> No, literally no soverign country would allow a region to operate without national security umbrella for decades...
In other "normal" sovereign countries, the "national security umbrella" is defined by representatives voted by the people. Suspected violators are prosecuted by a fair court, with a jury determining the validity of the charges. I don't think either of those is the case for Hong Kong.
> Human rights > national security is frankly absurdly unserious position to take.
Again, in any state with decent democracy, the law states otherwise. A nation is formed to protect the rights of its people, not to take those rights away.
> What is obviously traitorous, is shaking hands with ex head of CIA, we lie we cheat we steal Pompeo, during ongoing Sino-US geopolitical cold war, while advocating for sanctions on your own people. That's not obedience, that's treason.
That is rarely considered a national security case in any decent democratic country. He was actually exercising his freedom of speech, as defined in the UN's basic human rights charter I mentioned earlier. Limiting which political viewpoints are "allowed" is a classical, textbook example of authoritarianism.
List one normal decent democracy without NSL law. You will find the answer is none. There's a jury in some HK NSL law (for low level protestor), people got off for light greviances in the past despite Beijing protest. Lai gettign 3 judge speedrun because he's simply an obvious comprador traitor.
And let's not forget this NSL dalying was an failure of HK making, i.e. basically failed state behavior that HK incompetence generated. Frankly that's demonstration HK isn't ready for democracy at all.
And no a national is formed to sustain the nation, eitherway you can't protect people without NSL... and btw that's what PRC did, protect 1400m people from HK traitors by closing their treason lifehack loophole. It's basic statecraft.
Yes and trading secrets and espionage with geopolitical adversary is muh freedom of speech and not espionage. Again unserious, exactly why HK needs to be reeducated. You're conflating disset (speech) with collusion (treason), Lai colluded, which is unprotected speech anywhere.
> List one normal decent democracy without NSL law. You will find the answer is none.
The problem is not about the law itself. It is about how the law is defined, and moreover, the system of checks and balances. In a decent democracy, the national security law does not override the people's rights written in the constitution. The government is bound by the law to uphold due process and to respect people's basic rights, even if the suspect may have broken a law. While in authoritarian states, the constitution is basically just a joke. Don't you know China's absurd history of human rights violations?
> Lai gettign 3 judge speedrun because he's simply an obvious comprador traitor.
A quick search states otherwise. He was prosecuted by three government-picked judges, and there was no jury, which violates the standards of a fair trial.
> And let's not forget this NSL dalying was an failure of HK making, i.e. basically failed state behavior that HK incompetence generated. Frankly that's demonstration HK isn't ready for democracy at all.
Democracy means the people are in power, not the dictator. If the Hong Kong people can only vote for someone that Beijing favors, then that is not democracy. It is not possible to have a democratic system that a dictator has control over, by definition.
> ...that's what PRC did, protect 1400m people from HK traitors...
If they really wanted to protect their people, they would create a true democratic system for the city. There is no reason any western country would put sanctions on a democratic entity. And don't forget the fact that they fought really hard to gain control of the city, only to later claim it is a "huge risk to national security".
> You're conflating disset (speech) with collusion (treason), Lai colluded, which is unprotected speech anywhere.
There are no normal countries that would put people into jail for mere political speech as "treason." Such laws are only applied to acts like espionage or leaking classified information, and even those cases are bound by checks and balances.
No the problem is not process but sheer absence of NSL law and ineptitude or indifference of HKers to implement one for 20 years despite being their 1C2S obligation. If they couldn't pass NSL law in 20 years they don't deserve full democracy full stop, which btw they didn't functionally have. Also BTW know PRC killed less HKers than British did in HK during past protests. Now HK simply getting the less lethal more benevolent boot. PRC human rights in HK > UK.
> A quick search states otherwise
That's literally what I said, a 3 judge speed run. As for jury requirement, tell that to authoritarian Netherland.
> no reason any western country would put sanctions on a democratic entity
I'm just going to leave this trivially disproven quote here for posterity. It's 2025, you can trivially ask an LLM for a list, and we're not talking about western countries, we're talking about US dollar system access which US has been sanction happy with.
> mere political speech
Again, I literally distinguished between collusion vs speech. Lai working with Pompeo to sanction HK legistlators is collusion beyond speech. Which he called for publically. Plenty of cases of people thrown in jail for just speech not even in realmn of treason in west. Anyway, this is my last response, seperate libtard fantasy with libtard reality. Reality is HK is finally a normal jurisdiction with NSL coverage, which regardless of butmuhdemocracy in execution is still more accepted normal than not.
In other "normal" sovereign countries, the "national security umbrella" is defined by representatives voted by the people. Suspected violators are prosecuted by a fair court, with a jury determining the validity of the charges. I don't think either of those is the case for Hong Kong.
> Human rights > national security is frankly absurdly unserious position to take.
Again, in any state with decent democracy, the law states otherwise. A nation is formed to protect the rights of its people, not to take those rights away.
> What is obviously traitorous, is shaking hands with ex head of CIA, we lie we cheat we steal Pompeo, during ongoing Sino-US geopolitical cold war, while advocating for sanctions on your own people. That's not obedience, that's treason.
That is rarely considered a national security case in any decent democratic country. He was actually exercising his freedom of speech, as defined in the UN's basic human rights charter I mentioned earlier. Limiting which political viewpoints are "allowed" is a classical, textbook example of authoritarianism.