Tim Walz fake dog scandal shock mayhem

Strange how long-delayed NatSec trials are finally coming to a head right now.

More HK47 mitigation pleas. Defence lawyers compete to describe how unimportant their clients were, while NatSec judges appear unimpressed…

[Carol – brief bio] Ng said in her own mitigation letter submitted to the court that she joined the primaries purely to “afford our society more satisfied workers so that our society can operate better.” It was never her aim to subvert state power, only to improve labour conditions for workers, she said.

But judge Johnny Chan said the court could not accept that Ng had no intention to break the law, only that she was not a principal offender.

…Representing ex-district councillor Roy Tam, barrister David Ma asked the court to consider Tam a lower-level “other” participant in the conspiracy and, if not, to place him at the lower end of the “active participant” band.

Like Ng, Tam was an “also-ran” candidate, Ma told the court, adding that he came last in the primaries, only receiving half the number of votes of the candidate who finished above him.

Addressing doubts from the judges, Ma said he was not arguing that fewer votes would necessarily mean a shorter sentence. But he asked the court to consider that there was a “spectrum of activeness” across the defendants who had participated in the primaries…

…Former District Councillor Ricky Or’s participation in the conspiracy was “extremely limited,” barrister Richard Yip argued on Wednesday, adding that he had limited influence over the general public.

Judge Alex Lee said in response that Or produced campaign materials and had hired a campaign manager, casting doubt over the idea that the number of votes received by a defendant reflected the extent of their culpability. Or was among those who had signed a declaration to indiscriminately veto the budget, said judge Johnny Chan.

From the SCMP…

[Gladys] Li argued the case was not the worst of its kind as it remained uncertain whether the primary winners, if elected to the Legislative Council, would have actually abused their voting powers to obstruct the government’s financial budgets and paralyse its operations pursuant to a previous agreement.

She warned that if the starting point of the sentence was set too high, the court would have no choice but to mete out even heavier punishments for national security offences such as those involving violence.

Mr Justice Andrew Chan Hing-wai, one of three High Court judges overseeing the case, disagreed that the conspiracy was unlikely to succeed, saying that it was not a relevant consideration for sentencing.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang added that deterrence was an essential element in penalising national security offences.

And the Stand News verdict is due today. 

The prosecution contended that the defendants could be convicted if the publications were proven to be seditious, regardless of their intent, and that convicting Stand News and its ex-editors would have a negligible impact on press freedom in Hong Kong, compared with the risks the outlet posed to national security.

The defence challenged what it saw as an unfair prosecution, accusing prosecutors of cherry-picking articles and introducing new evidence as the trial unfolded. It said there was no seditious conspiracy since the defendants were legitimate journalists reporting on matters that other news outlets in the city had also covered.

AP has a backgrounder…

Two journalists who led a now-closed Hong Kong online news outlet will hear a verdict in their sedition case on Thursday, in a trial that’s seen as an indicator of press freedom in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

…During the 2019 anti-government protests, Stand News gained prominence for its live-streaming coverage from the front lines and attracted many democracy supporters for its critical reporting of the authorities.

The city’s secretary for security Chris Tang and its police criticized the outlet, saying some of its reports were “misleading,” while Hong Kong residents surveyed by the researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong rated it among the most credible outlets in the city in 2019.

…The sedition law outlaws the promulgation of seditious publications, among other acts, and defines seditious intent including aiming to incite hatred or contempt against the Chinese central government, the Hong Kong government or the judiciary.

The prosecution accused [former chief editors] Chung and Lam of conspiring to publish and reproduce seditious articles, calling Stand News a political platform.

…The trial was initially expected to last 20 days but ran over to some 50 days.

The government lawyers said some of the articles helped promote “illegal ideologies,” as well as smearing the security law and law enforcement officers.

‘Illegal ideology’ is surely another way of saying ‘thought crime’, right? And is there a law against ‘smearing’?