this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
282 points (96.7% liked)

World News

32282 readers
813 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sab@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's a departure from the common law tradition. Furthermore common law is a completely different concept from British laws.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[–] mim@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're replying to a tankie.

Just the usual knewjerk reaction to defend China.

[–] sab@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I noticed the instance only after I had already responded. Oh well, that solves the mystery of the questionable reading comprehension.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hong Kong's common law tradition is entirely a colonialist imposition. Worse, common law doesn't apply to modern national security regimes. The US is a common law nation, but it has secret courts, enemy combatants designations, secret evidence, secret charges, and the federal court system has significant departures.

The idea that a national security proceeding in China should be constrained by thousand-year old precedent set in England is not just ridiculous it is a particular kind of white imperialist ridiculous.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you think that having the political leader hand pick a panel judges to try someone and do away with jury trial is a good idea then? Particularly when the defendant has a history of annoying said political leader? You don’t think it might be rather open to abuse?

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Abuse. Abuse. You are worried about abuse? How about the occupation of Hong Kong, the attempt to extend occupation, and then, upon determining that the occupation could not be extended, doing everything in your power to create strife, division, conditions for counter-revolution and secessionary movements, and maintaining as much political and economic influence over the territory as possible?

Do you think that might be open to abuse? How would you solve that problem? What sorts of solutions exist in the imperial world for resolving this sort of problem?

What you don't seem to grasp is that One Country, Two Systems entails One National Defense. Collaboration with Western imperialists who have subjugated China for centuries is going to be handled by the One Country, not the Two Systems. Unlike the imperial holdings of the West, however, Hong Kong is actually democratically integrated into China. Ask Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc how democracy is working out for them?

You also aren't actually analyzing the bureaucratic workings of China's legal system and aren't steeped in their history, traditions, and precedent. You are reading a Western spin on what's actually happening. You can't read Chinese, so you can't read Chinese law. You can't actually engage with Chinese events at the same level of detail and analysis that you can of English, American, Canadian, and Australian events. So, forgive me if I don't find your arguments compelling, since they amount to accusing Xi of being an autocrat in what is demonstrably a democratic institution operating a rules-based bureaucratic system that has a decade-long 95% national approval while simultaneously operating the most complex multi-ethnic country in the history of the world including autonomous regions wherein ethnic nations experience a greater degree of cultural self-expression and self-governance than anything the West has ever produced. Clearly, if China worked the way you think it does Xi would be calling all the shots and people would be discontent and the governing of 1.4 billion people of 57 ethnicities would be coming apart at the seams. Instead we see that it is France, UK, and USA that is falling apart dealing with far fewer people and with far less ethnic diversity and with far less ethnic autonomy. Something in your analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Back to your point about abuse, though, should you be worried about abuse of power in China? Is that where your energy should be going? Does China operate 600 military bases globally? Does China operate extrajudicial torture chambers all over the world? Does China launch new wars of aggression every few years? Does China deploy chemical and nuclear weapons that continue to kill thousands of babies the world over for decades? Does China suppress language and culture of people living in its borders in a continuously unbroken 600-year genocide?

As far as I can tell, all systems have corruption, all systems have abuse of power - it's the essence of governing systems that they are this way. What we should be worried about is actual abuses, not potential abuses. Worrying about potential abuses allows you to focus on China while the USA kills millions, tortures with impunity, trains terrorists and death squads, and sows death and destruction everywhere it goes. Focus on the problem. China's not the problem.