> <i>have the wrong stance on the current Hong Kong situation</i><p>> <i>"Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party," said O'Brien</i><p>You have erred in your thoughts, Winston.
Cathay Pacific CEO stepped down after China’s civil aviation regulator issued a major safety risk warning to Cathay and set out a list of demands, including giving full information on crew flying into its airspace [1]. The news is first reported by China's state-owned CCTV [2].<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/3023129/rupert-hogg-resigns-ceo-cathay-pacific-airways" rel="nofollow">https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/302312...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/cathay-pacific-board-accepts-ceo-hogg-s-resignation-cctv" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/cathay-pa...</a>
The one and only comment on that article says a lot:<p>> <i>Top accounting and other professional services doing business in Hong Kong cannot operate, bid and win any business employing people that have criminal records for perpetrating violent rioting and committing terrorism.</i><p>> <i>Besides, why would top professional services companies even want to hire an employee that is easily brainwashed to be a Useful Idiot ?</i><p>For the time being, the big 4 are free to do what they like. The same does not apply to globaltimes.cn and their moderators.
Will censorship apologists claim this isn't censorship, because "no-one is owed a job", or "they're private companies that can do what they like", then link to this 'insightful' comic <a href="https://xkcd.com/1357/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1357/</a> ?<p>I know this comment may seem shallow and argumentative, but these arguments regularly show up when the speech is unpopular, to explain why it's "not censorship".