Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Catburg]

I really doubt that based on his beliefs.

He’s been a site member here for years. It’s be a real fuckin long con to not be at this point.

Ok. That’s interesting. Does he predominantly speak Chinese?

[Heloin]

He’s been a site member here for years. It’s be a real fuckin long con to not be at this point.

Ok. That’s interesting. Does he predominantly speak Chinese?

I don’t know how I would know that.

[Bombadil]

I really doubt that based on his beliefs.

He’s been a site member here for years. It’s be a real fuckin long con to not be at this point.

Ironically he says he's from Montreal.. maybe he lived in Canada, maybe he's naturalised but I doubt he was born in Canada.

Anyway, who cares.. some people want order at any cost on the idea that they're favoured by the order imposed on them, too scared to stand on principle.

Much like how the CCP is so scared of HK's stand by their principles that they're frozen into inaction and lies.

And their response is to double down on their lies to justify their belief. This is not outside the realms of classical psychological response of self-serving preservation to reality. It explains bullies, dictators and sycophants.

That why I retain hope for HK, fundamentally we're right.

[The New California Republic]

Solid proof that democracy is a poor system in Hong Kong.

And there you go again, spinning the news to fit your agenda against democracy and shilling for dictatorship:

I don’t like democracy. It’s messy, disorderly, unclean.

I much prefer uniforms, soldiers, clear lines of authority, order.

[Tuthina]

He’s been a site member here for years. It’s be a real fuckin long con to not be at this point.

Ok. That’s interesting. Does he predominantly speak Chinese?

The odds are low, considering that they cite English sources exclusively, with no reference to any notable news that I know that doesn't get an English report.

Personally, I'm still quite suspicious of IM's status as someone being in Hong Kong, both due to IM's somewhat slow reception and reporting on local news (which, admittedly, might also be due to the aforementioned English-exclusive sourcing) and that they also post in odd hours - the past few pages where they post is most is in the dead of the night in Hong Kong.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Ok. That’s interesting. Does he predominantly speak Chinese?

The odds are low, considering that they cite English sources exclusively, with no reference to any notable news that I know that doesn't get an English report.

Personally, I'm still quite suspicious of IM's status as someone being in Hong Kong, both due to IM's somewhat slow reception and reporting on local news (which, admittedly, might also be due to the aforementioned English-exclusive sourcing) and that they also post in odd hours - the past few pages where they post is most is in the dead of the night in Hong Kong.

Yeah, the times he’s posting at coincide with when the US is awake. Or around 9PM-3AM in GMT+8

[The Free Joy State]

I see the thread continues much as it has.

It's already been discussed, but it's a shame to see Hong Kong denying entry to the Head of Human Rights Watch. Governments should never shy away from scrutiny. As Roth said: “This disappointing action is yet another sign that Beijing is tightening its oppressive grip on Hong Kong and further restricting the limited freedom Hong Kong people enjoy under ‘one country, two systems’.”

I don't know if he's an idiot, but he's certainly dangerous. Consider he's consolidated all power under himself, removed term limits from his reign, openly made reunification with Taiwan his stated goal, driven Xi Jinping thought through absolutely everything, making it the prism through which people think in schools, government and beyond, and forcibly punished those who step even slightly out of line.

..he's a princeling, and princelings yearn to be emperors, and his path is through glorification of himself and nationalism through conquest, first of mind - hence his forceful assimilation of Uighers and Tibetans - and then through territory. He brooks no dissent, and that alone is causing issues in that people are afraid to tell him the truth, which is leading to all these poor decisions.

Our only hope is there are those in the CCP who retain enough power to topple him, personally I suspect that could come from Deng Xiaopeng's family.. if Mme Deng made a move she potentially has the support..

..dangerous times indeed, but it takes HK to keep the movement alive, Taiwan to entrench their position with global support and, finally, for the world to fucking wake up and recognise the problem.

Incidentally, just as a broader principle, brokering no dissent is why absolute monarchies and dictatorships did (and do) stupid shit half the time.

The only way a person can avoid mistakes is if the people around him or her can say “um, this is not a good idea. The hell are you doing?”

