system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I support the Hong Kong protesters regardless of what atrocities they commit

I believe that the Hong Kong protesters should be supported regardless of what they do in their fight against authoritarianism and tyranny as long as it is nominally for the cause. I will present the most extreme form of my view where I allow for even war crimes and crimes against humanities (if the protesters can ever commit them).

First, China (People's Republic), is an authoritarian state. There is wide state surveillance as well as thought control. Hong Kong is a city which enjoyed many democratic and liberal values and rights. In 1997, the British irresponsibly handed Hong Kong over to China with an unsatisfactory settlement. This unsatisfactory settlement continues to this day.

To look at a few of this unsatisfactory settlement, let's examine the handover and the aftermath. The handover was done between the British and Chinese governments. The Hong Kong people never had any choice to stay with the British or go it alone. This fact alone makes the handover illegitimate. The Basic Law (the city's constitution) deals with national security, and it asks Hong Kong's government

>to make laws to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.

&#x200B;

This alone goes against liberal values of freedom of speech because genuine political opinions such as secession and freedom of political association (with foreign bodies). Further, the PRC's definition of sedition and subversion are quite different from out western values, they believe that even advocating for the overthrow of the central government is subversion. Hence, this law would implement serious thought control which is patently illiberal.  Note that the NPCSC has final interpretive power over the Basic Law. Therefore, any articles in the Basic Law can be construed in any way the communist government wants, which is highly unsatisfactory.

Next, let's look at the political system of Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a semi-presidential system headed by a Chief Executive (CE). The CE is elected by an electoral committee, of which a majority of seats are inpro-china and business constituencies which elects based on the wishes of Beijing. The CE is then also appointed by Beijing. How could a pro-democracy/anti-China CE be ever elected?

The Legislature of Hong Kong is the Legislative Council, or LegCo. This body has 70 members. Of which 35 of them are elected by proportional representation by geographic constituencies. There are 30 seats which go to mostly pro-China Functional Constituencies, made up of mostly pro-China Business interests. There also exists a 5 seat 'District Council (second)' Functional Constituency which is for the electorate which do not vote in any other constituency. This makes it so that it seems like everyone gets 'two votes'. However, the result of this system is a LegCo make up which is consistently pro-China/pro-Establishment. How on earth should the population seek to make changes to the system when a minority can control both the CE and LegCo.

This problem is compounded by the judiciary. The judiciary of Hong Kong is nominally independent, and I don't seek to imply otherwise. However, the Judiciary is very conservative, it does not seek to safeguard the rights of the Hong Kong people(example of a court actually doing this this could be seen in the UKSC prorogation cases) , it merely seeks to make the safest judgments in law with no regard for the consequences of their decisions. One such example was the oath-taking scandal, in which some LegCo members (all pan-democrats of course) were disqualified because they didn't take their oaths 'properly', and the Judiciary held that to be fine. There is also the situation where anyone who espoused pro-independence views, or even just advocating for self-determination is disqualified, and the Hong Kong Courts held that to be constitutional. If even the courts do not protect against this bare-faced attack against the freedom of speech by the Government and Beijing, who is left to do so?

Therefore, this brings me to the current issue. The issue at hand is the 'extradition bill', allowing fugitives to be extradited to other jurisdictions where Hong Kong does not currently have an extradition agreement (like China and the other China (Republic of)). There are many safeguards built into this, mainly that the crime must also be a crime in Hong Kong, and also in the receiving jurisdiction, as well as requiring the courts to sign off on the extradition order. However, the fact of the matter is this, with Article 23 hanging over their heads (Beijing could easily implement thought crimes and whatnot), and the judiciary not being trusted to protect them, Hong Kongers railed against the bill. In a march numbering 1 million (or less depending on which source you read), the Hong Kongers displayed their displeasure at bill. (NB: 1 million is almost 14% of the population) However, the CE and establishment tried to ram the bill through Legco 4 days later, only to be stopped by violent protesters blocking their entrance to the LegCo building. This just demonstrates the utter futility of peaceful methods, and cites the need for more violent and radical methods to achieve their goal.

