
the hands of PRC, can be easily used to close newspapers and human rights
associations, to censor movies, to control communications. Example: Amnesty
International for PRC is a subversive association!
Art.23 has to be strongly clear about what people can do and cannot do after
it's approved. That's what HK people want.

charles liu

2003-07-17 06:10:19 UTC

"Senbee Norimaki" <***@per.rispondermi> wrote in message news:<bf0iut$24gh$***@news5.isdnet.net>...
...

cl> Now, saying it may be pron to abuse is different. Will nothing in the
cl> world is perfect happienss with 100% gaurantee, especially when it
cl> comes to democracy. Just look at all those arabs and muslins jailed in
cl> America thanks to USA PA.
Sure, USA PA has been used, sometimes, to limit some people freedom of
speech. And IT'S WRONG. There are a lot of idiot laws in the world, and it's
right to fight them all.
But the topic of this thread is "article 23": it
seems it will be used to make HK more similar to Chinese regime. If it's
true, it's wrong.

1st of all, Art 23 was created under SAR's system, and as news showed
Mainland China had no control over its passing. This is evidence SAR's
system is separate from Mainland's, under the "1C2S" framework.

Now, I fail to see why it is wrong to compare HK SAR's proposed
security laws with other nations. As such comparison will demonstrate
the laws utility and necessity. Is there any evidence to prove HK SAR
government isn't acting on their citizen's best interest? Or you just
assume guilt by association with PRC?

Such conclusion shows people make very biased judgement on the Chinese
people.

cl> So will you sign the petition to repeal USA PA?
I'm in Amnesty International. I've signed against it thousand times.
??>> And: US is very different from China.
cl> I think if you ask those arabs and muslins jailed they'll tell you
cl> it's not all that different.
Talking about human rights violation, China is the first of the list,

But to those Arabs and Muslins arrested in US and their human rights
violated, 1st or 9th place doesn't really make any difference, does
it?

Why do you think a country on the top 10 list of HR violation can have
USA PA, but HK SAR having no such honor or history of HR, would abuse
security law without any proof?

Again, such conclusion shows people make biased judgement re the
Chinese people.

together with Laos, Namibia, North Korea, some African countries. US isn't
even comparable, but it's anyway the 8th or 9th (death penalty, wars against
other countries, not equal justice towards black people, so on...)
Anyway, the situation in US is completely different and not the worst.

That's known as "kettle calling the pot black". Wrong is wrong no
matter who does it, don't rationalize it as "not as bad".

And I don't know how you came to the conclusion US HR violation isn't
as bad as China's. Did China invade another country on false WMD
charge, then can not find any WMD after occupation? Did China send
their CIA to topple other contry's democratically elected president
for oil interest?

But
it has its problems too. At least, the freedom of speech it's guaranteed by

Not anymore. USA PA took care of that.

the problem is a lot of times laws are not respected.

China has lots of just laws too, and it too has the same problem with
laws trumped by politics. Not all that different is it?

Senbee Norimaki

2003-07-18 17:33:05 UTC

cl> I love American people. I love American government. I hate American
cl> government's imperialistic agenda.

cl> I hope you see the difference.

Me too.
I think the real difference between US and China is that US is bastard
towards people abroad, but is good for US (mostly white...) residents.
Chinese government is not very bastards towards foreign countries (well, not
always, let's talk about Nepal...) but it's incredibly bastard against
Chinese people themselves, denying them any kind of freedom, censoring what
they say and what they think.

cl> I do not marginalize people I love by disrespecting their flawed
cl> political process. Do you comprehend what giant task it is to keep 1.3
cl> billion people fed, warm, safe from chaos? All the while doing it
cl> under overwhelming foreign influence and imperialistic hinderance,
cl> economic servitude?

You know better than me this fact: 4000 death penalties per year,
censorship, political jail, opinion crimes, cruel repression of parades and
on and on and on and cannot be excused by "keeping 1.3 billion people fed,
warm, safe from chaos". In this way you would justify Stalin and Pinochet,
Polpot and Mussolini. I believe in International right, to make any kind of
countries to repect the basical human rights, everywhere in the world.
Included US.

??>> Chinese government is one of the worst regimes

cl> Did China invade other countries on false WMD pretext? Did China seek
cl> to topple other's democratically elected government via covert
cl> intervention? Did China do these things for oil interest?

