- Protestors in Hong Kong held a massive demonstration Sunday to oppose a bill that would allow the city to extradite people accused of certain crimes to mainland China.
- Police say 240,000 people attended, while organizers claim that more than one million turned out.
- Critics argue that the bill will be used to stifle dissent against the mainland, which has been exerting authority over Hong Kong and meddling in their internal affairs.
- Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, who proposed the bill has said she will still try to pass it despite the massive backlash.
Protests in Hong Kong
Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Hong Kong on Sunday to protest a proposed bill that would allow the government to extradite people to mainland China.
According to reports, protestors from all walks of life essentially took over the streets of downtown Hong Kong. The protest stretched for more than a mile and it was so crowded that people were reportedly stuck in the subway stations waiting to join the protests.
The Protestors wore white, symbolizing “light” and “justice.” Some of them carried umbrellas, which were a symbol of the city’s pro-democracy protests in 2014.
Many demonstrators could be seen holding various signs and posters, some of which called for the resignation of Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, who proposed and has pushed for the extradition bill.
The protests were largely peaceful during the day, but a little after midnight, riot police began to clash with protestors in front of Hong Kong’s legislature. Police starting using pepper spray and hitting protestors with batons to get them to free up the area, and eventually, the protestors largely dispersed.
Currently, it is unclear how many people took part in the protests. Police officials have said that 240,000 people were in attendance, while the protest organizers say it was actually more than one million.
If the organizers’ numbers are correct, that would mean almost 1 out of every 7 Hong Kong residents participated. It would also make it the biggest protest in Hong Kong since the British gave China control of the colony in 1997.
History and Context
Hong Kong is an autonomous city-state in southeast China that used to be a British colony, but it was given back to China in 1997 under a policy called “one country, two systems.”
Under that system, Hong Kong was designated as a special administrative region (SAR) and allowed its own constitution which is known as Basic Law.
While Hong Kong technically part of China, it is given such a high degree of autonomy that it basically operates as its own country. The city has entirely separate political and economic systems, as well as a free press and open internet, which makes it very different from mainland China.
For the people of Hong Kong, independence from China is not only a point of pride but also a defining characteristic.
The proposed extradition bill has sparked a huge backlash among the residents of Hong Kong who are worried they could end up in the hands of mainland China’s legal system, where people are frequently prosecuted for political reasons. Residents generally perceive the bill as a threat to their freedom and civil liberties.
What is the Extradition Bill?
The bill would amend Hong Kong’s extradition laws to allow them to detain people suspected of certain crimes and turn them over to countries and territories with which Hong Kong does not have formal extradition agreements. Notably, this would include China.
Lam proposed the bill in March, in order to resolve a case where a man from Hong Kong named Chan Tong-kai was accused of killing his girlfriend while on vacation in Taiwan last year.
Chan is now back in Hong Kong, and even though he is accused of murder charges in Taiwan, he cannot be sent there to stand trial, because Hong Kong and Taiwan do not have a formal extradition agreement.
Lam argued the extradition bill is necessary to prosecute Chan. She also argues that it will help the rule of law in Hong Kong and “plug a loophole” in the city’s legal system.
Reportedly, the extradition bill would apply to 37 crimes and it would only pertain to people accused of crimes that have penalties of seven years or more in prison. Government officials have also said that anyone facing the death penalty would not be extradited.
Officials have also said that extradition cases will need to be approved by independent local judges, then they will be passed on to get approval from Hong Kong’s chief executive, which is currently Lam.https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
After those two approvals, then suspects can be extradited. However, because Hong Kong is technically subordinate to mainland China, critics of the bill worry that it would be really difficult for the chief executive to reject an extradition request from her superiors.
Due to the fact that the chief executive proposed the bill herself, it seems unlikely that she would deny an extradition request at all.
Critics are also concerned the bill would basically allow anyone in to be picked up in Hong Kong and detained in mainland China, which means that the mainland could use the law to target political activists and dissidents, functionally legalizing abductions by mainland officials in Hong Kong that have been going on for a little while now.
Mainland officials are usually not allowed to operate in Hong Kong, but they have been known to illegally abduct people who work in bookstores that sell books that are critical of the mainland, as well as other critics of the Chinese government.
While the bill technically does not include extradition for political crimes, many people still worry that the legislation will just allow mainland Chinese authorities to further encroach on their independent territory.
