Hong Kong democracy activists granted bail by highest court

[webfact]

Hong Kong democracy activists granted bail by highest court

 

Student leaders Joshua Wong and Nathan Law arrive at the High Court to face verdict on charges relating to the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement, also known as Occupy Central protests, in Hong Kong, China August 17, 2017. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/Files

 

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong's highest court on Tuesday granted bail to two prominent young democracy activists, Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, who were jailed for unlawful assembly linked to the city's large-scale pro-democracy protests in 2014.

 

Hong Kong's appeals court in August jailed Wong, Law and Alex Chow, leaders of the Chinese-ruled city's democracy movement, dealing a blow to the youth-led push for universal suffrage and prompting accusations of political interference.

 

Hong Kong's Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, who heads the Court of Final Appeal, granted Wong and Law bail while they appeal their six month and eight month jail terms respectively, saying there was no flight risk.

 

Chow had not applied for bail.

 

The imprisonment of Wong, Chow and Law for their roles in the 2014 "Umbrella Movement" protests triggered tens of thousands to demonstrate locally, as well as an international outcry.

 

(Reporting by James Pomfret; Editing by Michael Perry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-24

[Somtamnication]

What a shame about this. Freedom of speech should be guaranteed. Ah, forgot. This is China.

[tonbridgebrit]

These people went and organised a mass demonstration. A mass demonstration that lasted for days and days.

If they was in Vietnam, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? If they was in Cambodia, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? If they was in Burma, would they be allowed to the same thing ? If they was in Singapore, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? Why look at China and say that this oppression, when, well, it happens in lots of other countries ?
Actually, in Britain, no, you're not allowed to do a demonstration that lasts for days and days, and you're blocking traffic with your demonstration. And you also can't do it in Australia.

Edited October 24, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

These people went and organised a mass demonstration. A mass demonstration that lasted for days and days.

If they was in Vietnam, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? If they was in Cambodia, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? If they was in Burma, would they be allowed to the same thing ? If they was in Singapore, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? Why look at China and say that this oppression, when, well, it happens in lots of other countries ?
Actually, in Britain, no, you're not allowed to do a demonstration that lasts for days and days, and you're blocking traffic with your demonstration. And you also can't do it in Australia.

None of the countries that you list are exactly beacons of civil liberties - and I include the UK in that. But if the people are actually willing to demonstrate en mass for days on end, surely they must have grievances that should be aired? The legality or otherwise of civil demonstrations is no indication of their merit.  

[tonbridgebrit]

Joshua Wong, you're not welcome in Thailand. And China doesn't want you in main-land China. If you was to try and visit Vietnam, do you reckon the Vietnamese will let you in ?

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Joshua Wong, you're not welcome in Thailand. And China doesn't want you in main-land China. If you was to try and visit Vietnam, do you reckon the Vietnamese will let you in ?

What is it about Wong and his activities to which you object? Surely you can agree that democracy and those who strive to secure it should be supported rather than persecuted? 

[boomerangutang]

Well isn't that nice.  The Beijing puppets in HK aren't just throwing those guys in a dark dungeon to let them rot.  Freedom of speech doesn't exist in HK, but it's better there than on the mainland China.

 

I'm in a minority, but I wanted HK to stay British.  I knew without a doubt, all along, that HK controlled by Beijing would sink inexorably toward: no-free-speech, and nixing of other freedoms.

 

To those who say, "There was no other way.  HK had to be returned to China."  I say; not so. Britain is smaller than China, but if push came to shove, I think the Brits would have prevailed.  Look at the brief Argentina war ....or either of the two Opium Wars.   .....all 3 of which Britain won against larger foes, and far from home.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

13 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Joshua Wong, you're not welcome in Thailand. And China doesn't want you in main-land China. If you was to try and visit Vietnam, do you reckon the Vietnamese will let you in ?

Are you a spokesperson for the Beijing Politburo?   

What an odd thing to say.  Do you know anything about Wong?   He organised a peaceful rally to stand up for free speech.  Do you have a problem with free speech?  Or maybe you have a problem with peaceful assemblies.

[tonbridgebrit]

17 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

What is it about Wong and his activities to which you object? Surely you can agree that democracy and those who strive to secure it should be supported rather than persecuted? 

 

12 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Are you a spokesperson for the Beijing Politburo?   

What an odd thing to say.  Do you know anything about Wong?   He organised a peaceful rally to stand up for free speech.  Do you have a problem with free speech?  Or maybe you have a problem with peaceful assemblies.

Joshua Wong and others like him went and organised a mass demonstration. It lasted for days and days, actually, weeks and weeks. They blocked roads and traffic. If the demonstration was arranged with police, and if it lasted for three days, and blocked traffic, fine. But their demonstration went on for ages.

After the mass demonstrations, Joshua Wong's political party took part in a big election in Hong Kong. They did get some votes, fine.

So, take part in the election, get whatever votes, that's fine with me. It's just that I don't think it's right to block traffic in any city centre for days and days. I see nothing wrong with countries like Britain, Australia and America, where you're not simply allowed to block traffic with a demonstration, and you can continue as long as you like.

