Mass Protests in Hong Kong


"In a week's time," Patrick Goodenough reports for, "Hong Kong's administrators are due to pass controversial legislation that will outlaw groups that are banned on the communist mainland and clamp down on information regarded as state secrets." This prompted mass demonstrations in the island city today, with perhaps more than 100,000 protesters marching in the streets.

NEXT: Golden Meltdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You mean the Communists are going to destroy Hong Kong as we knew it? Shocker.

  2. Hong Kong, I must say, was the coolest, freest place prior to 1997 — just read “Eat the Rich” by P.J. O’Rourke. A libertarian paradise, with no immigration rules, and hardly any business regulations or incumbent protections. Shame that it had to end.

  3. they better enjoy the public display of protest, before the tanks start to roll…

  4. CATO says this isn’t that bad, but i remain vaguely anxious.

  5. Was anyone really naive enough to believe that the ChiComs were going to leave Hong Kong’s political freedoms alone? “Two systems in one country” was about as credible as “I didn’t inhale.”

  6. Actually, most of the political and civil rights that HK enjoyed in 1997 were of recent import; in the mid-1980s, they didn’t exist. Sure you could make all the money you wanted, but freedom of the press, speech, etc. was frowned upon. Which is why the “Basic Law” that was negotiated in 1989 is so different from what the law was by the time of the handover in 1997. It was fairly hypocritical for the British to criticize the PRC in 1997 for not wanting to go beyond the “Basic Law” because the British themselves weren’t very keen on political and civil rights until it became a convenient means to beat the PRC over the head with.

    Tom Jacobs,

    What is always hilarious about people who use the term “White Man’s Burden” to justify colonialism/imperialism is that its obvious that they’ve never read Kipling’s poem.

  7. “Sure you could make all the money you wanted”

    which is still better than the PRC. plus the british didn’t squash unarmed people with tanks.

  8. Gee, Crows-us, I’ve read the White’s Man Burden, and was making no illusion to Kipling’s meaning at all. The Chinese aside, any real improvements that the human race has seen over the past 500 years have been the work of Europeans or their cousins (Americans, etc). When Africans starve, who opens their wallets to feed them?

    And the poor heathen could still use some work. I mean, even the Nazis would have responded “holy fuckin’ shit!” at the Hutu-Tutsi bloodbath in 1994.

    Independence, “freedom”, self-determination are just jiffy – if you know what to do with them. The wogs’ record in that regard is pretty spotty.

  9. Anon @ 7:35,

    None of which of course justifies British reluctance to allow civil and political freedom in Hong Kong over most of their rule of that possession.


    You lost the argument when you started spouting racist ephitets.

  10. no croesus you lost the argument, like every one you’ve been in, by using your lame “tears of the white man” bullying once again. your hatred of white America and Europe, except of course your little idealized France from some time that never existed, has led you to memorize a list of every infamy committed by “white Europeans” but you will go to extreme lengths to defend any atrocity committed by any other group. Where’s your rage for the Chinese? Absent, because deep down in side you’re a little racist supremacist who can’t bring yourself to criticize those inferior people.
    Of course, I’m sure your reply will accuse me of racism, ignorance or maybe you’ll fall into your little game of deciding what racial group everyone posting falls into and so they can’t possible understand things the way empathising you can.

  11. I guess being under the thumb of the British EMPIRE wasn’t so bad…

  12. What a stupid, pointless comment. Yes, the British Empire was nicer than the Chinese Empire. Independence would have been even better.

  13. ungrateful bastards.

  14. …and what a stupid, pointless comment in reply. Without British rule, Hong Kong never would have become what it is today. It would be more like a Shanghai or a Canton, nice, but not that nice. The White Man’s Burden may have done a helluva lot of bad, but it also did a helluva lot of good

  15. My friends,

    let’s all insult each others and be pro- or anti-European racists.

    My god: “the Hutu-Tutsi bloodbath” is worse than the Nazi’s doings? You guys have lost it.

    Repeat after me: “I’m afraid I got carried away. I didn’t mean to say oppression was good (or better than some slightly-less horrifying oppression). I think it’s great that the people of HK are protesting to defend their freedom of speech but will it be enough ?”

    Ha, doesn’t that feel better ?

    NB: Which racio-socio-culturo-political group do I fall in ?


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.