Hong Kong protesters hope poll will send message to China - BBC News

Pro-democracy protest groups in Hong Kong are urging people not to disrupt Sunday's local elections in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory.

They hope the polls will send a message to the government in Beijing after five months of political unrest.

The authorities have threatened to suspend voting if there is serious disruption at polling stations.

More than 400 councillors are due to be elected to Hong Kong's district council.

Pro-democracy campaigners hope they will be able to increase their representation on the council, which traditionally has some influence in choosing the city's chief executive.

Pro-Beijing candidates are urging voters to support them in order to express frustration at the upheaval caused by continuous clashes between protesters and police.

What's happening?

Sunday's district elections will take place with a record 4.1 million people in the city registered to vote.

More than 1,000 candidates are running for 452 district council seats which, for the first time, are being contested. (A further 27 seats are allocated to representatives of rural districts.)

Currently, pro-Beijing parties hold the majority of these seats.

Why are these elections important?

District councils themselves have very little actual power, so usually these elections take place on a very local level.

But this election is different.

Getty

Hong Kong district elections

• 452seats across 18 districts

• 1,090 candidates - all seats being contested for the first time

• 4.13mregistered voters - the highest number ever

• 117councillors sit on committee that elects chief executive

Source: Hong Kong government

They're the first elections since anti-government protests started in June, so will act as a litmus test, reflecting how much support there is for the current government.

"People in Hong Kong have begun to see this election as an additional way to articulate and express their views on the state of Hong Kong in general and the government of Carrie Lam," Kenneth Chan, associate professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, told news agency Reuters.

Then there's the issue of Hong Kong's chief executive.

Under Hong Kong's electoral system, 117 of the district councillors will also sit on the committee that votes for the chief executive.

So a pro-democracy district win could translate eventually to a bigger share, and say, in who becomes the city's next leader.

• Profile: Carrie Lam, Chief Executive of Hong Kong

Who is running?

There are some notable names running in the elections.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Junius Ho - one of the most controversial politicians in the city - is among them.

Mr Ho was stabbed earlier this month by a man pretending to be a supporter.

The lawmaker has openly voiced his support for Hong Kong's police force on multiple occasions. He was in July filmed shaking hands with a group of men - suspected of being triad gangsters - who later assaulted pro-democracy protesters.

Jimmy Sham, a political activist who has recently rose to prominence as the leader of the Civil Human Rights Front - a campaign group responsible for organising some of the mass protest marches - is running for the first time.

Mr Sham has also been attacked twice, once apparently with hammers. Photographs showed him lying on the street covered in blood.

Who isn't running is also notable. Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong was barred from running in the elections, a move he referred to as "political screening".

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiMmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC1hc2lhLWNoaW5hLTUwNTMxNDA40gE2aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvbS9uZXdzL2FtcC93b3JsZC1hc2lhLWNoaW5hLTUwNTMxNDA4?oc=5

2019-11-23 14:15:53Z
52780444174398

The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry: Live updates - CNN International

Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Ambassador Gordon Sondland often lamented his lack of access to his State Department records, saying the impeachment process was “less than fair” and “challenging” for him, during his public testimony before House committees in charge of the impeachment inquiry.

CNN found that Sondland mentioned the missing records at least 15 times throughout the course of the hearing on Wednesday.

“I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Department e-mails and many, many other State Department documents,” Sondland said in his opening.

Sondland argued that the impeachment process would be “far more transparent” if he had access to his records -- a request he said he has made to the State Department and the White House, both of which have been non-compliant in providing documents related to Ukraine, even when subpoenaed by House committees.

 On Oct. 23, Federal Judge Christopher Cooper gave the State Department 30 days to release Ukraine-related documents, following a lawsuit from the watchdog group American Oversight. As of today, the documents have yet to be released.

Sondland told Rep. Jackie Speier that he had been “hampered to provide completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents,” when she asked about how the missing records affected his testimony.

