Hong-Kong Protests

[Gatekeeper]

National security law most certainly apply to foreigners, since its chiefly foreigners who are most active in endangering Chinese national security. Chinese nationals working for hostile foreign powers are just expendable useful idiots who will also get caught by the law, but the chief targets are the foreign agents who are the real ringleaders and masterminds.

It would make no sense for national security laws to have no powers against foreign nationals operating on Chinese soil. Indeed, that was why the likes of America were protesting the law, they couldn’t give two shits about the local useful idiots, as evidenced by they booting said idiots out when they went to the American embassy to beg for their masters to save them. But as soon as the new law came into effect and their own people’s arses were on the line, all the riots magically stopped.

On the specific case of Jimmy, well I think China has a clause established especially for traitors like him. Just because you got a foreign passport does not shield you from being treated like any other Chinese National. If ever there is a case where that should apply, Jimmy’s is the one.

That means that he can and should he tried as the traitor that he is.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Great news then, that China can still trial him for treason! Of all the traitors in Hong Kong, I really detest him the most. I first came across him in a BBC documentary in the early 90s when I was a young man. And I thought then, wow what a traitor! He's subsequent antics only reinforced my first assumption of him.

The next question is, can his "country" make demands for his "return"? (I'm still not certain if he is a British or Canadian)?

IMO, it maybe worthy of consideration if the whole judicial system's members free from anyone who is holding dual citizenships.

It is a requirement that in order to be a councillor, one is expected to give up foreign national citizenship. So why not judges?

However, it is probably more difficult to apply in practice. As we keep telling the one from the A-Team when he keeps saying it is the governments fault in appointing this foreign judges.

That's because of the very very small gene pool of judges available with the knowledge of the British judiciary systems. First and for most requirement is one needs to be a barrister. A barrister that has been trained and exposed to the British way of life. (Inevitably leasing to anti-China stance)!

 

[Litebreeze]

Deleted

 

[Litebreeze]

Great news then, that China can still trial him for treason! Of all the traitors in Hong Kong, I really detest him the most. I first came across him in a BBC documentary in the early 90s when I was a young man. And I thought then, wow what a traitor! He's subsequent antics only reinforced my first assumption of him.

The next question is, can his "country" make demands for his "return"? (I'm still not certain if he is a British or Canadian)?



It is a requirement that in order to be a councillor, one is expected to give up foreign national citizenship. So why not judges?

However, it is probably more difficult to apply in practice. As we keep telling the one from the A-Team when he keeps saying it is the governments fault in appointing this foreign judges.

That's because of the very very small gene pool of judges available with the knowledge of the British judiciary systems. First and for most requirement is one needs to be a barrister. A barrister that has been trained and exposed to the British way of life. (Inevitably leasing to anti-China stance)!

Just checked Merriam Webster dictionary for the word 'barrister'. This is what it says:

• : a lawyer in Britain who has the right to argue in higher courts of law

Full Definition​

• : a counsel admitted to plead at the bar and undertake the public trial of causes in an English superior court — compare solicitor

​

Origin​

Middle English barrester, from barre bar + -ster (as in legister lawyer).​

First known use: 15th century​

---
It's clearly stated 'a lawyer in Britain', and 'undertake the public trial of causes in an English superior Court'...

And HK ís neither Britain nor the court is 'English court', why would such barrister thing still exist? Also, the practice first known use: 15th century!

It's time to amend this weird practice, abolish it.

And that weirdo white thingy they put on their head in court, do you think it has anything to do with justice? Can it be just gone?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Just checked Merriam Webster dictionary for the word 'barrister'. This is what it says:

• : a lawyer in Britain who has the right to argue in higher courts of law

Full Definition​

• : a counsel admitted to plead at the bar and undertake the public trial of causes in an English superior court — compare solicitor

​

Origin​

Middle English barrester, from barre bar + -ster (as in legister lawyer).​

First known use: 15th century​

---
It's clearly stated 'a lawyer in Britain', and 'undertake the public trial of causes in an English superior Court'...

