Hong Kong

Anti-China Protests Continue in Hong Kong: At Least 26 Injured

|

Police at protests in Hong Kong
CNN

Last week Hong Kong was peppered with student-led protests over China's increasing influence in the territory once controlled (until 1999) by the British. Larger demonstrations began this weekend. Students were joined by Occupy Central, the local occupy movement, and began to occupy several government buildings. Authorities have reported 26 injuries—six of cops, with police firing tear gas at demonstrators. The protests hinge largely on China's decision to only allow candidates vetted by its government to stand in elections in 2017.

CNN reports on the Hong Kong government's response:

The city's chief administrator, Chief Executive C.Y. Leung, said at a news conference Sunday afternoon that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government is "resolute in opposing the unlawful occupation" of the government buildings.

"The police are determined to handle the situation appropriately in accordance with the law," he said.

Leung, who was addressing the protesters for the first time, urged Hong Kong's residents to express their dissatisfaction with the political process in a safe and lawful manner.

The Chinese government, for now, says it is confident that the government of Hong Kong can handle the protesters on their own. Reporting on the protests is, naturally, censored in communist China, where there are an average of up to 500 protests a day.

NEXT: Video: 'South Park' Kicks Off 18th Season by Slur-Shaming Redskins Fans—Why Everyone Should Be Watching

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The protests hinge largely on China’s decision to only allow candidates vetted by its government to stand in elections in 2017.

    I’m glad we don’t do this here in the U.S.

    *wraps tinfoil more tightly around head*

    1. Yeah I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in a political system where the law only allows candidates to run for office who have been vetted and approved by a major party.

      1. Hey, at least we have two!

        1. Gooooooooooo Team Purple!

        2. You’re not good at counting apparently.

          Barack Obama
          Mitt Romney
          Gary Johnson
          Jill Stein
          Virgil Goode

          That’s more than 2.

          1. You’re not good at sarcasm.

            Go ask LP candidates in Ohio about their open access to the ballot.

            1. I know it was sarcasm, but the assumptions of the sarcasm were wrong.

              The LP didn’t follow the law regarding the petition process. The law was ridiculous and arbitrary of course, but it was not difficult to follow. The LPO just got sloppy with their form-checking.

    2. So not only did you move the goalposts from “vetted by the govt” to “vetted by a major party”, you’re wrong even after moving the goal posts, since neither Gary Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, or the other non-D/R candidates were vetted by the major parties. Better move those goal posts further next time.

      1. Jill Stein, not Cynthia McKinney.

      2. The major parties conspire to remove third-party candidates from elections all the time. Gary Johnson et al. exist only at their whim.

        1. Then they must have lots of whim for third-party candidates, since they are always on the ballot for major races. Get back to me when the PRC allows any possible method for non-Communists getting on the ballot.

          The truth is the American electorate doesn’t give a shit about the LP or the Greens or any other parties. They’re on the ballot every year and very few pay attention to them or vote for them. Don’t give me lip about the debates either — if there were demand for TV time for third-party candidates it would be filled. Or is this the only case of market failure libertarians will acknowledge?

        2. And I guess Sarvis in Virginia (cost GOP the governorship) and Dan Cox in Montana (cost the GOP the Senate seat) were on the ballot on the GOP’s whim, too.

      3. Legislators at the state and national levels (who with very few exceptions belong to the major parties) make election laws that restrict non-major-party candidates from making it onto the ballot. Sometimes those restrictions are de facto, occasionally they are de jure.

        1. I was the Chair of a state LP. They disbanded us, told us that we had to gather a bunch of signatures to become a recognized political party again. Guess whether the two major parties had to gather any such signatures?

          1. Was it NC? They did that here back in 05.

        2. You guys realize you’re arguing with Tulpa, right? This is another come-slithering-back-and-hope-no-one-notices handle for him.

          1. I am the Tulpa hiding under your bed
            Teeth grown sharp and eyes glowing red

            I am the Tulpa hiding under your stairs
            Fingers like snakes and spiders in my hair

            Round that corner, Tulpa hiding in the trash can
            Something’s waiting now to pounce, and how you’ll scream!

        3. Name the de jure instances. Heck, name one.

      4. Well, you’re stupid. So…

  2. OT:

    Investigators say a north Georgia mother was murdered by a woman who wanted to steal her children.

    It happened near the Georgia-Tennessee border in Catoosa County on September 19. Responding deputies were told that Catherine Goins shot an intruder at the home of her former boyfriend, Tony Richards.

    Authorities say Goins had been telling her boyfriend for months that she was pregnant. When he found it out about the deception, he left her. Police say Goins then went out looking for an infant to make the story true.