In Nepal, yes. Anyway I'm not here to defend US. I'm Italian and I'm one of
those who fought our government decision to follow USA in its stupid Iraq
war. I substantially agree about bad US politics. But we were talking about
China and art.23. My girlfriend lives in HK, I want to live there, that's
why I'm interested in it. If US wanted Italy to make a law to forbid
associations according to US decisions, I would have gone on the US
newsgroup and asked to sign against it. But I'm not American, I don't have
any laws imposed by Americans, and I normally fight my govern when it wants
to be the Bush's personal dog.

??>> in the world: human rights are
??>> systematically ignored: Amnesty International has been fighting since
??>> 1970 against this situation: no freedom,

cl> USA PA

Amnesty International fights against it.

??>> death penalty (for a lot of incredibly
??>> small things),

cl> US law allows execution of minors.

in China you have death penalty even for "alcohol label faking"..!!! ANYWAY:
Amnesty International fights against it.

??>> no animal rights,

cl> Americans consume Veal, Foie Gras - products of cruel animal abuse

Amnesty International fights against it.
Anyway, in China there are no laws about animal cruelty and even for rare
species. You can see people skinning a live cat, or killing a rare turtle,
and you can't do anything.

??>> censorship on every kind of media..!!!

cl> US' media reporting on Iraq should convince you of American's
cl> self-censorship.

It's SELF-CENSORSHIP. In US if you want the truth you can find it, it's
LEGAL to write what you want, the govern doesn't control the newspapers and
Internet, doesn't censor, doesn't CONVICT people who write on newspapers
that the war is not good! This is TOTALLY different from China.
Sure, a lot of mainstream media made a real self censorship: it's their
fault, not a law problem. If I'm American and live in US I can ALWAYS find
wherever I want a talk show or a newspaper where they say something
different from the government's point of view. Maybe it's small, maybe it's
not easy to find immediatly, but it's LEGAL.

Moreover: Amnesty International is legal in US, is legal mostly everywhere
in the world, EXCEPT FOR CHINA.

??>> Do
??>> you *like* this situation?

cl> No. Do you think these problems are unique, or specific to China?

No, it's specific of REGIMES. US is strange: it's not a regime but actually
it seems it's going to be a regime. That's bad. It's right to fight against
it.

China *is* a regime. Hong Kong is not a regime. I want to live in HK, I fear
the regime close to HK wants to put its f*****g hands to HK's freedom.

??>> Do you think it's right all Chinese people still
??>> have to suffer for this? Do you think even HK has to be under that
??>> regime?

cl> Do you think it's right all Americans people still have to suffer for
cl> this? Do you think Americans have to be under that regime?

1) Americans still have the right to write on a newspaper "Bush is idiot".
In China they don't have the right to insult the governemnt. Don't you see
this BIG difference?
2) If my girlfriend was, i.e., from Cuba, I would have written something
like "please sign against US embargo on Cuba".

cl> Fix America and impose your self-righteousness on the American people
cl> first, then you have my blessing to fix China and impose your
cl> self-righteousness to the Chinese people.

I've always been doing it: certain US things are horrible and I've always
fought them. But in this case we were talking about art.23.

cl> But you would approach USA PA differently than Art 23. Why? Are
cl> Chinese/HKer different than the Americans, that they do not deserve
cl> the same respect? I've already demonstrated to you US is just as
cl> flawed as China, if not worse.

My approach is not different, I was just talking about something else!
Otherwise, everytime someone says "Ehy, in country X there is this bad
thing" you don't want to talk about it and so you say: "How about country
Y?" In this way, another man can say: "Ah! And why don't you talk about
country Z"? and so on... We never stop arguing. So, let's open a thread
about US PA and let's open a thread about art.23 and let's open a thread
about anything you want. But it's very stupid to avoid to sign a petition
only because there are people who don't speak about *another* petition...
It's childish! It's just a way to change topic!

??>> I don't understand your situation.
??>> I give you a metaphore, maybe you understand better:
??>>
??>> Senbee: hey, my wife wants to kill my children! Help me!
??>> Charles: Don't help him, I know other children who've been beaten by
??>> their parents.

cl> Apply this to America or Italy, then see if you feel differently.

No no, I apply it and I see it in the *same* way!
This is the REAL point, the real difference between you and me.
I see a problem and I want to solve it. You see a problem, but you say
"well, there are so many other problems in the world... Ok, forget it".

cl>>> Again, such conclusion shows people make biased judgement re the
cl>>> Chinese people.
??>>
??>> My girlfriend is Chinese, I love Chinese people and I hate they are
??>> going to lose their freedom because of a f*****g regime.

cl> Do you feel the same way about Bush regime for the Iraqis?

