Yes, so? Why doesn't that make sense as a part of a National Security Law?
Yes, so? Why doesn't that make sense as a part of a National Security Law?
Yes, so? Why doesn't that make sense as a part of a National Security Law?
Last time I checked the Judiciary of HK was indeed an independent entity from the HK government. I don't think that has changed.It might make sense in China, but how can it not break the Sino-British Joint Declaration when the this law grant the unelected Hong Kong government unlimited power to arrest anyone and put them in a special court? (where judges are designated by the gov)
Checks and balances are the core of the rule of law and uphold the separation of powers.
Because the definitions of 'succesion', 'subversion' and 'terrorst activities' it's being applied to are so vague and wide-reaching they could be applicable to the most minor form of dissent against the Chinese or HK government, from anyone in the world.
For example, Article 29, section 5 says provoking "hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the Central People's Government or the Government of the Region, which is likely to cause serious consequences" is now a 'terrorist activity' and forbidden by anyone, in any country.
Can you name a law from any other country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction over non-residents of that country?
I studied Ancient Greek so I can read the words but the meaning escapes me.Yes, the National Security Law in my country (Greece) has similar reach. Just in case you know how to read Greek:
Άρθρο 7 - Ποινικός Κώδικας (Νόμος 4619/2019) - Εγκλήματα αλλοδαπών στην αλλοδαπή
1. Οι ελληνικοί ποινικοί νόμοι εφαρμόζονται και κατά αλλοδαπού για πράξη που τελέστηκε στην αλλοδαπή και χαρακτηρίζεται από αυτούς ως κακούργημα ή πλημμέλημα, αν η πράξη αυτή στρέφεται εναντίον Έλληνα πολίτη και είναι αξιόποινη, με τα συγκεκριμένα χαρακτηριστικά της, και κατά τους νόμους της χώρας όπου τελέστηκε ή αν διαπράχθηκε σε πολιτειακά ασύντακτη χώρα. Ως Έλληνας πολίτης για την εφαρμογή του προηγούμενου εδαφίου λογίζεται και το κυοφορούμενο που θα αποκτήσει με τη γέννησή του την ελληνική ιθαγένεια, καθώς και τα νομικά πρόσωπα που εδρεύουν στην ημεδαπή.
Yes, the National Security Law in my country (Greece) has similar reach. Just in case you know how to read Greek:
Άρθρο 7 - Ποινικός Κώδικας (Νόμος 4619/2019) - Εγκλήματα αλλοδαπών στην αλλοδαπή
1. Οι ελληνικοί ποινικοί νόμοι εφαρμόζονται και κατά αλλοδαπού για πράξη που τελέστηκε στην αλλοδαπή και χαρακτηρίζεται από αυτούς ως κακούργημα ή πλημμέλημα, αν η πράξη αυτή στρέφεται εναντίον Έλληνα πολίτη και είναι αξιόποινη, με τα συγκεκριμένα χαρακτηριστικά της, και κατά τους νόμους της χώρας όπου τελέστηκε ή αν διαπράχθηκε σε πολιτειακά ασύντακτη χώρα. Ως Έλληνας πολίτης για την εφαρμογή του προηγούμενου εδαφίου λογίζεται και το κυοφορούμενο που θα αποκτήσει με τη γέννησή του την ελληνική ιθαγένεια, καθώς και τα νομικά πρόσωπα που εδρεύουν στην ημεδαπή.
Last time I checked the Judiciary of HK was indeed an independent entity from the HK government. I don't think that has changed.
Inaccurate translation...
them: the laws
I won't translate it for you, sorry.
Corrected. That doesn't change my other points which still apply. It says Greek criminal law is only applicable to foreigners abroad if it's an act against a Greek citizen, and that act is also criminal under the laws of the country in which it was committed. The new HK law has no such provisions.
No, you are not reading it right (or, better, Google does not translate that adequately). Anyway, you can take my word for it, or do some research on other English-speaking countries of the West. I have a feeling that you will be surprised.
Last time I checked the Judiciary of HK was indeed an independent entity from the HK government. I don't think that has changed.
Or you could just translate it. This is all besides the point anyway. The point is the new HK law is attempting to stifle dissent of the Chinese government by anyone, anywhere in the world. If you don't see that as problematic I'm not sure what to say.
To me article 38 you mentioned makes complete sense. I guess because I love my country, and you are not trusting yours. That's a whole different story, though.
Anyway, as I already mentioned, I live in HK for a good 10 years now. Only time will tell if the law will be abused or not.
As far as I know the agreement reached in the 1980s (1985 I think) for the handover in 1997 was for 50 years.What was broken post UK hand off that required changes? Seemed like we had our cake and eat it too. China got Hong Kong but left them alone for years with their westernized culture, laws, etc. Are HK people asking for more than they had say, 10 years ago?
To me article 38 you mentioned makes complete sense. I guess because I love my country, and you are not trusting yours. That's a whole different story, though.
Anyway, as I already mentioned, I live in HK for a good 10 years now. Only time will tell if the law will be abused or not.