【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿，但國際線十分重要，不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻，願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機：

While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.

After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.

This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.

The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws

Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.

The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.

Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”

In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.

Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.

Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates

An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?

The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”

If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.

Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.

Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”

Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.

Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship

Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.

In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.

Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.

The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.

These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.

▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ

[130031] 36231. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除帝具使／斬除美夢"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Imperial Arm Users / Kill the Dream (2014)★★
[130032] 36232. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除絕對正義"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Absolute Justice (2014)★★
[130033] 36233. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除三獸士（前篇）"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Three: Part 1 (2014)★★
[130034] 36234. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除三獸士（後篇）"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Three: Part 2 (2014)★★✚
[130035] 36235. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除戰鬥狂"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Battle Fanatic (2014)★★
[130036] 36236. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除誘惑"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Temptation (2014)★★
[130037] 36237. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除瘋狂科學家"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Mad Scientist (2014)★★
[130038] 36238. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除新人"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Newcomers (2014)★★
[130039] 36239. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除礙事之人"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Nuisances (2014)★★
[130040] 36240. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除巨大危險種"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Colossal Danger Beast (2014)★★

[130041] 36241. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除教團"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Religious Organization (2014)★★
[130042] 36242. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除人偶"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Puppets (2014)★★
[130043] 36243. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除詛咒"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Curse (2014)★★★❢
[130044] 36244. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除惡鬼"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Demon (2014)★★
[130045] 36245. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除因緣"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Fate (2014)★★
[130046] 36246. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除修羅"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Carnage (2014)★★
[130047] 36247. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除絕望"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Despair (2014)★★★
[130048] 36248. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除妹妹"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Little Sister (2014)★★
[130049] 36249. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬除皇帝"Akame Ga Kill" Kill the Emperor (2014)★★
[130050] 36250. 斬！赤紅之瞳：斬！赤紅之瞳"Akame Ga Kill" Akame ga Kill! (2014)★★

Read to the end! This is written by an American black officer. People still deny there's racism in the US. They honestly need new glasses and perhaps new thinking cap as well. Perhaps they need a complete metaphorical makeover.

Starbucks.
Alleged events.
Two black males entered Starbucks to wait for a friend to arrive and did not order anything from the business. Prior to ordering and prior to their friend’s arrival, they decided to attempt to use the restroom. An employee denied the men access to the restroom because they had not purchased anything and asked them to leave. The men calmly refused and the employee called the police. The police arrived at the scene and asked the men to leave the facility. The men refused numerous times. The men were told that they would be arrested if they did not leave the restaurant. The men told the officers to arrest them. The men calmly stood up and allowed the officers to arrest them. They were transported to jail, when Starbucks contacted the police department and stated that they did not want to follow through with charges against the men. They were released.

Why did the police officers have to arrest them? Why didn’t the officers investigate further?

Any employee of a business has the right to ask a person to leave their business. If a person refuses to do so, it is trespassing, period. The modern-day purpose of that charge is to reduce physical conflicts, escalating situations and to protect patrons/employees. The number 1 reason why trespassing is important is because the mentally ill and homeless “camp out” inside of businesses scaring/employees and customers. I trained near downtown and I was frequently called to arrest the mentally ill/ homeless for trespassing. It isn’t to discriminate against them, but they cause disturbances. I removed a guy for clipping his toenails on a table. I removed a woman for bathing in the toilet. I removed a man for masturbating in a trash can next to a family with small children. We have a homeless/ mental illness problem in America and there is no real solution to the problem. Trespassing charges are the quickest way to remove them and the nuisances associated with their behavior.

If you have ever been to a parade or any other event, you know that business often post signs stating that no one can use the restroom unless they are paying customers. You can imagine the nuisances caused by hundreds of drunk people creating a line only to use the restroom, pushing actual customers away from a business. It has caused numerous fights and disturbances. Trespassing charges are the easiest way to get people to leave and go on with their day.

In this Starbucks situation, the police were called and an employee wanted the two men out of the store. When the police arrive, it is their job to arrest someone who refuses to leave after being asked to do so by the business. Period. It doesn’t matter if the men were correct or not. A business can ask someone to leave. This prevents escalation between patrons/ employees for the most part. If a patron has a separate civil issue with the company, they are free to file that complaint or seek justice in other methods. The officers did nothing wrong.

