South China Morning Post: Passing the test ...

08/17/2002

(Clearwisdom.net) The guilty verdicts recorded against 16 Falun Gong demonstrators on Thursday have thrust Hong Kong's legal system into the international spotlight once again. Concerns have been raised locally and overseas that the prosecution and conviction of the group's followers, arising from a peaceful demonstration outside the Beijing Liaison Office, was politically motivated.

Regardless of the veracity of such claims, Hong Kong's government has not acquitted itself well in addressing them. Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie certainly did not help matters yesterday when she suggested there was no need to worry as Falun Gong members have been similarly convicted in Singapore, a state not exactly renowned for a tolerant approach towards demonstrations.

After removing her foot from her mouth, however, Miss Leung was right to point out that the protesters were not charged with being [practitioners] of the Falun Gong. They faced obstruction offences, which were on the statute book long before the mainland's crackdown against the movement began in 1999.

The distinction is important to make. It is seldom easy to distinguish between legal and political issues in any high-profile court case, but this one is undoubtedly worthy of a closer look.

It would be disingenuous to say that the Falun Gong had not been coming under increased pressure in Hong Kong in the run-up to this case. While fears of a ban on the group have not materialised and its [practitioners] are generally tolerated, they have been branded an "[slanderous word omitted]" by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, refused access to government venues for their meetings, have seen many followers from overseas barred from entering the territory, and encountered interference with some of their protests. This has led, understandably, to suspicions that the police action to arrest the 16 Falun Gong members on March 14, when they refused to move from outside the Liaison Office, was prompted by a desire to please Beijing.

These concerns need to be addressed. Under Hong Kong's separate system, Falun Gong followers should be treated no differently than any other members of society. Every effort should be made by the government to ensure they are not subjected to discrimination.

It is equally important to note that the Falun Gong is not alone in its perception of the government becoming less tolerant of demonstrations. Right-of-abode seekers, political activists and unionists have clearly had their fill of perceived government high-handedness, too.

But if these concerns are to be addressed in a court of law, then they must be dealt with in accordance with the usual legal principles. And until the case has run its full course through the appeals process, it is wrong to suggest that Hong Kong's legal system is not up to the task.

The case was undoubtedly politically charged. Tensions ran high throughout, with the magistrate at one stage leveling criticism at the defence, and later rejecting a request to stand down on the grounds that he may be regarded as biased. There will be a need for cool heads to prevail when the convictions are challenged on appeal. A judge - or judges if it reaches the Court of Final Appeal - will then have to decide whether the action taken against the Falun Gong members constituted a permissible restriction on the right to demonstrate.

The ruling, which may shed light on the extent to which the Basic Law really protects this freedom, should result from a careful weighing up of the legal arguments on each side.

The judges must be trusted to close their minds to any political considerations and to return a free, fair, and fearless judgment. This is the means by which Hong Kong can pass the litmus test which this case appears to have become.

 Yearly Archive   Printer Version