One of the perks of free speech is we are all free to say “the hell are you doing” and try to change course. If you aren’t free to do that, it’s hard for the people in charge to even know if they’re making good decisions or not, much less make them.

The comforting thing is that this is why dictatorships have historically failed. Their leaders are so used to being obeyed that they become consumed by hubris; they believe their own hype of "superior knowledge/judgement" etc. and -- as they're never never told that they're making bad choices -- when they start making major strategic errors (while their staff may notice) no-one says anything.

Of course, that doesn't prevent them causing terrible suffering to their people and other peoples before their government collapses.

The best hope China has -- not to mention Hong Kong, Tibet and the Uighurs currently being detained in concentration camps -- is for Xi Jinping to be replaced by someone who does not seek to remake the world in his own image.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think that this article, really summarized very well, the importance of property rights protection that posters such as Purgatio and I have been advocating the protection for.

This is worth a read.

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... angeable=0

Law Society president Melissa Pang said on Monday that "obedience of the law is non-negotiable" and civil disobedience is no licence to commit arson, damage property and injure people.

"Every wilful [act of] disobedience is an erosion of our rule of law. I do not subscribe to the view that the rule of law will not be affected if those who commit arson and injuries to persons are willing and would eventually pay the price by going to prison," Pang said.

"Humanity dictates however strong we may disagree with others’ political views, in a civilised society, we cannot resort to violence to silence different views."

In a speech at a ceremony at City Hall to mark the start of the 2020 legal year, Pang said she wanted to send a strong message to the community that the judiciary is fiercely and totally independent and its integrity is beyond doubt.

"Our citizens must appreciate that our judges decide cases according to the law, not according to any, I emphasise the word 'any', extrinsic factors, or 'any' colour codes, also known as political views nowadays."

"This is the time to tell the public that politically our judiciary is colour-blind," she said.

Pang added that the city's courts deserve the protection of the public from unfair attacks.

I don’t know how it reads to you but to me... it’s a pretty persuasive case for law and order and continued support for the government. Ultimately there is no justification for rioting... ever, regardless of disagreements

Feel free to discuss, but I think from articles like this, it’s clear the people are beginning to tire of the rioting

[Infected Mushroom]

I see the thread continues much as it has.

It's already been discussed, but it's a shame to see Hong Kong denying entry to the Head of Human Rights Watch. Governments should never shy away from scrutiny. As Roth said: “This disappointing action is yet another sign that Beijing is tightening its oppressive grip on Hong Kong and further restricting the limited freedom Hong Kong people enjoy under ‘one country, two systems’.”

Incidentally, just as a broader principle, brokering no dissent is why absolute monarchies and dictatorships did (and do) stupid shit half the time.

The only way a person can avoid mistakes is if the people around him or her can say “um, this is not a good idea. The hell are you doing?”

One of the perks of free speech is we are all free to say “the hell are you doing” and try to change course. If you aren’t free to do that, it’s hard for the people in charge to even know if they’re making good decisions or not, much less make them.

The comforting thing is that this is why dictatorships have historically failed. Their leaders are so used to being obeyed that they become consumed by hubris; they believe their own hype of "superior knowledge/judgement" etc. and -- as they're never never told that they're making bad choices -- when they start making major strategic errors (while their staff may notice) no-one says anything.

Of course, that doesn't prevent them causing terrible suffering to their people and other peoples before their government collapses.

The best hope China has -- not to mention Hong Kong, Tibet and the Uighurs currently being detained in concentration camps -- is for Xi Jinping to be replaced by someone who does not seek to remake the world in his own image.

I don’t agree with this. Xi has somehow managed to (while working with Lam) maintain law and order and economic stability in Hong Kong during these turbulent times.

That requires extraordinary leadership and management.

Whatever you may think of some of his mistakes, on the whole, this leader gets things done

He’s definitely the right person with the right strength of mind and character to lead a nation of over 1 billion

[The New California Republic]

Law Society president Melissa Pang said on Monday that "obedience of the law is non-negotiable" and civil disobedience is no licence to commit arson, damage property and injure people.

"Every wilful [act of] disobedience is an erosion of our rule of law. I do not subscribe to the view that the rule of law will not be affected if those who commit arson and injuries to persons are willing and would eventually pay the price by going to prison," Pang said.