Sure! If my gf was from Iraq...
My position about Iraq war: something had to be done against Saddam, but
long time ago and by ONU, not NOW and only by US. First of all, to avoid US
imperialism. Second: US are very stupid in wars. Except for the 2nd World
War, they were only able to make a big mess everytime they tried to "help"
foreign countries...

cl> No, try to understand your biased view, let HK take care of herself,
cl> on her own terms.

And I want this: I want HK takes care of itself! Those 600000 people were
Hongkongers! THEY don't want art.23! They want democracy, they don't want a
chief (not elected by them) impose them a law "suggested" by Beijing... If
you see the signs on the petition, they are 99% from HKers..!
That's why I suggest a referendum.

cl> It's peculiar to me why people would think so low of another human
cl> being, so much that they believe HKer are inferior humans incapable of
cl> taking care of themselves, or do not deserve self-determination.

Exactly the opposite. Because I DO believe in HKers self-determination I
want THEY decide about art.23, I want THEY elect their president, I want
they have DEMOCRACY, I don't want any laws imposed by Beijing to limitate
HKer's freedom.

--
Stefano
aka Senbee Norimaki
ICQ# 4243376
droguz-at-libero-dot-it

Ribes cynosbati

2003-07-10 06:30:19 UTC

Interestingly the U.S. Patriot Act does not ban this site from
existing to solicit opposition of the act. Can we say the same for
Hongkong Article 23? Do we have confidence in its allowing so?

Speak for yourself. I don't know, and great many HKer don't know. What
I do know is security laws exists in great many nations and tend to be
worded broadly, USA Patriot Act, for example.

Like "The press could be charged for releasing state secret and they
cannot defend themselves with a clause on public interests" as United
Daily reporter pointed out as Article 23 of Hongkong?

Do Hongkong residents have the trust? That is the question.

Glad to hear you wrote "many HKer do not trust Article 23". Please do
not write hastily -- that introduces mistakes from 23 to 32.

Let Americans deal with their U.S. Patriot Act. Let Chinese think
about Article 23.
When do you expect to see CCLU (Chinese Civil Liberties Union) to form
and operate in Hongkong and PRC like ACLU in the U.S.?

Post by charles liu
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301d.html
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301d.html
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
Comparing Article 32 with USA Patriot Act is in fact a voice against
Article 32, just ask all those Arabs held without charges (suspicion
of terrorism, material witness) and without notification. You think
stuff like this only happens in China?
Under provisions of USA Patriot Act, CCP-like abusive laws that were
pulled off the table years ago are back on again. Muslins are actually
arbitarily declared "enemy combatant" and denied right to lawyer in
America. You think stuff like this only happens in China?
Can Americans trust their government which have invaded other
countries on false pretext and stripped away their liberty like what
CCP is doing?
That is the anser to your question.

It does not answer "Do Hongkong residents have the trust" at all.

charles liu

2003-07-11 05:39:29 UTC

Interestingly the U.S. Patriot Act does not ban this site from
existing to solicit opposition of the act. Can we say the same for
Hongkong Article 23? Do we have confidence in its allowing so?

Speak for yourself. I don't know, and great many HKer don't know. What
I do know is security laws exists in great many nations and tend to be
worded broadly, USA Patriot Act, for example.

Like "The press could be charged for releasing state secret and they
cannot defend themselves with a clause on public interests" as United
Daily reporter pointed out as Article 23 of Hongkong?

You fell right into this, didn't you. The answer to your question is
YES. As reported by NPR reporter, Bush administration has issued
directive under USA PA to allow industry information volunteerily
submitted to the Dept of Homeland Security to be "protected
information(state secret)" exempt from news reporting and whistle
blowing.

USA PA indeed have provisions that make reporting/leaking of
"protected information(state secret)" a criminnal offense. Like
Article 23.

The reporter also mentioned VP Cheney using USA PA's state secret
clause to shield his meeting with Enron exec Ken Lay (prez Bush's
buddy from Texas) from Congression investigation.

Do Hongkong residents have the trust? That is the question.

Glad to hear you wrote "many HKer do not trust Article 23". Please do
not write hastily -- that introduces mistakes from 23 to 32.

Whatever, goose. It's an obvious typo by any reasonable person's
standard. Glad to see you still picking bone from egg.

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Let Americans deal with their U.S. Patriot Act. Let Chinese think
about Article 23.

