Transcripts For DW Conflict Zone 20240712 : comparemela.com

A member of the citys Legislative Council and chair of the probe aging new Peoples Party will the communist all parties try to use this law as they have with other security statutes on the mainland to violate basic rights and restrict free expression. Thinking that youre welcome to a conference on. Hello you recently wrote an article about the controversial new security law that chinas going to impose on hong kong and you said this does not necessarily spell the death of hong kong separate systems but youre taking a huge gamble backing this law arent you because beijing is done everything it can to prove that its not interested in those separate systems not interested in freedom of expression human rights or the rule of law is it. I dont think we need to come to a conclusion because china already has its own National Security law you know which is only a few pages long whats consists mainly of principles exhortations duties obligations. I think the fact that it needs it feels or pla is true and that our hong kong version reflects its understanding that hong kong to russia which is consistent with our common law system thats why peyton is going ahead to an act a special hongkong specific National Security law for us but region if you say dont jump to conclusions lets look at chinas record mass surveillance on hundreds of thousands of people from c. C. T. V. Cameras up to a 1000000 we get locked up in shin jang region many without charge or trial booksellers from hong kong disappeared doubtless all of them dealt with under the same kind of security laws that are covered to hong kong all day and none of that you say necessarily spells the death of hong kong separate system of course it does. Well you are talking about Mainland China youre not talking about hong kong in hong kong you know we have a common law system and we have the presumption of innocence anyone arrested can apply for haiti as koppers conviction on criminal offense needs very high burden of proof in fact proving beyond reasonable doubt when all the safeguards are here theyre over we already implemented the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights through our basic law and the bill of rights in hong kong so called has a different system we shouldnt alum our system to gether what Mainland China system we have strong protection of person no data privacy so what you just said simply does not apply to hong kong where you say you have these common law safeguards how long are you going to have them for when the new law comes into into effect look in detail at how beijing uses its National Security laws on the mainland to curtail personal freedoms and snuff out dissident voices thats thats what is in store out of all of the us do you know you dont really understand the real situation in hong kong our Law Enforcement agencies are prosecution lawyers and judges are all trained in a common law system if painting introduces a version. Including on fences which are wide open not sufficiently clearly to find out people wont be able to implement it and our judges will be able to acutely cage on those old fences so thats why i think beijing is taking advice from hong kong especially the common law lawyers as to how do they lean yates the specific over answers they have in mind why or why should we accept the china is going to adopt this benign attitude that you described towards hong kong when its a. Justice system on the mainland according to Amnesty International remains plagued by unfair trials torture and of ill treatment in detention why do you think youll be able to carry on with the same common law safeguards that you have at the moment you cant truthfully make that assertion because beijing hasnt said it will has it well again you are ignoring the facts that beijing has respected our common law system and we have carry on with our common law system for 23 years since the reunification you know the stability and the predictability of a common law system is here for everybody to see what you kit kat describing is a situation in in Mainland China according to certain Human Rights Organization they do this sort of discussion does not apply to hong kong i must ask you how do you know where he hardly knows actuation in hong kong how do you know that it doesnt what are you here not all i know that i know i know because i was lazy income has been working whereas beijing said you know that there are methods will not oblige in hong kong in the basic law in the basic law it says all ecosystems previously in force will continue to apply at least up to 2 or 47 now really in the last couple of going sources from is highly regarded in the last couple of days later in the last couple of days let me finish you are interviewing being you should let me finish give me a chance to finish my answer please you know i heard the well just this project the well Justice Project where its our legal system number 16 well why 3 places higher than that of the american system you should respect that yes and for how long will it remain that way. At least until 2 or 47. And our courts at the highest level our courts at the highest level have nonpermanent judges highly respected jurists from the commonwealth jurisdictions these are not people who can be pushed around they were to take a cases according to common law jurisprudence in the last couple of days youve made clear that not only will beijing security law be imposed but at the same time a major pillar of the Justice System is also to be got rid of jury trials for those indicted under this new legislation you say juries might not be appropriate i think that was the term you used not appropriate why because they might not deliver the verdict