Polishing the golden-lettered signboard of Hong Kong's rule of law

　　九名反中乱港首要分子涉前年的两宗非法集结案昨日被判刑，其中黎智英和李卓人被判囚14个月，李柱铭等分别被判八个月至一年不等，部分获缓刑。这是一次迟来的判决，也是正义的判决，大快人心，一度蒙尘的香港法治招牌再次被擦亮：法律面前人人平等，不管什麼人、什麼背景，只要犯了法，就一定要受惩罚。

　　九个被告无不是“鼎鼎大名”且背景深厚：黎智英集反对派金主、外部势力在港代理人等多重身份於一身；李柱铭是资历深厚的大律师、民主党创立者，两人亦同是“乱港四人帮”的核心成员。其他被告同样来头不小，不是大律师，就是政党领袖，也都是揽炒派骨幹分子。这麼多“大老虎”同日判决，其中多人更是首次被定罪，这在过去是不敢想像的，单就这一点来看，今次判决堪称为香港法治史翻开了新的一页。

　　前年8月18日及8月31日，民阵无视警方发出反对通知书，也无视上诉失败，坚持发起所谓“流水式遊行”，这两次非法集结对当时已经炽热的“修例风波”起了火上添油的效果，影响十分恶劣。上述九名被告是遊行主要组织者及参与者，他们利用自己的名气及影响力，吸引更多人参与非法活动，而且他们走在队伍前列，带头呼叫抹黑警方及鼓吹“港独”的口号，并故意阻碍交通，属於首恶，必须严惩。按照有关法律，最高可判五年刑期，今次的判决以十八个月作起点，并酌情扣减了部分刑期，已是法外开恩。

　　可笑的是，一众被告扮无辜状，辩称遊行是宪法赋予的公民权利，判刑是“政治打压”云云。但正如法官在判词中指出，香港有示威的自由，但自由非绝对。被告被判刑是因为参与非法集结，而不是参与合法活动。部分被告为资深法律界人士，知法犯法。像吴霭仪那样，虽然认罪，但发言毫无悔意，更应严惩。获判缓刑，律政司完全应该上诉。

　　被告还狡称当日遊行“和平、非暴力”，过去的相关案例最多是判守行为，对被判刑感“吃惊”云云。但了解当时情况的人都知道，揽炒派口号是“和勇一家”和“不切割、不分化”，遊行总是以“和平”开始，以暴力告终，变成打砸抢烧。破坏法治的不是警方，不是特区政府，而恰恰是滥用示威权利的揽炒派。

　　欧美政客肆意干预香港司法，要求特区政府“放人”，只能说是自暴其醜。中国不是乌克兰或伊拉克，更不是晚清，外部势力以为讲几句狠话或威胁制裁就能得逞，何止打错算盘，更是弄巧反拙，印证香港黑暴是内外勾结下的“颜色革命”。

　　此案引人深思。反中乱港势力这些年肆无忌惮地破坏社会安宁，挑战中央权威，危害国家安全，简直无法无天，直至国安法落实，香港才开始拨乱反正的进程。今次判决再次证明一个樸素的道理：正义只会迟到，但不会缺席！

2021-04-17

　　　　 Nine chief anti-China and trouble-making culprits involving in two unauthorised assemblies in 2019 were given jail sentences yesterday. Of them, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and Lee Cheuk Yan were given 14-month imprisonment. Martin Lee Chu-ming and others were handed jail terms from eight months to one year respectively, with some of the jail sentences suspended. Though belated, this is a righteous judgement, which is to the great joy of the people. The signboard of Hong Kong's rule of law, once covered by dusts, is polished to shine again: everyone is equal before the law. Whatever a person is and whatever background a person has, he or she is bound to be punished for breaking the law.

　　　　 All of nine defendants are "well-known" and have deep backgrounds. Jimmy Lai is the opposition's moneyman and foreign forces' agent in Hong Kong rolled into one, Martin Lee is a senior barrister and a founder of the Democratic Party, and both are also core members of the trouble-making "Gang of Four". The other defendants are no lightweights either, being either barristers or leaders of political parties, and all are core members of the mutual-destruction camp. So many "big tigers" are given sentences on the same day with several of them being convicted for the first time. This is hardly imaginable in the past. Even just from this perspective, the judgment this time could be said to embark on a new chapter in the history of Hong Kong's rule of law.　　　　

　　　　 On August 18 and 31, 2019, respectively, the Civil Human Rights Front ignored the letters of objection issued by the police and disregarded its unsuccessful appeals [against the police objection], and insisted on launching so-called "water-flow assemblies". These two unauthorised assemblies played the part of adding fuel to the already red-hot flames ignited by the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Incident, and exerted a very baneful influence. The above-mentioned nine defendants were chief organisers and participants, who used their fames and influences to attract more people to participate in the unlawful activities. And they led the protest marches and took the lead in shouting slogans to smear the police and advocate "independence for Hong Kong", and deliberately obstructed traffic. Hence they were the chief culprits who should be severely punished. According to relevant laws, the maximum penalty for such an offence is five years of imprisonment. The court judgement this time adopted 18 months in prison as the starting point and made discounts to some jail sentences on the merits of each case, which already showed mercy.

　　　　It is laughable that all the defendants could have put on an innocent face to allege that demonstration was a civil right enshrined in the constitution and sentencing them to imprisonments was "political suppression", and so on. But as the judge pointed out in the court verdict that there is freedom of demonstration in Hong Kong but freedom by no means is absolute. The defendants were sentenced because they had participated in unauthorised assemblies rather than in legal activities. Some of the defendants are senior personages in the legal profession, knowing the law but breaking it. For instance, Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee pleaded guilty but showed no remorse in her speech. As such she should have been punished severely. She was given a suspended jail sentence. The Department of Justice definitely must lodge an appeal against it.

　　　　The defendants also slyly argued that the demonstrations on those days were "peaceful and non-violent", and that in similar cases in the past the court had just given bind-over orders, so they were "shocked" for being given jail sentences, and so forth. But it is well known to anyone familiar with the situation at that time that the slogans of the mutual-destruction camp were "peaceful and valiant protesters are of the same family" and "no severing of ties and no fomenting of splits", so that a street demonstration always started "peacefully" but ended up with violence, with beating, smashing, looting and setting on fire. It is exactly these mutual-destruction pursuers abusing the right to peaceful protest who undermine the rule of law, not the police nor the SAR Government.

　　　　European and American politicians wantonly interfere with Hong Kong's judiciary, demanding the SAR Government to "release" the culprits. It can only be said that they are lost to shame. China is neither Ukraine nor Iraq, let alone the late Qing Dynasty. Foreign forces think they could get their own way by just uttering a few tough words or threatening to impose sanctions. This not only is a miscalculation but also does themselves more harm than good, as it confirms that the rioting by black-clad mobsters in Hong Kong is a "colour revolution" started by internal and external forces in collusion.

　　　　This court case is thought-provoking. In recent years, anti-China and trouble-making elements have been, without any scruple, causing damages to public peace, challenging the Central Government's authority and endangering national security, to the extent of defying laws human and divine. It is not until the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law that Hong Kong kick-starts the process of bringing order out of chaos. The court judgment this time once again proves a plain truth: justice may come late but will never be absent!

17 April 2021