Tag Archives: freedom

Hong Kong Semi-Autonomy

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another hint. In the ongoing dispute between the US and the People’s Republic of China—the latest example of which is the lack of US visa renewals for PRC journalists—Hu Xijin, Editor-in-Chief of Chinese and English editions of the PRC State organ Global Times, had this:

From what I know, given that the US side hasn’t renewed visa of Chinese journalists, Chinese side has prepared for the worst scenario that all Chinese journalists have to leave the US. If that’s the case, Chinese side will retaliate, including targeting US journalists based in HK[]

Including targeting US journalists based in HK.  So much for Hong Kong’s semi-autonomy. It’s plainly a fully absorbed satrap of the PRC.

Unlawful Delay?

Posted on by
Reply

The Hong Kong Bar Association says the People’s Republic of China government’s move to delay Hong Kong’s legislature elections by a year “may be unlawful.”

They are mistaken; the delay is not unlawful. Unlawfulness presumes that there are laws to be broken. In a nation that rules by law—as opposed nations that operate under the principle of rule of law—any law is what the men of the People’s Republic of China government say it is. And they’ll adjust the text of a law, or rescind one or write a new one, at whim to suit their whims.

There are no laws that can be broken in the PRC. A law in that nation is simply a strip of clay, to be molded and remolded at convenience.

Flynn, Mandamus, and the DC Circuit

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit has decided to rehear General Michael Flynn’s request for a mandamus ruling ordering the DC District Court to accept Flynn’s motion—agreed and proffered by DoJ—to drop entirely the case against Flynn. The Circuit plainly does not trust the original Circuit ruling to issue the mandamus and so to order the lower court.

The Wall Street Journal has opined on the matter. While I disagree with the DC Circuit’s decision to retry the Flynn mandamus appeal en banc, I more strongly disagree with the WSJ‘s rationale for not rehearing it.

It will stoke more public cynicism about the politicization of the judiciary. This alone ought to have persuaded the DC Circuit not to rehear its panel’s decision.

No court should hear or not hear a case, or rule in a particular direction, based on public perception of the court. Every court—if it’s to preserve the legitimacy of the court and of the judiciary as a whole—must make those hear/rule decisions based only on the merits of the case at hand.

That is the subject and purpose of the judges’ oaths of office and the subject and purpose of the Judicial Branch.

Hong Kong’s Elections

Posted on by
Reply

They were scheduled for 6 September. Now they’re delayed by the People’s Republic of China for a year; although it was Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam who delivered the news.

Officially, the delay is due to the Wuhan Virus. However, the virus situation has been known for some months, but just before the decision to delay,

12 pro-democracy candidates were disqualified from running in the poll, for reasons including perceived subversive intentions, opposition to the new security law, and campaigning to win a legislation-blocking majority.

There it is in all its naked glory: that new security law that lets the PRC government in Beijing determine what is subversive and so criminal. Included in the current definition is democracy: it’s a crime for Hong Kongers to try to elect city legislators that will represent them rather than Beijing.

The move has one additional outcome: in the absence of a City legislature, the government of the PRC will fill the legislative vacuum.

This is freedom PRC style.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

The good citizens of Hong Kong held massive, if informal, primary elections preliminary to the general elections that are coming up. These are pro-democracy candidates who have been selected, again informally, to stand for election.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam had this to say about that:

if the pro-democracy camp seeks enough seats to resist government policy, “then it may fall into the category of subverting the state power, which is now one of the four types of offenses under the new national security law.”

Even in the unlikely event that that…camp…were the majority party in the Hong Kong legislature, they can’t be the makers of government policy.

The principle of tyranny doesn’t get any more clearly stated than that.