that you politicians want to see. Thats i said nothing that would undermine our existing system jury trial is only appropriate for over fences tried in our high court it over fences attracts sentences below 7 Years Imprisonment they can go to lower courts that affects as to whether courts as to where he or france are should be tried our quote of final appeal has held that it should be at this decision for our pos occlusion people of course nowadays were so much online bullying going on you know so much talk saying you know it is our effect that some jurors might be so intimidated as true as to become worried about serving as jurors in these cases that is effect a reality that i wish to point out and why shouldnt judges be intimidated either who in future judges who might be told in advance what the verdict is just like the system on the mainland thats how its going to be isnt it in hong kong what i can tell you as legislators i am being intimidated too because there are people urging the u. S. And the u. K. To put the un sanctions list is that fair what do you say to that people threatening my freedoms and rights. Regina beijings draft law already suggests that the independence of judges will come under direct threat doesnt it article 3 of the draft decision says hong kongs legislative and judicial organs must in accordance with relevant laws effectively prevent stop and punish acts in danger in National Security thats telling the judges are to do their job isnt it so much for the independence of the judiciary being safeguarded. Being independent being an independent branch up the government doesnt mean that they are not they have lots one loyalty to the basic law or allegiance to the country or touches on taking up their office they have sworn allegiance to the country they have a duty to protect the welfare of hong kong being a part of the nation i see nothing wrong with that i was quite thats were threatening independence up. You hold up a copy of the basic law but the Hong Kong Bar Association which knows a thing or 2 about law has what it calls a fundamental constitutional and legal concerns about this new law they point out that article 23. 00 agreed by joint declaration says hong kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit treason succession subversion to having a law imposed security law imposed by beijing is not an acting laws on its own is it. Well you make a quick point then why did the Bar Association did not support the trough National Security legislation i championed back in 2 will or to try very hard to help hong kong to an act National Security laws on our own why did they object to that and in the course of the public scrutiny i gave them many concessions now the awful trade you 3 imposes a constitutional duty on the us to prohibit certain National Security or frances but it does not preclude the p. R. C. Of origins from acting under their constitution the problem with our parcels here is that it ignores the laws of china only focuses on the basic law of hong kong which is weird it which sets out the constitution or arrangements for hong kong but the National Peoples congress is the highest of already in Mainland China and the Bar Association has persisted and in persistent in ignoring these realities so the National Peoples congress can just reapers are the basic laws it feels like the Bar Association says it would appear that the National Peoples congress has no power to the National Security law that its proposing. On the article 23 the n. P. C. Has not swept away the powers of our are under the basic law the decision the decision of the n. P. C. The 7 point assertion in 2 of the points they urged the Hong Kong Government to get on with and acting legislation locally on our own to fulfill our constitutional obligations you know our duty under article 3 does not preclude baiting of origins from doing their own thing to protect National Security certainly every country has a right to protect its security and territorial integrity lets look at what happened back in 2003 when you were security minister and you tried and failed to push through a security law against subversion and treason for hong kong it brought the people out in the hundreds of thousands against it and you had to resign your post because why because people didnt trust this law and they didnt trust the provisions of it and they still dont do they still dont. Well home call has undergone ever many crises of confidence in the past 100 years you know but our systems have remained robust you know and on a lot of people are now requesting they should have supported the version that i championed 17 years ago moreover a lot of people came out to protest not just because of the National Security law but because of the sars epidemic at that time and many who normally problems and the difference between then and now is that at that time after the then chief executive announced he would. Not go ahead with the legislation people went home peacefully but in the past year we have seen a lot of violence a lot of subversive activity a lot of terrorist activities harm done a lot of. Extremely dangerous. As in the u. S. As into us you know roughly on hold on but we have also had we are all we also have all of smashing of windows beating up innocent bystanders holding up explosives ransacking of the Legislative Council and the hauling of the troops around the tucson preceded that a lot of Police Brutality are you ok. Not the single most of us and has been mortally wounded by our police force on the other hand in the past week 3 Police Officers have died of exhaustion after of duty were totally unlike the us where the policemen kill at least 1000. 