The government has dropped charges against 11 of the 14 alleged protesters that were originally charged with unlawful assembly. I am not a lawyer, but this leaves me thinking, whether they should have been charged with assault against the police or similar charges. At the same time, shouldn’t the police have been quicker in arresting those protesters that actually attacked them at the teim instead of rounding people up later and then relying on video evidence? That is, if a protester attacks a policeman with a stick, the police grab the proteseter straight away and use all reasonable force necessary to make such an arrest.
At the same time, I don’t want to second guess the police in what was a difficult situation – maybe the situation did not make this possible. After all, I woud just like to see those responsible for attacking the police getting their just desserts. Note: The protesters are presumed innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the police to prove that their case.
January 12, 2006 at 1:08 pm
If you really support the rule of law, you can’t complain when it doesn’t work out how the way you would have liked. You can’t have your cake and eat it, Mr. P.
January 12, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I am more wondering why it did not work out. Let me stress these people are innocent until proven guilty. If the police don’t think they have the evidence, they have to drop the charges.
However, there was ample GENERAL evidence of protesters attacking police and causing a riot. One only had to see the TV images for that. The problem was that there was not enough PARTICULAR evidence against the individuals charged.
I am wondering why the police could not get the particular evidence to arrest and prosecute people who attacked the police. Again let me stress that the people charged are presumed innocent until proven otherwise – that is one of the principles of the rule of law.
January 12, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Good egg!
Maybe the reason is, as hinted elsewhere, that the media hyped up what was largely a choreographed exercise where no one was seriously threatened other than, perhaps even including, those who chose to put themselves in the vicinity. Senior police officers (commander level) have told me that many of the injuries suffered by the police and included in reported figures were from their own teargas and pepper spray getting in their eyes. Add in the usual irresponsibility and innumeracy about figures (which you will have been subjected to in your previous incarnation) and there might be very little left of substance.
January 12, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Choreographied law breaking. It is still breaking the law. What other crimes will be choreographied?
As to the police telling you – is that not hearsay? The TV images of rioters assaulting police were quite real. It is those rioters that I would have like to have seen prosecuted (assuming the police had the evidence for a case).
January 12, 2006 at 3:29 pm
‘Choreographed lawbreaking’ – you’re trying to put words into my mouth, you naughty boy!
I make no comment on whether there were any technical infringements; my point is simply to suggest that the media hyped up the WTO party just as they did the SARS non-event, such that the erroneous accepted wisdom is now that there was a huge threat when there was not, to the detriment of Hong Kong’s image and its ability to earn a free-trade living.
For example, I saw yesterday a report by ABC [the Australian one]paper saying that Hong Kong had even now only “almost” returned to normal – what nonsense. Thank you, Hong Kong media.
January 13, 2006 at 10:00 am
Fumie, you did call it a choreographed exercise and it was an exercise in lawbreaking. There were protesters attacking female police officers with big sticks, throwing railings at police. They were destroying these same railings to make metal clubs and kicking in barriers to use as weapons. These are not technical infringements. They had done this thing before in South Korea.
Remember these people had a history of violence before they came to Hong Kong.
I do agree that saying “almost returning to normal” is nonsense.
January 13, 2006 at 2:33 pm
You’re still trying to put words into my mouth. I called it a choreographed exercise: you call it an exercise in lawbreaking. I still make no comment on any lawbreaking, although I would now say that, whether or not any particular individual (whom you haven’t named), as opposed to unnamed groups of individuals, which I suspect you are referring to, had done things in Korea similar to those which our media hyped up for those, such as yourself, who have a vested interest in exaggerating the events of the WTO party week, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the case in hand. It is a basic rule of evidence, part of the rule of law you claim to support so strongly when it suits you, that you cannot deduce guilt from previous behaviour.
January 13, 2006 at 11:18 pm
I am planning a separate post on this.
January 23, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I haven’t had much time recently, but I think this is important, so I come back to it now.
Instead of making a separate post, I will just say that I think that Fumier’s refusal to comment on the “lawbreaking” or “technical infringements” is a moral evasion, simple as that.
However the media decided to portray it, there were instances of law breaking.
One question that does need to be asked is whether the police managed to arrest the right people or whether they should have been more agressive in handling these protesters. However this should not distract from the good job that the officers on the ground actually did