The British government released its latest "Hong Kong Half-year Report" on Monday (November 23). British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab stated in the report that it is still exploring whether it is still appropriate for British judges to serve as non-permanent judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. And issued a threat to China: will consider stopping sending British judges to serve as non-permanent judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.
The statue of Themis, the goddess of justice, originating from the Supreme Court of British Hong Kong on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal building.
"Observer Network" directly posted a message: Is there such a good thing?
The Hong Kong government refuted the British comments as "irresponsible" and a "double standard".
Why does the UK threaten not to send judges?
Because the United Kingdom believes that Hong Kong’s legal image is inseparable from curly hair.
Don’t get me wrong, this curly hair is not curly hair. (Curly Fu’s real name is Benedict Cumberbatch. He became famous as the curly-haired Sherlock Holmes in “Sherlock” in 2010 and was affectionately called Curly Fu by fans.) Well, it is said that this is quite a lot. An actor that Chinese people like very much does not particularly like Chinese people. Then he just can't find happiness for himself.
Juan Fu’s real name is Benedict Cumberbatch
This curly hair refers to a judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.
Currently, in addition to Chief Justice Ma Daoli, there are three permanent judges and two groups of non-permanent judges. Among them, there are four former Hong Kong judges and 13 judges from other common law jurisdictions, including nine British judges, three Australian judges and one Canadian judge.
Since the handover of sovereignty in 1997, British courts have appointed non-permanent judges to Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.
Currently, in addition to Chief Justice Ma Tao-li, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal has three permanent judges and two groups of non-permanent judges. Among them, there are four former Hong Kong judges and 13 judges from other common law jurisdictions, including nine British judges, three Australian judges and one Canadian judge.
The nine British judges include Lord Wei Yande and the previous president of the Supreme Court, Lady Brenda Hale.
Some so-called representatives of Hong Kong’s legal profession whose brains are still in the colonial era believe that overseas judges’ service in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal over the years has important “significance” and “contribution”. They do not want the situation to develop to the point where overseas judges are unwilling to serve in Hong Kong's Court of Final Finale. What is the important "significance" and "contribution" of
?
Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal is composed of a five-member collegial panel for each case, one of whom is a non-permanent judge.
They foolishly believe that once British judges voluntarily no longer serve the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, it will have a "big negative impact." If judges, as insiders, feel that they cannot continue to serve, it will seriously damage Hong Kong's legal system.
They analyzed this way: Since the Court of Final Appeal is composed of the chief judge, three permanent judges and one non-permanent judge every time a collegial panel hears cases, once the British judges withdraw from the court, the practical impact can still be overcome, and everyone can have confidence in our judiciary. The symbolism of overseas judges staying is important.
They also know that this is just a symbolic meaning, why are they so inseparable from curly hair?
Some people are also worried that the UK’s failure to send judges will undermine the credibility of Hong Kong’s judicial system. It’s strange, the credibility of Hong Kong’s judiciary only depends on a few curls?
These people are also worried that once overseas judges withdraw, foreign-funded enterprises will feel psychological pressure. They believe that many foreign business owners hope that some overseas judges will stay here to raise objections and criticize some unfair judgments. In fact, it is these overseas judges who have disrupted Hong Kong's tranquility and caused many companies to suffer.And isn’t the impunity of some troublemakers in Hong Kong one of their masterpieces?
A "French Bar" in a certain city in China
However, the phenomenon of "advocating foreigners and favoring foreigners" still partially exists in mainland China and Hong Kong. The thoughts of these people remind me of a personal experience. Two years ago, I went to a bar street in Changsha and saw two stores with French names. When I entered, a pure French man sat at the table. Just sit on the stage and do nothing. I chatted with him for a while and found out that his home in Paris is next to mine. He said he lost his job in France and first went to Wuhan and then Changsha, where he wanted to be a foreign teacher, but failed. He met a bar owner and took him under his wing. The bar then became a French bar, it was just a facade, there was no French wine inside. The landlady thinks this sign is very important, and business has improved a lot. Finally, this French guy asked me to buy him a drink.
Hong Kong’s legal image does not rely on overseas judges
Britain’s old colonial dream and double standards
Britain once ruled Hong Kong for more than 150 years and returned its rule to China in 1997. Since then, the British government has submitted a report on Hong Kong to Parliament every six months. On the 23rd, the British government submitted its latest semi-annual report on Hong Kong, which is the 47th report since 1984. The time period discussed is from January 1 to June 30, 2020.