00 people every year you must be fair there no such thing as Police Brutality in Hong Kong Well lets not bring in the us you have to show me a single you know we are not talking about the us but give me one specific instance of Police Brutality you cannot just pick the words up to lights up joshua one for granted whether about setting people on fire that was really one of the military sort we saw and also on the Radio Network break you say give you a single example we saw on video few months ago a policeman shooting a demonstrator an unarmed demonstrators directly in the stomach you must have seen it as well wasnt that Police Brutality regina thats not Police Brutality the policeman was trying to protect himself the from a con artist charging at him from an unnamed man well an armed man can also be dangerous the the have been several shooting incidents in the past 12 months each incident has been carefully examined by the police and they have basically been exculpated by the expert groups and gauge by our independent Police Complaints council you say that the Bar Association raises the issue of how this new law is going to be enforced by china the draft decision says that when needed relevant National Security organs of the central peoples government will set up agencies in hong kong to safeguard National Security in accordance with the new law what are we talking about here regina in beijing secret kind of thing are you are we talking about beijing secret Police Operating in hong kong as and when they want i dont think theyre talking about direct and forstmann of Law Enforcement of laws will continue to be. The responsibility of our policeman thats not what it says it is against the basic on no no no thats what what you described they did not say what you describe they only said that some National Security agency made the set up on the need basis as in a couple hours a National Security council you have known what is that the nominations are selling homes that means doesnt mean the bay we must all be creative only when its actually we dont know for that titos so you cant believe it culpable as well you should not you cant give any comforting but as you have not about this and you cannot give any unwarranted accusations. If there are no facts you are making unwarranted accusations will these agencies operate under a mainland law or hong kong law you dont know do you. No no no its in the basic law they must obey hong kong law when i said this it is not clear yet what any new National Security agency would be responsible for it could simply be responsible for Public Education publish it in promotion you know you cannot come to the conclusion that they are they will be enforcing hong kong law thats what they bridge thats what they do when they bring in their National Security organs of the Central Police government does it it was sent to peoples government thats what they are looking for education is it you dont know that again you arent you and you have no no factual basis for making those sort of statements you are simply making our broad sweeping allegations based on your own assumptions and bias when theres no assumptions and bias when you look at how the National Security organs of the central peoples government operate when theyre in on the mainland were not talking about mainland were talking about one country 2 systems lets come back to hong kong. It doesnt look as though its one country 2 systems that have very interNational Security organs have an imposing their security laws on hong kong it doesnt look like 2 systems it looks like one country one system if you do that they are an acting they are trying to an eco hong kong specific version which is consistent with our common law systems if they just wish to implement impose chinas system on us they could just apply this to us chinas National Security law but they are not doing this they are now Consulting Hong Kong experts about and in. Crafting a hong kong specific version for us to take account of our separate systems. One of the things you said recently in your article was that beijing has a tacit understanding that the new law needs to be drafted in a way thats consistent with common law norms and strikes a balance between protecting National Security and up holding personal rights and freedoms 1st point region a tacit understanding is our by definition meaningless and. Well patent understanding you know is reflected by the fact that they are not imposing a national law on hong kong they are trafficking a hong kong specific law in fact because they understand our system is different in the basic law they asked us to do it on our own but because we failed to do so in the past 20 through years so a chain of origins have no option but to get on with introducing or set up laws that will protect National Security and discourage separatist activities thats what they are doing there not imposing Legislative Council<\/a> and chair of the probe aging new Peoples Party<\/a> will the communist all parties try to use this law as they have with other security statutes on the mainland to violate basic rights and restrict free expression. Thinking that youre welcome to a conference on. Hello you recently wrote an article about the controversial new security law that chinas going to impose on hong kong and you said this does not necessarily spell the death of hong kong separate systems but youre taking a huge gamble backing this law arent you because beijing is done everything it can to prove that its not interested in those separate systems not interested in freedom of expression human rights or the rule of law is it. I dont think we need to come to a conclusion because china already has its own National Security<\/a> law you know which is only a few pages long whats consists mainly of principles exhortations