5 ms·

HK has a NSL court tightly controlled by the CCP. Not comparable to the US legal system. And NSL has immediate seizure of all assets, forcing Apple Daily to cl

HK has a NSL court tightly controlled by the CCP. Not comparable to the US legal system. And NSL has immediate seizure of all assets, forcing Apple Daily to close immediately. Anything like that in the US?

sudosysgen 5y ago
FARA would allow the US government to arrest every single reporter, so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval. The US legal system in this case uses extreme selective enforcement. There is no need for it to be corrupted, the executive holds all of the power because it decides who to ignore and who to punish, and indeed it wields this power very selectively. So the end result is the same as if the judicial system was corrupt.
- hkmaxpro 5y ago
  > so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval Has any company in the past decade been forced out of business by FARA before trial? Any case from among this list? https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases Not apples to apples.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    During the Cold War, yes. As I said, this hasn't happened since the Cold War.
    - hkmaxpro 5y ago
      Really? None of the prominent cases (during cold war or not) has forced any company out of business [0]. Some companies/individuals were required to register, and a few were fined, but nothing as drastic as you claimed. (“they could completely financially deprive the organization”) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act#Prominent_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac... And China Global Television Network was forced to register as a foreign agent in 2018 due to FARA. The fact that it is still running today in the US, without having all its assets seized, speaks a lot about how HK’s NSL is much harsher than US’s FARA. Your comparison doesn’t hold at all.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Wikipedia lists are not exhaustive sources. Do not treat them as such. The Peace Information Center was dissolved as a result of a FARA lawsuit. Individuals were eventually found not guilty, but not before 8 years of being banned from travel. Wikipedia doesn't mention the dissolution of the PIC, which is an example of why you should not treat Wikipedia articles as exhaustive. If they state something, it's likely true, but the converse is incorrect. There is even a warning to this extent somewhere on Wikipedia.
        hkmaxpro 5y ago
        Du Bois wasn’t banned from travel because of FARA. It was another law, the McCarran-Walter Act [1], that was passed by the Congress (so not due to the sole executive power or FARA as you claimed). It’s incorrect to blame the travel ban on FARA (and executive power), since the passing of the McCarran-Walter Act had Senate’s support after Du Bois was arrested. Peace Information Center didn’t dissolve due to financial issues. (BTW, your earlier claim “FARA in the US would allow for unlimited fines” is also incorrect. Hefty, but far from unlimited, and easily covered by HK protesters [2], although financing Apple Daily is now banned by the HK NSL, which is another difference to FARA). That’s quite a bit different from the Apple Daily case, which dissolves because its assets were fully seized. Was PIC dissolve due to the lawsuit? Probably. If Apple Daily (or CGTN or RT) were hit by FARA today like PIC did, would Apple Daily dissolve? Unlikely. Equating US FARA to HK NSL would be wrong. HK NSL is way harsher. It’s like equating the freedom of press in the US and in China. Huge difference, even if the laws on their own look similar on paper. [1] https://www.aaihs.org/surveillance-state-power-and-the-activism-of-shirley-graham-du-bois/ https://www.aaihs.org/surveillance-state-power-and-the-activ... [2] https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/579210/612%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E7%A8%B1%E5%B7%B2%E7%B1%8C%E5%BE%97%E9%80%BE%E5%8D%83%E8%90%AC%E5%85%83-%E4%B8%80%E6%9C%88%E4%BB%BD%E9%96%8B%E6%94%AF%E9%81%94%E6%A8%99-1-500%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%88%E6%8D%9063%E8%90%AC%E5%85%83 https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/579210/612%E5%9F%BA%...
hnfong 5y ago
I would say the Hong Kong courts are now rather agreeable to the CCP for various political reasons, but "tightly controlled" is quite a baseless sensationalist remark. It was only mere 2 years ago when Hong Kong courts decided against the government when they tried to implement emergency measures against wearing masks to quell the uprisings. (This almost led to disaster due to almost-overreaction from NPCSC... which is one of the reasons why judges are less willing to challenge the government now...) You can argue that NSL courts have judges specifically appointed for the role by the Hong Kong government, but it's still rather comparable to most other legal systems where head of state or the government appoints judges. The US president appoints judges. This in itself doesn't make those judges "tightly controlled"...
- hkmaxpro 5y ago
  > I would say the Hong Kong courts are now rather agreeable to the CCP for various political reasons, but "tightly controlled" is quite a baseless sensationalist remark. If the HK courts give an unfavorable verdict, the CCP can always transfer the case to the courts of mainland China, per Article 55 of the NSL. (People’s Daily made such a threat a few months ago when the high court granted Jimmy Lai bail, which was later overturned by the final court. [0]) It’s like saying that I will flip a fair coin, but I will keep flipping and only accept the last outcome when it turns up head. Not biased at all! Now tell me again it’s not tightly controlled. [0] https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-struggle-over-jimmy-lais-bail-is-a-struggle-over-hong-kongs-freedom-of-expression/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-struggle-over-jimmy-lais...
  - hnfong 5y ago
    If your claim is "NSL courts include Mainland courts which are tightly controlled by CCP", then sure, why not. That said, to nit pick, your original claim is "HK has a NSL court", which excludes the mainland courts.

