The NatSec law in English.
From HKFP, a basic explainer covering all the main points.
NPC Observer goes through the legal horrors, not least of which is the lack of definitions for phrases in a large number of proscribed acts, such as ‘provoking by unlawful means hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the central government or Hong Kong government, which is likely to cause serious consequences’, plus the extraterritoriality clauses.
As Donald Clarke writing in the China Collection says, the real issue is not the words but the new institutions and processes – unaccountable NatSec bodies, secrecy, vetted judges, direct Mainland jurisdiction and so on…
Language matters only if there are institutions that will make it matter. This whole law is about avoiding the involvement of such institutions.
Reuters on Beijing agents’ immunity from local laws…
Significantly, the law allows Beijing to create a new national security agency in the city able to take enforcement action beyond existing Hong Kong laws in the most serious cases.
It even specifies that local authorities cannot inspect agents’ vehicles.
A QC notes, among other things, how the CCP’s ‘foreign forces’ conspiracy theory has been written into the law.
Consulum is going to have its work cut out to explain this:
“This Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.”
Perhaps the most redundant part of the new law is the prohibition on provoking hatred towards the Hong Kong government, since most people hate them already.
Doesn’t really matter what the legal mumbo jumbo says
Hong Kongers look at the law and get what it means: the CCP can do ANYTHING the heck they want in Hong Kong, with zero blowback.
And right on cue, the day after NSL is unleashed, a pack of masks is dumped in our post boxes, even those displaying the PO’s official NO UNSOLICITED MAIL. What an insult.
One pack has been sent back to CE of HKSAR, post paid to ensure delivery, with a message No Bribes Accepted.
It seems there ought to be a switch…Chugani to Canada (better than the States, where he’s a citizen) and fly A. Low out to Hongkers to live amongst the people he loves and advocates for so much with their inevitable satisfaction with the new mystery law.
Now that the world seems to be getting smart about China, and they are for once on the back foot, it’s amusing to see CCP clutching at straws:
“Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the United Kingdom moves [on BN(O)] violated the norms of international relations” as if the CCP give a fuck about international law …
“The Chinese embassy in the UK also claimed on Thursday that Britain’s move violated 1984 memorandums of understanding”. These would be the same 1984 declarations that the CCP previously insisted became null and void on 1 July 1997, meaning that UK had no say about Hong Kong?
The changes that the UK is making to its national immigration laws to accommodate BN(O) passport holders is surely an internal matter. Borris should tell Xi & Co not to meddle in Britain’s internal affairs otherwise they risk hurting the feelings of the British people!
@Mary Melville: then what was the point of the CuMask+, which was supposed to be reusable?
So far, I’ve seen only two people wear them in public.
I deactivated my Twitter account today.
They have to get rid of the 6.7 million fake masks somehow.
Article in today’s SCMP says HK govt ordered 6.7mil fake masks!
They are really surpassing themselves with this mask giveaway.
@Chinese Netizens, any suggestions who Nury could switch with?
I deleted all of my tweets.
Welp. Four days in and they’ve already threatened to arrest people over blank sticky notes.
So I received my ‘Maria Tam Bloomers’ thingies in the mailbox. So I called the orphanage in order to make a donation. Then the nun in charge, Soeur Sourire, said to me: “Don’t you think our little ones have suffered enough already?”
I hung up and bowed my head in shame.
@Joe Blow: but you must have signed up for the MT bloomers?
The July 2 delivery is a pack of 10 disposable landfillers foisted on us for some indeterminate objective. I note in my building that neighbours have not bothered to pull them out of their boxes, probably hoping someone will nick them.
Even government officials have discarded their MTBs, our very own Laurel and Hardy were not sporting them when they hilariously accused Canada of ‘riding roughshod’ over the rule of law.
@guest, at the risk of stating the obvious and probably missing the intended sarcasm, the purpose was to pour as much tax payers money into the pockets of a non-elected cabal as possible.