And HK ís neither Britain nor the court is 'English court', why would such barrister thing still exist? Also, the practice first known use: 15th century!

It's time to amend this weird practice, abolish it.

And that weirdo white thingy they put on their head in court, do you think it has anything to do with justice? Can it be just gone?

Ah, my dear fellow. When I was a student of economics, one of my study topics is English law. The English law is highly symbolic and full of old customs (Like we took part as students to having lunch with high court judges in one of the four "inns" of the courts in London, to be a complete barrister they have to sit lunch 7 times in one of the 4 inns in London no matter where they are). It's the judiciary is an old profession in the UK. In the old, old days, there's no need to have a formal qualification (How I remembered my tutor told us as students).

But of course, that's not the case in today's world. In fact in Chinese society around the UK (not sure if it's the same the world over). Being a lawyer is one of the three respected profession to be in. "Master shifu" that any respected Chinese mothers would want their child to be in. The 1st is a Doctor. 2nd is Lawyer, and 3rd is a chartered accountant. (I'm often reminded I've only got the third price)! Lol.

Anyway, the reason Britain is able to project it's laws all over the world, including Hong Kong is history, particular their British empire. Their law is mainly law of precedent. So basically, one can find a similar case in the past to project in the current situation. So to go far back, you'd need to go back to old British cases.

As the British empire grew, any prospective lawyer living in the British empire wanting to practice in law from any where in the globe will have to learn British case law! Basically had to study in the UK and read old cases so to familiarise themselves for precedent law.

Now since Hong Kong was part of the British empire, all the wannabe lawyers would have studied British law. They would have no clue about laws from China. And since China promised no change in Hong Kong system for 50 years, then this is how these judges got their bums on the bench! (This is where our other members failed to see, when putting the blame squarely on the CEO of Hong kong-either that or he had perform one of his infamous mind gymnastics again)!

Finally, their head piece is highly symbolic, so please don't take it lightly. It represent their allegiance to the crown, as the head of state. Which is why some of the higher barristers are known as the Queens counsel or silk. So no way there are going to get rid of their head gear.

The head gear is made of horse hair, and cost thousands of pounds and in the old days are full of head lice. Of course, they can afford this expensive head gear. Because each briefs (case) earns them hundreds of thousands of pounds. I remember when I was a trustees of our company's pension, and we got involved in a civil case and had to hire one of this silk. It cost us an arm and leg.

 

[j17wang]

SCMP probably is a counter-propaganda outfit.

After Chinese billionaire Ma Yun bought it years ago, it changed.

Today, it seems like all the writers are women, and most of the articles read like gossip columns that are fact free, but the correct prejudices are constantly emphasized.

The articles are in English, the audience will not read things they want to hear, and not hear the truth.

This kind of hides whatever China is trying to do.

The South China Morning Post, under the ownership of Ma Yun, who is a card carrying Chinese Communist Party member, is being as transparent and it can be, by publishing nothing relevant.

Read the SCMP for China info, China would remain as opaque as ever.

This seems like what classic counter-propaganda is.

If the idea is to sneak up on someone, they get by them, this is the way to do it. Make they fall asleep, enjoying their dream, and by the time they wake up and realize what they were reading was all a dream, it will be too late by then.

SCMP maintains better-quality journalism compared to other outfits in HK. They also put out many pieces that are favourable to china as well as unfavourable. They have been pretty good at telling stories of China's economic and general improvements in living standards, as well as its tech progress.

The world is not binary, and SCMP occupies a medium which is palatable in the west.

 

[Litebreeze]

.. since China promised no change in Hong Kong system for 50 years, then this is how these judges got their bums on the bench! (This is where our other members failed to see, when putting the blame squarely on the CEO of Hong kong-either that or he had perform one of his infamous mind gymnastics again)!

China promised not to change HK law for 50yrs, but that doesn't mean HK can't change their own law right?

Finally, their head piece is highly symbolic, so please don't take it lightly. It represent their allegiance to the crown, as the head of state. Which is why some of the higher barristers are known as the Queens counsel or silk. So no way there are going to get rid of their head gear.