duties obligations. I think the fact that it needs it feels or pla is true and that our hong kong version reflects its understanding that hong kong to russia which is consistent with our common law system thats why peyton is going ahead to an act a special hongkong specific National Security<\/a> law for us but region if you say dont jump to conclusions lets look at chinas record mass surveillance on hundreds of thousands of people from c. C. T. V. Cameras up to a 1000000 we get locked up in shin jang region many without charge or trial booksellers from hong kong disappeared doubtless all of them dealt with under the same kind of security laws that are covered to hong kong all day and none of that you say necessarily spells the death of hong kong separate system of course it does. Well you are talking about Mainland China<\/a> youre not talking about hong kong in hong kong you know we have a common law system and we have the presumption of innocence anyone arrested can apply for haiti as koppers conviction on criminal offense needs very high burden of proof in fact proving beyond reasonable doubt when all the safeguards are here theyre over we already implemented the International Covenant<\/a> on civil and Political Rights<\/a> through our basic law and the bill of rights in hong kong so called has a different system we shouldnt alum our system to gether what Mainland China<\/a> system we have strong protection of person no data privacy so what you just said simply does not apply to hong kong where you say you have these common law safeguards how long are you going to have them for when the new law comes into into effect look in detail at how beijing uses its National Security<\/a> laws on the mainland to curtail personal freedoms and snuff out dissident voices thats thats what is in store out of all of the us do you know you dont really understand the real situation in hong kong our Law Enforcement<\/a> agencies are prosecution lawyers and judges are all trained in a common law system if painting introduces a version. Including on fences which are wide open not sufficiently clearly to find out people wont be able to implement it and our judges will be able to acutely cage on those old fences so thats why i think beijing is taking advice from hong kong especially the common law lawyers as to how do they lean yates the specific over answers they have in mind why or why should we accept the china is going to adopt this benign attitude that you described towards hong kong when its a. Justice system on the mainland according to Amnesty International<\/a> remains plagued by unfair trials torture and of ill treatment in detention why do you think youll be able to carry on with the same common law safeguards that you have at the moment you cant truthfully make that assertion because beijing hasnt said it will has it well again you are ignoring the facts that beijing has respected our common law system and we have carry on with our common law system for 23 years since the reunification you know the stability and the predictability of a common law system is here for everybody to see what you kit kat describing is a situation in in Mainland China<\/a> according to certain Human Rights Organization<\/a> they do this sort of discussion does not apply to hong kong i must ask you how do you know where he hardly knows actuation in hong kong how do you know that it doesnt what are you here not all i know that i know i know because i was lazy income has been working whereas beijing said you know that there are methods will not oblige in hong kong in the basic law in the basic law it says all ecosystems previously in force will continue to apply at least up to 2 or 47 now really in the last couple of going sources from is highly regarded in the last couple of days later in the last couple of days let me finish you are interviewing being you should let me finish give me a chance to finish my answer please you know i heard the well just this project the well Justice Project<\/a> where its our legal system number 16 well why 3 places higher than that of the american system you should respect that yes and for how long will it remain that way. At least until 2 or 47. And our courts at the highest level our courts at the highest level have nonpermanent judges highly respected jurists from the commonwealth jurisdictions these are not people who can be pushed around they were to take a cases according to common law jurisprudence in the last couple of days youve made clear that not only will beijing security law be imposed but at the same time a major pillar of the Justice System<\/a> is also to be got rid of jury trials for those indicted under this new legislation you say juries might not be appropriate i think that was the term you used not appropriate why because they might not deliver the verdict that you politicians want to see. Thats i said nothing that would undermine our existing system jury trial is only appropriate for over fences tried in our high court it over fences attracts sentences below 7 Years Imprisonment<\/a> they can go to lower courts that affects as to whether courts as to where he or france are should be tried our quote of final appeal has held that it should be at this decision for our pos occlusion people of course nowadays were so much online bullying going on you know so much talk saying you know it is our effect that some jurors might be so intimidated as true as to become worried about serving as jurors in these cases that is effect a reality that i wish to point out and why shouldnt judges be intimidated either who in future judges who might be told in advance what the verdict is just like the system on the mainland thats how its going to be isnt it in hong kong what i can tell you as