This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Under Article 23 of the Basic Law, or the city's mini-constitution, the Hong Kong government must enact its own national security law prohibiting acts of "treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the central people's government, or theft of state secrets " and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies".
For those that are not familiar, do search for the 18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 115TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES. Then compare it with the new proposed law in Hong Kong. See which one is tougher. Think about people like Assange or Snowden.
After such a comparison, does China still appear 'undemocratic'? Are its actions really over the top?
Or, study the laws and practices of France towards Corsica and other parts of the country, which would like to opt for independence.
Everyone knows how the independence-minded Catalans fared in Spain. Catalan officials were hunted down, protesters were imprisoned, humiliated. Many had to flee their homes. People were brutalized. And these were spontaneous, mostly peaceful protesters.
There are so many examples, all over the world, of tough, draconical laws and practices, preventing nations with different cultures and languages, from seeking independence. But it is China that is singled-out and threatened with 'punishment' (what language, "to punish" the most populous country, with one of the oldest cultures on Earth!), over Hong Kong which has the same culture, same history and language, as the rest of the country.
In the past, China was broken into pieces by Western invasions, plundered, and parts of it, colonized. This is how places like Hong Kong became 'different', and "special zones". Now those who attacked, looted and occupied parts of China, are talking about 'human rights', liberties, freedom and justice. They think they have the right to lecture China. They believe they should be allowed to judge China, while interfering in its domestic affairs.
No. This subversion should not be allowed, and it will not be.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