"Humanity dictates however strong we may disagree with others’ political views, in a civilised society, we cannot resort to violence to silence different views."

In a speech at a ceremony at City Hall to mark the start of the 2020 legal year, Pang said she wanted to send a strong message to the community that the judiciary is fiercely and totally independent and its integrity is beyond doubt.

"Our citizens must appreciate that our judges decide cases according to the law, not according to any, I emphasise the word 'any', extrinsic factors, or 'any' colour codes, also known as political views nowadays."

"This is the time to tell the public that politically our judiciary is colour-blind," she said.

Pang added that the city's courts deserve the protection of the public from unfair attacks.

I don’t know how it reads to you but to me... it’s a pretty persuasive case for law and order and continued support for the government. Ultimately there is no justification for rioting... ever, regardless of disagreements

Feel free to discuss, but I think from articles like this, it’s clear the people are beginning to tire of the rioting

Ironic in light of the fact that you have advocated using violence and death against the demonstrators, and HKPF have been using violence from day one against the demonstrators:

"Humanity dictates however strong we may disagree with others’ political views, in a civilised society, we cannot resort to violence to silence different views."

The lack of self-awareness in this statement is just hilariously fucking bad.

[The New California Republic]

I don’t agree with this. Xi has somehow managed to (while working with Lam) maintain law and order and economic stability in Hong Kong during these turbulent times.

That requires extraordinary leadership and management.

Whatever you may think of some of his mistakes, on the whole, this leader gets things done

He’s definitely the right person with the right strength of mind and character to lead a nation of over 1 billion

I definitely feel nauseated by the amount of bootlicking that is going on in relation to your posts that mention Xi.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I think that this article, really summarized very well, the importance of property rights protection that posters such as Purgatio and I have been advocating the protection for.

You've never given a rat's ass about any rights, let alone property rights.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don’t know how it reads to you but to me... it’s a pretty persuasive case for law and order and continued support for the government. Ultimately there is no justification for rioting... ever, regardless of disagreements

Feel free to discuss, but I think from articles like this, it’s clear the people are beginning to tire of the rioting

Ironic in light of the fact that you have advocated using violence and death against the demonstrators, and HKPF have been using violence from day one against the demonstrators:

"Humanity dictates however strong we may disagree with others’ political views, in a civilised society, we cannot resort to violence to silence different views."

The lack of self-awareness in this statement is just hilariously fucking bad.

The HKPF has used minimum necessary force to protect the citizens and public and private property, they are not about silencing the people

their job is to maintain justice and law and order

this is very different from the deliberate use of violence from the protestors against both people and property to silence the views of the citizens loyal to the government

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I think that this article, really summarized very well, the importance of property rights protection that posters such as Purgatio and I have been advocating the protection for.

This is worth a read.

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... angeable=0

Law Society president Melissa Pang said on Monday that "obedience of the law is non-negotiable" and civil disobedience is no licence to commit arson, damage property and injure people.

"Every wilful [act of] disobedience is an erosion of our rule of law. I do not subscribe to the view that the rule of law will not be affected if those who commit arson and injuries to persons are willing and would eventually pay the price by going to prison," Pang said.

"Humanity dictates however strong we may disagree with others’ political views, in a civilised society, we cannot resort to violence to silence different views."

In a speech at a ceremony at City Hall to mark the start of the 2020 legal year, Pang said she wanted to send a strong message to the community that the judiciary is fiercely and totally independent and its integrity is beyond doubt.

"Our citizens must appreciate that our judges decide cases according to the law, not according to any, I emphasise the word 'any', extrinsic factors, or 'any' colour codes, also known as political views nowadays."

"This is the time to tell the public that politically our judiciary is colour-blind," she said.

Pang added that the city's courts deserve the protection of the public from unfair attacks.

I don’t know how it reads to you but to me... it’s a pretty persuasive case for law and order and continued support for the government. Ultimately there is no justification for rioting... ever, regardless of disagreements

Feel free to discuss, but I think from articles like this, it’s clear the people are beginning to tire of the rioting

Goddamnit. What we’re concerned about is the preservation and blocking attempts on infringement of human rights which is definitely more central to humanity than a puece of replaceable property.