Looking at the history of this report, we know that the British are still living in history. Therefore, their thinking is also outdated and solidified, and they live in the old colonial dream. Only the "double standards" have not changed.
On November 24, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian hosted a regular press conference.
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian commented at a regular press conference on the 24th: "It has been 23 years since Hong Kong returned to the motherland, and the British government is still confusing right and wrong on Hong Kong affairs and making irresponsible remarks by publishing the so-called "Semi-Annual Report on Hong Kong Issues" , made unreasonable accusations against China, which we firmly oppose and strongly condemn. "
"The British did not give Hong Kong democracy during its colonial rule. Today, the British are not qualified to be the judge. Put away your hypocrisy and double standards, stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs, and return to the right path of international law and basic norms of international relations as soon as possible. "In a word, you have no qualifications!
The Commissioner's Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong issued a statement saying, "The British side has violated its commitments, insisted on advancing the British National (Overseas) passport (BNO) visa policy, unilaterally suspended the fugitive offender surrender agreement with Hong Kong, wantonly undermined normal economic and trade cooperation between the two sides, and threatened to interfere. Judicial and Legal Affairs of the SAR", "We are telling the British side: wake up and stop having the old colonial dream of interfering in Hong Kong affairs!"
Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor commented on the British side's "Half-year Report"
The SAR government and Carrie Lam also commented on the British side's "Half-year Report" respectively. Carrie Lam posted on Facebook: "The report criticized the National People's Congress Standing Committee for enacting the National Security Law, saying it violated 'one country, two systems' and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy. However, everyone knows that the UK has a fairly complete national security law, and its secret The intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 are world-renowned; the "Hong Kong National Security Law" gives the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region the main responsibility for safeguarding national security. It is difficult for me to imagine that the UK will hand over national security work to local governments and local police. This is not the maintenance of 'one country, two systems'. ', Respect the high degree of autonomy of the SAR?" It is said that when you are in it, you often cannot see the full truth, but Carrie Lam sees it very clearly.
In fact, this is just one of the excuses for Britain to attack China.
Reuters in London reported that according to a new law enacted by the United Kingdom on November 24, if the country's telecom operators violate the ban and use equipment made by China's Huawei , they may face fines of up to 10% of turnover, or 100,000 pounds per day. The
report quoted the British government as saying that the Telecommunications (Security) Bill will improve the security standards of British telecommunications networks and eliminate the threat of high-risk suppliers.
New British law completely bans Huawei
Due to concerns that U.S. chip technology sanctions mean Huawei will not be a reliable supplier, the United Kingdom decided in July to ban British communications service providers from purchasing Huawei products starting from the end of this year, and Huawei products that have already been installed It will need to be completely demolished before 2027.
Reuters said that the bill promulgated today aims to write this decision into law and manage the risks posed by other high-risk suppliers in the future. Telecom operators who violate the rules will be severely punished.
British Digital, Culture and Media Secretary Oliver Dowden said that 5G and networks can only bring benefits if they are secure and resilient. Look, it’s still under the banner of national security. This is obviously instructed by the United States.
is very clear. Use it to suppress Huawei and attack China. Behind the scenes, there are still American factors.
British Digital, Culture and Media Secretary Oliver Dowden said 5G must be safe
British Ambassador to China Wu Ruolan said in an interview with FT a few days ago: Britain and China should still pursue lofty ambitions. But now it seems that Britain not only has little ambition, but is also very short-sighted.
The new ambassador believes that although the two countries are considered to have huge potential in trade, technical cooperation, etc., and although both countries attach great importance to each other's market and the strategic value of their relations with each other, in the past few years, Issues such as Hong Kong and Huawei have cast a shadow on this crucial bilateral relationship on the international stage. At the same time, the international environment in which U.S.-China relations are uncertain, U.S.-Europe relations are being reshaped, and globalization is facing challenges in the future will also add variables to Britain-China relations.
British Ambassador to China Wu Ruolan: China and the UK should still pursue lofty ambitions
Since we are facing uncertainty, then the UK should just take care of itself. If you want to restore Sino-British relations, start by never interfering in China's internal affairs and stop double standards.
Now that the "Hong Kong National Security Law" has come into effect, it is time for Hong Kong's curly "foreign judges" to leave.
#Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Britain is not qualified to be a judge# #The Hong Kong government refutes the British "Hong Kong Half-year Report"##The British threaten to "suspend the dispatch of judges" to Hong Kong and netizens respond#Headlines Hot List