sudosysgen 5y ago

FARA would allow the US government to arrest every single reporter, so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval. The US legal system in this case uses extreme selective enforcement. There is no need for it to be corrupted, the executive holds all of the power because it decides who to ignore and who to punish, and indeed it wields this power very selectively. So the end result is the same as if the judicial system was corrupt.

hkmaxpro 5y ago
> so yes it can force immediate closure without prior judiciary approval Has any company in the past decade been forced out of business by FARA before trial? Any case from among this list? https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/recent-cases Not apples to apples.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  During the Cold War, yes. As I said, this hasn't happened since the Cold War.
  - hkmaxpro 5y ago
    Really? None of the prominent cases (during cold war or not) has forced any company out of business [0]. Some companies/individuals were required to register, and a few were fined, but nothing as drastic as you claimed. (“they could completely financially deprive the organization”) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act#Prominent_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac... And China Global Television Network was forced to register as a foreign agent in 2018 due to FARA. The fact that it is still running today in the US, without having all its assets seized, speaks a lot about how HK’s NSL is much harsher than US’s FARA. Your comparison doesn’t hold at all.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Wikipedia lists are not exhaustive sources. Do not treat them as such. The Peace Information Center was dissolved as a result of a FARA lawsuit. Individuals were eventually found not guilty, but not before 8 years of being banned from travel. Wikipedia doesn't mention the dissolution of the PIC, which is an example of why you should not treat Wikipedia articles as exhaustive. If they state something, it's likely true, but the converse is incorrect. There is even a warning to this extent somewhere on Wikipedia.
      - hkmaxpro 5y ago
        Du Bois wasn’t banned from travel because of FARA. It was another law, the McCarran-Walter Act [1], that was passed by the Congress (so not due to the sole executive power or FARA as you claimed). It’s incorrect to blame the travel ban on FARA (and executive power), since the passing of the McCarran-Walter Act had Senate’s support after Du Bois was arrested. Peace Information Center didn’t dissolve due to financial issues. (BTW, your earlier claim “FARA in the US would allow for unlimited fines” is also incorrect. Hefty, but far from unlimited, and easily covered by HK protesters [2], although financing Apple Daily is now banned by the HK NSL, which is another difference to FARA). That’s quite a bit different from the Apple Daily case, which dissolves because its assets were fully seized. Was PIC dissolve due to the lawsuit? Probably. If Apple Daily (or CGTN or RT) were hit by FARA today like PIC did, would Apple Daily dissolve? Unlikely. Equating US FARA to HK NSL would be wrong. HK NSL is way harsher. It’s like equating the freedom of press in the US and in China. Huge difference, even if the laws on their own look similar on paper. [1] https://www.aaihs.org/surveillance-state-power-and-the-activism-of-shirley-graham-du-bois/ https://www.aaihs.org/surveillance-state-power-and-the-activ... [2] https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/579210/612%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E7%A8%B1%E5%B7%B2%E7%B1%8C%E5%BE%97%E9%80%BE%E5%8D%83%E8%90%AC%E5%85%83-%E4%B8%80%E6%9C%88%E4%BB%BD%E9%96%8B%E6%94%AF%E9%81%94%E6%A8%99-1-500%E4%BA%BA%E6%9C%88%E6%8D%9063%E8%90%AC%E5%85%83 https://www.hk01.com/%E6%94%BF%E6%83%85/579210/612%E5%9F%BA%...

hnfong 5y ago

I would say the Hong Kong courts are now rather agreeable to the CCP for various political reasons, but "tightly controlled" is quite a baseless sensationalist remark. It was only mere 2 years ago when Hong Kong courts decided against the government when they tried to implement emergency measures against wearing masks to quell the uprisings. (This almost led to disaster due to almost-overreaction from NPCSC... which is one of the reasons why judges are less willing to challenge the government now...) You can argue that NSL courts have judges specifically appointed for the role by the Hong Kong government, but it's still rather comparable to most other legal systems where head of state or the government appoints judges. The US president appoints judges. This in itself doesn't make those judges "tightly controlled"...

hkmaxpro 5y ago
> I would say the Hong Kong courts are now rather agreeable to the CCP for various political reasons, but "tightly controlled" is quite a baseless sensationalist remark. If the HK courts give an unfavorable verdict, the CCP can always transfer the case to the courts of mainland China, per Article 55 of the NSL. (People’s Daily made such a threat a few months ago when the high court granted Jimmy Lai bail, which was later overturned by the final court. [0]) It’s like saying that I will flip a fair coin, but I will keep flipping and only accept the last outcome when it turns up head. Not biased at all! Now tell me again it’s not tightly controlled. [0] https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-struggle-over-jimmy-lais-bail-is-a-struggle-over-hong-kongs-freedom-of-expression/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-struggle-over-jimmy-lais...
- hnfong 5y ago
  If your claim is "NSL courts include Mainland courts which are tightly controlled by CCP", then sure, why not. That said, to nit pick, your original claim is "HK has a NSL court", which excludes the mainland courts.