As an officer, I know that most officers hate arresting people for trespassing. In an officer’s heart, they are hoping that the person being asked to leave will be gone prior to arrival. Most officers are disappointed to see the person still at the location. Trespassing charges are way too much paperwork and take too long to process at jail considering the charge. It’s annoying, but needs to be done in some circumstances. The officers asked the men to leave several times hoping they would just leave. They refused and told the officers to take them to jail. The officers were forced to take them to jail. They were professional and did their jobs. This is a civil issue and the issue lies with Starbucks and not the officers.

Racism / Cognitive Bias

It is not my place to accuse the employee of being racist, as I don’t know her heart and I wasn’t there. Racism and cognitive biases towards black people are real. I experience it all the time. Both affect black people the same way, regardless of the intention of the person exhibiting that behavior. It is tiring.

The beauty of this incident occurring at Starbucks as opposed to any other restaurant is that Starbucks encourages and cultivates an environment of loitering. College students spend hours there studying without making a purchase. People go on first dates without spending a dime. Business meetings take place there without a dime being spent. Friends gather there to pass time while waiting to go to a concert. People go there to read books. People go there to hang out. Starbucks has less standing to try to enforce a strict bathroom rule because of the environment that it encourages among citizens.

Many people use the restroom before placing an order. I would never order anything prior to using the restroom. You might miss your name being called for your order. I don’t like leaving my food/beverages unattended while in the restroom. I will not take my food/ beverage in the bathroom.

There was nothing about those two men that should have made this employee think they were mentally ill/ homeless. There was nothing about these men that should have made this employee believe they were a threat. There was nothing about these men that should have made the employee believe they were at a parade and using the restroom without intentions of patronizing their business.

Opinion

I get numerous messages from white people who desire to understand why black people get so upset about situations like this and I will try to explain.

I’ve gone to jail to do an interview with a prisoner, wearing the proper credentials and I had a jail worker put their hand on my chest (and the badge allowing me access) telling me that I can’t enter the facility. I was with a white officer, who was not wearing the proper credentials and he was allowed to pass through. When the white officer saw that I had problems passing through security, he came back and told the security worker that I was an officer. I did everything I was supposed to do, but my credentials meant nothing because her racism/cognitive bias told her that most officers are white males and she decided in her mind that I couldn’t be an officer. What if I punched her for putting her hand on my chest? How would I be viewed? She never looked at my credentials. She only saw my hair and face. I needed my white co-worker to validate my existence.

I was talking on my phone in CVS getting ready to buy toiletries for a trip. I was being followed around the store by an elderly white woman. I ignored it and continued to speak on the phone. Suddenly, an officer was called to the store. I saw the officer, but I didn’t care because I am an officer and I just knew he wasn’t there for me. The officer walked up to me and asked what I was doing in the store. I told him I was shopping. He told me that a suspicious person call came out about me. I started laughing and began to look for the elderly white woman. I knew she called because these things happen to me more than they should. She was peeking around a shelf to see what would happen. I knew she called the police. As he began to ask for my name to check and see if I had warrants, I showed him my badge. He stopped gathering my information. The officer was very professional. It wasn’t his fault that he was called there. If he refused to investigate and I robbed the store, he would have been in trouble. He marched me over to the elderly lady and asked her why she called the police. He showed her my badge and she still didn’t believe that I was an officer. He criticized her behavior and stormed out of the store. Good thing I had my “I’m not just another black person” badge. What happens to those who don’t have one? I needed the white officer to validate my existence.

