Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung continue to argue for acquittal in their subversion trial…
Defence counsel Erik Shum, representing Lee, told the court on Wednesday that the prosecution must establish that calling for an end to one-party rule is tantamount to toppling or undermining the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) leadership.
For 30 years, the Alliance’s call for ending one-party rule was intertwined with its advocacy for democratisation in China, Shum said, adding that China could become a democracy in the future through further constitutional amendment.
“Even if the prosecution can prove that ending one-party rule means ending the CCP’s leadership, it does not automatically become overthrowing or undermining its leadership,” he said. “This is a quantum leap.”
He also argued that China’s top state organs, including the National People’s Congress, could still operate without the CCP’s leadership.
…Chow, a barrister representing herself in the trial, argued that the court must consider human rights protections when reviewing whether the Alliance had incited others to commit subversion.
The Alliance’s slogans fell within a Chinese citizen’s legitimate demand for choosing the country’s leadership, she told the court.
“This is a goal which every Chinese national has the right to pursue,” she said. “The prosecution is trying to make this goal an unspeakable, unthinkable, and forbidden one, but they cannot provide any legal basis.”
In response, prosecutor Ned Lai argued that even a future constitutional amendment cannot change China’s fundamental socialist system under the CCP’s leadership.
How can an abstract idea be – as Chow puts it – ‘unspeakable, unthinkable, and forbidden’? How can merely calling for a change in the constitution be illegal?
Valiant Immigration Dept sleuths arrest 20 people in a crackdown on (presumably Filipino or Indonesian) foreign domestic helpers. Among them are…
…two domestic workers and one visitor … in Central during [a] sweep of footbridges and tunnels on Sunday, a day when most domestic workers are on their weekly day off.
Fu Chit-ho, a senior immigration officer, said that the three were suspected of setting up cardboard stalls or tents to provide massages and manicure services to other domestic workers, Ming Pao reported.
Sweep of footbridges and tunnels keeps city safe from cardboard stall menace! They were charging HK$50, and the customers would be other helpers – a sight familiar to anyone who lives in Hong Kong. Now the taxpayer pays for their incarceration, their employers are massively inconvenienced – and the women themselves subject to a harrowing experience presumably culminating in deportation. Meanwhile, feel free to park your SUV on a pedestrian crossing anytime you want.
In a similar absurd vein, police arrest a man for using an electric bike – perfectly normal and legal in most cities in the world…
Officers on patrol spotted the man riding an electric mobile tool on a road and stopped him for inspection. Following a preliminary investigation, the man was arrested on four charges: “driving an unregistered vehicle,” “driving without a valid driving license,” “using a vehicle without third-party insurance,” and “riding without an approved protective helmet.”
…Police reiterated that electric mobile tools are not suitable for use on roads, pavements, or cycle tracks alongside regular vehicles…
Cheung Chau has no cars or trucks.
Surprised the po po didn’t comment about how arresting manicurists and masseuses safeguards national security!
So a single e-bike crackdown on Cheung Chau but nothing about the multitude of e-bike bikes operating in the New Territories? In Tuen Mun & Sheung Shui(or even TST) for example one only needs to stand by the roadside for 2 minutes to spot one.
The obvious solution is to legislate for them and then regulate and police as is done elsewhere. However I fear that this may take initiative on the part of our intellectually challenged Legco representatives who cannot even produce legislation on bus seat belt wearing where the proposed fine is 10 times more than that for running a red light in your 2 tonne SUV.
Let’s see what the jury decides. Oh, wait…
If the e-tooler had levitated the bike for a few seconds he could have claimed to be a proponent of the low-altitude economy in line with govt policy.
@ Probably
You are too kind to our intellectually challenged Legco representatives to suggest that they actively “produce legislation”.
Pass the rubber stamp, please!
@Two-wheeler
“You are too kind to our intellectually challenged Legco representatives to suggest that they actively “produce legislation”.”
Indeed, it’s the government that introduces bills. Lawmakers aren’t trusted enough to do that and can only table amendments and do readings.
“…Police reiterated that electric mobile tools are not suitable for use on roads, pavements, or cycle tracks alongside regular vehicles…” Well, that pretty much rules out using them anywhere, so why am I seeing them all over the place?
Who invented the stupid description “electric mobile tools”, anyway? And where do electric wheelchairs fit into this picture? Are they, too, unsuitable for use anywhere a user may reasonably need to go?
I think that the chap on Cheung Chau must have been jolly unlucky. Perhaps the fuzz who did him needed a bit of excitement on an otherwise slow law enforcement day.
The last time I was in Cheung Chau, there were plenty of these “electric mobile tools” whizzing about, particularly the three wheeled variety. They are silent and can go surprisingly fast, but the cops don’t usually give a shit.