Growing Chinese Influence
That concern is a valid one too. Over the last few years, mainland China has been steadily trying to exert more authority over Hong Kong by meddling in their internal affairs.
These efforts have risen significantly since Chinese President Xi took office in 2012. Since taking power, Xi has tightened control of his people and used all sorts of methods to stifle his critics, and because Hong Kong has a large community of pro-democracy activists and lawmakers, it is a clear target.
However, Hong Kong’s constitution specifically prohibits mainland authorities from restraining dissent in the city. Experts say that because of that protection, mainland China has been forced to slowly chip away at Hong Kong’s independence and institutions in other ways.
Already, mainland-aligned government officials in Hong Kong have ousted opposition lawmakers and denied civilian demands for free elections.
Lam’s decision to press ahead with the extradition bill is also an example of a mainland-affiliated lawmaker pushing ahead with a policy that appears to be largely opposed by the people.
The opposition to the bill also extends beyond the residents of Hong Kong. Business people worry the bill could hurt foreign interest in investment in Hong Kong because some companies may even be forced to leave.
A group of bipartisan legislators in the U.S. sent a letter last month to Lam, calling for the legislation to be immediately withdrawn, and saying they were concerned the law would “negatively impact the relationship between the United States and Hong Kong.”
Even Taiwan, which would have a trial for the man that Lam claims prompted the extradition bill in the first place, has stated it will comply with an extradition agreement because it’s politically motivated.
Taiwanese officials have also said that the authorities in Hong Kong have ignored three separate requests from Taiwan for governments to figure out an arrangement to deal with the murder case, which would bypass the need for the bill at all.
Regardless, Lam announced following the protest that she will still move forward with the legislation. Lawmakers will resume debating the bill this week, and a vote is expected on June 27. Due to the fact that pro-Beijing lawmakers have 43 of 70 seats in the legislature, it appears that bill will likely pass.
Protest organizers have scheduled another round of protests for Wednesday.
See what others are saying: (Vox) (The New York Times) (Hong Kong Free Press)
Tlaib Will Not Visit West Bank After Israel Reverses Travel Restriction Against Her
- Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced that she will not go see her family in the West Bank after Israel rescinded a previous travel restriction they had placed on her.
- That restriction, announced by Israel on Thursday, blocked Tlaib and Rep. Ilham Omar from visiting Israel on a scheduled trip due to their support of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
- Tlaib, who had planned to visit her grandmother during the visit, appealed the decision on humanitarian grounds and was granted her request to see her family after promising that she would not promote the boycotts against Israel on her trip.
- Tlaib ultimately decided not to go to Israel, writing on Twitter, “I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in.”
Israel Reverses Restriction
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) said Friday she will not visit her family in the West Bank hours after Israel reversed a decision made the day before to block her from entering the country.
On Thursday, Israel announced it would bar Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from visiting the country during a planned trip because of their support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
Israeli officials had originally said they would allow the two congresswomen to visit on their trip, which was set to start Sunday.
They later backtracked after President Donald Trump prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to block the two women from entering.
Tlaib had also planned to visit her grandmother and other family members who live in the West Bank.
Tlaib’s Letter & Statement
Following Israel’s announcement Thursday, Tlaib wrote a letter to Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri to appeal the decision.
“I would like to request admittance to Israel in order to visit my relatives, and specifically my grandmother, who is in her 90s,” Tlaib wrote. “This could be my last opportunity to see her. I will respect any restrictions and will not promote boycotts against Israel during my visit.”
Deri agreed on Friday to grant Tlaib’s request on humanitarian grounds, but shortly after, Tliab announced that she would be canceling her trip to the West Bank.
“The Israeli government used my love and desire to see my grandmother to silence me and made my ability to do so contingent upon my signing a letter,” Tlaib wrote in a statement. “I have therefore decided to not travel to Palestine and Israel at this time.”
“When I won the election to become a United States Congresswoman, many Palestinians, especially my grandmother, felt a sense of hope, a hope that they would finally have a voice,” she continued.
“I cannot allow the Israeli government to take that away from them or to use my deep desire to see my grandmother, potentially for the last time, as a political bargaining chip.”
Tlaib also echoed parts of her statement in a post on Twitter. Referring to her grandmother, Tlaib wrote, “Silencing me & treating me like a criminal is not what she wants for me.”
“I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in–fighting against racism, oppression & injustice,” she continued.
