Head of UK Supreme Court should resign for talking to London before quitting Hong Kong court

Head of UK Supreme Court should resign for talking to London before quitting Hong Kong court, former leader says by Tony Cheung April 8 2022

梁振英今天的發文：“《南華早報》今天報道，辭任香港終審法院的英國法官韋彥德解釋，其實是由他啟動和英國政府的洽談，然後決定辭職，辭職並非由於英國政府向他施壓。

我有幾個問題：

  1. 韋彥德法官「啟動和英國政府的洽談」時，他心中是怎麼想的？為什麼要「洽談」為什麼不是他自己決定辭職，然後通知英國政府？
  2. 如果英國政府在洽談中建議韋彥德法官不要辭職，他會辭職嗎？
  3. 在洽談中，英國政府有沒有告知韋彥德法官，辭職問題應該由他自己決定，因為英國政府不想被視為干預香港的司法獨立？
  4. 為什麼韋彥德法官不同樣地事先和中國政府「洽談」他的辭職？

韋彥德法官邀請英國政府干預香港的司法獨立，極度不智，應該馬上辭去英國法官辭務。

Today’s South China Morning Post reports “British jurist Lord Robert Reed has rejected claims he bowed to pressure from British politicians when he and fellow judge Lord Patrick Hodge resigned from the Court of Final Appeal because of concerns over the national security law”. Lord Robert added “it was actually he who initiated discussions with the British government about tendering his resignation because of his own concerns”.

Questions:

  1. What did Lord Robert have in mind when he “initiated discussions with the British government about tendering his resignation because of his own concerns”? Why didn’t he decide and then inform the British government?
  2. What would he have done if the British government “advised” him NOT to resign?
  3. Did the British government say to him that he should make up his own mind as they did not want to be seen to be interfering with Hong Kong’s judicial independence?
  4. Why didn’t he also initiate “discussions” about his resignation with the Chinese government?

Lord Robert invited the British government to be part of his decision to resign from the Hong Kong court. This is very poor judgment. He should resign also from the British court. ””

Leung Chun-ying accuses Lord Robert Reed of showing poor judgment by going to the British government with his concerns over freedoms in Hong Kong
‘Why didn’t he decide and then inform the British government?’ Leung asks

The head of Britain’s Supreme Court should resign after he involved London in his controversial decision to step down from Hong Kong’s top court, a former leader of the Asian financial hub has argued. Lord Robert Reed showed “poor judgment” in going to the British government with his concerns over Hong Kong’s national security law before his departure was announced, ex-chief executive Leung Chun-ying wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.

“What did [Reed] have in mind when he ‘initiated discussions with the British government about tendering his resignation because of his own concerns’? Why didn’t he decide and then inform the British government? What would he have done if the British government ‘advised’ him not to resign?” said Leung, who is now a vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the nation’s top advisory body. “This is very poor judgment. He should also resign from the British court.”

Reed and the vice-president of the British Supreme Court, Lord Patrick Hodge, resigned as overseas judges who heard cases in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal last week, noting they agreed with the British government’s concerns over the national security law. Reed said he could no longer serve on both courts “without appearing to endorse an administration which had departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.

The Chinese government, as well as officials and legal bodies in Hong Kong, accused the United Kingdom of putting politics before the law.

Responding to the resignations, current leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said “we must vehemently refute any unfounded allegations that the judges’ resignations have anything to do with the introduction of the Hong Kong national security law or the exercise of freedom of speech and political freedom in Hong Kong”. But speaking at a parliamentary session in London earlier this week, Reed said he was not under political pressure to make the decision and added that it was he who initiated the talks with the British government.

Leung also urged Reed to clarify whether the British government told him to make the decision himself so that London would not be seen as interfering with Hong Kong’s judicial independence.

“Why didn’t he also initiate ‘discussions’ about his resignation with the Chinese government?” he said.

Reed and Hodge resigned from the Court of Final Appeal on March 30, ending a practice of serving British judges sitting on the Hong Kong bench that stretched back to the city’s handover from British to Chinese rule in 1997. Reed and Hodge were among 12 overseas jurists from other common law jurisdictions serving as non-permanent judges on the top court, an arrangement that has stood as a strong endorsement of the city’s rule of law.

The remaining 10 – six from Britain and the rest from Canada and Australia – are all retired in their home countries so they are not bound by decisions made by their governments should others decide to withdraw their judges. Nine of the remaining jurists have told the Post they will remain.

Tony Cheung became a political journalist in 2007. He joined the Post in 2012, and covers Hong Kong-mainland relations, public policies and political issues. Prior to joining the Post, he was a reporter at Asia Television in Hong Kong, Beijing and Guangzhou. He holds a Master of Laws in Human Rights degree from the University of Hong Kong.

