The tides are turning against US-funded mobs in the streets of Hong Kong amid the so-called “Occupy Central” protests, as increasingly impatient residents and business owners come out into the streets to confront protesters. At times outnumbering and overwhelming the “Occupy Central” protesters, the movement represents residents, business owners, and by-standers attempting to restore normality to Hong Kong’s streets after the government and police have so far been unable to do so.
|Image: Within articles claiming an ongoing and growing backlash against Occupy Central protesters is led by “triad” gangsters, are pictures of angry residents who are clearly not triad members.|
In response, both US-funded Occupy Central leaders and their backers across the Western media have attempted to claim thousands of anti-Occupy Central protesters are in fact “paid triad” gangsters. In the Sydney Morning Herald’s article, “Violent mobs with triad links threaten Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters,” it is claimed without evidence that:
Pro-democracy protesters were besieged by violent mobs looking to break up their occupation of one of Hong Kong’s busiest districts on Friday, leading to chaotic skirmishes on city streets, accusations of police bias, and the shelving of negotiations with the government.
Nineteen people were arrested, at least eight of whom had “triad backgrounds”, police said early on Saturday, lending weight to furious accusations from pro-democracy groups that the violence was instigated by gangs who had been paid to provoke trouble and break up the demonstrations
The Herald fails to cite any evidence confirming these arrests, as well as provide any context to what “triad backgrounds” actually means. Attempting to discredit thousands of anti-Occupy Central protesters as “triads” using nebulous and baseless accusations equates to overt propaganda. Worst yet, the Herald’s own article featured an AFP photo of anti-Occupy Central protesters – middle-aged and elderly men most likely business owners and local residents – but clearly not “triads.”