legislators i am being intimidated too because there are people urging the u. S. And the u. K. To put the un sanctions list is that fair what do you say to that people threatening my freedoms and rights. Regina beijings draft law already suggests that the independence of judges will come under direct threat doesnt it article 3 of the draft decision says hong kongs legislative and judicial organs must in accordance with relevant laws effectively prevent stop and punish acts in danger in National Security<\/a> thats telling the judges are to do their job isnt it so much for the independence of the judiciary being safeguarded. Being independent being an independent branch up the government doesnt mean that they are not they have lots one loyalty to the basic law or allegiance to the country or touches on taking up their office they have sworn allegiance to the country they have a duty to protect the welfare of hong kong being a part of the nation i see nothing wrong with that i was quite thats were threatening independence up. You hold up a copy of the basic law but the Hong Kong Bar Association<\/a> which knows a thing or 2 about law has what it calls a fundamental constitutional and legal concerns about this new law they point out that article 23. 00 agreed by joint declaration says hong kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit treason succession subversion to having a law imposed security law imposed by beijing is not an acting laws on its own is it. Well you make a quick point then why did the Bar Association<\/a> did not support the trough National Security<\/a> legislation i championed back in 2 will or to try very hard to help hong kong to an act National Security<\/a> laws on our own why did they object to that and in the course of the public scrutiny i gave them many concessions now the awful trade you 3 imposes a constitutional duty on the us to prohibit certain National Security<\/a> or frances but it does not preclude the p. R. C. Of origins from acting under their constitution the problem with our parcels here is that it ignores the laws of china only focuses on the basic law of hong kong which is weird it which sets out the constitution or arrangements for hong kong but the National Peoples<\/a> congress is the highest of already in Mainland China<\/a> and the Bar Association<\/a> has persisted and in persistent in ignoring these realities so the National Peoples<\/a> congress can just reapers are the basic laws it feels like the Bar Association<\/a> says it would appear that the National Peoples<\/a> congress has no power to the National Security<\/a> law that its proposing. On the article 23 the n. P. C. Has not swept away the powers of our are under the basic law the decision the decision of the n. P. C. The 7 point assertion in 2 of the points they urged the Hong Kong Government<\/a> to get on with and acting legislation locally on our own to fulfill our constitutional obligations you know our duty under article 3 does not preclude baiting of origins from doing their own thing to protect National Security<\/a> certainly every country has a right to protect its security and territorial integrity lets look at what happened back in 2003 when you were security minister and you tried and failed to push through a security law against subversion and treason for hong kong it brought the people out in the hundreds of thousands against it and you had to resign your post because why because people didnt trust this law and they didnt trust the provisions of it and they still dont do they still dont. Well home call has undergone ever many crises of confidence in the past 100 years you know but our systems have remained robust you know and on a lot of people are now requesting they should have supported the version that i championed 17 years ago moreover a lot of people came out to protest not just because of the National Security<\/a> law but because of the sars epidemic at that time and many who normally problems and the difference between then and now is that at that time after the then chief executive announced he would. Not go ahead with the legislation people went home peacefully but in the past year we have seen a lot of violence a lot of subversive activity a lot of terrorist activities harm done a lot of. Extremely dangerous. As in the u. S. As into us you know roughly on hold on but we have also had we are all we also have all of smashing of windows beating up innocent bystanders holding up explosives ransacking of the Legislative Council<\/a> and the hauling of the troops around the tucson preceded that a lot of Police Brutality<\/a> are you ok. Not the single most of us and has been mortally wounded by our police force on the other hand in the past week 3 Police Officers<\/a> have died of exhaustion after of duty were totally unlike the us where the policemen kill at least 1000. 00 people every year you must be fair there no such thing as Police Brutality<\/a> in Hong Kong Well<\/a> lets not bring in the us you have to show me a single you know we are not talking about the us but give me one specific instance of Police Brutality<\/a> you cannot just pick the words up to lights up joshua one for granted whether about setting people on fire that was really one of the military sort we saw and also on the Radio Network<\/a> break you say give you a single example we saw on video few months ago a policeman shooting a demonstrator an unarmed demonstrators directly in the stomach you must have seen it as well wasnt that Police Brutality<\/a> regina thats not Police Brutality<\/a> the policeman was trying to protect himself the from a con artist charging at him from an unnamed man well an armed man can also be dangerous the the have been several shooting incidents in the