Video: US Treasury Secretary threatened to impose financial sanctions on China

Video: US Treasury Secretary threatened to impose financial sanctions on China, no matter if you are pro-China or anti-China, just like the current Ukrainian model or the treatment of American Japanese in WWII, confiscation of Chinese personal and corporate assets in the US 美財長揚言 金融製裁中國, 不管你是親中或反中跟現在烏克蘭模式或二戰對待美國日本人一樣做法, 沒收華人在美國的個人和公司資產, 眾院議長訪台生鞭數.
https://rumble.com/v109145-us-treasury-secretary-threatened-to-impose-financial-sanctions-on-china.html
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/688265255730136/?d=n

You know what Liu Xin is 100% correct

Video: I have been watching and reading Chinese and Western medias since 1985 also with the luxury to travel to both sides of the Pacific. You know what Liu Xin is 100% correct. 自1985 年以來，我一直在觀看和閱讀中國和西方媒體，也有幸前往太平洋兩岸。 你知道嗎? 劉欣是百分百正確的.
https://rumble.com/v102bn3-journalist-liu-xin-is-100-correct.html
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/687439205812741/?d=n

The Washington Post Finally Admits The Role of the ‘Far Right’ Azov Battalion in Ukraine

The Washington Post Finally Admits The Role of the ‘Far Right’ Azov Battalion in Ukraine. by Raheem J. Kassam April 6, 2022

After months of denying the influence of Neo Nazis in Ukraine’s military, the Washington Post has finally conceded the point – long blasted as “conspiracy theory” or “Kremlin disinformation” – about the nation’s Azov battalion.

In an article published April 6th 2022, the Washington Post explains in its headline: “Right-wing Azov Battalion emerges as a controversial defender of Ukraine.”

The report cites Hans-Jakob Schindler, a senior director at the Counter Extremism Project, who admitted the “allure” for Neo Nazis in Ukraine is “not surprising,” in WaPo’s words.

“There’s nothing shocking about it,” he said. “It’s the only conflict you can join.” He added: “Where you want to go? To Syria, where Muslims killing Muslims, to West Africa, where Black people kill Black people? As you’re a Nazi, that’s not the conflict you want to join.”

WaPo also concedes, in less uncertain terms:

Despite their military successes, the Azov continued to be criticized as adherents to neo-Nazi ideology. Even as they have consistently denied any Nazi affiliations, their uniforms and tattoos on many of their fighters display a number of fascist and Nazi symbols, including swastikas and SS symbols. In 2015, Andriy Diachenko, the spokesperson for the regiment at the time, told USA Today that 10 to 20 percent of Azov’s recruits were Nazis.

The Jeff Bezos-owned newspaper is still keen to run cover for the group, much as the New York Times did during the Second World War:

The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.”

The paper interviewed Col. Andriy Biletskiy – co-founder and commander of Azov who is on the record as wanting to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]…”

“We don’t identify ourselves with the Nazi ideology,” said Biletskiy. “We have people of conservative political views, and I see myself as such. But, as any person, I don’t want my views to be defined by others. I’m not a Nazi. We completely reject it.”

Another interviewee for the article, author Michael Colborne, said that while he “wouldn’t call [Azov] explicitly a neo-Nazi movement… There are clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks.”

“There are elements in it who are, you know, neo-fascist and there are elements who are maybe more kind of old-school Ukrainian nationalist,” said Colborne.

“At its core, it’s hostile to liberal democracy. It’s hostile to every everything that comes with liberal democracy, minority rights, voting rights, things like that.”

The paper admits: “…the battalion’s far-right nationalist ideology has raised concerns that it is attracting extremists, including white supremacist neo-Nazis, who could pose a future threat. When Putin cast his assault on Ukraine as a quest to “de-Nazify” the country, seeking to delegitimize the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian nationalism as fascist, he was partly referring to the Azov forces.”

The news report flies in the face of both news reports and opinion pieces published by the Washington Post since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, both of which have sought to reject the influence of Neo Nazis in the nation’s military.

While the paper still suggests that Neo Nazis serving the secularist, Jewish-born president Volodymyr Zelensky somehow negatives their extremist purpose, critics have alleged it says more about Zelensky and his willingness to lead Neo Nazi elements in his national guard than it does the changing nature of the Azov battalion.

Raheem Kassam is the Editor-in-Chief of the National Pulse, and former senior advisor to Brexit leader Nigel Farage. Kassam is the best-selling author of ‘No Go Zones’ and ‘Enoch Was Right’, a co-host at the War Room: Impeachment podcast, a Lincoln fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a fellow at the Bow Group think tank. Kassam is an academic advisory board member at the Institut des Sciences Sociales, Economiques et Politiques in Lyon, France. He resides in Washington, D.C.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started