I was at work for nearly 48 hours finishing up a big case. I went to my car to retrieve something and began to walk back into the police department headquarters. I was wearing plain clothes and wasn’t wearing identification. A white officer was in front of me wearing plain clothes and not wearing identification. A uniformed white officer was exiting the building and asked the white undercover officer, who looked like an extra from “Duck Dynasty,” if he was an officer. The guy stated that he was an officer and the uniformed white officer allowed him to enter the building. I was a few steps behind that exchange and the white uniformed officer asked me for my identification as I began to approach the building. I have been through this production many times so I already knew where this was headed. I told him that I was an officer to see if that same privilege would work for me as I entered the station. He repeated that he needed to see my identification and blocked the door. I was tired from being at work for so long and wasn’t as politically correct as usual. He began to try an enforce policy stating that he needed to see my identification. I told him that I would not show him my identification until he chased down the white, homeless looking guy that he didn’t recognize as an officer and ask him for his identification. He was clearly upset. He was upset that his authority wasn’t respected. He asked why everything had to be about race. I told him I’ve been trying to figure that out my whole life. He plead for me to just show him my identification because it wasn’t a big deal. I told him it was a big deal. I won’t comply because that’s what you want me to do and you want your authority respected. I told him to show me his identification and he refused. He got upset and walked away cursing me out. I wouldn’t have had a problem showing him my identification because it is policy. I wasn’t showing him anything because he trusted the white undercover officer’s word, but mine wasn’t good enough. If only I had a white officer with me to validate my presence at the police department.

What would that officer say about me if I filed a complaint? What if I got loud with him? Would he label me as another angry black woman? Would he tell everyone on the department that I am a race baiter to defend his behavior? I didn’t complain.

I went to Gloria’s (Addison) for a birthday party around 2 pm. I had on Timberland boots, but was dressed fashionable. The security guard let the rest of my group in, but told me that I couldn’t wear tennis shoes inside. I told him that I was wearing boots and he said boots and tennis shoes were the same. I politely asked to speak with the manager. I tried to show him my “get out of looking suspicious” police identification and told him that I wasn’t there to cause problems, I drove an hour to get here and I was there for a birthday party. He rudely said that I wouldn’t be attending any party at their business. There were numerous white guys wearing actual tennis shoes and they were immediately allowed inside the business. I pointed to those guys and asked why those tennis shoes were acceptable? He called more security guards to the scene and said that I would not be allowed inside their business. I missed the party, nor did I desire to be there anymore. I never go to that Gloria’s and I think about that experience every time I pass by it. This may not seem like a big deal to you if you are white. These things don’t happen to you all the time.

Every day black people have to be calmer and pick and choose their battles. It is tiring. I understand the frustration of white officers who don’t understand all the frustration exhibited by blacks. These incidents don’t happen to them daily. Their position is validated just by existing. I understand why white people say “just be compliant.” Generally, people should just comply, but sometimes you have to dig your heels in the sand to effect change.

Again, the police did nothing wrong in this situation. There is no recourse when white people call the police because of their own racism/ cognitive biases. What if those men were supposed to see their daughters off to prom and missed it due to their arrests? What if they had to acknowledge this arrest as they applied for jobs? What if their sons had soccer games that they missed because of this incident?

If these white people didn’t step up and say that they come to Starbucks all the time without ordering and are allowed access to the bathroom, where would those black men be? If those white people refused to get involved because the incident didn’t affect them, where would those black men be? If those white people didn’t record the incident, documenting proof of how calm the black men were, where would those men be? If those white people didn’t raise so much hell, that the company called the police station and refused to press charges against them, where would those black men be? Where would black people be without white chaperones to prove their existence is valid and harmless? Black people should not need validation from white people to exist.

Just as criminals don’t wear signs indicating that they are criminals, racists and people with cognitive biases don’t wear signs indicating their status. If you are white, I encourage you to try to imagine going through incidents like this every day as you buy groceries, pump gas, ride the bus, purchase clothes at the mall, attend parties, go to bars, watch your children play sports, and a long list of other everyday activities. It doesn't make you a racist if you don't insert yourself in situations such as this to defend people. It takes a special person to stand up for people dealing with an issue that will never affect you.

crazy　え？　危ない！ワザとか！　エスカレーター昇降口を塞ぐ奴！！ 中野駅で基地外に遭遇。そんなありき方していたらエスカレーターおとされますわ！

チャンネル登録お願いします。http://urx3.nu/Fo5D
ブログ始めました　http://aihoapijyu.blogspot.com

ICカードチャージして財布に入れるじゃねーよ
自動改札に翳すんだよ！
チャンネル登録お願いします。http://urx3.nu/Fo5D
ブログ始めました　http://aihoapijyu.blogspot.com