Glad to hear that. I'll expect you to reply to those US Tibetan
activists "Let Americans deal with Nation Nations. Let Chinese think
about Tibet."

Do you honestly think this is a good argument?

Post by Ribes cynosbati
When do you expect to see CCLU (Chinese Civil Liberties Union) to form
and operate in Hongkong and PRC like ACLU in the U.S.?

Well, let Americans deal with ACLU. Let Chinese think about CCLU.

It does not answer "Do Hongkong residents have the trust" at all.

By compare and contrast USA PA and Art 23, it should be clear this
question is debatable. LT Lee just provided citation that not 500,000,
but 50,000 people marched. Now how many people live in HK?

Your generalization either applies to USA PA, or conceed the
consquence of an unrelized Art 23 is entirely questionable one way or
the other.

Wing C Ng

2003-07-11 14:55:53 UTC

Post by charles liu
By compare and contrast USA PA and Art 23, it should be clear this
question is debatable. LT Lee just provided citation that not 500,000,
but 50,000 people marched. Now how many people live in HK?

You read wrong: L.T. provided data for the July 9th vigil at
the LegCo, *not* the march of July 1st.

Post by charles liu
Your generalization either applies to USA PA, or conceed the
consquence of an unrelized Art 23 is entirely questionable one way or
the other.

U.S. PA was passed too hastily. Most should be repealed. A
lot of it is plainly unconstitutional and will be struck down
by the courts in due course.

Wing

charles liu

2003-07-13 17:22:35 UTC

Post by Wing C Ng

You read wrong: L.T. provided data for the July 9th vigil at
the LegCo, *not* the march of July 1st.

Yes, I mis-read. So 500,000 out of how many people living in HK? Just
curious.

Post by Wing C Ng

Post by charles liu
Your generalization either applies to USA PA, or conceed the
consquence of an unrelized Art 23 is entirely questionable one way or
the other.

U.S. PA was passed too hastily. Most should be repealed. A
lot of it is plainly unconstitutional and will be struck down
by the courts in due course.

I guess more people should've protested against USA PA, and US
government can learn a lesson from SAR (or CCP for those insisting
Tung is a mere puppet) that they should be more receptive to people's
objection.

Post by Wing C Ng
Wing

charles liu

2003-07-13 17:23:09 UTC

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Like "The press could be charged for releasing state secret and they
cannot defend themselves with a clause on public interests" as United
Daily reporter pointed out as Article 23 of Hongkong?

But the 500,000 Hongkong residents who protested on July 1st did not
care about this.

Irrelevant. You cared enough to respond with by Art 23 has state
secret clause, and I showed you USA PA also has it, thus proving my
point it is valid comparison.

They care what can happen to them. They do not care
for the Americans.

Post by charles liu
USA PA indeed have provisions that make reporting/leaking of
"protected information(state secret)" a criminnal offense. Like
Article 23.

I know Mr. Citation Liu, who always enjoys challenging others for
citations, can retrieve something with ease if it exists, especially
you read so much pages on ACLU web sites.

You fell right into this one too, didn't you? I really don't have time
to waste on your "picking bone from egg" dishonest discussion. As soon
as you provide link to the United Daily report you reference, I'll
give you a link to the NPR report.

I'm not going to waste time on your dishonest discussion.

Post by charles liu
The reporter also mentioned VP Cheney using USA PA's state secret
clause to shield his meeting with Enron exec Ken Lay (prez Bush's
buddy from Texas) from Congression investigation.

Are we talking about the impact of Article 23 and Patriot Act impacts
on civilians, or government officials?

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Glad to hear you wrote "many HKer do not trust Article 23". Please do
not write hastily -- that introduces mistakes from 23 to 32.

Whatever, goose. It's an obvious typo by any reasonable person's
standard. Glad to see you still picking bone from egg.

"Many HKer do not trust Article 23". Tell us which word was a typo.
"not"?

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Let Americans deal with their U.S. Patriot Act. Let Chinese think
about Article 23.

Glad to hear that. I'll expect you to reply to those US Tibetan
activists "Let Americans deal with Nation Nations. Let Chinese think
about Tibet."

The differences here is, the alleged victims of U.S. Patriot Act can
still speak their minds, engaging in protests, or write messages to
the public like you. This is not the case with Tibetans, and Hongkong
residents do not think they can do this once Article 23 is enacted.

Post by charles liu
Do you honestly think this is a good argument?

Yes. Much better than your lizard strategy by always mentioning U.S.
problems and hoping people to lose focus on the Chinese ones.

