Ah yes, “Mafia.” This is a classic tactic that they use on the mainland, especially in forced relocations. The people who bust in and beat people up and kidnap them, only to release them once their houses have been destroyed, are always masked thugs with no ties to the government, and, funnily enough, the perpetrators are never caught.
This story is confusing. The “gangstaz” attacked the Occupiers, and then the police busted them, and so the attackers are in cahoots with the police? One side of that triangle has to break.
I’m not familiar with the politics of the situation regarding the Hong Kong Triads, but my assumption would be that the Triads themselves have a vested interest in interfering with these protests, without having to have the government involved in any way.
Reform is typically bad for organized crime, because it means all your hard work corrupting people in places of power goes to waste when they get replaced. Stability is generally profitable, while change tends to hurt your bottom line. So when a bunch of student protesters rock the boat, it’s probably worthwhile to send the goons round to try to change their minds.
Of course, the opposite could be the case as well. Perhaps conditions are such that the Triads see a change in local government as being good for business - thus, they want to make the government look bad, to help undermine their position. Toward that end, attacking the protesters and spreading rumors that the police are involved is the perfect way to fan the fires of public resentment and distrust.
I think if the government wanted to use violence on the protesters, they would do it themselves rather than cut some sort of deal with the Triads to do it for them. Why pay good money (or perform valuable favors) to have someone else do a job that everyone is going to know you were involved in anyway? I just don’t see “plausible deniability” being worth the costs of getting the Triads to agree to this whole deal.
“We Serve Heckler & Koch?”
I think the accusation is that the police stood by and let the thugs bust some heads, then once they judged the Occupiers sufficiently intimidated, they sashayed in, “arrested” the thugs, and dropped them off somewhere quiet with a wink and, perhaps, a fat envelope.
Whether it’s true or not I can’t say, but I’d hardly be surprised.
But the clashes broke out as people apparently angry with the disruption caused by the protests tried to dismantle tents and barricades.
Good old BBC.
‘Apparently’, members of the BBC press corps were found to be unable to not capitulate to brutal, endemic power, marginalising the dynamic of the protest movement whilst both feebly misdirecting attention from and mischaracterising the violence committed against them; apparently.
I’m an occupier at the scene btw.
Good. Read. Peace.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.