    1. Is either of the women Mexican? Do they like pot or ass-sex?

      1. * suddenly pays attention to this story *

    2. Awful. Though the victim wasn’t exactly the brightest bulb in the socket either, going into a random stranger’s house with toddler and newborn baby in tow.

      And of course, in the comments it’s blamed on the gun. One person even said it should be a longer process to buy a gun than to adopt a child.

  3. I blame capitalism

    and/or Kanye West

  4. A cop got shot in Ferguson, so of course right-wingers blame Obama for ‘instigation.’

    Gee, aren’t these the same people who rightfully complained when Krugman blamed Palin for the Giffords shooting? You have to love this hypocrisy.

    1. The best part is how mild and anodyne Obama’s statements actually were:

      Pres Obama calls racial inequities part of the “unfinished work…we gonna have to fight for it, stand up for it and have to vote for it.”

      Clearly ‘vote for it’ is a dog whistle for ‘shoot police officers.’

      1. heh. I read that quote as Obama calling for voting for racial inequalities.

        /anti-liberal bias [Bo. This is an attempt at humor.]

      2. That’s not mild at all, it’s disgusting. He’s using this event (just like the Trayvon crap) to foment racial discord, because that’s the only way he knows how to win elections.

        And when he says “fight for it”, some people who aren’t as politically jaded as you and I are going to take that fairly literally, rather than just ignoring it as insipid boilerplate rhetoric. All Palin did was put out a map with a bullseye on it.

    2. There’s a reason TEAM RED is known as the “Stupid Party”.

  5. What the hell are you doing? One of your Muslim heroes just cut off the head of a woman and you report on this shit instead? I know you support holocaust denial and the destruction of the Six million Jews in Israel (which you then can deny a second holocuast happening as you deny the first one), but what happened in Oklahoma is significant news even if you want to murder the six million Jews in Israel. Are the Koch brothers paying you money for ignoring this story, too?

    1. JOOZ!

      Wait, no…MOOZLIMZ!@!2!1!

    2. Ha, Underschmuck is so stupid he can’t even post a link properly.

      1. Oh Epi, you’re so blind. Can’t you see that the rhomite conspiracy that controls both Reason and the internet won’t allow live links to anti-muslim stories?

        1. Is this why I can’t buy Manischewitz online?!?

      2. I think it is a crime to interfere with someone else’s computer codes.

        1. Way to be even less comprehensible than usual, Underschmendrick.

    3. Are the Koch brothers paying you money for ignoring this story, too?

      Speaking of, has anyone else gotten their check this month? Those shysters seem to be late with mine.

      1. Got mine. Woohoo, hookers and blow tonight!

    4. Underzog is being bi-partisan by merging right wing “OH NOES MOOSLUMS!” with left wing “KOCHTOPUS!” insanity.

      Clearly, he represents the future of politics in America.

    5. I’d like to deny this future destruction of jooze, right now. It’s never eventually might have happened, maybe.

      I certainly hope the Kochs eventually send me a check for that, maybe, as well.

    6. Underzog really is the best insane troll.

    7. Not only that, they failed to commemorate the death of Casey Kasim.

  6. So do those pro-democracy people want Hong Kong to be ruled like Singapore or Chicago?

    1. Wow, lots of moral equivalencing going on here. Comparing what the Chicomms are doing in HK to, well, anything that happens in the US makes libertarians look utterly stupid.

      1. Yes, because there is absolutely nothing to be learned from observing what goes on around the world. And the Chicago machine totally doesn’t wish it had as firm a grip on power as the Communists in China.

        1. There are people everywhere who wish they had absolute authoritarian power. There is nothing to be learned from that.

          Comparing what the PRC is doing in HK to the admittedly unjust ballot access hurdles for third parties in the US is not serving to emphasize the latter, it’s minimizing the former. And that’s just wrong. It’s not a blue-skinned kook with no chance to win that the PRC is keeping off the ballot in HK, it’s popular candidates.

      2. Well, you’re stupid. So…

        1. Excellent level of discourse you have here. I’ll be sure to tell my friends.

          1. Your sock puppets don’t count as friends.

  7. Like Jerry says,

    Is there a memo circulating in the “OCCUPY!”-band HQ that clarifies whether they’re for or against State Control of economies? because for the life of me I dont think these people know what they’re doing. At the very least, i think they should have an exchange program and let us trade some of the Occupy Wall St people for the anti-communists, and see what happens when they’re mixed together.

  8. HK was handed over in 1997, not 1999.

    1. They were partying like it was 1999 when it happened, which is why sometimes they forget the date.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.