Post by Ribes cynosbati
When do you expect to see CCLU (Chinese Civil Liberties Union) to form
and operate in Hongkong and PRC like ACLU in the U.S.?

Well, let Americans deal with ACLU. Let Chinese think about CCLU.

Is CCLU possible under current PRC legal systems?

Post by Ribes cynosbati
It does not answer "Do Hongkong residents have the trust" at all.

By compare and contrast USA PA and Art 23, it should be clear this
question is debatable. LT Lee just provided citation that not 500,000,
but 50,000 people marched. Now how many people live in HK?

Wing Ng pointed out your mistake here. Correct your mistake first.

Post by charles liu
Your generalization either applies to USA PA, or conceed the
consquence of an unrelized Art 23 is entirely questionable one way or
the other.

Tell this to the Hongkong protesters, not me.

Post by Ribes cynosbati
We need to think what happened between July 4 and July 7 so he would
mention nothing about the deferring on July 4th and suddenly he made
the decision on 7th. He should explain the thinking background to
Hongkong residents.

You realize this really argues the fact Art 23 is stalled against
CCP's wish? On the 4th CCP tells Tung to go, and 7th Tung had to back
down.

Tell this to the Hongkong demonstrators, not me.

Post by Ribes cynosbati
Too bad. Tung does not need to answer to them.

Well, appearantly he does. According to SAR law LegCo have veto rights
over Tung. With 2/3 votes he has no power to disolve LegCo; he must
pulmogate or resign.

Who picked Hongkong Legislative Council members?

Post by Ribes cynosbati
It is so wonderful for you that you are planning to move to Hongkong
and flee from U.S. Patriot Act next week, I suppose.

What a weak argument. Does prospect of Art 23 means you'll never go to
Hong Kong ever?

No, but ROC, where you claimed you come from, will have to shut its
office in Hongkong because Hongkong police will have the right to
enter the office and take away any documents they want.

Post by charles liu
And for someone who transcends cultural boundries, you really don't
know a whole lot about America. It's a shame, you are passing up your
opportunity to be a world citizen with a greater understanding of who

If I am not an American, why do I need to know a lot about America?

Post by charles liu
1st, how relevant is it to generalize with just one person? What I say
or do means little, as you've pointed out.

Tell this to the Hongkong protesters, not me.

Post by charles liu
2nd, you don't realize USA PA's intended target right now are the
Arabs and Muslins? There are thousands of people profiled as
"towlheads/terrorist suspect/person of interest" held without
constitutionally gauranteed rights and no notifaction. Some family are
jailed whole, including children, elderly, and the ill, as USA PA
allows CCP-style gestapo crap like "guilty by association".

Tell this to the Hongkong protesters, not me.

Post by charles liu
3rd, Immigrants whom used to enjoy nearly the same legal rights are
now with little constitutional protection per passing of USA PA.

Tell this to the Hongkong protesters, not me.

Post by charles liu
Honestly, I fear if there's ever a war between China/US, all my posts
will be dug up and I'll be explaining them to a dozen armed FBI
agents, while hanging upside down with a giant light blinding me. And
my family will either be locked up like me, or not knowing what
happened to me - thanks to USA Patriot Act. Doesn't matter I'm from
Taiwan or what, I'll be a terrorist and a fu*king ch*nk to the law.

Three mistakes on your side.
(1) If there is ever a war between PRC and the U.S., do you worry
about your posts being dug up and you need to explain to FBI
agents, or do you worry about Dongfeng missiles hitting your
home?
(2) A war between ROC and PRC is a civil war for Chinese. This is
not the case with one between the U.S. and PRC.
(3) How likely do you see a war between the U.S. and PRC now?
How likely do you see a war across Taiwan Strait now?

Post by charles liu
Now we come a full circle, isn't this what HKer fear about Art 23?

Yes, exactly this is what Hongkong residents fear about Article 23.
They do not care what happens in the U.S. at all. They need their
right.

charles liu

2003-07-15 06:43:04 UTC

But the 500,000 Hongkong residents who protested on July 1st did not
care about this.

Irrelevant. You cared enough to respond with by Art 23 has state
secret clause, and I showed you USA PA also has it, thus proving my
point it is valid comparison.

But Hongkong protesters cared little about U.S. Patriot Act.

But that's irrelevant. You cared enough to respond by saying art 23
has state secret clause, and I showed you USA PA also has it, proving
my point this is valid comparison.

Address
their questions if you like. When Americans start to protest U.S.
Patriot Act, we can address their questions in the USA forum then.