Sure, it may be expensive, but a human life is a one time deal and we want to prevent both physical and mental harm to people, which is much more permanent compared to the loss of property.

[The New California Republic]

Ironic in light of the fact that you have advocated using violence and death against the demonstrators, and HKPF have been using violence from day one against the demonstrators:


The lack of self-awareness in this statement is just hilariously fucking bad.

The HKPF has used minimum necessary force to protect the citizens and public and private property, they are not about silencing the people

their job is to maintain justice and law and order

this is very different from the deliberate use of violence from the protestors against both people and property to silence the views of the citizens loyal to the government

[Infected Mushroom]

And in case you're wondering WHY China prevented the head of the Human Rights Watch from entering, here's why

it's because he did come to cause trouble, look at the facts:

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... 200113.htm

Beijing on Monday defended barring the head of Human Rights Watch from entering Hong Kong, saying non-governmental organisations were responsible for political unrest in the semi-autonomous city and should "pay the proper price".

Kenneth Roth was supposed to give a press conference in Hong Kong this week to unveil the New York-based rights group's latest global survey, which accuses China of prosecuting "an intensive attack" on international human rights agencies.

The long-time executive director said on Sunday that he was turned back by authorities at Chek Lap Kok.

China last month announced sanctions on American NGOs, including HRW, in retaliation for the passage of a US bill backing Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement.

"Allowing or not allowing someone's entry is China's sovereign right," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing.

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

"They bear major responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong. These organisations should be punished, and should pay the proper price."

Roth joins a growing list of openly critical academics, researchers, politicians and activists who have been refused entry to Hong Kong in recent years.

Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet was denied a visa renewal without reason in 2018 after he hosted a talk with the leader of a small and now banned independence party at the city's press club.

Last September, an American academic was barred from entering after he testified in a Congressional hearing alongside prominent Hong Kong democracy activists. (AFP)

Take a very very close look at this part:

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

"They bear major responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong. These organisations should be punished, and should pay the proper price."

That's right. He not only came here to cause "confrontation" as I suspected, but he and his groups are actually involved in literally destabilising China.

So I say... I applaud the PRC's successful prevention of his entry into the country. It is NOT his right to come here to this country (my country) and do this sort of thing against the people and the government. For shame.

I am glad that the PRC is standing up for its sovereign rights and for not backing down.

If you're going to support the violent actions of the anti-government side, encourage crimes, and back radicals; then don't expect entry into China.

[The New California Republic]

And in case you're wondering WHY China prevented the head of the Human Rights Watch from entering, here's why

it's because he did come to cause trouble, look at the facts:

Beijing on Monday defended barring the head of Human Rights Watch from entering Hong Kong, saying non-governmental organisations were responsible for political unrest in the semi-autonomous city and should "pay the proper price".

Kenneth Roth was supposed to give a press conference in Hong Kong this week to unveil the New York-based rights group's latest global survey, which accuses China of prosecuting "an intensive attack" on international human rights agencies.

The long-time executive director said on Sunday that he was turned back by authorities at Chek Lap Kok.

China last month announced sanctions on American NGOs, including HRW, in retaliation for the passage of a US bill backing Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement.

"Allowing or not allowing someone's entry is China's sovereign right," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing.

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

"They bear major responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong. These organisations should be punished, and should pay the proper price."

Roth joins a growing list of openly critical academics, researchers, politicians and activists who have been refused entry to Hong Kong in recent years.

Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet was denied a visa renewal without reason in 2018 after he hosted a talk with the leader of a small and now banned independence party at the city's press club.

Last September, an American academic was barred from entering after he testified in a Congressional hearing alongside prominent Hong Kong democracy activists. (AFP)

Take a very very close look at this part:

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

"They bear major responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong. These organisations should be punished, and should pay the proper price."

That's right. He not only came here to cause "confrontation" as I suspected, but he and his groups are actually involved in literally destabilising China.

So I say... I applaud the PRC's successful prevention of his entry into the country. It is NOT his right to come here to this country (my country) and do this sort of thing against the people and the government. For shame.

I am glad that the PRC is standing up for its sovereign rights and for not backing down.