A Complicated Double-Bind
Israeli Interior Minister Deri reacted strongly to Tlaib’s decision.
“I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel,” he wrote in a tweet. “Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother.”<
I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother.@realDonaldTrump @RashidaTlaib— אריה מכלוף דרעי (@ariyederi) August 16, 2019
However, others have argued that the situation is more nuanced. Nour Odeh, who had helped plan Tlaib’s trip, told NPR that Tlaib’s decision reflects a broader conflict many Palestinians face.
“Palestinians of all walks of life are put in the impossible situation of having to choose between championing their principles, between defending their cause for freedom, between speaking their mind — and enjoying the basic humanitarian conditions that everybody is entitled to, including having access to their families,” Odeh said.
Tlaib’s Family Responds
Members of Tlaib’s family who spoke to U.S. journalists made similar points. The congresswoman’s uncle, Bassem Tlaib, who lives in the West Bank, told NPR that his village had been preparing for her arrival.
“We have mixed feelings now; we’re happy she didn’t accept the Israeli demands but we’ll miss her,” he said. “Israel does not want us to show our allies in the US how the Israeli occupation treats us. They want our lives to be a secret.”
Tlaib’s grandmother, Muftiyah Tlaib, also told the Washington Post that while she did not understand why her granddaughter could not come visit her, she was still proud of her.
“Who wouldn’t be proud of a granddaughter like that?” she said. “I love her and am so proud of her.”
She told the Post that the planned visit would have been the first time the two have seen each other since around 2007.
“My family and I have cried together throughout this ordeal; they’ve promised to keep my grandmother alive until I can one day reunite with her,” Tlaib said in her statement.
“It is with their strength and heart that I reiterate I am a duly elected United States Congresswoman and I will not allow the Israeli government to humiliate me and my family or take away our right to speak out.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (NPR) (Vox)
Netanyahu Blocks Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib From Entering Israel
- Israel announced that it will not let Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib enter the country for a previously planned trip.
- The move comes after it was reported that President Donald Trump told his aides he wanted Israel to prevent the congresswomen from entering the country earlier this week.
- Trump’s Press Secretary denied the reports Thursday morning, but then an hour later Trump tweeted, “It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people.”
- Democrats and several U.S.-based Israeli organizations condemned the move, which many believe will create a rift between Israel and the Democratic party.
Israel Bars Omar and Tlaib
Israel has banned Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from entering the country for a previously planned trip, Israeli officials announced Thursday.
The two representatives were scheduled to leave on Sunday for a privately organized trip to both Israel and Palestine, where they were expected to tour holy sites and meet with activists and humanitarian leaders. No official meetings were scheduled.
Tlaib, whose family is from Palestine, was also planning to stay a few days longer to visit her grandmother who lives in the West Bank.
The two congresswomen were denied entry because of their support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, a position that they both have frequently been criticized for.
The goal of the BDS movement is to pressure Israel to change its treatment of Palestinians by protesting Israel and it’s West Bank settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.
Those who support the movement compare it to the boycotts of South Africa during apartheid, while opponents of the movement say it is anti-Semitic and undermines Israel as a Jewish state.
In 2017, Israel passed a law allowing them to deny entry to people who support the BDS movement, a move that many human rights activists and others condemned.
Despite the fact that Israel has that law, barring Omar and Tlaib from going to the country entirely is unprecedented. It also marks is a significant reversal.
Last month, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer said that Israel would not deny the two congresswomen from visiting.
“Out of respect for the U.S. Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any member of Congress into Israel,” Dermer said in a statement.
However, last week, Axios reported that President Trump had told his aides that he thought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should bar the two women from entering the country.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham denied Axios’ report on Saturday.
“The Israeli government can do what they want,” she said. “It’s fake news.”
Then on Wednesday, it was reported that Netanyahu was holding meetings with cabinet officials to reach a final decision about whether or not to allow the Omar and Tlaib to visit.
According to reports, Israeli officials told U.S. lawmakers said they would announce the decision Wednesday but later postponed the announcement to Thursday after receiving backlash from Democratic leadership and a few U.S.-based pro-Israel organizations who warned them the move would be inconsistent with Israel’s claims that they are a tolerant and open democracy.
On Thursday morning, amid reports that Netanyahu was reconsidering the decision to let the congresswomen visit because of Trump, Grisham told CNN that “the reports Trump told Netanyahu he thought the two congresswoman should be barred were ‘inaccurate.’”
