Attempting to cast journalism (even merely quoting dissenters’ views) as a crime, the prosecution in the Stand News trial is asking some desperate-sounding questions…
Lead prosecutor Laura Ng said the message conveyed by the profile of [pan-dem] Fergus Leung was that the national security law was suppressing political participation, adding that the interviewee’s claims about the law in the article were often “groundless.”
…Ng argued that the phrase [‘liberate Hong Kong’] was not outlawed in August 2020 when the article [in which Leung said he would be arrested for saying it] was published … “…His claim was groundless,” she said.
…Ng said she was keen to understand the circumstances in which Chung would take down an article out of national security concerns. She also asked him several hypothetical questions, including whether Chung would publish a commentary calling the Nazi uniform “stylish” if he was the editor in a European news outlet during World War II.
…In response to another question on whether he would conduct a feature interview with Osama Bin Laden after the September 11 attack in New York, Chung said a news editor should never turn down an interview with a political figure of such importance. However, some precautionary measures must be made beforehand, he added.
“Don’t you see it would endanger national security? What if some Americans think the country deserves to be bombed after hearing his speech?” Ng asked.
I’d have thought the judge would step in and tell her to keep the questions relevant (or stop displaying her ignorance of journalism) – but what do I know?
The government plans a law formalizing Beijing’s ‘interpretation’ effectively giving the Chief Executive authority to bar (or not bar) overseas lawyers from NatSec cases…
The DoJ … proposed that the certificate apply to all national security cases no matter if it is civil or criminal or otherwise, including offenses under the national security law, or other offenses endangering national security.
“The legislative proposal will not have adverse implications on the rule of law, the court’s independent judicial power as guaranteed by the Basic Law, and the parties’ right to choose their legal representation and the right to a fair trial,” it said.
With a straight face.
Jimmy Lai is still trying to get round the original interpretation.
“all national security cases no matter if it is civil or criminal or otherwise”. This is the first I’ve heard of the NSL also applying to civil cases – and that “otherwise” is ominous.
I’d have thought the judge would step in and tell her to keep the questions relevant (or stop displaying her ignorance of journalism)
Wait for the verdict. All Ng’s idiocies will be quoted in support of the decision of guilty.
Not only were Nazi uniforms stylish…they were Faaaaabulous!!!
@Low Profle
NSL applies to whatever they want; whenever they want.
That’s the point of it.
Fergus Leung is an extremely odd pick for the prosecution to make as an example of how claims that the national security law was suppressing political participation were “groundless”: HKSARG is kinda arguing against themselves there.
On 30 July — just before the article — he was disqualified from running as a candidate for LegCo on NSL grounds: proof positive that the NSL had already suppressed his political participation (along with many other opposition figures).
He was subsequently arrested in January 2021, under the NSL, for the now allegedly “subversive” act of taking part in an open poll in July 2020 to decide on party candidates for election to LegCo, which sounds a lot like grounds for saying the NSL is suppressing not only Fergus’ political participation, but that of opposition parties and the general public as well.
After his arrest for that political participation, on April 30th, once he was formally charged under the NSL, he resigned as a district councillor, which again is proof that the NSL was suppressing his political participation.
And he’s the government’s best example of how the NSL is definitely not suppressing political participation?!?
Elena Gorokhova really nailed it with her observation of communist-run society:
“The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying but they keep lying anyway, and we keep pretending to believe them.”