Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 21 2019, @09:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the courting-disaster? dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

China says its courts trump Hong Kong's on face mask ruling

China's top legislature has insisted Hong Kong courts had no power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation under the city's Basic Law, as it condemned a decision by the high court to overturn a ban on face masks worn by pro-democracy protesters.

The statement on Tuesday came a day after the high court ruled that the face mask ban - introduced through colonial-era emergency laws - was unconstitutional.

[...] "Whether the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region comply with the Basic Law of Hong Kong can only be judged and decided by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress," Yan Tanwei, a spokesman for the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, said in a statement.

"No other authority has the right to make judgments and decisions," he added.

[...] Protests started in June with rallies that brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets in a largely peaceful call for the withdrawal of a now-withdrawn bill that would have allowed suspected criminals to be extradited to mainland China for trial.

They have since evolved into a series of demands for greater democracy and freedoms as well as an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality. Protesters worry China is encroaching on the freedoms given to Hong Kong when the United Kingdom returned the territory to China under what was known as "one country, two systems" in 1997.

[...] China has repeatedly warned that it would not allow the city to spiral into total chaos, heightening concerns that Beijing might deploy troops or other security forces to quell the unrest.

"The Hong Kong government is trying very hard to put the situation under control," China's ambassador to Britain, Liu Xiaoming, said on Monday.

"But if the situation becomes uncontrollable, the central government would certainly not sit on our hands and watch. We have enough resolution and power to end the unrest."

[...] Protesters had been using masks to hide their identities in public. The proposal was widely criticised by supporters of the anti-government movement, who saw it as a risk to demonstrators.

Hong Kong's High Court ruled on Monday that colonial-era emergency laws, which were revived to justify the mask ban, were "incompatible with the Basic Law", the mini-constitution under which Hong Kong was returned to China.

Will China run out of patience with Hong Kong protests?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday November 22 2019, @12:08AM (6 children)

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday November 22 2019, @12:08AM (#923222)

    Isn't what people are allowed to do in Hong Kong an internal affair? If it isn't, then what is?

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday November 22 2019, @01:32AM (5 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Friday November 22 2019, @01:32AM (#923263)

    If it isn't, then what is?

    If the PRC decides wearing masks circumvents the surveillance state and risks national security, it doesn't matter if the Hong Kong government and courts think otherwise. It's still illegal since the PRC has the final word on defense affairs which also covers defining what defense affairs means.

    To my knowledge, federal vs. state in the US leaves even broader powers and less autonomy to the state so this should hardly be a surprise to anyone.

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday November 22 2019, @04:29AM (4 children)

      by exaeta (6957) on Friday November 22 2019, @04:29AM (#923307) Homepage Journal

      You lost me on the second part. Why the hell should the Hong Kong courts accept that justification? Since they are autonomous, they don't have to recognize such a ludicrous definition of defense. Internal affairs includes internal strife, until non-citizens start trying to invade.

      Defense does not include law enforcement. Hong Kong can and should ignore the PRC. If Beijing wants to violate the basic law, UK and US, as well as rest of NATO, should take Hong Kong from Beijing's control. China would collapse in a drawn out conflict becuase they lack engineering talent and need to copy western engineers. China is dependent on western countries for progress, even if it has many natural resources... for the same reason they can't expand too much.

      --
      The Government is a Bird
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @09:41AM (#923354)

        Same reason the national supreme court overrules state supreme courts.

        Beyond that, I have to ask - are you out of your mind? You might've heard of this neat invention in the 40s. They are literally the sole the reason war between developed nations, outside of proxy wars, no longer exists. They're small and make a big boom. Starts with an 'n' and rhymes with pukes. I'd say you're talking about the sort of action that would start World War 3. But it wouldn't, because you've got to be out of your goddamned mind to propose engaging in overt war with a "developed" (read: nuclear) nation and so if anybody did it, they'd be rapidly alienated by the rest of the world because you're talking about the sort of stuff that could destroy our entire species.

        This is the reason that modern "war" is fought with economics. Even the harshest economic attack would not justify a military response, but seizing national territory would. I also think this is the reason that we are currently freaking out in regards to China. China is set to become the dominant world economic power. The underlying point there is that US power is not based on any particular moral authority or historical relations but on power. As that power fades, expect to see what is already happening: corporations and countries increasingly aligning themselves with China, and that risks completely shaping the worldwide geopolitical balance - something the US obviously does not want to happen.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @02:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22 2019, @02:00PM (#923383)

        Hong Kong can and should ignore the PRC.

        That works fine until PRC invokes, "bigger army diplomacy."

      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday November 22 2019, @03:36PM

        by RamiK (1813) on Friday November 22 2019, @03:36PM (#923410)

        You lost me on the second part. Why the hell should the Hong Kong courts accept that justification? Since they are autonomous, they don't have to recognize such a ludicrous definition of defense. Internal affairs includes internal strife, until non-citizens start trying to invade.

        No they can't. Their autonomy is purely functional and subordinate to the PRC by their own laws and the joint deceleration. Even their final adjudication depends on how the PRC's high-court's right of final interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Kong)#Article_158_Interpretation [wikipedia.org]

        So, the protestors in that specific case get a pass since they already got their final adjudication. But the following cases will render them guilty unless the law is undone by the legislative body.

        As your arguments regarding defense, the US already set the necessary precedents to overrule them:
        1. Spies are often local citizens so nationality isn't a criteria. You can even charge a foreign journalist / whistle-blower for espionage and deny them the right to say they're journalist / whistle-blower in the court by law. It's why Snowden refuses to be tried in the US under the current laws and why Assange can't put together any defense: The laws pertaining to espionage and secrecy in the US specifically disallow this. It's technically also why the UK shouldn't extradite him... But naturally, they'll look the other way.
        2. A foreign disinformation campaign through contractors targeting civilian infrastructure is still an issue of national security. So, they can require all online communication to be unencrypted or backdoored while all citizens must not wear masks in public to prevent terrorism.
        3. A foreign purchase of critical industrial facilities and IP can be blocked despite economic and trade freedom/autonomy. During such trade wars, taxation and tariffs similarly turn into a question of national defense.

        Between the three, it's not too hard for the PRC to limit HK's autonomy to traffic cops and paving roads. Throw in how their equivalent of a national guard is part of the military, and it's entirely possible for the PRC to send in troops to deal with rioters without breaking their laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Armed_Police [wikipedia.org]

        Look, neither of us is Chinese nor do we have a say in the matter. What we can do is compare the situation to the US and its laws, and realize just what kind of slippery slope the US got on post 9/11.

        --
        compiling...
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday November 22 2019, @04:01PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 22 2019, @04:01PM (#923417)

        Why the hell should the Hong Kong courts accept that justification?

        I believe that falls under the 1743 Convention of Shut Up Or We'll Invade You.

        Since they are autonomous, they don't have to recognize such a ludicrous definition of defense.

        Autonomy is like an unlimited cell data plan...you're autonomous as long as you don't want to use your autonomy to do anything that really pisses off your feudal lord.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"