past 12 months each incident has been carefully examined by the police and they have basically been exculpated by the expert groups and gauge by our independent Police Complaints<\/a> council you say that the Bar Association<\/a> raises the issue of how this new law is going to be enforced by china the draft decision says that when needed relevant National Security<\/a> organs of the central peoples government will set up agencies in hong kong to safeguard National Security<\/a> in accordance with the new law what are we talking about here regina in beijing secret kind of thing are you are we talking about beijing secret Police Operating<\/a> in hong kong as and when they want i dont think theyre talking about direct and forstmann of Law Enforcement<\/a> of laws will continue to be. The responsibility of our policeman thats not what it says it is against the basic on no no no thats what what you described they did not say what you describe they only said that some National Security<\/a> agency made the set up on the need basis as in a couple hours a National Security<\/a> council you have known what is that the nominations are selling homes that means doesnt mean the bay we must all be creative only when its actually we dont know for that titos so you cant believe it culpable as well you should not you cant give any comforting but as you have not about this and you cannot give any unwarranted accusations. If there are no facts you are making unwarranted accusations will these agencies operate under a mainland law or hong kong law you dont know do you. No no no its in the basic law they must obey hong kong law when i said this it is not clear yet what any new National Security<\/a> agency would be responsible for it could simply be responsible for Public Education<\/a> publish it in promotion you know you cannot come to the conclusion that they are they will be enforcing hong kong law thats what they bridge thats what they do when they bring in their National Security<\/a> organs of the Central Police<\/a> government does it it was sent to peoples government thats what they are looking for education is it you dont know that again you arent you and you have no no factual basis for making those sort of statements you are simply making our broad sweeping allegations based on your own assumptions and bias when theres no assumptions and bias when you look at how the National Security<\/a> organs of the central peoples government operate when theyre in on the mainland were not talking about mainland were talking about one country 2 systems lets come back to hong kong. It doesnt look as though its one country 2 systems that have very interNational Security<\/a> organs have an imposing their security laws on hong kong it doesnt look like 2 systems it looks like one country one system if you do that they are an acting they are trying to an eco hong kong specific version which is consistent with our common law systems if they just wish to implement impose chinas system on us they could just apply this to us chinas National Security<\/a> law but they are not doing this they are now Consulting Hong Kong<\/a> experts about and in. Crafting a hong kong specific version for us to take account of our separate systems. One of the things you said recently in your article was that beijing has a tacit understanding that the new law needs to be drafted in a way thats consistent with common law norms and strikes a balance between protecting National Security<\/a> and up holding personal rights and freedoms 1st point region a tacit understanding is our by definition meaningless and. Well patent understanding you know is reflected by the fact that they are not imposing a national law on hong kong they are trafficking a hong kong specific law in fact because they understand our system is different in the basic law they asked us to do it on our own but because we failed to do so in the past 20 through years so a chain of origins have no option but to get on with introducing or set up laws that will protect National Security<\/a> and discourage separatist activities thats what they are doing there not imposing National Laws<\/a> on hong kong tell me no our system is different tell me over fences that they are worried about for example succession subversion under the common law these offenses need to be very clearly spelled out and they will need expert help from hong kong perhaps your assurances would carry more weight if what weve been seeing in hong kong hadnt been taking place and thats the erosion of existing rights as in the last month un human rights experts severely criticized police for the arrest of Peaceful Demonstrations<\/a> in violation they said of norms International Norms<\/a> and rights they demanded that the Hong Kong Government<\/a> immediately trump the criminal prosecution of 15 prodemocracy activists who took part in peaceful protests last year if youre so concerned about the rule of law in hong kong why are you not going to release these people i think you have been talking to the wrong people and take a listening only to one side that opinion. Yes take for example june 4th commemorations could lead to new to take place in hong kong even though a lot of participants violate our public or Public Health<\/a> laws prohibiting group. Gatherings the police allow them to gather in factorial park and facilitate at their gathering no difference i dont think that would be any difference after the National Hong Kong<\/a> for sure not the National Security<\/a> law its been an exit peaceful gatherings peaceful possible processions will continue to be allowed the police tried to ban that vigil as you know in Victoria Park<\/a> didnt they and what the police did not track did not bend that the Police Facilitated<\/a> at least 10000 Public Meetings<\/a> and processions the police have been pending not giving approval in recent months because of the covert 900 situation because we have enacted Public Health<\/a> laws prohibiting Group Gatherings<\/a> of more than 8 people youve had only 5 we have got a visual stayed at home orders you have you have only 5 locally transmitted infections 5 in the week of june the 1st after more than 2 weeks with no local cases taking the total number of infections to just over a 1004. 