No promoting ‘illegal ideologies’, please

Background to the Stand News case from VOA  – ‘conspiring to publish seditious publications’.

Updated threads from Su Xinqi. Here: the judge has allowed all articles submitted as evidence, regardless of time limitations in the sedition law. Bizarrely, one of the articles is a commentary describing the use of the archaic sedition offense as a form of lawfare. You can get nailed for calling lawfare ‘lawfare’.

Even by NatSec-trial standards this is becoming grotesque, with the prosecution virtually implying that the editors attempted to cause rather than report political controversy and civil strife. The allegations (drawing on Su’s translation) include publishing articles that: promoted the ‘unlawful beliefs’ (SCMP uses ‘illegal ideologies’) of political candidates; beautified/glamorized ‘criminal’ dissidents in exile; tried to ‘reignite conflicts that had turned cold’; and smearing the NatSec Law. 

Standard report mentions other evidence against Stand News: the publication had a ‘political’ stance (‘commitment to democracy, human rights, freedom and the rule of law’), and it received a surge in donations during 2019 from readers who shared the stance. The SCMP quotes the prosecution as saying…

Stand News published feature stories on public figures such as unlawful activists, absconded criminals and wanted suspects…

Where are the crimes here? At this rate, the Mainland charge of ‘picking quarrels’ is just around the corner.

And 18 pan-dems pleading not guilty to ‘conspiracy to commit subversion’ (trying to win an election) will have to wait until after Lunar New Year for the trial to start. That’s nearly two years after their original arrest. It will ‘hopefully’ conclude by summer. No jury, of course. The system meanwhile seems to require others who have pleaded guilty – many in jail ever since being charged – to wait out the trial before their sentencing. Is this process or punishment?

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to No promoting ‘illegal ideologies’, please

  1. Mjrelje says:

    Sat in the GFIS summit and not one person at the crowded tables is wearing a mask including CE Lee. One rule for them.

  2. Obey says:

    “Is this process or punishment?”

    No need to ask, comrade. I hope you didn’t sign a long lease on your new flat.

  3. Stanley Leiber says:

    “The process is the punishment.”

    When the process is finished, prison follows.

  4. Mary Melville says:

    Clearly the ultimate aim is to punish every one who took part in or reported on the demonstrations so participants can expect a knock on the door sometime in the next decade based on out of date postings and footage that some ‘good’ judge will have ruled is crucial to NS and therefore admissible evidence.
    Fasten those seat belts.

  5. Mjrelje says:

    So Paul Chan tested positive on his return to HKG but was still allowed to continue on his way? I only wish we could post memes here. There is a great one doing the rounds. Total fucking hypocrites.

  6. Joe Blow says:

    Another T8 typhoon without rain or wind. I drink to that: cheers.

  7. wmjp says:

    Paul “Recovered Case” Chan
    Another credibilty foot-shooting episode by TPTB. As I understand it the hoi polloi are still kept in hospital for 14 days after testing negative “just in case”.

    Just imagine the embarrassment should any of the grandees now go down with covid. Tee Hee.

  8. Joe Blow says:

    Mary, they are already punishing us, in devious and indirect ways.

    Recently, you all received your 5 k handout Consumption Voucher Scheme as regular citizens. I didn’t, although I am as regular as you are, and that has nothing to do with Sunrasia prune juice. Previously I always got my freebies. Not anymore.

    A “Scheme Secretariat” has decided, without provenance of any kind, that I am not eligible to receive the handout. 6,000,000+ got theirs, but I did not get mine. They invited me to make a representation by mail, which I did (5 pages) to GPO Box 185000. They acknowledged my letter by msm but never bothered to reply in writing. Probably too busy filling out Mark 6 tickets.

  9. HK-Cynic says:

    Is this process or punishment?

    Embrace the power of “and”.

  10. Low Profile says:

    In which chapter of the law does it declare simply believing in any particular ideology (as opposed to promulgating it) illegal?

  11. steve says:

    Nice to see Hemlock being tangibly appalled, even angry. Snark is a viable defense mechanism when kicking against the pricks, but enough is effing enough.

  12. Mark Bradley says:

    @Joe Blow

    Aren’t you a permanent resident? Are they accusing you of leaving HK even though you aren’t? Total bullshit they denied you. Complain to the Office of the Ombudsman.

  13. Joe Blow says:

    @Mark: Yes, I am a PR. 40 years. Thanks for the tip. I hadn’t thought of that.

Comments are closed.