Hong Kong under British rule was no beacon of liberal democracy, but it may just about be possible to argue that that was a different time.
In this time, if British judges cannot remain on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal because they cannot enforce the National Security Law, then British judges must also be refusing, or preparing to refuse, to enforce the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act, the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Elections Bill, the Online Safety Bill, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Hong Kong would be better off without judges who did not make that stand, but lawyer Peers who had been valiant in opposition to those pieces of legislation might with credibility volunteer to replace those judges, and not only in Hong Kong.
They'll so those were Acts of an elected Parliament.
ReplyDeleteNothing in Hong Kong has ever been that, and they have enforced the laws there up to now.
DeleteWho ever said Hong Kong was democratic before? It’s liberty, not democracy, that was the great legacy of the British Empire and which is being crushed there now.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of the press, free association, habeas corpus and jury trial and an independent judiciary were always far more important than democracy, which can often be used to undermine all these freedoms.
Hong Kong never had those, either.
Delete