That sounds like those lawyers pay their allegiance to foreign country's head. Isn't this automatically making them traitors?

The head gear is made of horse hair, and cost thousands of pounds and in the old days are full of head lice. Of course, they can afford this expensive head gear. Because each briefs (case) earns them hundreds of thousands of pounds. I remember when I was a trustees of our company's pension, and we got involved in a civil case and had to hire one of this silk. It cost us an arm and leg.

If only symbolic, then it is not a must. That means HK lawyers have choice to not wearing it right? Also the gown, i guess it's also a kind of uniform only.

Why HK isn't designing their own court uniform? Maybe HK should do it now.

 

[Equation]

SCMP maintains better-quality journalism compared to other outfits in HK. They also put out many pieces that are favourable to china as well as unfavourable. They have been pretty good at telling stories of China's economic and general improvements in living standards, as well as its tech progress.

The world is not binary, and SCMP occupies a medium which is palatable in the west.

The world doesn't revolve around the West or for their palate taste of what news narrative they want to see.

 

[Gatekeeper]

China promised not to change HK law for 50yrs, but that doesn't mean HK can't change their own law right?

I think that would be tough to argue. Since Hong Kong is part of China. And Hong Kong can't and shouldn't go against China's policy. (Unlike our friend from the A-Team that thinks it's ok to change policy if there's a change of government)

That sounds like those lawyers pay their allegiance to foreign country's head. Isn't this automatically making them traitors?

It doesn't "sounds like it". It is So! But it doesn't automatically make them traitors, because they are acting within the rules and policies that allows it.

If only symbolic, then it is not a must. That means HK lawyers have choice to not wearing it right? Also the gown, i guess it's also a kind of uniform only.

Why HK isn't designing their own court uniform? Maybe HK should do it now.

My. You have got to understand tradition. Some symbolic tradition are very powerful. In every day our lives, they way we act, the way we treat each others are guided by symbolic and traditions

 

[Litebreeze]

I think that would be tough to argue. Since Hong Kong is part of China. And Hong Kong can't and shouldn't go against China's policy. (Unlike our friend from the A-Team that thinks it's ok to change policy if there's a change of government)

Then, it means HK can change, amend, abolish the HK law without breaking the 1c2s. Sounds about right.

It doesn't "sounds like it". It is So! But it doesn't automatically make them traitors, because they are acting within the rules and policies that allows it.

I did a quick search on the hair thingy, found out the British lawyer and judges also to break the tradition.

"Britain's lawyers and judges are to break with centuries-old tradition and cease wearing white horse-hair wigs in non-criminal cases, the head of the country's judiciary announced on Thursday."​

​

Below article from 2007 wrote about breaking the head thingy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Gatekeeper]

Then, it means HK can change, amend, abolish the HK law without breaking the 1c2s. Sounds about right.

Yes in theory. Everything can be changed including cast iron treaties. (Look at how easy for Trump to go back on the Iran nuclear treaty).

But that's not something any sane nation do. Only insane or desperate countries does that. So at the moment, there's no need for China or Hong Kong to change that policy. Beside we are half way through the "50 years business". And the existing laws is ample to deal with it. Ok you will get one or two individual cases slip by. But that's a good price to pay. And it's worth paying. Don't forget the U.S. backed riots are designed to forced China to make that change, so the U.S. and its allies can point their fingers at China and ganged up and sanctioned and maybe even start a hot war over it.

I did a quick search on the hair thingy, found out the British lawyer and judges also to break the tradition.

"Britain's lawyers and judges are to break with centuries-old tradition and cease wearing white horse-hair wigs in non-criminal cases, the head of the country's judiciary announced on Thursday."Below article from 2007 wrote about breaking the head thingy.

Yes, tradition and customs, and with it the symbolism can change. (But it is rare). You change things at your own perils.

However, notice this small change back in 2007 was out of necessity. And it only restricted to civil cases. Not CRIMINAL cases. I can't quite remember the rationale for this change. I'm sure you can Google it and find out.