關於 what is a pro democracy protest ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

WeChat, the popular Chinese messaging app, already uses content matching to identify dissident material. India enacted rules this year that could require pre-screening content critical of government policy. Russia recently fined Google, Facebook and Twitter for not removing pro-democracy protest materials.

We spotted other shortcomings. The content-matching process could have false positives, and malicious users could game the system to subject innocent users to scrutiny.

We were so disturbed that we took a step we hadn’t seen before in computer science literature: We warned against our own system design, urging further research on how to mitigate the serious downsides. We’d planned to discuss paths forward at an academic conference this month.

That dialogue never happened. The week before our presentation, Apple announced it would deploy its nearly identical system on iCloud Photos, which exists on more than 1.5 billion devices. Apple’s motivation, like ours, was to protect children. And its system was technically more efficient and capable than ours. But we were baffled to see that Apple had few answers for the hard questions we’d surfaced.

China is Apple’s second-largest market, with probably hundreds of millions of devices. What stops the Chinese government from demanding Apple scan those devices for pro-democracy materials? Absolutely nothing, except Apple’s solemn promise. This is the same Apple that blocked Chinese citizens from apps that allow access to censored material, that acceded to China’s demand to store user data in state-owned data centers and whose chief executive infamously declared, “We follow the law wherever we do business.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/19/apple-csam-abuse-encryption-security-privacy-dangerous/?fbclid=IwAR325SFSTo3uilTF5xZaKWbtUUoTnzyC3rA1vsW0_gTcywReDn42keqh86I

Jenna Cody :

Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

*

Now, as I said, none of this matters.

What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

…well, that’s already settled.

The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

//今年10月1日是中共建政71周年，支聯會將聯同友好團體代表於10月1日11時，以倒行形式分組前往中聯辦宣讀聲明及中港在囚異見人士狀況，敦促中共改善人權，落實當年建政的承諾，停止粉飾太平，回應聲明提出的訴求。//

【沒有人權，哪有國慶？停止打壓異見 還我言論自由】聯署聲明全文

(English below)

中共建政71周年，也是中國人民飽受苦難的歷史。建政前，中共以民主、自由、繁榮、富強的承諾，欺騙萬千愛國者為其拋頭顱、灑熱血。建政後首30年，階級鬥爭為綱，政治運動頻仍；經濟冒進失誤，赤地千里，餓殍遍野。接著的10年，推行經濟改革，但仍堅持獨裁專政，打壓人民訴求，導致胡耀邦、趙紫陽下台，更發生「六四」血腥鎮壓。「六四」後31年來，貪污腐敗猖獗，貧富兩極分化，弱勢社群備受壓榨，道德倫理殆盡，維權和異見人士被拘入獄，全國籠罩白色恐怖，人權蕩然。習近平專政下，14億人民仍活在沒有人權、沒有尊嚴中，有甚麼值得慶祝？

今天是中共所謂的「國慶」，但71年來，許多人只因表達政治立場慘遭拘禁和酷刑，直到今天，仍有不計其數人士因言獲罪，身陷囹圄。在這個令人憤慨而非喜慶的日子，支聯會等團體特別關注被所謂「危害國家安全」罪名拘押的中國和香港抗爭者，他們面對獨裁政權迫害，我們在香港也正經歷同樣命運。

對中國異見人士來說，中國政府以所謂「國家安全」為理由作出種種打壓，是每天不能承受的痛。今年，香港人失去法治和自由，自中央政府於6月30日強推《港區國安法》後，多名人士以所謂與「國安」有關的罪名被起訴，12位年輕人更因為逃亡台灣途中「被送中」，香港人自由岌岌可危，與中國異見人士更是唇齒相依。

他們代表不同年齡和不同背景人士對民主自由的渴求，在鐵幕高牆的國度仍不畏強權，以各種方式爭取民主和傳播尊重人權的訊息，但他們合法和合理的行動和訴求，卻被政權以違反所謂「國家安全」惡法無理打壓，他們的案件在中國只是冰山一角，深信還有不少被專制政權迫害而不知名的受害人。

港區《國安法》強推以來僅僅數月，言論自由空間不斷收窄，過往不少可以喊的口號和可以發起的行動，已被政府強詞奪理解讀為違反《國安法》，營造赤色恐怖，企圖噤聲，打壓異己，令香港的自由急速消逝，嚴重侵犯市民的言論自由與集會自由。

我們強烈要求中國政府和香港政府停止粉飾太平，回應以下訴求：
1）平反八九民運，還多年來承受失去至親一個公道！
2）成立獨立調查委員會，調查「六四」及香港自去年「反送中」運動的警暴行為！
3）停止假借「國家安全」名義，肆意破壞香港法治精神和打壓言論自由！
4）立即釋放中港被囚異見人士！

2020年10月1日

聯署團體：(更新 30.9.2020)

