Your Neutrality Is the Largest Protection for Govt's Suppression

Your Neutrality Is the Largest Protection for Govt's Suppression

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by Ken Yung
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.

Water Cannon Bid; 15 Cannons Each

Water Cannon Bid; 15 Cannons Each

Translated by Karen L. from Apple Daily and HK01

                                                                     (Source: Apple Daily)

After the Umbrella Revolution, the police force has decided to spend HK$27 million to purchase 3 crowd management vehicles (commonly known as water cannon vehicles) to disperse protesters whom they regard to be violent or potentially violent. The invitation of bid has started since last month. In its tender document, it stated that 15 water cannons should be equipped for each vehicle, which can spray with tear gas, as well as paints.

Among the 15 cannons, they are in particular 2 roof monitors, 2 lateral protection nozzles, 1 rear protection nozzle, 1 forward protection monitor and 9 roof and underbody protection nozzles. The roof monitor, having a range of at least 50 metres, is able to eject 1,200 liters of water in all directions at 1,000 kPa pressure per minute. With each vehicle carrying a 6,500-liter water tank, roof-mounted monitors allow a driver to control the jets through a joystick. All of the vehicles will have on them closed circuit television cameras.

Commissioner of Police Steven Lo said that the vehicles will only be used on certain level of violence of protests. Specific guidelines will not be released, said the police spokesperson as such guidelines involve the details of the police's manoeuver plan, but driving and operation training will be provided.

In 2004, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in the UK once sent a report to the House of Lords on the operation guidelines of the British police force, which stated that there will be clear light and buzzes before using water cannons, and listed the potential and actual dangers when water cannons are in use, for instance, the strong water pressure will hurt the protesters. Quoted from Theresa May rejects the use of water cannons in July 2015:

As water cannons have the capacity to cause harm, it is classed as a ‘less lethal systems and technology’, for which there is an established authorisation process. Their use by the police in England and Wales is subject to Ministerial authorisation.