-
Statement on the Convictions of Speech Therapists Union Leaders for Sedition
-
Signing away the freedom of the press
This judgment yet again affirms that with the national security law, all common law or statutory protections of rights and freedoms that we have always known go out the window.
-
Apple Daily trial: expeditious when it suits
Apple Daily executives’ national security trial for “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and sedition is fixed for this December. The judges claimed the trial should be heard expeditiously – but this reeks of hypocrisy.
-
UNHRC Concluding Observations
The UNHRC has strong words for Hong Kong’s failure to comply with international human rights obligations. The concluding observations are concrete and specific, including calling for the National Security Law to be repealed.
-
Joint Submissions to the UN Human Rights Committee
Together with the Hong Kong Human Rights Information Centre, we made submissions to the UNHRC on Hong Kong’s failure to comply w the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
-
Statement on the Arrests of the Trustees of the 612 Humanitarian Fund and Intimidation of Defence Lawyers
Hong Kongers are waiting for the rest of the world to wake up to the fact that the PRC and Hong Kong governments have no regard for their international obligations.
-
Arrests for Sedition – for Applause in Court
The sedition law is again used as a catch-all to crack down on freedom of speech. At first, it caught calls for violence or independence; then critics of the police; then criticism of the judiciary; then criticism of covid policy.
-
Progress in the NSL47 case – at the expense of the defence
The prosecution has been allowed every indulgence, while the defence is pressured by operation of law to agree to the claims against them. More than any other case, the NSL47 illustrates how the Hong Kong judicial system has collapsed wholesale.
-
Five years for inciting secession: just what the prosecution ordered
The Hong Kong courts get to have their cake and eat it: they borrow the support of the most restrictive common law cases, while distinguishing liberal cases by claiming that the constitutional framework is different.