00 deaths prodemocracy canberra said it was just an excuse excuse to try and block an unwelcome event and they were right one day thank you for pointing out that we have done well in fighting covert 19 but we should not take anything for granted we should not 2nd feis Public Safety<\/a> you know just to accommodate these protests request they cant do it after the covert 19 is completely under control moreover we have detected 2 local outbreaks recently in Public Housing<\/a> estates the sources of which have not yet been traced. Beijings declared reason for this new law to maintain order in hong kong and to counteract what it calls characteristics of terrorism and separation but thats not the real worry is it the fact is the security law reflects beijings paranoia about free speech and freedom in general doesnt live thats a very unfair statement in the past 12 months the police have uncovered at least 22 cases up extremely dangerous here keeping explosives or that inch in one in the school and lots of weaponry dangerous weapons have been using a lot of socalled peaceful protests you know and innocent people have been killed these are violent events have never occurred in hong kong and there are people waving promoting hong kong independence you know waving hong kong flat chanting revolutionary songs you know these are activities that no government would allow a lot of hong kong people are very angry about it john fund revolutionary song never an order trying to get illusion yes i have that we are perfectly entitled to chant revolutionary songs in free countries Regina Europe<\/a> you can go to london or washington and chant whatever revolutionary songs you want why dont you try it. It depends on whether the songs are chanted as in an opera Les Miserables<\/a> la or chant of as a part up a well organized and well planned action plan to stalk separatist sentiments. At the end of the day your your reason your pitch to the people of hong kong is trust beijing this security law will not be used in the same way that beijing uses its security laws to tamp down on freedoms on the mainland this is what you are asking them to accept that china is not going to behave the way it behaves on the mainland in hong kong do you really believe that of course the motherland our motherland has nothing but good intentions for the people of hong kong and also trust the basic law trust one country 2 systems which has worked well in the past 23 years you know why doesnt it have better attentions towards its own people on the mainland why is it torturing them in prisons and locking up a 1000000 weakest in riyadh socalled reeducation camps why is it doing that i must answer you took i must ask you not to confuse and fills the issues but keep talking about nikken delegations about the mainland what have nothing to do a one country 2 systems i ask you to come back to the situation in hong kong how one country 2 systems really operate and dont allow the are biased to or color your you know your i reports on the hong kong thats totally unfair to hong kong people i take strong objection to that regina its been good to have your own comfort zone thank you very much. My. My. Good thinking. Of. Resisting racism in france. A momentous day the color of the earth immigrant should visit the forefront of this movement. Her brother was shot and killed by Police Officers<\/a> since then amal an attorney has been fighting for the rights of migrants she wants to put a stop to Police Violence<\/a> against young emigrants my car brothers some kids on her. 30 minute song to. Africa. Measure d during the corona crisis d in rwanda is expensive. Ready or virtually unattainable ready ready ready. My youngest this woman has decided to improvise. In her distillery she produces disinfectant. To africa. 90 minutes on d w. In the us right of climate change. Africas most of. Whats in store for. Most of for the future. E. W. Dot com can megacities the multimedia insight click culture. Armstrong really walk on the moon. Isnt the earth really flat after all. The government planes to poison us. Conspiracy theories spread like wildfire on the internet. Some people are convinced they are true. Because of small groups who shout loud is anonymous profit from a lack of interest among reasonable become. Scientists are studying why some are so susceptible to ideas that are obviously wrong and absurd and how the internet amplifies it all. Coming it takes a lot more energy to refute rubbish than to propagate it in the 1st place. Before conspiracy theories can provide comfort you dont like reality can create another. A film about knowledge and belief trust and deception. Tomography of the goebbels starts joyce 1st on t. W. Mean years live from donald trump on the defensive over Race Relations<\/a> and policing in the u. S. The u. S. President s top general apologizes for joining him at a Church Photo Op<\/a> in washington shortly after the area was forcefully cleared of anti racism protesters also coming up","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803207.us.archive.org\/10\/items\/DW_20200611_223000_Conflict_Zone\/DW_20200611_223000_Conflict_Zone.thumbs\/DW_20200611_223000_Conflict_Zone_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}