Hong Kong is Not China – 17 November, 2015

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Post-Match-Hong-Kong-is-Not/i-G5vjM85

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Post-Match-Hong-Kong-is-Not/i-LqBvz5W

Outside Mongkok Stadium after Hong Kong’s World Cup qualifier against China, a boisterous show of Hongkonger’s pride in Hong Kong – Hong Kong is not China.

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Post-Match-Hong-Kong-is-Not/i-TBrLt8P

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Post-Match-Hong-Kong-is-Not/i-ZsML9Pq

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Post-Match-Hong-Kong-is-Not/i-L4CvC72

Egg Protest @ High Court, 18 October, 2015

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Egg-Protest-High-Court-18/52693169_2Wwrn7#!i=4442799313&k=rm9kpBh

Egg protest at the High Court, 18 October, 2015
Click on any photo to see the full gallery

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Egg-Protest-High-Court-18/52693169_2Wwrn7#!i=4442801342&k=856pcJB

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Egg-Protest-High-Court-18/52693169_2Wwrn7#!i=4442798246&k=xZdcmx2

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Egg-Protest-High-Court-18/52693169_2Wwrn7#!i=4442797722&k=kc7V7PR

Dark Corner One Year On

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Dark-Corner-Anniversary-Vigil/52610860_BPtRQN#!i=4432581488&k=R4jnxvk

Ken Tsang was arrested as the man suspected of throwing an unknown liquid at police. A TVB camera crew filmed seven policemen carry Tsang to a dark corner and beat him. Despite the clear irrefutable video evidence, a year later the police involved have still not been charged.
Click on any picture for the full gallery

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Dark-Corner-Anniversary-Vigil/52610860_BPtRQN#!i=4432586688&k=BMhD4sm

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Dark-Corner-Anniversary-Vigil/52610860_BPtRQN#!i=4432582874&k=fwstnqT

Nevermind Facebook Likes, 12 Ways the HK Police Force Could Improve Their Image.

hk-police

Nevermind Facebook likes… Richard Scotford, a Hongkonger, offers twelve ways the HK Police Force (HKPF) could improve their image. I’m sure you can add more

1) The HKPF needs to come out and officially admit that using CS gas at 17:58 on 28/09/2014 was a mistake and they’re sorry to the public.

2) The Seven Black Police videoed beating Ken Tsang need to go on trial.

3) Franklin Chu needs to go on trial.

4) Wilson Yeung who needlessly pepper-sprayed me directly in the eyes for no reason and without warning needs to go on trial.

5) The Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) needs to be completely shaken up. They should get rid of the attitude of, how do we find a way to exonerate this officer, and instead work off the basis that in any organization, there are people who need to be disciplined. Some need severe discipline. Some need to go to jail. In a force of 30,000 people there are going to be some bad eggs. This is actually good for morale and maintains integrity and respect for the other officers. What we have now is a feeling in the police force of, these democracy protesters are our enemies and we can not let them win at anything. We lost face to them during Occupy and that will never happen again. Therefore we will bend the law and pervert justice in order to protect our own and the ‘face’ of the police force whenever it comes to dealing with democracy protesters.

6) No more putting people in taxis. Either they’re arrested or they’re left to find their own way home. Escorting violent people and putting them in a taxi is NOT keeping the peace. It’s collusion with dark forces. If people break the law, arrest them or leave them to their own devices. No more police home-escorts for people who have clearly broken the law.

7) No more mobilising 100s of PTU to protect aunties or CCP protesters. CCP supporters or aunties should be told that there is no longer police protection for their activities. People who break the law on Sai Yeung Choi Street or at protests will be arrested according to the law, but no more huge protection squads guarding people who are favoured by the Liaison Office.

8) No more pepper spraying peaceful protesters without warning. Pepper spray is a chemical weapon designed to subdue people who are clearly acting violently and will not desist in their activities. Pepper spray is NOT a means of passive crowd control.

9) No more threatening and hitting peaceful protesters with batons. Batons are an extreme weapon that should be used on people who are acting extremely violently or have weapons. Batons are not a form of passive crowd control.

REMEMBER – as a citizen I have a right to choose what actions I wish to carry out. If those actions do not physically threaten or harm anybody, then it is not a given that police can use extreme violence to prevent me from carrying them out. Law is a function of justice. The ultimate aim of a civil society, like Hong Kong is to create a society based on JUSTICE. Not on a society that only obeys laws. If I break the law, then I shall be put in front of a judge and given justice in accordance with what laws I have broken. Just because I break the law, it doesn’t then absolve me of my most basic humans rights of freedom from harm and physical violence. Meaning,

10) The police need to stop extra-judicial, street justice immediately.

11) Stop beating people up in the police vans or police stations.

