Your Neutrality Is the Largest Protection for Govt's Suppression
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/02/10/27813/
 |
| (Blindfolded and non-blindfolded Lady Justice. What is neutral and just, indeed?) |
In Hong Kong, there are lots of people obsessed with neutrality, they like saying:
"After all, you are illegal and wrong. / Both parties are wrong! / Police shooting was wrong, but protesters throwing bricks were wrong too!"
Basically, what lies beneath their subterfuge is: "you cannot blame the cops shooting."
These might sound just, but actually are idiotic.
Since the Umbrella Revolution, there are lots of such speech,
seems that "comprehensive thinking" or neutrality means to "blame both sides indiscriminately".
But: Are both sides' "fault" equivalent or proportional? Are both sides' authorities or force equivalent or proportional?
If one is removing all the backgrounds and reasons, things are certainly "right"!
Beating people is wrong.
"Right"! If you are turning a blind eye to the fact of the person is being kidnapped and his son being pointed by a knife.
Occupying is wrong.
That doesn't make Franklin Chu beating pedestrians with his baton right.
Making kids crying is wrong.
"Right"! If you are turning a blind eye to the milk formula rush from Chinese smugglers.
Kicking suitcases is wrong.
If you are turning a blind eye to the influx of suitcases in Sheung Shui, or you can stand above suitcases sea like Moses did.
Swearing is wrong.
So surrounding university campus with Blue Ribbons is right?
Removing all the background and having a discussion is not neutral, but silly.
Is the public's force and the police's guns proportional?
Are the consequences of protesters using force and policemen using gun proportional?
The seven cops still remain at large. Franklin Chu is still at large.
But protesters are arrested and sent into jails.
Oh that is justice and neutrality?
When an adult is beating a kid, and the kid hits back, will you "blame both sides indiscriminately"? Or say "beating people is not right"?
A normal person should help the kid and condemn the adult. But those who are obsessed with neutrality will say something like what I have just written.
Who are they to be neutral? A judge. Hongkongers are one of the stakeholders. Why are those neutrality lovers discussing Hong Kong, our home, as if it is one of the poor countries?
People usually have to two kinds of reactions, one is to react valiantly, another one is to remove himself from the reality and make himself a film audience, so as to reduce the impact on him.
Those neutrality lovers are the latter ones, who are actually protecting the regime and allow it to continue such suppression to the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment