Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Carrie Lam's comments referred to the contrast between Western support for the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year, and the response to recent anti-police brutality demonstrations in the US.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Last I checked Ms. Lam was "installed" as Chief Executive by the PRC and she is highly supportive of the Security Law that was passed in Beijing last month. Here is how the South China Morning Post sees it:

"Lam's comments came in defense of Beijing's controversial move to craft and pass a national security law for Hong Kong designed to "prevent, stop and punish" secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference in the city.

The move has sparked concerns over human rights and the city's long-standing freedoms, and raised questions as to how a law drafted by the mainland can be smoothly adopted to Hong Kong's common law system.

On Tuesday, Lam again pointed to foreign pressure in reiterating the need for Beijing to safeguard national security.

Citing the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's quote that "there are some things Hong Kong can't solve without the central government", Lam said the time for Beijing to step in had arrived.

When pushed to address specific legal principles and the content of the new law, Lam again said she was unable to comment as the draft legislation was not yet available.

Questions she declined to answer included whether future June 4 vigils to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown might be banned under the new law, and whether people would still be allowed to chant the frequent vigil slogan "end one-party dictatorship".

In a rare show of unity, lawmakers from the major parties in the Legco have accused Lam of "bending a knee to Xi" in her support of the Security Law."

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-06-02 03:22 PM | Reply

So you posted this just to assail China, then?

Trump thanks you for your support.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-06-02 03:33 PM | Reply

If you are talking to me Snoofy, take it up with the SCMP.

#3 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-06-02 06:15 PM | Reply

@#3 ... take it up with the SCMP....

But it was your failed deflection attempt, not the SCMP's.


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-02 07:36 PM | Reply

Authoritarian regimes are filled with double standards. They don't believe in one law for all.
Cult45 have weaponized the law to torture kids and kill blacks.

If you are on a jury, vote not guilty if the accused is poor and the victim is rich.
If the law wont protect the poor, the it shouldn't protect the rich.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2020-06-02 08:27 PM | Reply

#4

How is it a deflection, it is an article about the exact same comments, coming from Hong Kong's main newspaper.

Your link is from DW.com, so that is a German take on what the Chief Executive of Hong Kong said.

I will stay with the SCMP, they are a little closer to the issue at hand.

#6 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-06-02 08:36 PM | Reply

@#6 ... Your link is from DW.com, so that is a German take on what the Chief Executive of Hong Kong said. ...

... the DW article mainly was comparing her comments about the riots in the US to the US's comments about the riots in Hong Kong.

The SCMP article is mainly about the forcing of Chinese law upon Hong Kong. I see a clearly different topic.

I thought DW's comparison of the comments from the US (and other foreign governments) about HK riots vs the comments from HK about the US riots was an interesting comparison

Regardless of whether or not you may erroneously think the entirely different analysis of the forcing of a law upon HK by China from SCMP was "closer."

But, again, a nice try. :)



#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-02 09:25 PM | Reply

Welcome to the USA.

#8 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-06-02 10:54 PM | Reply

I thought DW's comparison of the comments from the US (and other foreign governments) about HK riots vs the comments from HK about the US riots was an interesting comparison

Fair enough.

Once again, the articles are about the same comments from the same person, and mine is from Hong Kong's major newspaper, yours is from a German newspaper, so to me the local perspective puts things in the proper perspective.

But, again, a nice try.

#9 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-06-03 12:16 AM | Reply

@#9 ... Once again, the articles are about the same comments from the same person, and mine is from Hong Kong's major newspaper, yours is from a German newspaper, so to me the local perspective puts things in the proper perspective. ...

You are being selective about what part of the comments you prefer to bring to the fore.

I do not necessarily disagree with what SCMP has said in the article you cite, but they are looking at a different part of her comments, comments that do not gainsay what I posted.

So then I look at why you might try to cite an article about a subset of her comments that is on a totally different topic.

Why might you want to post a comment that pulls the discussion away from the topic I posted?

And I do note that you still have not addressed my original comment, in spite of all your deflection attempts.

So you really are standing upon quicksand here when you give out one of those "nice tries."

Jus' sayin'


Your turn.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-03 12:38 AM | Reply

You are being selective about what part of the comments you prefer to bring to the fore.

No.

Your article:

"We have recently seen these kinds of double standards most clearly with the riots in the United States," Lam said. "We can see how local authorities have reacted. But then last year when we had similar riots in Hong Kong, what was their position?"

My article, from the South China Morning Post:

"For some countries that have had a high-profile response and claimed they will take action, I can only describe them as upholding double standards," Lam said, speaking ahead of the weekly Executive Council meeting on Tuesday morning. "They value very much their own national security, but are biased in viewing ours."

Lam said the "double standards" were widely known, adding: "There are riots in the United States and we see how local governments reacted. And then in Hong Kong, when we had similar riots, we saw what position they adopted."

My article has her actual, translated quote according to the local Hong Kong newspaper, your German article clearly paraphrases what she said. My article then puts her statements in context, yours has no clue.

Not sure you have a turn at this point, get better sources if you want to be taken seriously.

#11 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-06-03 12:53 AM | Reply

@#11

So you are finally quoting appropriate parts of the SCMP article. Why did you not do that earlier, instead of your original deflection attempt?

Why are you (apparently, actively) making me working so hard to draw some manner of response pertaining to the original comment from you? Is it that difficult for you to respond to the topic at hand?

Really?

Back to the point of this thread... you still have not commented upon what is said in the summary.

All you have done so far seems to be to try to pull the topic of discussion elsewhere. Why are you so afraid of that topic?

Why are you so afraid to comment on, "...Carrie Lam's comments referred to the contrast between Western support for the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year, and the response to recent anti-police brutality demonstrations in the US...."

Why are you so afraid of that topic?

Back to you...

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-06-03 01:08 AM | Reply

I thought DW's comparison of the comments from the US (and other foreign governments) about HK riots vs the comments from HK about the US riots was an interesting comparison

#7 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-06-02 09:25 PM | FLAG:

There's a little difference. China will disappear your ass into a gulag if you organize a protest.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2020-06-03 09:12 AM | Reply

Not a fair comparison--yet. But if US police forces start spraying paint at protesters, and bringing out the water cannons and shutting down the internet (any or all of which may become tactics), Ms. Lam will have won the argument and the Chinese the war...

#14 | Posted by catdog at 2020-06-03 09:24 AM | Reply

Definately a ----- in our armor.

#15 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-06-03 01:29 PM | Reply

Lam is a shill for Xi and this is a false equivalency - BUT this is at least somewhat a case of the truth hurts.

The difference in HK is that there isn't massive looting and destruction of private property (GOVERNMENT property yes) - it is purely protest. Are there clashes with security forces - absolutely. Looting should not and can not be tolerated. I think if there was no looting protestors would have been a whole lot more effective here. It's that 1-2% that start the looting and destruction and the up to 5% that then take part should be prosecuted.

#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-06-04 11:49 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort