Lots of open (and from CCP’s viewpoint, apparently coordinated) protest and defiance in China this weekend. The censors are too overworked to delete all the videos on social media. The consensus seems to be that this will be suppressed or smoothed over one way or another, and not destabilize the government. Unless rebellious elites in the power structure decide to leverage the disaffection as a way to undermine the leadership – which is probably unlikely, given all the purges and concentration of power over the last 10 years.
Good thread on what has/has not been happening in Urumqi as the Uighur/Han populations protest Covid regimes.
Main issue is how Beijing extricates itself from its zero-Covid policy from now on – interesting thread here.
This raises the possibility of a faster return to normal in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, if you have family visiting – Tripperhead, tireless chronicler of Hong Kong’s Covid regulations, distills thousands of words of impenetrable government jargon into a clear, plain-language guide for anyone bold enough to travel to the city. It’s still pretty daunting.
On other matters…
The Vatican is upset that Beijing has broken a deal on appointing Bishops. Say three Hail Marys and promise not to do it again. Thread proposing that two sides are testing each other.
It’s not too soon for a preliminary round-up of 2022 in Hong Kong. (Was the hamster massacre in the last 11 months? Seems like ancient history. I guess it is in hamster years.)
The Court of Final Appeal will announce its decision today on whether to let Timothy Owen KC represent Jimmy Lai. One pro-Beijing figure is muttering about an ‘interpretation’ to overturn the court if it confirms earlier rulings that overseas counsel should be permitted (though other loyalists quoted have different opinions). Whichever way they decide, the judges are going to outrage someone.
Isn’t that sensationalist, inflammatory spread on The Standard, in itself, a sort of violation of NatSec by undermining love for the Motherland?
What Ip means when she says: “No matter how specialized Owen is in common and criminal law, they are different from national security law, plus he is not Chinese and won’t understand the importance of safeguarding national security,” any foreign lawyer won’t understand the inevitability of a conviction.
@Boris
Exactly.
‘Safeguarding national security’ is a noble aim, Ms Ip and all others of your persuasion, but I’d be casting my eyes north under unfolding circumstances rather than opine about the legal credentials of one man in one court case in Hong Kong.
I am guessing that the CCP will not give up the inroads that they have made into freedoms during the COVID lockdowns , so the ‘normal’ which HK is returning to will be more of a Shenzhen-lite?
Lee has asked for a “reinterpretation”.
That Tripperhead link is helpful but makes a small but could be important to know error for those that still get caught maskless
For the face nappy exemptions, It’s not . the Ordinance is “if the exercise is strenuous for you” (paraphrase)
“This is strenuous for me” <== key message to go for
I have risked maskless in public for approaching two months now and won't go back. I've been stopped twice by Plod and both times the "I am exercising and it's strenuous for me" worked instantly. But, to add, both times I showed my possession of one of the pointless face nappies in my hand.