However, about an hour later, Trump seemed to contradict that statement in a tweet, writing “It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people,
Responses Condemning Israel’s Decision
Following Israel’s announcement, many responded criticizing the move.
“Israel doesn’t advance its case as a tolerant democracy or unwavering US ally by barring elected members of Congress from visiting because of their political views,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote on Twitter.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also called for Israel to reverse its decision to bar Omar and Tlaib in a tweet.
A number of other Democratic representatives also took to social media to condemn the move as well.
Others pointed to Trump’s tweet from last month, where he said the four congresswomen in the “Squad,” including Tlaib, should “go back” to the countries they came from. Tlaib and two of the other members of the Squad were born in the U.S., and all four are U.S. citizens.
“First he tells Congresswoman Tlaib to ‘go back’ to ‘her’ country, and then he tells that country not to let her in,” Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) wrote in a tweet.
U.S.-Based Israeli Groups Respond
Notably, a number of U.S.-based Israeli organizations criticized Israel’s decision.
The American Jewish Coalition, which advocates for closer U.S.-Israel ties, tweeted a statement saying: “AJC believes that, out of two less-than-ideal options, neither of which was risk-free, Israel did not choose wisely by reversing its original decision.”
Israel Policy Forum, a New-York based Jewish organization also shared a series of tweets, arguing that any of member of Congress should be able to visit Israel and calling on Netanyahu to reverse the decision, which they also said created a “dangerous precedent.”
Any sitting member of Congress should be welcome to visit Israel as official representatives of Israel’s closest ally and most critical source of international support.— Israel Policy Forum (@IsraelPolicy4m) August 15, 2019
Denying them entry can only serve to harden their current views, along with delivering an insult to the U.S. Congress, exacerbating partisan divides on Israel, and creating a dangerous precedent. We strongly urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to reconsider.— Israel Policy Forum (@IsraelPolicy4m) August 15, 2019
Perhaps most notable was the response from AIPAC, which is one of the most powerful pro-Israel lobbies.
“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution,” the group wrote on Twitter. “We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand.”
Responses Supporting Israel’s Decision
There were also people who supported Israel’s decision. Conservative commentator Steven Crowder argued in a tweet that the congresswomen “were going to actively lobby AGAINST Israel. Bibi made the right call.”
Fox News host and commentator Mark Levin also responded in a tweet, writing, “Israel is right to deny entry to its country by these two bigots.”
Netanyahu, for his part, addressed the decision in a statement.
“As a vibrant and free democracy, Israel is open to all its critics and criticism, with one exception: Israeli law prohibits the entry of people who call and operate to boycott Israel,” he said.
Israel’s Interior Minister Aryeh Deri also backed up the decision.
“The State of Israel respects the U.S. Congress, as part of the close alliance, but it is inconceivable that anyone who wishes to harm the State of Israel will be allowed,” he said in a statement.
Deri added that he would “consider” letting Tlaib go visit her family.
Tlaib & Omar Respond
Tlaib and Omar both responded to the actions taken by Israel later on Thursday.
Tlaib shared a picture of her grandmother in a tweet, and wrote, “The decision by Israel to bar her granddaughter, a U.S. Congresswoman, is a sign of weakness b/c the truth of what is happening to Palestinians is frightening.”
Omar also responded on Twitter.
“It is an affront that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, under pressure from President Trump, would deny entry to representatives of the U.S. government,” she wrote in a statement.
“The irony of the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East making such a decision is that it is both an insult to democratic values and a chilling response to a visit by government officials from an allied nation,” she added.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Vox) (Fox News)
Volkswagen and Philadelphia Ads Banned in U.K. Under New Gender Stereotyping Rules
- Two commercials for Volkswagen and Philadelphia cream cheese have become the first to be banned under the U.K.’s new rules against perpetuating gender stereotypes in ads.
- One commercial showed a woman caring for a baby juxtaposed with clips of males performing adventurous activities, while the other showed two new fathers briefly losing their children at a restaurant after becoming distracted by food.
- Some are happy to see the new rules go into effect, but critics are concerned the Advertising Standards Authority is taking on the role of the “morality police.”
ASA Bans VW and Philadelphia Ads
Advertisements for Volkswagen and Philadelphia cream cheese have become the first two commercials to be banned under the United Kingdom’s new rules that crack down on sexist stereotypes.