And I don't like the way how the media portrays it. As in, the media doesn't want to raise the issue of restrictions on demonstrations in a whole load of places on planet earth, but, but in Hong Kong, the media wants to highlight the restrictions. That's bearing in mind that what Joshua Wong did in Hong Kong would not have been allowed in Britain, Australia, America, etc.  And the media still wants to go on about Hong Kong's restrictions on public demonstrations.

 

[punchjudy]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Well isn't that nice.  The Beijing puppets in HK aren't just throwing those guys in a dark dungeon to let them rot.  Freedom of speech doesn't exist in HK, but it's better there than on the mainland China.

 

I'm in a minority, but I wanted HK to stay British.  I knew without a doubt, all along, that HK controlled by Beijing would sink inexorably toward: no-free-speech, and nixing of other freedoms.

 

To those who say, "There was no other way.  HK had to be returned to China."  I say; not so. Britain is smaller than China, but if push came to shove, I think the Brits would have prevailed.  Look at the brief Argentina war ....or either of the two Opium Wars.   .....all 3 of which Britain won against larger foes, and far from home.

 

 

the old colonial days are over.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Joshua Wong and others like him went and organised a mass demonstration. It lasted for days and days, actually, weeks and weeks. They blocked roads and traffic. If the demonstration was arranged with police, and if it lasted for three days, and blocked traffic, fine. But their demonstration went on for ages.
After the mass demonstrations, Joshua Wong's political party took part in a big election in Hong Kong. They did get some votes, fine.
So, take part in the election, get whatever votes, that's fine with me. It's just that I don't think it's right to block traffic in any city centre for days and days. I see nothing wrong with countries like Britain, Australia and America, where you're not simply allowed to block traffic with a demonstration, and you can continue as long as you like.
And I don't like the way how the media portrays it. As in, the media doesn't want to raise the issue of restrictions on demonstrations in a whole load of places on planet earth, but, but in Hong Kong, the media wants to highlight the restrictions. That's bearing in mind that what Joshua Wong did in Hong Kong would not have been allowed in Britain, Australia, America, etc.  And the media still wants to go on about Hong Kong's restrictions on public demonstrations.

Demonstrations are, by definition, annoying to some folks, usually the establishment.  If they weren't annoying, they wouldn't be effective.  Poster submits; "If the demonstration was arranged with police,"  .....are you kidding?   Police are controlled by Beijing puppets.  They're not going to allow anything that doesn't praise Beijing.  

 

28 minutes ago, punchjudy said:

the old colonial days are over.

For the most part, yes.  But colonies still exist.   If it makes you feel better, we can call them 'NEW colonial.'   Half the islands in the Caribbean, plus Canada, Australia, Tibet, Crimea, and a few others are still colonies.  If you ask me, I think colonialism would be a better way of governing for some countries.  For example:  Zimbabwe.   Look at what self-rule's got them.  I admit colonialism often manifested badly, but in some scenarios it brought good things:  post offices, judicial systems, democracy, railroads, police, fire departments, sewers, municipal water systems, good roads, employment/markets for home-grown goods, ..... 

[Johnnyngai]

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 11:39 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

These people went and organised a mass demonstration. A mass demonstration that lasted for days and days.

If they was in Vietnam, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? If they was in Cambodia, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? If they was in Burma, would they be allowed to the same thing ? If they was in Singapore, would they be allowed to do the same thing ? Why look at China and say that this oppression, when, well, it happens in lots of other countries ?
Actually, in Britain, no, you're not allowed to do a demonstration that lasts for days and days, and you're blocking traffic with your demonstration. And you also can't do it in Australia.

The HK students were misled into doing a USA style " Occupy Wall Street."  

[Johnnyngai]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Joshua Wong, you're not welcome in Thailand. And China doesn't want you in main-land China. If you was to try and visit Vietnam, do you reckon the Vietnamese will let you in ?

The USA will give the student leaders full scholarship to attend big name universities. 

I feel bad for all the small men and women who got beat up by the police for nothing.   

[Johnnyngai]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Well isn't that nice.  The Beijing puppets in HK aren't just throwing those guys in a dark dungeon to let them rot.  Freedom of speech doesn't exist in HK, but it's better there than on the mainland China.

 

I'm in a minority, but I wanted HK to stay British.  I knew without a doubt, all along, that HK controlled by Beijing would sink inexorably toward: no-free-speech, and nixing of other freedoms.

 

To those who say, "There was no other way.  HK had to be returned to China."  I say; not so. Britain is smaller than China, but if push came to shove, I think the Brits would have prevailed.  Look at the brief Argentina war ....or either of the two Opium Wars.   .....all 3 of which Britain won against larger foes, and far from home.

 

 

The British had to maintain their post WW2 gentleman status: they signed a treaty some 100  years ago to return HK to China in 1997.   

The British also signed a memorandum of understand with the dictators in 1993, to allow an unchanged HK for the next 50 years.    

The British wanted to ensure an unchanged money making environment for themselves for the next 50 years. 