12) When the police arrest someone, tell them IMMEDIATELY why they’re being arrested. Read them their rights before they are removed from the scene according to the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Article 5(2) Stop Hog-tying protesters like they’re armed psychopaths. Protesters arrested need to be given basic human dignity when they’re detained and not hauled off like pieces of meat with no rights.

Oh, one last point…. CLEAN THEIR SCRUFFY BOOTS and SHOES. Their boots are still a shabby mess, which is a direct reflection of the senior officers who command them.
Time to lean, time to clean! The commanding officers have no standards and it shows in the scruffy shoes of their subordinates.

Press Statement Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

The Faculty of Law refutes in the strongest possible terms unfair criticisms that were said to have been made against Professor Johannes Chan in the last Council meeting of Sept 29, 2015.

Prof. Chan has long been recognised as a leading scholar of public law and human rights in Hong Kong. Before he became Head of the Department of Law in 1999 and subsequently Dean of the Faculty of Law, he had already been promoted by the University to his current academic position as Professor in 1998, after rigorous external assessment and on the basis of international recognition of his contribution to legal scholarship. In 2002 he was elected Dean of the Faculty. In 2005, when the University changed its deanship system to appointment of full-time deans on the basis of international recruitment, Prof. Chan was selected by the search committee and appointed the first full-time Dean of the Faculty.

Speculations that Prof. Chan was appointed Dean only because he is a nice person are groundless. While Prof. Chan is certainly a nice person, his colleagues respect him because of his excellent leadership and management of the Faculty, his vision for the Faculty’s role in providing high-quality legal education and promoting the rule of law in Hong Kong and as a centre of excellence in research on Western, Chinese and international laws, his unique ability in promoting and motivating colleagues to achieve this vision, and above all his utmost honour and integrity. During his term of office as Dean, Prof. Chan was also tireless in his efforts to deepen the Faculty’s ties with Mainland and overseas Universities, and the Faculty achieved high rankings in the QS World University Rankings.

Prof. Johannes Chan’s appointment as Honorary Senior Counsel in 2003 testifies to his high standing in Hong Kong’s legal community. Under section 31A(4a) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, a member of the academic staff of a law school in Hong Kong who is qualified as a barrister and who has “provided distinguished service to the law of Hong Kong” may be appointed Honorary Senior Counsel. The appointment is made by the Chief Justice after consultation with the Chairman of the Bar Council and the President of the Law Society of Hong Kong. So far, Prof. Chan is the only law teacher in Hong Kong who has been appointed Honorary Senior Counsel.

Professor Yash Ghai, Emeritus Professor of our Faculty, formerly holder of the Sir Y.K. Pao Chair in Public Law and HKU’s Distinguished Research Achievement Award (the most prestigious research award in the University of Hong Kong), wrote to us after the recent Council decision as follows:

“I was shocked to learn that the Council of Hong Kong University has rejected Professor Johannes Chan’s nomination as the University’s Pro-Vice Chancellor…

I was Professor Chan’s colleague for several years at the Faculty of Law at HKU. We are both public law teachers and have collaborated on several research projects. Prof. Chan is also a distinguished lawyer who has participated in several leading cases on constitutional and administrative law in Hong Kong.
It is absurd to say that he is not qualified for the position because he does not have a Ph D. Some of the world’s leading law professors and scholars do not have a PhD degree. … When I was a law student, first at Oxford, and then Harvard for graduate studies, not one of my teachers had a PhD! …

I collaborated with Prof. Chan in writing in and editing two books, one on human rights in Hong Kong, following the adoption by the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and the other on the decision of the Court of Final Appeal in the right of abode case, decided soon after the Basic Law came into force. Chan edited most of the chapters, co-authored one with me, and one on his own, in the first of these books. In the second book, he took responsibility for editing contributions in Chinese language, and wrote a chapter himself. Both these books were well received and provoked considerable debate — as a good book should. Two years ago in a book that I edited with Professor Simon Young, on the first 13 years of the Court of Final Appeal and that of Chief Justice Andrew Li, Prof. Chan contributed an excellent chapter on public law. He has published articles in well-known law journals, in Hong Kong and abroad. …

Professor Chan has also written about Hong Kong’s law in popular journals and newspapers, to educate ordinary people and to stimulate debate — which is also the responsibility of a good law teacher and professor. His involvement with cases in the Hong Kong courts is also consistent with a scholar’s contribution to the development of the law. Developing good working relations with the judiciary and the legal profession, which Prof. Chan has done with great success, is also often regarded as the responsibility of a law teacher. His contribution to the reform of law is well-known, through litigation and research. It would be a grave misrepresentation to suggest that Prof. Chan was elected Dean of the Law Faculty because he was considered ‘a nice guy’. He is undoubtedly a nice guy. But before he became the Dean, he was the Head of the Law Department. All the students and teachers had ample opportunities to see his leadership at close quarters. It is because we were convinced of his outstanding abilities, in providing leadership, fundraising, cultivating relations with the judiciary and the legal profession, and his vision of the Faculty as a leading centre of legal scholarship, that we elected him as Dean. All the expectations that we had of him have been fulfilled…”

We hope that this statement has helped to set the record straight: Prof. Johannes Chan is internationally recognized as a leading scholar in his field. He was appointed Dean of Law for his vision, his leadership, his integrity, his passion for legal education, and above all his outstanding abilities. We have been fortunate to have him at the helm of the Faculty.

