‘Courts respect freedom of expression’ unless you’re wearing a T-shirt with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX written on it.
The Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 takes place. Top legal and judicial officials insist, as usual, that all is fine with rule of law. First, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung…
…the top judge said the convictions of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai and his companies in a recent national security trial had drawn international attention and some critical responses amid geopolitical tensions.
Cheung said few court decisions pleased everyone and that openness to scrutiny was among the strengths of the city’s justice system.
“A comment or a criticism is only as meaningful as it is informed,” he said.
“Any serious comment or disagreement intended to be taken seriously must be grounded in a careful reading of the judgement and a sincere effort to understand the court’s reasoning.”
Does this also apply to comments supporting the court’s guilty verdict in the case of Jimmy Lai? Most of the ones I read claimed that the judgement was sound because it ran for 855 pages.
Cheung stressed that laws in Hong Kong guaranteed the independence and impartiality of courts.
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam…
…refuted what he called “unfounded accusations” against the judiciary, stressing the need to uphold the rule of law and public trust and confidence in the legal system.
…Lam acknowledged that judgements in “highly charged” national security cases had sparked criticism, including what he described as false allegations used to advocate for unlawful sanctions against judges or to pressure overseas non-permanent judges to resign.
…Such criticism, Lam warned, risks eroding trust in Hong Kong’s judicial system and the rule of law – foundations he called critical to the city’s status as an international hub.
The justice minister made it clear defendants were treated fairly in judicial proceedings.
“Some might opine that the proceedings have taken a long time. I would say the time was well spent and necessary to ensure that there was a fair trial to all parties concerned,” he added.
…Addressing external pressure, Lam noted the judiciary has repeatedly stated that judges exercise power independently and free from interference, in line with their judicial oath.
“There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these statements,” he said.
If these statements are self-evident and true, why do he and other officials feel such a need to keep repeating them?
In case you haven’t seen it – Donald Trump’s recent letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. So embarrassingly unhinged that many people initially refused to believe it was authentic. Seems it’s real.
These so called “top legal and judicial officials” are absolute clowns.
We already had an ex-HK overseas judge make their comments on the irregularities of the HK 47 trial where a constitutional function that was in the Basic Law (rejecting a govt budget) was made a crime if combined with people Beijing doesn’t like.
Did we not have an ex HK overseas judge from UK state that the rule of law in HK was profoundly compromised?
No matter how many times these clowns parrot that the judiciary is independent, these statements come off as completely hollow compared to an ex judge speaking freely.
But it’s not like the world overseas is looking much better. The Trump letter showcases authoritarianism is on the rise globally in the 2020s.
The level of self-delusion that minions of an authoritarian system have to practice is so embarrassingly high that one must doubt their sanity.
Re Trump’s rant, one could equally ask what gives the descendants of white Europeans “right of ownership” to the United States of America? It’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago (and later they stole a big chunk from Mexico). It’s been obvious to everyone but the Republican Party for some time that Trump has declined from unorthodox to completely insane.
Q: Can Greenland, Denmark or the EU members of NATO be relied upon to protect US & NATO security interests against Russian & Chinese aggression in the Arctic, both now & in the future?
A: No.
When the Europeans finish wetting their pants and engage the Trump administration constructively on how to solve that problem, the negotiations will begin.
Until then, Mr Trump will continue to increase the pressure, at will.
Mr Trump is not going to “invade” Greenland any more than I am.
Grow up, FFS.
HKFP Headline: “Calls to free pro-democracy tycoon Jimmy Lai go against rule of law, says Hong Kong’s top judge”
All doubts that the Chief Justice is a horse’s arse have been removed.
@Brent Sowercroft:
Q: Can the US station as many troops as they like in Greenland legally and right now to protect US & NATO security interests against Russian & Chinese aggression in the Arctic, both now & in the future?
A: Yes. The US used to have 18,000-20,000 troops in Greenland in 18 bases, they have reduced that number unilaterally to 150 troops and a single base. Denmark is obliged by a 2004 treaty to accept any request by the US to add military personnel and bases (Greenland & Denmark do require notice).
https://youtu.be/XcZFLiDSeBs?si=tTftdhKGwrXMG8GZ&t=305
Q: Would invading Greenland be the end of NATO?
A: Yes. There’s no way NATO’s pivotal Article 5 can survive that, and without Article 5 being guaranteed, there is no point in NATO.
Q: Would the end of NATO protect US & NATO security interests against Russian & Chinese aggression in the Arctic and or Pacific, both now & in the future?
A: No. Quite the opposite.
Q: Is Trump acting like an unhinged child or someone with dementia?
A: Yes.
Q: Is Trump a Russian asset?
A: Yes. Even if not literally, he is functionally.
“Mr Trump is not going to “invade” Greenland any more than I am.”
