When these allegations first appeared, I waited cautiously for evidence. Maybe something happened around me that I didn't know?
When the BBC interviewed Xinjiang but failed to find evidence, and then only used video filters to render fear, I questioned the authenticity of these allegations.
Later, the "evidence" displayed by the Western media had a lot of traces of forgery. After that, I didn't believe these allegations even more.
It's a pity that people who have been immersed in Western media propaganda for a long time have been implanted with a concept: China is bad. This makes any news that is bad for China seem to be true. Whoever says China is good is the CCP propagandist.
But people living in China know that Western media reports are very biased.
Skechers is a good example. They conducted multiple inspections and found no forced labor, so they maintained business dealings with Chinese suppliers.
As a Chinese, I think the logic of certain Western countries is ridiculous. Because Xinjiang’s human rights situation is considered to be problematic, so Xinjiang’s companies are banned. As an analogy, can I think that the human rights situation of African Americans is terrible, so I need to ban companies that employ African Americans?
These bans will only make the living conditions of minorities worse, because they may lose their jobs because of the ban.
By the way, Uyghurs live and work in every province in China, especially in the catering industry. I have never heard complaints about forced labor. American propaganda makes me feel ridiculous, but it seems to be working.
We live in different legal systems. Sometimes I also have a lot of questions about the laws of the United States, because Trump has signed a lot of executive orders to ban Huawei and TikTok, without going through the court or Congress, and they are effective.
Back to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong National Security Law is not retroactive:
> Article 39 This Law shall apply to acts committed after its entry into force for the purpose of conviction and imposition of punishment.
The police found evidence that he violated the law after the National Security Act was released, so they arrested him. I wait for the Hong Kong police to release more information.
YouTuber is just one of my information channels, and I also go to the websites or forums of protesters.
Reply to your last point first, you are right, I should quote easy-to-read material. I quote Nathan Rich because I first saw this law in his video. I extracted the link so that others can read it:
In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided.
I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.
I think Hong Kong used to be a test field to test how the democratic system will be implemented in China. However, the experience of the past few years has shown a failure. The government's work has been unreasonably opposed by the opposition parties, and the people have been incited to riot.
Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China.
The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
A family means helping each other, of course you can choose a different career and life. But you can't attract robbers to beat and smash things at home.
You think you have freedom because you know where the bottom line is. Imagine you publish a detailed crime plan. How long will the FBI come to your door?
Thanks for replying, if my comment can bring thinking, it will be enough.
Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China.
I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote.
Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future.
I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.
Every time we discuss China's issues, some people always raise Xinjiang. The evidence presented was nothing more than the testimony of a few people and photos of unknown time and place.
Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened.
Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone.
About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show.
In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem.
As a Chinese, I think it is reasonable to arrest a leader who violated the national security law.
Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this?
Please read more media from a different standpoint and think about this event in another way.