Viewers complained about the commercials to the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), arguing that the ads perpetuated gender stereotypes. After conducting its own investigation, the organization agreed and issued its decision to ban the ads in their current form on Wednesday.
New guidelines that address gender stereotyping in ads were introduced last year and went into effect in June. The rules now say that ads in the U.K., “must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offense.”
The Volkswagen commercial opens with a shot of a couple sleeping in a tent beside a cliff, presumably after a day of climbing. However, in the shot, the male climber is shown turning off the light inside the space while the female climber is asleep.
The ad then goes on to show males performing adventurous acts. Two male astronauts are shown in space and another male athlete with a prosthetic leg is seen doing a long jump. During all of this, text appears on screen that says: “When we learn to adapt we can achieve anything.” The ad then cuts to a mother sitting on a park bench next to a stroller.
The commercial spawned three viewer complaints that prompted the ASA investigation. Volkswagen defended its commercial saying that the core message of the ad “was centered on the ability of the human spirit to adapt to challenges and change brought about by circumstances.”
The company also argued that the characters were shown performing acts that were not stereotypical to one gender. For instance, they noted that the female climber was sleeping, the first astronaut was eating an apple, and the second was reaching for a drink.
However, on the ASA’s assessment, it said that complaints were more than likely focused on the occupations of the characters as well as the direct contrast between how males and females were depicted.
They also pointed to the scene of the mother with the stroller and said, “We acknowledged that becoming a parent was a life-changing experience that required significant adaptation, but taking care of children was a role that was stereotypically associated with women.”
Finally, the organization concluded: “By juxtaposing images of men in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role, we considered that the ad directly contrasted stereotypical male and female roles and characteristics in a manner that gave the impression that they were exclusively associated with one gender.”
Philadelphia Cream Cheese Ad
The second banned commercial was for Philadelphia cream cheese. The ad showed two new fathers looking after their children at a restaurant with a conveyer belt. The men quickly become distracted by the food in front of them and lose sight of their kids, who are circling the restaurant on the belt.
Once they realize what they’ve done, both fathers pick up their children. “Let’s not tell mom,” one dad says to his child.
According to the ASA, over 125 viewers complained about this ad. Mondelez International, the company that produces Philadelphia cream cheese, argued that the ad showed a positive image of males with a responsible and active role in childcare in today’s society.
It claimed that it chose to feature a pair of fathers to avoid a stereotype of mothers being responsible for children. The company said the ad did not show a harmful stereotype but instead “depicted an example of a momentary lapse in concentration by somewhat overwhelmed and tired new parents which was quickly realized and rectified.”
“We acknowledged the action was intended to be light-hearted and comical and there was no sense that the children were in danger,” the ASA said in its ruling.
“We considered, however, that the men were portrayed as somewhat hapless and inattentive, which resulted in them being unable to care for the children effectively,” it added. “We did not consider that the use of humour in the ad mitigated the effect of the harmful stereotype.”
A spokesperson for Modelez told CNN that the company was “extremely disappointed” with the decision.
Nestlé Commercial Not Banned
The ASA also looked into an ad for Nestlé after five viewers lodged complaints against a commercial that showed male rowers and a drummer alongside a female ballet dancer.
However, the ad was not banned by the ASA who said the activity was shown as equally difficult and demanding.
“This first batch of rulings shows where we’re drawing the line,” said ASA spokesman Craig Jones in a statement to Reuters.
“We hope advertisers will study the portrayals to understand where the boundary lies between depictions of gender stereotypes in ads which are not deemed to be harmful and those now prohibited by the new rule.”
Concerns Over New ASA Rules
While some are happy to see the new rules take effect, many critics have argued that the ASA has gone too far.
Geraint Lloyd-Taylor, an advertising expert at the law firm Lewis Silkin told the Guardian, “It is concerning to see the ASA take on the role of the morality police.”
“It has let its zeal to enforce the new rules override its common sense in this first batch of rulings.”
“The ASA seems to be out of sync with society in general. As it stands, the ASA’s definition of ‘harm’ is unworkable and urgently needs to be clarified. I hope that these advertisers seek an independent review of the latest decisions.”
Clearcast, the organization responsible for pre-approving ads before they are broadcasted, also expressed concerns over the new policies.
“We are naturally disappointed,” it said. “The ASA’s interpretation of the ads against the new rule and guidance goes further than we anticipated and has implications for a wide range of ads.”