HK is one of the biggest money making  financial  center in Asia.  Any mention of war is much too old school. 

[Johnnyngai]

39 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Demonstrations are, by definition, annoying to some folks, usually the establishment.  If they weren't annoying, they wouldn't be effective.  Poster submits; "If the demonstration was arranged with police,"  .....are you kidding?   Police are controlled by Beijing puppets.  They're not going to allow anything that doesn't praise Beijing.  

 

For the most part, yes.  But colonies still exist.   If it makes you feel better, we can call them 'NEW colonial.'   Half the islands in the Caribbean, plus Canada, Australia, Tibet, Crimea, and a few others are still colonies.  If you ask me, I think colonialism would be a better way of governing for some countries.  For example:  Zimbabwe.   Look at what self-rule's got them.  I admit colonialism often manifested badly, but in some scenarios it brought good things:  post offices, judicial systems, democracy, railroads, police, fire departments, sewers, municipal water systems, good roads, employment/markets for home-grown goods, ..... 

About ten years ago I met a few Chinese college students thought a language exchange website.

When I mentioned to them that: " although the British took HK by force and sent millions of dollars a year back to England, but they did do a good job managing HK, look at the prosperity of HK compared to Mainland China."           Ten years ago, the truth was hard to swallow.   

China has changed much since I last visited ten years ago.         

[boomerangutang]

14 minutes ago, Johnnyngai said:

The British had to maintain their post WW2 gentleman status: they signed a treaty some 100  years ago to return HK to China in 1997.   The British also signed a memorandum of understand with the dictators in 1993, to allow an unchanged HK for the next 50 years.    The British wanted to ensure an unchanged money making environment for themselves for the next 50 years.  HK is one of the biggest money making  financial  center in Asia.  Any mention of war is much too old school. 

The Brits signed two treaties re; HK.  The second one, in late 19th century, was also signed by Chinese royals, which had the phrase 'IN PERPETUITY.'  It means; 'forever.'  It applied to all the territory south of Boundary Road (the road is still there, north of Kowloon).   If Marge Thatcher was a tougher player, the Brits could have held on to HK (not counting the New Territories) and HK would have democracy and free speech.

[Johnnyngai]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

The Brits signed two treaties re; HK.  The second one, in late 19th century, was also signed by Chinese royals, which had the phrase 'IN PERPETUITY.'  It means; 'forever.'  It applied to all the territory south of Boundary Road (the road is still there, north of Kowloon).   If Marge Thatcher was a tougher player, the Brits could have held on to HK (not counting the New Territories) and HK would have democracy and free speech.

I do not know if HK had democracy and freedom of speech under colonial rule.  

Any talk of war would destroy Hk's stutus as a financial  center in Asia.  What good is a piece of land without profit ? 

The British are good businessmen, they know the easiest way to make money.  Chairman Mao was the stupid businessman who lead China into 30 years of poverty.    Chairman Mao was the one who constantly talk about armed revolutions.    

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Well isn't that nice.  The Beijing puppets in HK aren't just throwing those guys in a dark dungeon to let them rot.  Freedom of speech doesn't exist in HK, but it's better there than on the mainland China.

 

I'm in a minority, but I wanted HK to stay British.  I knew without a doubt, all along, that HK controlled by Beijing would sink inexorably toward: no-free-speech, and nixing of other freedoms.

 

To those who say, "There was no other way.  HK had to be returned to China."  I say; not so. Britain is smaller than China, but if push came to shove, I think the Brits would have prevailed.  Look at the brief Argentina war ....or either of the two Opium Wars.   .....all 3 of which Britain won against larger foes, and far from home.

 

 

Sure! Fighting a colonial war in the late 20th century makes a load of sense - or a load of something! 

Edited October 25, 2017 by mikebike
sp

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

But colonies still exist.   If it makes you feel better, we can call them 'NEW colonial.'   Half the islands in the Caribbean, plus Canada, Australia, Tibet, Crimea, and a few others are still colonies.  If you ask me, I think colonialism would be a better way of governing for some countries.  For example:  Zimbabwe.   Look at what self-rule's got them.  I admit colonialism often manifested badly, but in some scenarios it brought good things:  post offices, judicial systems, democracy, railroads, police, fire departments, sewers, municipal water systems, good roads, employment/markets for home-grown goods, ..... 

Australia hasn't been a "colony" of England since 1901 and Canada hasn't been a "colony" of England since 1931... Not gonna look up the ones i don't know off hand,  but I'll wager a wad on "none of them are either".

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

The Brits signed two treaties re; HK.  The second one, in late 19th century, was also signed by Chinese royals, which had the phrase 'IN PERPETUITY.'  It means; 'forever.'  It applied to all the territory south of Boundary Road (the road is still there, north of Kowloon).   If Marge Thatcher was a tougher player, the Brits could have held on to HK (not counting the New Territories) and HK would have democracy and free speech.

In perpetuity contracts are only enforceable in a stable political climate. The revolution and the 100 years of humiliation would have eviscerated any validity of a contract signed by "the royals" in the eyes of the CPC.