When minority counsel Steve Castor derided Sondland’s lack of recollection of specific events, the ambassador said the records would help jog his memory of countless calls and meetings he has had with several government officials and foreign leaders.

Among those conversations Sondland couldn’t recall, he said, were calls with President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, energy Secretary Rick Perry, and former US special envoy Kurt Volker, among others.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiUGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vcG9saXRpY3MvbGl2ZS1uZXdzL2ltcGVhY2htZW50LWlucXVpcnktMTEtMjMtMjAxOS9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFUaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vcG9saXRpY3MvbGl2ZS1uZXdzL2ltcGVhY2htZW50LWlucXVpcnktMTEtMjMtMjAxOS9pbmRleC5odG1s?oc=5

2019-11-23 13:37:00Z
52780440506525

Pro-democracy protests continue at Hong Kong campus - CBS This Morning

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiK2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9ZHZiTHNsMjN2bXfSAQA?oc=5

2019-11-23 12:54:56Z
52780444174398

The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry: Live updates - CNN International

Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

Ambassador Gordon Sondland often lamented his lack of access to his State Department records, saying the impeachment process was “less than fair” and “challenging” for him, during his public testimony before House committees in charge of the impeachment inquiry.

CNN found that Sondland mentioned the missing records at least 15 times throughout the course of the hearing on Wednesday.

“I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Department e-mails and many, many other State Department documents,” Sondland said in his opening.

Sondland argued that the impeachment process would be “far more transparent” if he had access to his records -- a request he said he has made to the State Department and the White House, both of which have been non-compliant in providing documents related to Ukraine, even when subpoenaed by House committees.

 On Oct. 23, Federal Judge Christopher Cooper gave the State Department 30 days to release Ukraine-related documents, following a lawsuit from the watchdog group American Oversight. As of today, the documents have yet to be released.

Sondland told Rep. Jackie Speier that he had been “hampered to provide completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents,” when she asked about how the missing records affected his testimony.

When minority counsel Steve Castor derided Sondland’s lack of recollection of specific events, the ambassador said the records would help jog his memory of countless calls and meetings he has had with several government officials and foreign leaders.

Among those conversations Sondland couldn’t recall, he said, were calls with President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, energy Secretary Rick Perry, and former US special envoy Kurt Volker, among others.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiUGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vcG9saXRpY3MvbGl2ZS1uZXdzL2ltcGVhY2htZW50LWlucXVpcnktMTEtMjMtMjAxOS9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFUaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vcG9saXRpY3MvbGl2ZS1uZXdzL2ltcGVhY2htZW50LWlucXVpcnktMTEtMjMtMjAxOS9pbmRleC5odG1s?oc=5

2019-11-23 12:45:00Z
52780440506525

American reporter Jason Rezaian, held by Iran for 544 days, awarded $180M for captivity, torture - Fox News

A Washington Post journalist who was held captive and psychologically tortured by the Iranian government for 544 days was awarded $180 million Friday evening in his family’s lawsuit against the Middle Eastern country.

Reporter Jason Rezaian was arrested at gunpoint in Iran along with his wife in 2014 on dubious espionage charges. He was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Iran and was living there with his family at the time.

“Iran seized Jason, threatened to kill Jason, and did so with the goal of compelling the United States to free Iranian prisoners as a condition of Jason’s release,” U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington, D.C., said in his ruling.

REPORTER JASON REZAIAN REVEALS 'TORTURE' HE ENDURED IN IRANIAN PRISON

Journalist Jason Rezaian participates in a panel discussion on media freedom at United Nations headquarters, Sept. 25, 2019. (Associated Press)

“Holding a man hostage and torturing him to gain leverage in negotiations with the United States is outrageous, deserving of punishment and surely in need of deterrence,” Leon added.

Rezaian was held at Tehran’s Evin prison and convicted by the Revolutionary Guard in a closed court on the unexplained spy charges.

Earlier this year, Rezaian told The Guardian that "for the first six or seven months, [the threat of execution] was pretty regular.”

