(Clearwisdom.net) Four Falun Gong practitioners from Taiwan appeared in the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong on September 20, 2005 to begin an appeal against their deportation from the Chinese territory. They requested a court review of the Immigration Department's "watch list." A number of media reported on the issue.

According to an AFP report on September 20, the four practitioners were among 80 Taiwanese practitioners of Falun Gong who came to Hong Kong for a Falun Gong conference in February 2003, but were detained at the border and refused entry, even though they held valid visas. The group claimed that immigration officials in Hong Kong had "roughly mistreated" the practitioners.

The four Falun Gong practitioners believe that their entry denial and the "violence" used by the authorities in handling the Falun Gong practitioners was "unlawful."

The report said that the four practitioners were given special permission by the Hong Kong government to enter the territory for the legal challenge. About thirty practitioners staged a sit-down protest outside the High Court during Tuesday's hearing.

South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on September 21, Paul Harris - representing Theresa Chu Woan-chyi, Liao Hsiao-lan, Lu Lih-ching and Chang Jenn-yen - told Justice Michael Hartmann that immigration officers had revealed in court affirmations that the four posed a security risk to Hong Kong.

According to the SCMP report, they were stopped at Chek Lap Kok airport in February 2003 after arriving from Taiwan to attend the Hong Kong Falun Gong Experience Sharing Conference, organized by the Hong Kong Falun Dafa Association.

They were among 83 overseas Falun Gong practitioners refused entry to Hong Kong at the time, 80 of them from Taiwan.

The four were granted leave in April 2003 to conduct a judicial review of the director of immigration's decision to deny them entry to Hong Kong.

Kan Hung-cheung, spokesman for the local Falun Gong practitioners, and the Hong Kong Falun Dafa Association were granted permission by the Court of Appeals in June last year to join the judicial review application.

Mr. Harris made a "discovery application" September 20 to obtain documents relating to the government's decision to deny his clients entry to the city. He said that the documents could shed light on why the four were placed on the "watch list," as well as the rationale behind the director of immigration's decisions.

The report said that Mr. Harris told the court that the discovery application was a "constitutional review" and "a heightened scrutiny" of the government's decision.

He said Ms. Chu, an in-house lawyer with a US insurance company, was first denied entry when she and a group of fellow Falun Gong practitioners from Taiwan traveled to Hong Kong in June 2002.

But she was allowed to enter in January 2003 to attend a business conference. She was again refused entry the next month to attend the conference, despite being in possession of a valid visa.

"What kind of security threat could it be?" Mr. Harris asked. "Sometimes let in, sometimes not."

He argued in the judicial review application that the decision of the immigration director was unlawful and unreasonable because it was based solely on religious belief, without showing legitimate grounds for refusing entry to the four practitioners.

He added that the decision amounted to a form of religious discrimination.

The Standard, HK also reported on September 21 on the hearing. It stated, "The disclosure of the watch list came in a hearing for a judicial review application by four Taiwanese Falun Gong practitioners who claim the Director of Immigration's decision to refuse them entry was unlawful, executed with excessive force, and it violated their fundamental right to religious freedom."

According to the report, officials have acknowledged in the High Court that the government maintains an immigration watchlist to bar entry to those it considers a threat.

"For the applicants," senior counsel Paul Harris said, "apart from the fact that immigration officers say his clients posed a 'security risk,' there is no other evidence of the fact."

"That is all we have about the nature of the security risk," he said. "In other words, nothing."

"In the absence of any other explanation, 'common sense' will conclude the only reason for refusing them was because of their religious affiliation." said Harris.

"When 80 people are stopped, all of whom are overt Falun Gong practitioners coming to a Falun Gong conference, the natural inference is that they were stopped because of their beliefs."

"If there is some other completely unknown threat, then we say the court needs to know what the alternative explanation is." Harris said.

Human rights lawyer Mark Daly said he has heard mention of such an "immigration watch list" before but that the real, "pertinent question" is how one gets labeled a security risk.

Posting date: 9/22/2005
Original article date: 9/22/2005
Category: News & Media Reports

 Yearly Archive  Printer Version