No extradition to tyrannies

Last month, China imposed a new "national security law" on Hong Kong. The law imposes a penalty of life imprisonment for secession, subversion, and "colluding with foreign forces" - which basicly means peacefully advocating for democracy or independence. It has been used to crush peaceful protests and interpreted by the government as outlawing attempting to win democratic elections. In other words, it effectively ends Hong Kong's already limited democracy.

Oh, and its extraterritorial, applying to anyone in the world. People in New Zealand who support Hong Kong independence, or just the right of all peoples to peacefully and democraticly determine their futures, are now criminals in China. And the Chinese regime could seek their extradition, because we have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong (we don't have one with China, for obvious reasons: its a tyranny, with the death penalty and no legal protections for the accused. Hong Kong's courts were, until last month, independent).

So I'm glad to hear that that treaty has now been suspended. It is inappropriate to extradite to tyrannies. And thanks to China's actions, Hong Kong now falls into that category. Unfortunately, this means that people who have committed non-political crimes may escape justice. But that's the price you pay for being a tyranny, I guess.

China will no doubt get shitty about this and punish us. But that's the price of having principles. And democracy and the rule of law are not principles New Zealanders are generally willing to surrender.

Is democracy now illegal in Hong Kong?

Over the weekend half a million Hongkongers queued to vote in an opposition primary to choose candidates for upcoming Legislative Council elections. But the Chinese regime is now saying that its illegal.

Late on Monday Beijing’s top representatives in Hong Kong labelled the primaries “illegal” and accused organisers of colluding with foreign powers in a “serious provocation” of Hong Kong’s electoral system and to seize the private data of voters.

“The goal of organiser Benny Tai and the opposition camp is to seize the ruling power of Hong Kong and ... carry out a Hong Kong version of ‘colour revolution’,” said a spokesman for the Liaison Office, whose chief is also in charge of implementing the national security laws.

The statement came in support of Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, who said that democrats coordinating to win a majority and veto the government’s budget could be against the anti-sedition laws, and would be be investigated.

“If this so-called ‘primary’ election’s purpose is to achieve the ultimate goal of delivering what they call a ‘35+’ [majority seats] with the objective of objecting to, resisting every policy initiative of the Hong Kong SAR government, then it may fall into the category of subverting the state power, which is now one of the four types of offences under the new national security law,” Lam told media late on Monday.

And translating that from TyrantSpeak, "seize the ruling power of Hong Kong" means "getting elected", while "subverting the state power" means "refusing to pass legislation".

Hong Kong's basic law still allows elections. Its Legislative Council is still allowed to pass (or refuse to pass) laws. The regime is saying that the opposition using legal means to peacefully and democraticly bring about change is a crime. But if that's the case, you have to wonder why they bother with the charade of elections at all.

Giving the finger to Beijing

Hong Kong has been protesting for six months for, demanding democracy, human rights, and an end to police violence. Today, they went to the polls in district council elections - a low-level of government with virtually no power, similar to community boards in New Zealand. But while the positions themselves were fairly powerless, they could still be used to send a message and give the finger to Beijing. And that's exactly what voters did:

The anti-establishment reverberations from almost six months of street protests swept through polling stations across Hong Kong on Sunday, as voters in record numbers roundly rejected pro-Beijing candidates in favour of pan-democrats.

The tsunami of disaffection among voters was clear across the board, as pan-democrats rode the wave to win big in poor and rich neighbourhoods, in both protest-prone and non protest-afflicted districts and, in downtown areas as well as the suburbs.

Less immediately obvious was whether there was a generational divide in the way the people voted, but ousted pro-establishment district councillors suggested that young, first-time voters had been instrumental in dislodging them from their perch.

By 7am, the pro-democracy camp had gained a majority in at least 12 of the 18 district councils, taking 278 seats.

All councils were previously under pro-establishment control from the 2015 elections.

More recent results are saying the democrats have 333 seats to the establishment's 37, with less than a hundred seats to go. Its a very clear message from voters to their government, and to Beijing. The only question is whether the latter will listen.

New Fisk

If Chinese tanks take Hong Kong, who'll be surprised? Land grabs are happening everywhere – and we're all complicit