By: Azhar Azam
*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-20/Hong-Kong-s-High-Court-ruling-on-anti-mask-law-abets-violence-LLHdddQwOk/index.html
Into the sixth consecutive month, the radical protestors in Chinese Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) have bushed the lives of peaceful citizens, assaulted policemen, vandalized public properties, put a man ablaze and killed a few.
The gadget that aided them the most, in conducting their violent activities, has undisputedly been the face mask. Rioters widely used this cover-up tool to hide their identities from police while committing acts of violence in the China’s autonomous region.
Following repeated petitions by the HKSAR residents, Chief Executive Carrie Lam finally enforced an “anti-mask law” on October 5 to “create a deterrent effect against masked, violent protestors and rioters.” Beijing had also voiced its support for mask prohibition, believing it was indispensible to fight and violent criminal acts and restore social order.
But in a recent grilling move, the HK court ruled that an emergency law revived by the government – to ban protestors from wearing the face masks – was “incompatible with the Basic Law” and overturned the legislation, which was constituted to ensure rule of law.
In addition, the nullification of anti-mask law effectively stemmed Lam administration to fulfill its fundamental administrative responsibility to protect people from violence and rioters and maintain peace and stability in its region.
The court divisive finding invited stern dissatisfaction from the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress, sole legislative body that can analyze whether or not the judgments and decisions were compatible with HKSAR’s Basic Law.
It is pertinent to note that China-UK joint declaration on Hong Kong explicitly spoke that the upkeep of public order in the city will be the responsibility of the HKSAR government; the court decision seriously lacks the substance to back its adjudication ruling and the concerns raised by the Chinese legislative body stands validated.
Where the controversial verdict would limit HK government ability to curb violence, it would provide a legal cover to the rioters to freely conduct their violent and vandalistic activities without disclosing their identity to the HK police. In a completely vague legal background, only the radicals would be stirred but and justice would increasingly fade.
The court’s decision that sent a wrong message to radical protestors also compromised the sovereignty and national security of the city as well as violated the Emergency Regulations Ordinance that empowers the chief executive to “make any regulations whatsoever” on the “occasions of emergency or public danger.”
Since the restoration of peace and end violence is the responsibility of HK government and the city’s police, the decree would help to fuel fanatical actions of rioters and spark increased violence. As a result, the police will be more exposed to petrol bombs and improvised weapons assaults and public avenues will also be much vulnerable to extremists’ activities.
Moreover, the court’s unnecessary involvement in administrative issues could be fatal for the safety and security of HK peaceful residents who have started to become the victims of the radicals and are being set on fire and killed through hard objects hurled by the masked rioters.
The horrific killing of 70-year old cleaner pressed Chinese President Xi Jingping to issue a stark warning to the violent protestors and to assert that the restoring peace and stopping violence was the most urgent task for Hong Kong. Xi also extended Chinese support for Lam administration and urged it to implement policies according to law and punish rioters.
Talking to CCTV, Chief Executive of Macao Special Administrative Region (SAR) Ho Iat Seng said “Hong Kong has let people know what rioters are” and raised an important point that many protestors in Hong Kong stress too much on their rights and ignore their obligations.
Adding to Seng’s remarks, the region’s court has endorsed the violent acts of the radical protestors and in fact, boosted them to do whatever they want under the patronage of the judiciary. The rioters would certainly exploit the court’s decision as a justifiable source to expand disorder and take the law of the city in the hands.
If the protestors were peaceful, as they pretend to be, the anti-mask law should have been welcomed by them. But since the radicals were more inclined to trail turmoil in Hong Kong, they strappingly defied the legislation.
And unfortunately, the court also abetted violence by terminating the government’s move that was aimed at reducing riots and distinguish the offenders.
*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-20/Hong-Kong-s-High-Court-ruling-on-anti-mask-law-abets-violence-LLHdddQwOk/index.html
Into the sixth consecutive month, the radical protestors in Chinese Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) have bushed the lives of peaceful citizens, assaulted policemen, vandalized public properties, put a man ablaze and killed a few.
The gadget that aided them the most, in conducting their violent activities, has undisputedly been the face mask. Rioters widely used this cover-up tool to hide their identities from police while committing acts of violence in the China’s autonomous region.
Following repeated petitions by the HKSAR residents, Chief Executive Carrie Lam finally enforced an “anti-mask law” on October 5 to “create a deterrent effect against masked, violent protestors and rioters.” Beijing had also voiced its support for mask prohibition, believing it was indispensible to fight and violent criminal acts and restore social order.
But in a recent grilling move, the HK court ruled that an emergency law revived by the government – to ban protestors from wearing the face masks – was “incompatible with the Basic Law” and overturned the legislation, which was constituted to ensure rule of law.
In addition, the nullification of anti-mask law effectively stemmed Lam administration to fulfill its fundamental administrative responsibility to protect people from violence and rioters and maintain peace and stability in its region.
The court divisive finding invited stern dissatisfaction from the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress, sole legislative body that can analyze whether or not the judgments and decisions were compatible with HKSAR’s Basic Law.
It is pertinent to note that China-UK joint declaration on Hong Kong explicitly spoke that the upkeep of public order in the city will be the responsibility of the HKSAR government; the court decision seriously lacks the substance to back its adjudication ruling and the concerns raised by the Chinese legislative body stands validated.
Where the controversial verdict would limit HK government ability to curb violence, it would provide a legal cover to the rioters to freely conduct their violent and vandalistic activities without disclosing their identity to the HK police. In a completely vague legal background, only the radicals would be stirred but and justice would increasingly fade.
The court’s decision that sent a wrong message to radical protestors also compromised the sovereignty and national security of the city as well as violated the Emergency Regulations Ordinance that empowers the chief executive to “make any regulations whatsoever” on the “occasions of emergency or public danger.”
Since the restoration of peace and end violence is the responsibility of HK government and the city’s police, the decree would help to fuel fanatical actions of rioters and spark increased violence. As a result, the police will be more exposed to petrol bombs and improvised weapons assaults and public avenues will also be much vulnerable to extremists’ activities.
Moreover, the court’s unnecessary involvement in administrative issues could be fatal for the safety and security of HK peaceful residents who have started to become the victims of the radicals and are being set on fire and killed through hard objects hurled by the masked rioters.
The horrific killing of 70-year old cleaner pressed Chinese President Xi Jingping to issue a stark warning to the violent protestors and to assert that the restoring peace and stopping violence was the most urgent task for Hong Kong. Xi also extended Chinese support for Lam administration and urged it to implement policies according to law and punish rioters.
Talking to CCTV, Chief Executive of Macao Special Administrative Region (SAR) Ho Iat Seng said “Hong Kong has let people know what rioters are” and raised an important point that many protestors in Hong Kong stress too much on their rights and ignore their obligations.
Adding to Seng’s remarks, the region’s court has endorsed the violent acts of the radical protestors and in fact, boosted them to do whatever they want under the patronage of the judiciary. The rioters would certainly exploit the court’s decision as a justifiable source to expand disorder and take the law of the city in the hands.
If the protestors were peaceful, as they pretend to be, the anti-mask law should have been welcomed by them. But since the radicals were more inclined to trail turmoil in Hong Kong, they strappingly defied the legislation.
And unfortunately, the court also abetted violence by terminating the government’s move that was aimed at reducing riots and distinguish the offenders.