You talk as though this is a controversy/crisis that can be managed within the parameters of normal international political negotiations. I live in exile in the US and can assure you that it’s not. This is a narcissistic, insatiably greedy bully who’s gone full-on fascist while also in steep mental decline. He ‘s still terrified of the Epstein files. He means to end NATO, which leads to the collapse of the US economy at the least, and maybe everyone’s (yes, even China). And he has nukes. If your hair isn’t on fire yet, light it up yourself.
“Can Greenland, Denmark or the EU members of NATO be relied upon to protect US & NATO security interests against Russian & Chinese aggression in the Arctic, both now & in the future?”
Seems to have been working pretty well for 80 years now.
That Eddie Chu was not allowed to walk out of the gates at Stanley having served his term and ostensibly a free citizen demonstrates where we stand re rule of law.
@Thick
Your numbers are wrong. The highest number of U.S. troops stationed on Greenland was 6,000 at the height of the Cold War. Now that Russia & China are threatening the North Atlantic, an increased U.S. military may be required to protect NATO countries. Also, the mooted Golden Dome defence system will require installations on Greenland. Also, the mineral deposits on Greenland are of strategic value and must be protected. The U.S. president is seeking unfettered access to Greenland to achieve all these objectives without having to ask permission of Denmark or the residents of Greenland every time they introduce a new piece of equipment onto the territory. This can all be negotiated, once the Europeans stop wetting their pants.
@steve
TDS is a verified mental illness and you’ve got it bad. Seek help.
@Chinese Netizen
In case you hadn’t noticed, the world has changed a lot during the past 80 years. The NATO alliance is no longer working for its largest, most powerful member, and changes are required. Greenland is one of those changes. Bitch about it all you want, but change is coming.
After 11 years of Mr Trump, can all of you not see that he is preparing the groundwork for negotiations? Making maximum demands before settling for less? Read “The Art of the Deal”. It’s right there on the printed page. This is not a new approach for Mr Trump, but his enemies fall for it almost every time.
@all of you
“His critics take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally”. – Saleno Zito, 2015
True then, still true today. Have you learned nothing?
“Bitch about it all you want, but change is coming.”
See that’s what’s nice about US hegemony. You can freely use speech to disagree or criticise without worrying about being thrown in prison over it. You can even put it on a T shirt.
@Brent
1) Numbers: I was going off what Per Stig Møller, the last Danish Foreign Minister to sign a treaty with the US about Greenland, said — but what would he know about US troops and bases in Greenland, right?
Do your figures come from the administration that’s promising 500%, 600% and 1,500% reductions in drug prices, by any chance?
2) Golden Dome: bases or systems can be placed in Greenland (as star wars before it was) whenever you like, as per the treaty Per Stig Møller signed in 2004. So that’s just utter bullshit. Also — Newsflash — Golden Dome is guaranteed not going to happen. It’d be orders of magnitude more expensive than Star Wars would have been (had the money not run out) and has already been made obsolete by drones: the US will never be able to have the requisite magazine depth.
3) Greenland’s mineral deposits can be defended — and aren’t exactly in danger of being removed anytime soon (it’s rather tricky to do, which is why they aren’t being mined currently). So that’s just utter bullshit as well.
4) It won’t get negotiated. The Greenlanders have already — quite rightly — told the US to get stuffed. Denmark’s told Trump this. And Trump’s currently looking either senile or syphilitic or both, so he’s in no state to make the sort of miracle deal required.
So there’s no realistic way you get it without losing NATO, and actually invading which means the US is on it’s own. And while US armed forces are definitely swish, if they lose most of their bases around the world, that’s a logistics overreach that they cannot overcome with just 11 carriers and an aging fleet of Arleigh Burkes and Hazard Perrys. And try running an overseas military presence or world economy without Maersk shipping your shit.
Not to mention occupying Greenland is going to be a costly pain in the arse for the US — the cakewalks that were Afghanistan & Iraq spring to mind although greenland will naturally be a lot more expensive.
5) On the Trumpsplaining (or is it shitewashing?) — no, he’s not got a plan, he isn’t running 4d chess, there’s no bloody nuance, he’s not exaggerating, he has no idea how to negotiate international treaties. He just comes up with some syphilitic brain fart, and then the ineffectual collection of podcasters, b-list daytime TV presenters, spineless sycophants, lunatics and simpletons that he’s put in cabinet try to implement the brain fart to the best of their abilities which turns out to always be the most stupid and corrupt way possible, because the first thing those grifters gonna do is grift.
Or as some wag put it recently:
“Modern American politics consists of experts patiently explaining why something insane that people are talking about could never happen, followed by that exact thing happening.”
So I reckon you have take him both literally and seriously: lad’s a nutbag with no idea what he’s doing or any of the implications. The only thing staying his hand from his stupid rhetoric becoming reality is the staggering ineptitude of his clown car administration and the few dedicated adults left in the government and military trying to keep the country on the rails while the gibbering monkey tries his hardest to crash the train.
And I’m frankly tired of the chorus of idiots trying to convince us that some naked cockwomble chewing crayons is an Emperor in the finest stately robes. He’s not the Messiah, he’s just a very stupid brat.