香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會
四五行動
林鉅成社會服務處
溫哥華支援民主運動聯合會
天安門母親運動
卡城中國民主促進會
良心之友
中國維權律師關注組
社會民主連線
青衣居民權益服務社
香港社會工作者總工會
新婦女協進會
民主黨
工黨
香港職工會聯盟
郭家麒議員辦事處
民間電台
曾健成議員辦事處
六四行動
民間人權陣線
香港基督徒社關團契
關注綜援低收入聯盟
零售、商業及成衣業總工會
基督徒社工
香港教育專業人員協會
關心香港前途小組
公民黨

’Without human Rights, How Can We Celebrate “National Day”?Stop the crackdown on dissidents; give us our freedom‘

1 October 2020

The Chinese Communist Party has been in power for 71 years now—71 years of suffering for the Chinese people. Before coming to power, the Party promised to make China a democratic, free, prosperous and strong country, but it fooled hundreds of thousands of patriots into sacrificing themselves for the nation. For the first 30 years after the establishment of the regime, class struggle was the main focus and mass political campaigns were frequent. Economic policy was poorly devised, leading to famine and death.

In the following 10 years, the regime enacted economic reform but remained totalitarian. It cracked down on demands for change, leading to the fall of liberal state leaders Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang and eventually the bloodshed of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. In the subsequent 31 years, corruption has been rampant and uneven wealth distribution serious. Underprivileged groups are squeezed by those in power. Ethics and morality have collapsed. Human rights defenders and dissidents are detained and imprisoned. The whole country lives under white terror. There are simply no human rights. Under Xi Jinping’s dictatorship, 1.4 billion people are living in a society without human rights or dignity. What is there to celebrate?

Today is what the Party calls “National Day”. But over the past 71 years, many have been ruthlessly imprisoned and tortured simply for expressing their political views. Countless people are still detained for their speech. On this day we should feel outrage rather than joy,. Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and other organizations are particularly concerned about the Chinese and Hong Kong activists facing so-called “national security” charges. While those in China endure the persecution of a totalitarian regime, we in Hong Kong experience the same fate.

Chinese dissidents suffer unbearable pain every day as the Chinese government uses the pretext of “national security” to crack down on them. In this year, Hongkongers have lost rule of law and experience diminishing freedoms. Since the central government forcibly imposed the Hong Kong national security law (officially the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”) on 30 June 2020, dozens of individuals have been charged with so-called “national security” crimes. Twelve young people fleeing to Taiwan were taken to China. Hong Kong people’s freedoms are at greater risk than ever. Hong Kong people’s fate is even more interconnected with the Chinese people’s.

Many, diverse in age and background, desire democracy and freedom. They do not fear challenging the government despite dictatorship. They fight for democracy and share information about human rights. But their legal and legitimate actions and demands have been punished by the government with so-called “national security” charges. Their cases are only the tip of the iceberg in China. There are many unknown people persecuted by the regime.

The Hong Kong national security law has been in force for several months. Freedom of expression is drastically diminishing. Protest slogans are now interpreted by the Hong Kong government as violations of the national security law. The government creates red terror, attempts to silence dissenting views, and cracks down on dissidents. Hong Kong’s freedoms are quickly disappearing. Hong Kong people’s freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are seriously infringed.

We call on the Chinese and Hong Kong governments to stop whitewashing the daunting situation in China and Hong Kong and respond to the following requests:

1. Vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement and give victims’ families a fair explanation, apology and compensation;

2. Establish an independent commission to investigate the Tiananmen Massacre as well as police violence during the Anti-Extradition Bill protests in Hong Kong since last year;

3. Stop using “national security” as an excuse to ruthlessly destroy Hong Kong’s rule of law and freedom of expression;

4. Immediately release all detained Chinese and Hong Kong dissidents.

Signatories: (updated on 30.9.2020)

Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China
April Fifth Action
Community service office of KS Lam
Vancouver Society in Support of Democratic Movement
Tiananmen Mothers Campaign
Movement for Democracy in China (Calgary)
Friends of Conscience
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
League of social democrats
Tsing Yi Residents Rights and Interests Service Society
Hong Kong Social Workers` General Union
The Association for the Advancement of Feminism
The Democratic Party
Labour Party (Hong Kong)
Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions
Office of Dr. Kwok Ka Ki, Legislative Council Member
Citizens Radio
Office of Tsang Kin Shing District Councillor
June 4th Action
Civil Human Rights Front
Hong Kong Christian Fellowship of Social Concern
Concerning CSSA and Low Income Alliance
Retail, Commerce and Clothing Industries General Union
Christian Social Workers
Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union
Concern the Future of Hong Kong
CIVIC PARTY

—————
註：六四紀念館已於9月15日重新開放，繼續舉辦「走在抗極權最前線——從『八九六四』到『反送中』」主題展覽，同時舉辦「中港被囚異見人士」專題展（至10月31日），介紹異見人士的事蹟，誠邀參觀及報導。查詢：2459 6489（電話/WhatsApp）、 64museum@alliance.org.hk （電郵）
—————

#十一 #六四 #反送中 #人權 #言論自由 #humanrights #freedomofspeech #june4