"It was the constant anxiety of: 'Are they going to kill me, are they going to keep me forever or am I going to be released tomorrow?' You don't know what to believe. That's the method. That's the torture,” he said.

Iran has not responded to Rezaian’s lawsuit and it’s unclear how the money would be paid – if at all. It could come from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.

This year the Trump administration designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, named as a defendant in Rezaian’s case, as a terrorist organization.

Rezaian has not commented on the ruling.

The Washington Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, said in a statement on the ruling, “We’ve seen our role as helping the Rezaians through their recovery. Our satisfaction comes from seeing them enjoy their freedom and a peaceful life.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Rezaian was released in 2016 and wrote a memoir about his experiences this year called “Prisoner.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiUGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZveG5ld3MuY29tL3dvcmxkL3VzLWp1ZGdlLWF3YXJkcy0xODBtLXRvLXBvc3QtcmVwb3J0ZXItaGVsZC1ieS1pcmFu0gFUaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZm94bmV3cy5jb20vd29ybGQvdXMtanVkZ2UtYXdhcmRzLTE4MG0tdG8tcG9zdC1yZXBvcnRlci1oZWxkLWJ5LWlyYW4uYW1w?oc=5

2019-11-23 10:23:54Z
52780444652894

After months of unrest, Hong Kong is holding a de facto referendum on protests - CNN

Hong Kong elections are traditionally peaceful, even dull, but officials have warned that, amid the heightened tensions in the city, they will not hesitate to postpone the vote or close polling stations in the instance of violence. Riot police will be stationed in "inconspicuous" locations inside every polling station, police told CNN.

After months of unrest with both sides claiming to represent the will of the majority of Hong Kongers, Sunday's vote offers the first objective test of how people in the city feel about the protests and the government.

According to the government, the protests have lost public support and a silent majority of Hong Kongers are sick and tired of the violence and chaos, and they stand behind the police in doing everything necessary to stop the unrest. According to protesters, the city is with them, no matter the cost, and the lack of mass public rallies in recent months is only due to increasing restrictions on public assembly.

This debate has been playing out for months now, with the divide widening and the conversation becoming ever more toxic. Both sides can point to evidence in their favor -- people coming out to clear streets of barricades; sympathy protests by white-collar workers -- but this week, we will finally get an answer.

Historic elections

Unlike Hong Kong's Legislative Council (LegCo) -- which is chosen by a semi-democratic web of directly elected seats, functional constituencies and closed races -- the district councils are the only official bodies in the city elected by universal suffrage; one person, one vote.

This year also represents the first time that all 452 constituencies are being contested, meaning that all registered voters, about 56% of Hong Kong's 7.4 million population, will get a say. In the past, lackluster engagement has meant pro-Beijing candidates ran unopposed in some areas, aiding their control of all 18 separate district councils.

District councils are elected on five-year terms, and largely handle local affairs. They lack much in terms of real power, serving mainly to advise the government on issues affecting their neighborhoods and the allocation of funds for local projects.

The vote has taken on an outsized importance in recent years, however, as a way of signaling wider discontent about the slow pace of political reform.

"In the past 10 years or so, the lack of progress towards universal suffrage has improved participation over the last three district council elections," said Kenneth Chan, an expert on politics and governance at Hong Kong Baptist University. Turnout in 2015 was 47%, compared to around 38% in 2007 and closer to the amount who vote in the LegCo elections, typically seen as far more important.

Chan said that it was "unprecedented that all 452 constituencies are contested," and this raises the "theoretical possibility that the anti-government block might be able to win more than half of the constituencies." Doing so would not only send a clear message to the government, it could also influence the selection of the next Chief Executive, Chan added.

The district councils choose 117 of the 1,200-member "broadly representative" committee that currently chooses the city's leader, meaning substantial gains could mean pro-democrats have more of a say in who succeeds embattled current leader, Carrie Lam, in 2022.

Five demands

At present, pro-Beijing parties control all 18 district councils, so any victory for the broader pro-democracy camp will inevitably be cast as a win for protesters.

