[ad_1]
Killing all the judges first appears to be retired final appellate judge Henry Litton’s solution to Hong Kong’s ills.
Yet his perspective is an integral part of what he describes as Beijing’s ongoing resurrection of its central role as the “undisputed economic and cultural center of the world.”
While other civilizations might well disagree with this historical assessment, it makes Henry Litton’s point of view very clear.
To dispel any lingering doubts, how, in the name of all that is sacred, can you say, without the words curdling in your mouth, that “Beijing has not deviated from the course set for Hong Kong.”
I must make sure I never give him the helm of my ship.
Aside from the pre-digested propagandist verbiage, the South China Morning Post article only evidenced disconcerting mental confusion.
The basic proposition is that Hong Kong judges have lost the trust of the central government and that, according to the argument, this is the reason why the selection of judges to listen to national security laws will be made by the executive director and not, as established in article 88 on the recommendation of an independent commission.
How silly of me, I thought it was to give effect to Beijing’s wish list that our judges be held accountable to the Administration and by such a device, subject to central government supervision.
It is no wonder that all the communist lawyers in Hong Kong are quick to shout that there is no such thing as a separation of powers in Hong Kong.
What about the statement that the Hong Kong judiciary is steeped in “dark norms and values from abroad” that are “totally inappropriate for Hong Kong’s circumstances”?
Is the independent judiciary, so envied by foreign jurisdictions, one of these dark norms?
As with many other things in his insidious spiel, none of these “dark norms or values from abroad” is identified. Remember CY Leung’s claim that foreign interests were behind the local umbrella movement, a product of the self-deceptive whim of its proponents.
Indeed, it would be impossible to identify such aberrant norms or values while recognizing, as the Basic Law unequivocally does, that Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction.
Like an accomplished verbal illusionist, legal case bouquets are created out of thin air; thrown into the air, as they are called “The Zuhai Bridge Case,” “The Congo Sovereignty Case,” the Legco Swearing-In Case, “and” The West Kowloon Rail Terminal Case. “
But just as it is expected to hear what specific aspect of these cases raises so much fury, the article turns to its central theme, that the courts have subordinated the common good to the claims of personal law. “The common good” is not defined.
If not the courts, who will enforce the individual’s right against the state?
It is deeply saddened that a man who sincerely believes in what he says comes up with a state of affairs that resonates with Joseph Kafka’s interpretation of a man on trial for the crime of not accepting inherent guilt in being human.
In his accusation to the Hong Kong judiciary, he claims that they have helped create the social environment that leads, as he himself puts it, “to the chaos that has occurred in the streets in recent years.”
But as any defender knows, a submission that lacks evidential substance falls on deaf ears.
Of the four legal branches, only the case of the sovereignty of the Congo involves speeches that, although in a minority, question the jurisprudential integrity of the central government’s monopoly of interpretation.
The dissenting speeches were a good legal argument, too long to be repeated briefly here, but one that needed to be articulated, on how to interpret the law about who interprets what.
The Basic Law is often referred to as Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. But her articles address a much broader range of topics than just constitutional issues, such as the hierarchical anatomy of the Special Administrative Region.
Article 33 establishes that all citizens are equal before the law and that the State will respect and protect human rights.
Article 36 establishes that personal freedom will not be violated.
That being the case, what can be done about the claim that “every time judges apply the Basic Law, they potentially dent Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy because,” so the argument goes, “the ultimate power of interpretation resides with Beijing ”.
The argument simply does not add up, or as lawyers say, it is a non sequitur unless, that is, it is intended to mean that ‘equality before the law’ and ‘freedom’ can only be interpreted by Beijing.
The accusation that Hong Kong lawyers have “developed an alarming blindness to the realities on the ground” recalls visions of armed police riot squads violently and gratuitously beating young people in shorts and T-shirts, while a voiceover Carrie Lam says there has been no abuse of police powers.
In an almost paranoid attack on Hong Kong lawyers, the claim is that the courts have “allowed lawyers to play forensic games, using articles of the Basic Law as weapons to attack government institutions.”
Henry Litton’s antipathy towards the judicial review process of administrative decisions is well known.
The Judicial Review, or JR, is the only effective means by which the legitimacy of the government’s actions and decisions can be questioned.
The obstacles that must be overcome for a JR to be successful are set very high and involve a first stage of obtaining the license to apply, in which a large number of such applications fall.
Generally speaking, an applicant must show that there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice, or that the decision is one that no upright, duly informed decision-maker could have reached, proof that borders on showing that he was mad.
JR is the most important means of redress against abuse of power even in a liberal democracy like the UK, where administrations are accountable to parliament.
How much more important then, in a jurisdiction where the legislative council is manipulated to cast a majority aside; Who else can hold the administration to account?
The article asks the rhetorical question “Is the common law system in Hong Kong adequate?”
This withering foam of poison against the Hong Kong judiciary is singularly void of any substance that proves it is not.
That a once excellent judicial mind lends itself to this unworthy political platform is cause for anger, sadness and alarm.
— Contact us in [email protected]