Regardless of what lies ahead, the Faculty will continue in its commitment to uphold academic freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Faculty of Law
University of Hong Kong
4 October 2015

The Battle for Hong Kong’s Cyberspace

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2014/OccupyHK-29-September-2014/44640815_wssnHW#!i=3572981998&k=7BcXHJj

A recent paper by Lokman Tsui, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offers a chilling look at how authorities in Hong Kong outdid their rivals during the 79-day Occupy Central movement that hit the city in late 2014.

The Occupy movement braved police violence as well as political pressure and intimidation on and offline from Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities before being driven out by police. Technology played an important role in the movement’s organization and coordination, becoming “a critical channel for communication with the public,” according to Tsui. He described this as “a fairly typical script” for how technology aids social movements.

In response, the government not only defended itself but, as Tsui states, went on the offensive. His paper describes the various tactics deployed by the government and its allies to dissuade and diminish the Occupy movement.

Abusing outdated online surveillance laws
The current surveillance regulation ordinance only refers to telephone, fax and postal mail, and makes no mention of Internet communications. By repeatedly refusing to confirm whether its protections extend online, the government is implying that there are none.

Twisting an online fraud protection law to arrest activists
“One of the more problematic arrests made under [Crimes Ordinance] Section 161 includes charging a 23-year-old from Mongkok with ‘access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent’ and ‘unlawful assembly’ for allegedly messaging folks on an online discussion forum to join him in a protest in Mongkok.”

De facto online censorship using content removal requests
“The number of requests for content removal in the four months of October 2014 until February 2015 exceeds the number of requests made in the previous four years combined.”

DDoS attacks on an unprecedented scale
“The pro-government side was able to hit a series of critical websites with an unprecedented amount of junk traffic (500 Gigabytes per second), including the website of the Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong, and PopVote, Hong Kong University’s online voting platform, leading Matthew Prince, the CEO of a hosting company that specializes in DDoS protection, to call it the ‘largest cyber attack in history.’”

Paid “50 cent” Internet commenters
Pro-government comments flooded online forums, blogs and social media networks similar to the paid online commentators working for the government elsewhere. It is generally believed that the pro-government commentators are hired by political groups sponsored by the Hong Kong government and Beijing.

Painting technology-related activities as a US conspiracy
In the case of Hong Kong, the government was “pushing a narrative of ‘foreign interference’, a xenophobic narrative that accuses civil society organizations of being inauthentic, that they are being used and funded by foreign governments, especially the United States government, who seek to undermine and weaken China by fomenting revolution in the name of ‘democracy.’”

Tsui ends the paper on a sobering note:
The Internet still has the potential to empower social movements; they might even allow temporary gaps of freedom. But the [Occupy Hong Kong] movement suggests that both the Internet and Hong Kong are at a crossroads, that both cannot take its freedoms for granted. This is not to say that spaces of autonomy and freedom no longer exist online or in Hong Kong; however, they are increasingly being marginalized and, at this point in time, are best understood as the exceptions rather than the norm.

Tsui’s paper, titled The Coming Colonization of Hong Kong Cyberspace: Government Responses to the Use of New Technologies by the Umbrella Movement, was published in the Chinese Journal of Communication in July 2015. Read the full paper on Tsui’s blog.

Originally published on Global Voices, some edits made  cc-by-icons-300

5:58, I am a HongKonger

http://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2014/Student-Democracy-Protest/44617740_X2wFp2#!i=3570249460&k=NXDVrwd&lb=1&s=A

A year ago today at 5:58pm, police fired tear gas and pointed shotguns at HongKongers for expressing their right to free speech and demanding the right to choose and elect the people who represent and run Hong Kong.

Why do HongKongers have to stand up for these rights, because the people ‘picked’ to run Hong Kong are deliberately destroying the place we call home, while lining their own pockets.

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2014/Student-Democracy-Protest/44617740_X2wFp2#!i=3571226440&k=fzFBQW4

Police Refusing To Identify Themselves

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Tim-Mei-Avenue-27-September/52245869_Qr7mM6#!i=4386266720&k=GF3ND9r

Police refusing to identify themselves and wear their warrant cards clearly displayed have become common place over the last twelve months. If mr policeman you are doing nothing wrong, why do you worry about being identified as a policeman and held accountable for your actions?

https://bcmagazine.smugmug.com/Bcene-photos/2015/Tim-Mei-Avenue-27-September/52245869_Qr7mM6#!i=4386252961&k=3F3St5r