//https://www.wsj.com/articles/honoring-jimmy-lai-11624248153
OPINION REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Honoring Jimmy Lai
In Hong Kong, a valiant attempt to keep publishing the truth.
By The Editorial Board
June 21, 2021 12:02 am ET
The Committee to Protect Journalists was founded 40 years ago to fight for journalists who are “attacked, imprisoned or killed.” In this spirit, the CPJ on Monday announced it is honoring Hong Kong’s Jimmy Lai with its 2021 Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award. Mr. Lai, the founder, owner and contributor to the Apple Daily newspaper, won’t be able to accept the award in person because he sits in prison in Hong Kong.
The CPJ honor comes after another police raid on the newsroom last week. Five Apple Daily execs were arrested, and two—editor-in-chief Ryan Law and chief executive officer Cheung Kim-hung —were charged under the new national security law and thus denied bail. The CPJ notes that Mr. Lai “fights for the right of his Apple News organization to publish freely, even as China and its backers in Hong Kong use every tool to quash them.”
The grim news is that those who want Apple silenced may be succeeding. We have learned that Apple may be only days away from stopping its presses. This itself is a lesson in freedom. Instead of directly censoring the publication, Hong Kong authorities, backed by China, have targeted the lifeblood of any news organization, its business operations.
The lesson of Apple is that freedom of the press doesn’t exist in the abstract. It depends on property rights. By freezing Apple’s corporate accounts, by stopping Mr. Lai from voting his shares (he holds 72% of the company), and by scaring people from advertising in Apple or doing business with it, Hong Kong has been trying to deny the paper the wherewithal to continue. Lenin understood this more than a century ago, recommending that Communists control newsprint and advertising to bring the press to heel.
There’s a warning here for other Hong Kong business enterprises that may not think they have a stake in what happens to Mr. Lai or Apple. Hong Kong authorities are stealing Mr. Lai’s company because they don’t like his political views—and they have done it by police orders, without due process or judicial review. If they can do it to his company, does anyone really believe they won’t do it to a bank or tech company that offends China?
The men and women at Apple have been making a valiant stand to keep publishing despite the risk of arrest and imprisonment. They are an example of real journalistic courage that should educate an American media that likes to play up its bravery in challenging the government while living under the protection of the First Amendment and a free society. Mr. Lai and his journalists have put their freedom at risk to challenge a real tyranny.
The CPJ award is richly deserved, and it should put a global spotlight on what is happening to Mr. Lai and Apple. As China’s Communist Party seeks to expand its political control over critics world-wide, often with the acquiescence of Hollywood and U.S. tech companies, Jimmy Lai speaks for everyone fighting for the cause of liberty.//
「committee for freedom in hong kong」的推薦目錄:
- 關於committee for freedom in hong kong 在 Fernando Chiu-hung Cheung 張超雄 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於committee for freedom in hong kong 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於committee for freedom in hong kong 在 Kristie Lu Stout Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於committee for freedom in hong kong 在 The Committee For Freedom in Hong Kong ... - Facebook 的評價
- 關於committee for freedom in hong kong 在 Hong Kong: Press Freedom and the persecution of Jimmy Lai 的評價
committee for freedom in hong kong 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的精選貼文
我在《橙新聞》最新的英文評論文章😎😎😎
https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…
Opinion | US Secretary of State is violating the Law of Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong
HK Current
20th of October 2020
By Athena Kung
On 14th of October 2020 [US time], a report was released by the United States (hereinafter refer to as "the US") Secretary of State (hereinafter referred to as "the said Report") under the so-called "Hong Kong Autonomy Act". During recent months, the US Government has been increasingly blatant in its interference in Hong Kong's affairs. Its petty actions included passing successive laws, pronouncing an executive order and imposing 'sanctions' against HKSAR Government's officials under the pretext of so-called "human rights", "democracy" and "autonomy".
In short, the accusations against the HKSAR Government contained in the said Report are all groundless, unwarranted and irresponsible. All the comments in the said Report are really smearing and demonising The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "National Security Law"). Being the highest organ of state power, the National People's Congress (hereinafter referred to as "the NPC") has lawfully authorized the Standing Committee of the NPC (hereinafter referred to as "the SCNPC") to formulate relevant laws on establishing the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the HKSAR to safeguard the national security. Thus, the enactment of the National Security Law on 30th of June 2020 by the SCNPC is both lawful and constitutional.
Before the implementation of the National Security Law, due to the fear towards the violence exercised by the rioters who supported HK independence, majority of the HK citizens did not dare to voice out their opinions whenever their views was against that of the rioters. Only the riots were able to enjoy the freedom of speech during the whole period of Black Power Anti-government Movement. However, since the National Security Law has come into effect, stability can be restored in the HKSAR step by step, whereas once again, HK citizens are able to enjoy their basic rights and freedoms in accordance with the law as before. All along, the US Government has embellished the violence and illegal acts exercised by the rioters who are wrongfully beautified as democracy warrior. The ulterior motives behind was US Government's great desire to build up a pro-American Government in HK by promoting Colour Revolution here. With the success of promoting HK Independence, the US may make use of HK as a Bridgehead to attack PRC whose Great Rejuvenation might then be hindered.
Recently, US has also imposed certain "sanctions" on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials, which is another concrete evidence proving the hegemony on the part of US. The US Government has been exerting pressure on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials so as to threaten the officials not to pass any law or policies which the US Government dislike. By so doing, the US Secretary of State is clearly violating 2 areas of the National Security Law, including:
(1) Secession under Article 20(1), namely participating in separating the HKSAR from the PRC by with a view to committing secession or undermining national unification whether or not by force or threat of force ; and
(2) Subversion under Article 22(3), namely participating in seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the HKSAR by force or threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State.
Is the National Security Law applicable to the US Secretary of State? The answer is positive. Under Article 38, the National Security Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the HKSAR from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.
In addition, according to Article 55 of the National Security Law, it is appropriate for the national security case of the US Secretary of State to be taken up by the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "the Office"):
"Article 55
The Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR shall, upon approval by the Central People's Government of a request made by the Government of the HKSAR or by the Office itself, exercise jurisdiction over a case concerning offence endangering national security under this law, if:
(1) the case is complex due to the involvement of a foreign country or external elements, thus making it difficult for the Region to exercise jurisdiction over the case ;
(2) a serious situation occurs where the Government of the Region is unable to effectively enforce this law ; or
(3) a major and imminent threat to national security has occurred."
No doubt, with the involvement of the US Secretary of State who enjoys a high weight in the US Government in a national security case, the whole case would definitely become very complex as a result of existence of such an external element. After all, it would be extremely difficult for the HKSAR Government to exercise jurisdiction over the case, for instance, in the areas of collecting evidence and making necessary investigations. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for the Office to take up this case and exercise jurisdiction over it.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責編:CK Li
編輯:Jchow
committee for freedom in hong kong 在 Kristie Lu Stout Facebook 的最讚貼文
"Silence is not an option."
https://www.fcchk.org/correspondent/speaking-up-for-press-freedom-in-hong-kong/
committee for freedom in hong kong 在 Hong Kong: Press Freedom and the persecution of Jimmy Lai 的推薦與評價
CPJ is hosting a panel discussion on December 5, 2022, Hong Kong : Press Freedom & the Persecution of Jimmy LaiModerator: Former CNN Chief ... ... <看更多>
committee for freedom in hong kong 在 The Committee For Freedom in Hong Kong ... - Facebook 的推薦與評價
The Committee For Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation. 200 likes · 2 talking about this. The CFHK supports democracy, human rights and the rule of law for... ... <看更多>