Earlier this month, the city's number two official, Matthew Cheung, told legislators the government could not understand public anger because there were no public opinion polls available and "people could be upset about various things."

Cheung's statement not only ignores the widely respected polls that are available -- they typically show lackluster approval for the government and strong support for the protesters -- it also acts as if the established demands of the protest movement are hard to understand.

For months now, protesters have consistently stuck to the slogan "five demands, not one less."

Those five demands are: withdraw the extradition bill that kicked off the entire crisis (since achieved); launch an independent inquiry into allegations of police brutality; retract any categorization of a protest on June 12 as a "riot"; amnesty for arrested protesters; and introducing universal suffrage for how the Chief Executive and Legislative Council are elected.

While some candidates are running on fairly standard local council issues -- "eliminate illegal parking," "build an animal friendly community," "strengthen environmental conservation" -- a substantial minority, around 13%, include the phrase "five demands, not one less" in their election material.

In two districts, Sai Kung and Kowloon City, more than 25% of candidates mention the five demands, while 23% of candidates in the northern district of Yuen Long, mention another key issue, calling for an investigation into the attacks on protesters in the local subway station on July 21.

However, there is suspicion among some in the protest camp that some of the less well known pro-democracy candidates standing are not what they appear -- and instead are aiming to split the vote. To counter this, Power For Democracy, an umbrella group for pro-democracy parties, has issued a list of 397 candidates it endorses, one in all but 55 constituencies. This list has been widely shared by protesters on messaging apps and AirDropped to strangers on the subway.

In the past, the pro-Beijing camp has been far better at coordinating than opposition parties, amid accusations Chinese officials sometimes intervene to pressure candidates to drop out so as not to split the vote. This year, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), the largest pro-Beijing party, is fielding 179 candidates.

Do elections matter?

Whether the message sent by voters on Sunday will be heard remains to be seen.

Almost certainly, given the mood in the city at present, both will claim foul play, despite Hong Kong's long record of free and fair elections (within the limits of the system). Some protesters were already complaining of police plans to station riot officers at polling stations, claiming it risked intimidating voters.

A big loss for pro-government parties could increase pressure on Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam to come up with a political solution to the ongoing crisis.

By contrast, if pro-democracy candidates fail to win a significant number of seats, Lam and the central government in Beijing could use it to justify more hardline tactics against protesters.

Of course, this assumes the vote goes ahead at all. The big question hanging over Sunday is whether officials will suspend polling or postpone the elections entirely, which they have the power to do so in certain instances. Election authorities said December 1 has already been reserved as a potential backup polling date.

Uncertainty has dogged Hong Kong for months now, not least about where all this is going. Should the elections go ahead this week, at least finally some questions will be answered.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiZWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMS8yMi9hc2lhL2hvbmcta29uZy1wcm90ZXN0cy1kaXN0cmljdC1jb3VuY2lsLWVsZWN0aW9ucy1pbnRsLWhuay9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFpaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vMjAxOS8xMS8yMi9hc2lhL2hvbmcta29uZy1wcm90ZXN0cy1kaXN0cmljdC1jb3VuY2lsLWVsZWN0aW9ucy1pbnRsLWhuay9pbmRleC5odG1s?oc=5

2019-11-23 07:27:00Z
52780444174398

After Fiona Hill dismantles conspiracy theories, right-wing media goes on the attack - CNN

Appearing before Congress Thursday, Fiona Hill deflated right-wing conspiracy theories that Ukraine, and not necessarily Russia, meddled in the 2016 election. Hill said it was a "fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves."

Hill even called out "some" members of the House Intelligence Committee who have bought into the discredited theory, and noted that even when such misinformation is used for domestic political purposes it is harmful. "I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a US adversary, and that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked us in 2016," she said.

...But will it matter?

While Hill took apart the idea that Ukraine was responsible for the real election meddling in 2016, it's unclear how much it will matter. The people who most need to hear her message were told on Thursday by the people they trust most -- personalities in right-wing media -- that she was not to be believed. Hill was attacked. She was smeared. And her expertise was questioned. Read on for a couple examples...