Brent: You’ve got Trump Derangement Syndrome exactly backwards. The victims of this usually fatal malady are those who (more or less) sincerely believe that FDT has any goals beyond 1) staying out of prison or evading a comparable disgrace, and 2) accumulating as much personal wealth as is humanly possible. To that end, he is constitutionally driven to dominate every person, corporation, nation, or institution with whom or which he comes into contact. Also, insofar as he has any politics at all, he is reflexively a fascist—though not dogmatically or cognitively so, as he is a functional illiterate who hasn’t strung two coherent thoughts together in his life that didn’t relate to his predatory reptile goals.
So: Sufferers of TDS believe that they are witnessing actual statecraft, negotiation, and governance, while what most of the world’s population sees is either a poopy drawers four year old or a rapidly decompensating, wildly racist, elderly man, both of whom somehow have a global stage, nuclear weapons, and a lifetime of resentment and primitive rage.
So go ahead and wank off with your Henry Kissinger fantasies of well-appointed conference rooms in glamorous, distant capitals, to which you were zoomed by private jet. Remember, though, that Kissinger was a war criminal who should have died in prison. As should FDT and his democracy-shredding enablers. This level of justice hardly ever happens, but we have to try.
As for your hypothetical scenario for the reordering of the world order, with Greenland as a linchpin (Greenland!): Yeah, and monkeys are gonna fly out of my butt. A commenter above provided a more detailed critique. Thanks for that.
NATO Article 5.
‘At its core is the principle of collective security and the belief that an attack on one member is an attack against all, as enshrined in Article 5 of the treaty. Article 5 has been invoked only once – in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US in 2001’
– So it’s been used once and it was invoked by the USA and all the NATO members went to the US Aid – Denmark lost more people per capita than the other members during the subsequent conflict
Thanks @steve and other friends.
Mr. Trump has secured all the concessions he wanted on Greenland sovereignty and he didn’t give up a thing.
The Orange Man is such a fool!
Another victory for European diplomacy. Trebles all around!
@Load Toad
Military deaths in Afghanistan & Iraq:
Denmark – 52
UK – 650
USA – 7,000
Ask any one of the mothers of any one of those dead soldiers whether her grief was lessened or assuaged by per capita statistics.
Brent: Concessions? I guess you could read his TACO Tuesday climb down that way. But you’d just be enjoying your delusion.
@Brent
Ooo! Do tell! Exactly what concessions on Greenland sovereignty did he secure?
@steve
@Thick
In addition to getting the European countries in NATO to finally get off their asses and take some responsibility for protecting Greenland against Chinese & Russian depredations, Mr. Trump has also secured complete, unfettered U.S. sovereignty over any land it chooses to site military bases or commercial enterprises (mining) on Greenland, without having to ask for permission.
It’s better than buying the whole of the God-forsaken, ice-covered wilderness, and it’s core to U.S. security requirement. He didn’t want Greenland’s fisheries. He got the local sovereignty he needed in a single meeting at Davos because he wasn’t afraid of hurting people’s tender feelings for a few weeks.
When will his detractors ever learn? That’s always how he negotiates.
@Brent
Top tip: Drinking the KoolAid is bad even if you live in Trumpton, not Jonestown.
1) The current influx of NATO troops are — ironically — primarily in Greenland defending it from the actual immediate threat of depredations from the US, not the rather more hypothetical threats from Russia (who can’t even pull off invading Ukraine) & the currently non-existent threat from China (they’re busy working out how to invade Taiwan once the US relationship with NATO is weak enough that they’re assured they will only have to deal with Japan and less likely, the US).
2) He has secured no US local sovereignty in Greenland at all, at all. Greenland and Denmark specifically pointed out that such a demand was a hard “no” from them. They reiterated and clarified this stance after Bullshitler announced that he had got such a deal from NATO. NATO also disavowed any knowledge of such a sovereignty deal.
3) He wasn’t allowed to buy Greenland by Greenland or Denmark either.
4) Essentially he has secured nothing that wasn’t already in the existing 2004 treaty (that wasn’t under threat or renegotiation). And this nothing burger has only cost him a further loss of allegiance from Canada, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland, France, Italy, and all of Project 2025’s little right wing party projects in Europe.
The EU is talking of hitting the US with trade sanctions designed for China and the Canucks have been reconsidering their current F-35 deal in favour of Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen since the first round of tariffs and Trump’s threat of invasion. The US looks to be losing out on 72 F-35As ($7.2bn) and all the cash and jobs for after sales service (maintenance is about $42,000 per aircraft per hour). And even his hardcore cheerleaders — the fascists in the AfD, National Rally, and Reform — are all suddenly deeply embarrassed to be linked to him.
China is no doubt emboldened. Russia probably would be too, but they currently don’t have enough of a military to make anything of this advantage.
Frankly I don’t see a single gain or upside. And by his own admission, the deluded cockwomble can’t even negotiate his way around a table.