If you're going to support the violent actions of the anti-government side, encourage crimes, and back radicals; then don't expect entry into China.

That proves fuck all. I notice you aren't properly referencing any of that shit, likely because it's from some bullshit party mouthpiece. Geng is a party stooge, so the shite being spewed out of his mouth doesn't count for much.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

And in case you're wondering WHY China prevented the head of the Human Rights Watch from entering, here's why

it's because he did come to cause trouble, look at the facts:

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/ ... 200113.htm

Beijing on Monday defended barring the head of Human Rights Watch from entering Hong Kong, saying non-governmental organisations were responsible for political unrest in the semi-autonomous city and should "pay the proper price".

Kenneth Roth was supposed to give a press conference in Hong Kong this week to unveil the New York-based rights group's latest global survey, which accuses China of prosecuting "an intensive attack" on international human rights agencies.

The long-time executive director said on Sunday that he was turned back by authorities at Chek Lap Kok.

China last month announced sanctions on American NGOs, including HRW, in retaliation for the passage of a US bill backing Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement.

"Allowing or not allowing someone's entry is China's sovereign right," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing.

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

"They bear major responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong. These organisations should be punished, and should pay the proper price."

Roth joins a growing list of openly critical academics, researchers, politicians and activists who have been refused entry to Hong Kong in recent years.

Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet was denied a visa renewal without reason in 2018 after he hosted a talk with the leader of a small and now banned independence party at the city's press club.

Last September, an American academic was barred from entering after he testified in a Congressional hearing alongside prominent Hong Kong democracy activists. (AFP)

Take a very very close look at this part:

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

"They bear major responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong. These organisations should be punished, and should pay the proper price."

That's right. He not only came here to cause "confrontation" as I suspected, but he and his groups are actually involved in literally destabilising China.

So I say... I applaud the PRC's successful prevention of his entry into the country. It is NOT his right to come here to this country (my country) and do this sort of thing against the people and the government. For shame.

I am glad that the PRC is standing up for its sovereign rights and for not backing down.

If you're going to support the violent actions of the anti-government side, encourage crimes, and back radicals; then don't expect entry into China.

This is really just a smear campaign.

[Nakena]

I don’t agree with this. Xi has somehow managed to (while working with Lam) maintain law and order and economic stability in Hong Kong during these turbulent times.

That requires extraordinary leadership and management.

Whatever you may think of some of his mistakes, on the whole, this leader gets things done

He’s definitely the right person with the right strength of mind and character to lead a nation of over 1 billion

I definitely feel nauseated by the amount of bootlicking that is going on in relation to your posts that mention Xi.

Is that so?

[Satuga]

I don’t like democracy. It’s messy, disorderly, unclean.

I much prefer uniforms, soldiers, clear lines of authority, order.

This quote is now forfeit via Gommunism.

[Infected Mushroom]

And in case you're wondering WHY China prevented the head of the Human Rights Watch from entering, here's why

it's because he did come to cause trouble, look at the facts:



Take a very very close look at this part:



That's right. He not only came here to cause "confrontation" as I suspected, but he and his groups are actually involved in literally destabilising China.

So I say... I applaud the PRC's successful prevention of his entry into the country. It is NOT his right to come here to this country (my country) and do this sort of thing against the people and the government. For shame.

I am glad that the PRC is standing up for its sovereign rights and for not backing down.

If you're going to support the violent actions of the anti-government side, encourage crimes, and back radicals; then don't expect entry into China.

That proves fuck all. I notice you aren't properly referencing any of that shit, likely because it's from some bullshit party mouthpiece. Geng is a party stooge, so the shite being spewed out of his mouth doesn't count for much.

I'll take his word over yours, he's an important member of the Chinese government and this shows that its just as I suspected, Kenneth Roth and his group are trying to cause trouble in China and destabilise it

hence the decision to bar him is 100% justified given that he is the leader of a group that supported radicals, promoted Hong Kong independence, and directly/indirectly encouraged anti-government forces to commit acts of violence

I believe if he had done this sort of thing against a western government (encouraged and supported factions that tried to bring the US down and caused chaos in the cities), he and his group would literally have been labelled a terrorist organisation

[The Free Joy State]

And in case you're wondering WHY China prevented the head of the Human Rights Watch from entering, here's why

it's because he did come to cause trouble, look at the facts:



Take a very very close look at this part:



That's right. He not only came here to cause "confrontation" as I suspected, but he and his groups are actually involved in literally destabilising China.

