The Hong Kong protests have thrown up some serious inconsistencies and illogical arguments on both sides. Here are a few examples and some rebuttals: 1. The police might have done wrong but they were just following orders. In order to follow orders they first have to be received, which means someone is giving orders. These mysterious people are, of course, the police commanders and police superiors, which renders the statement nonsensical. 2. The anti-occupy groups are just reacting to the occupy protests. Theyre just ordinary people who have had enough. No action without reaction, no smoke without fire. That makes sense. But follow the logic of the statement further, and in that case you must also grant that the occupy groups are just reacting to the governments decision on the 2017 elections, and that they too are ordinary people who have had enough. So by arguing that anti-occupy is a natural reaction, funnily enough you are also admitting that the ultimate blame for the impasse rests with the government. 3. The [government] / [protesters] need to meet our demands and cease what theyre doing right now. But arent both sides now in bargaining positions? Surely unless both sides make concessions / compromises then all we have is stalemate? Is it fair to expect your opposition to compromise without being prepared to do the same? 4. Unless you were there and saw it with your own eyes I dont believe that what you said happened. Right. I didnt see Germany beat Argentina in the World Cup with my own eyes either but Im pretty sure it still happened. 5. If this mess and these demonstrations are democracy then I dont want it! Its not democracy. Thats the point. Conflating a process with a goal isnt helpful. Its the same as confusing the long-haul economy flight where you sit with numb legs, dry eyes and a faulty tv screen while being serenaded by a screaming baby with the beach in Phuket. 6. If youre not from Hong Kong then you shouldnt be commenting on whats happening. Also rephrased by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on an inter-governmental level as what happens in Hong Kong is an internal matter and foreign governments should not comment or interfere. Regardless of whatever personal links someone might have to a place, as fellow humans, regardless of whether some governments like it or not, were each entitled to comment on what is happening to other human beings. In this context its hard not to recall John Donne who, 390 years ago, wrote: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friends were. Each mans death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee. 7. See point 6: What happens in Hong Kong is an internal matter and foreign governments should not comment or interfere. In 1993 Lu Ping, Chinas chief negotiator on HK, said how Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere.” If China cannot keep its promises then it really is an international matter, and an urgent one at that - how can any other government trust what China says in negotiations or believe it will honour those treaties it has already signed up to? 8. Hong Kong isnt ready for democracy anyway. If we have democracy itll be chaos. In the midst of chaos directly caused by the governments refusal to grant real democracy, thats a statement perverse enough to make even the Marquis de Sade groan. There are tonnes more examples. Feel free to add your own.
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 08:34:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015