Hongkongers’ right to perform music in public is protected by a UN treaty enshrined in the city’s mini-constitution, an elderly man accused of playing a popular protest song in public without a per…
It should also raise the interesting issue of what it means for Hong Kong to have glory. Hong Kong’s long illustrious history is through its participation in China. This protest song is about Hong Kong separatism, which is based in the very short and terrible history of British domination and occupation which was predicated entirely on selling opium to China and then invading them when they outlawed the drug due to 40% of the population becoming addicted. These are far more interesting questions, in my opinion, than whether or not playing a song is a universal human right that cannot be truncated by a state in its attempts to manage the peaceful transition away from barbaric European domination.
I know that’s how I usually have robust conversations about complex topics - singing. That’s why they use song at sporting events and political rallies.
So your argument is that you don’t believe art is, or should be an appropriate vehicle for expressing, interpreting or otherwise engaging with complex socio-political issues? Did I do a eurocentrism again?
Do you really need to have this conversation right now? Are you ignorant of the deeply violent and oppressive history of the British? Do we need to rehash, yet again, how European fascism thrives and replicates quickly and broadly under conditions of liberal free speech?
It should also raise the interesting issue of what it means for Hong Kong to have glory. Hong Kong’s long illustrious history is through its participation in China. This protest song is about Hong Kong separatism, which is based in the very short and terrible history of British domination and occupation which was predicated entirely on selling opium to China and then invading them when they outlawed the drug due to 40% of the population becoming addicted. These are far more interesting questions, in my opinion, than whether or not playing a song is a universal human right that cannot be truncated by a state in its attempts to manage the peaceful transition away from barbaric European domination.
Can’t say I disagree.
How can you possibly expect to have a robust conversation about the exact thing you want to discuss if you are not allowed to sing a song about it?
I know that’s how I usually have robust conversations about complex topics - singing. That’s why they use song at sporting events and political rallies.
So your argument is that you don’t believe art is, or should be an appropriate vehicle for expressing, interpreting or otherwise engaging with complex socio-political issues? Did I do a eurocentrism again?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_American_Civil_War
Do you really need to have this conversation right now? Are you ignorant of the deeply violent and oppressive history of the British? Do we need to rehash, yet again, how European fascism thrives and replicates quickly and broadly under conditions of liberal free speech?
https://www.cia.gov/static/598a62b34629a8120fb16d68e440aa15/Director_Burns_Aspen_Security_Forum_Transcript_07202023.pdf
Ok that’s what I thought.