Soon after the beginning of the movement, the government failed to take proactive steps to de-escalate the situation, but instead hid behind a police force which is widely believed to be using excessive force. In fact, it has become clear now, that the HKPF is not only a force for enforcing the law, but it is an arm of the government used to suppress dissent. So, it is a widely held view that the HKPF must be held accountable for their actions.

There are 5 main demands that the movement demands from the government:

1. Withdraw the extradition bill (done, albeit 3 months late)
2. Commission an independent inquiry on the use of force by police
3. Withdraw the characterization of the June 12 protests as 'riots' (note, rioting carries a 10 year-maximum prison sentence in Hong Kong)
4. Release all those captured during the movement
5. Immediately implement universal suffrage in all LegCo seats and in the election of the CE and hold elections immediately.

I feel 1,2,5 are easily achievable, and are the *right* thing to do. Looking at whether that police acted unlawfully is clearly necessary, and universal suffrage was promised under the Basic Law (Article 45). Then the question becomes, how can the protesters achieve their demands? One can suggest peaceful protest, but that clearly doesn't work. The only resolution, then, is either to have everyone pack their bags and go home and be sitting ducks for Beijing's taking, or escalate in violence. And escalating is what they're doing.

I don't believe for a moment that Beijing will suddenly see the light and grant democracy and liberty to Hong Kong, and I don't see any meaningful foreign intervention likely. Therefore Hong Kongers are alone, and they have to devise a plan to fight alone. Northern Ireland seems to be a good example of this. There, bombs and guns were commonplace throughout The Troubles. In Hong Kong, there are only petrol bombs and arrows. They haven't gotten there yet, but they're doing their part. As for further escalation, there are some who suggest that they have gone too far already, but I disagree. I believe that the current Hong Kong Government is illegitimate and therefore it is the Hong Kongers' right and responsibility to overthrow, or at least reconstitute it. If, in the end the PLA (People's Liberation Army) invades and kills many people, then so be it. But to give up without fighting at all is not right. Therefore, I support any and all escalations that the protesters do.

As for the lone wolf attacks on pro-Beijing politicians and members of the public who argue with the Blackshirts on the street, I have only one thing to say: Hong Kong is facing an existential threat, pro-Beijing politicians want to make Hong Kong more like China, i.e. somewhere you can be arrested for saying the wrong thing, attacks on them is only giving them a taste of their own medicine. Their actions in favor of China rather than Hong Kong can be seen as treasonous, and treason is punishable by death in many places. Given that the protesters can't change the law, they can only enforce this extrajudicially.

Finally, I end my post with a quote that a read a while ago:

>Rule of Law is only **just** when the Law is **right**, when the law is **wrong**, it is imperative that one **change**, **repeal**, or **disobey** it.  

Edit: I think most commenters are getting the wrong idea. The essence of my argument is this: Given that the Hong Kong identity is under existential threat, actions must be taken to preserve it. However, actions short of violence seem not to be effective. Therefore, it seems violence is necessary. In the course of violently resisting, there may be some who are harmed as a by-product of the increase in violence--that is unavoidable. Therefore, I would not stop supporting them if some innocent bystanders are harmed. Therefore, those of you trying to convince me that war crimes are bad are wasting your effort. I don't like war crimes, I don't think anyone does, and that is not the crux of the argument.  

I think there are a few ways of changing my mind after seeing your comments:  
1. Change my mind to think that Hong Kong culture is not worth protecting
2. Change my mind to think that China (PRC) is good and alligns with my values
3. Convince me that when faced with an authoritarian oppressor, people should just lie down and 'take it'
gpt
From a results standpoint, status quo is the best hong kong can hope for. It has no real foreign support (unlike taiwan), and it has too many economic ties to the mainland. China has drawn some lines that they have no reason to back away from (they wont allow a democratic process for choosing the CE) but they also seem OK with the status quo (withdrawing the extradition bill).

The issue with violence in this case is that it harms their position. It freaks mainlanders out and makes the political climate in china very anti HK. The cccp doesnt have to answer to its people directly, but it has a radical solution in its pocket that wont spark outrage amongst its people. The more violence there is, the less likely hong kong remains as free as it currently is.