So I say... I applaud the PRC's successful prevention of his entry into the country. It is NOT his right to come here to this country (my country) and do this sort of thing against the people and the government. For shame.

I am glad that the PRC is standing up for its sovereign rights and for not backing down.

If you're going to support the violent actions of the anti-government side, encourage crimes, and back radicals; then don't expect entry into China.

That proves fuck all. I notice you aren't properly referencing any of that shit, likely because it's from some bullshit party mouthpiece. Geng is a party stooge, so the shite being spewed out of his mouth doesn't count for much.

Be news to the Head of Human Rights Watch...

He's still waiting to hear why he was barred.

Still no word from the authorities on why they barred me from entering Hong Kong to release @HRW's annual report which this year highlights the Chinese government's assault on the international human rights system. They could at least own up to the reason.

EDIT: Officials only cited "immigration reasons".

[Infected Mushroom]

That proves fuck all. I notice you aren't properly referencing any of that shit, likely because it's from some bullshit party mouthpiece. Geng is a party stooge, so the shite being spewed out of his mouth doesn't count for much.

Be news to the Head of Human Rights Watch...

He's still waiting to hear why he was barred.

Still no word from the authorities on why they barred me from entering Hong Kong to release @HRW's annual report which this year highlights the Chinese government's assault on the international human rights system. They could at least own up to the reason.

He's been indirectly told. See my above sources.

Beijing on Monday defended barring the head of Human Rights Watch from entering Hong Kong, saying non-governmental organisations were responsible for political unrest in the semi-autonomous city and should "pay the proper price".

...

"Allowing or not allowing someone's entry is China's sovereign right," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing.

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

I think that explains it well enough

[The New California Republic]

That proves fuck all. I notice you aren't properly referencing any of that shit, likely because it's from some bullshit party mouthpiece. Geng is a party stooge, so the shite being spewed out of his mouth doesn't count for much.

I'll take his word over yours, he's an important member of the Chinese government and this shows that its just as I suspected, Kenneth Roth and his group are trying to cause trouble in China and destabilise it

Geng gave no proof at all. Just because his position agrees with yours does not mean that either of you are right, it just means that you both subscribe to the same bullshit.

hence the decision to bar him is 100% justified given that he is the leader of a group that supported radicals, promoted Hong Kong independence, and directly/indirectly encouraged anti-government forces to commit acts of violence

I believe if he had done this sort of thing against a western government (encouraged and supported factions that tried to bring the US down and caused chaos in the cities), he and his group would literally have been labelled a terrorist organisation

This is getting fucking pathetic, you are painting a human rights advocate as a terrorist. Absolute desperation on your part, picking at straws to justify what was done, even though there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to back up what you or Geng are saying.

Mind you, you also labelled Amnesty a "hate group", so this latest nonsense should not be surprising. But the real ironic thing is that you are accusing a human rights guy of promoting violence on no basis whatsoever, when there is evidence that you yourself have advocated using military force such as tanks etc against demonstrators.

[The Free Joy State]

Be news to the Head of Human Rights Watch...

He's still waiting to hear why he was barred.

He's been indirectly told. See my above sources.

Beijing on Monday defended barring the head of Human Rights Watch from entering Hong Kong, saying non-governmental organisations were responsible for political unrest in the semi-autonomous city and should "pay the proper price".

...

"Allowing or not allowing someone's entry is China's sovereign right," foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a regular press briefing.

"Plenty of facts and evidence show that the relevant NGO has through various means supported anti-China radicals, encouraged them to engage in extremist, violent and criminal activity, and incited Hong Kong independence separatist activities," Geng said.

I think that explains it well enough

Propaganda by a pro-Beijing mouthpiece such as Geng Shuang does not count as a reason, and the person denied entry must be directly told.

I doubt Ken Roth reads blatant Beijing propaganda sources to have seen it -- even if it did.