Hannity dismisses Hill as "so-called Ukraine expert," continues to push discredited theory

Unsurprisingly, Sean Hannity attacked Hill on his Fox program Thursday night. Hannity apparently thinks he knows more about Ukrainian and Russian politics than Hill, the White House's former top Russia expert. He referred to Hill as a "so-called Ukraine expert" and mocked her testimony. Hannity claimed Hill "falsely accused" Republicans of "pushing a conspiracy theory" about "Ukranian election interference." Okay, Sean...

OANN personality tweets shameful attack on Fiona Hill and Lt. Col Vindman

The "chief White House correspondent" for One America News Network, the far-right media organization with little reach that Trump keeps promoting, implied in a tweet Thursday that Fiona Hill and Lt. Col Alexander Vindmanwere not real Americans. Both Hill and Vindman were born outside the United States, but are citizens who have served the country. Notably, Vindman is a decorated military officer who was awarded the Purple Heart.

But OANN's Emerald Robinson didn't appear to have much regard for their service. In a tweet, she mocked Hill's accent and wrote, "I'm wondering: are any Americans going to testify against Trump?" Jake Tapper noted it was an "ugly" and "frankly, un-American thing to say." Robinson ultimately deleted her tweet, claiming it was being "misconstrued." She then attempted to smear Hill and Vindman with other attacks. Reprehensible behavior from an outlet Trump has repeatedly praised.

The big picture: Right-wing media wall holds

Several weeks ago, there had been some speculation about whether Trump's right-wing media wall would hold. And while it showed a sign of cracking when the President lost the Drudge Report, the wall has since held firm. Despite being faced with damning revelations, Trump's allies at Fox, in talk radio, and on the web have continued to stick with him.

On Fox Thursday night, Hannity claimed to his viewers that the hearings were a "dud" and "absolute unmitigated disaster for the Democrats." The banner on his show read, "JUST LIKE RUSSIA HOAX, UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT SHAM DIES AN EMBARRASSING DEATH FOR DEMOCRATS ON CAPTIOL HILL."

Hannity's prime time colleagues Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham also mocked the hearings. Radio hosts like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh have continued to spin for Trump. And websites like Breitbart have showed no signs of turning on him. The bottom line: Trump's right-wing media wall has held.

Read more of Thursday's "Reliable Sources" newsletter... And subscribe here to receive future editions in your inbox...

John Solomon says he was smeared

The author of the discredited stories at The Hill which have played a starring role in the impeachment inquiry said on Thursday he was being wrongfully attacked. John Solomon, a former executive at The Hill who now serves as a Fox News contributor, commented on the impeachment hearings during a segment on Martha MacCallum's show. "They smeared me," Solomon said, "Just like Joe McCarthy smeared people."

Where was Judge Andrew Napolitano?

One notable voice was missing from Fox News' special impeachment coverage over the last week: Judge Andrew Napolitano, who serves as Fox's senior judicial analyst. Fox opted to instead use Ken Starr and Andrew McCarthy, two legal minds who have been much more sympathetic to Trump than Napolitano.

It was not as if Napolitano, who has said that Trump confessed publicly to committing at least one crime, was unavailable. Napolitano offered his analysis on Fox Business Network and has written for the Fox website. But not including him on the flagship network meant that the millions of viewers who tuned in did not see a legal expert that they know and trust break down how damning some of the testimony was for the President's case.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiXGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMS8yMi9tZWRpYS9maW9uYS1oaWxsLXJpZ2h0LXdpbmctbWVkaWEtcmVsaWFibGUtc291cmNlcy9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFgaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vMjAxOS8xMS8yMi9tZWRpYS9maW9uYS1oaWxsLXJpZ2h0LXdpbmctbWVkaWEtcmVsaWFibGUtc291cmNlcy9pbmRleC5odG1s?oc=5

2019-11-22 12:29:00Z
52780440506525