[Hong Kong version of the National Security Law] What is "local terrorism" in Hong Kong? (Next)｜Weekly 01

weekly

Written by: Cheng Xue

2020-06-01 19:00

Although there is no uniform definition of terrorism in the world, Liu Weicong believes that the analysis of terrorist incidents in history should recognize the two basic elements of terrorist activities. First of all, it was an attack on civilians. "For example, the victims of 9/11 are mainly ordinary people working in the Petronas Twin Towers and firefighters performing first aid." Secondly, terrorists often make claims that are beneficial to their own organizations, and related claims may involve political, religious, and other interests.

Is it necessary to quote the Anti-Terrorism Regulations?

Martin Purbrick, a former police officer who was in charge of counter-terrorism intelligence during the Hong Kong-British period, believed that "terrorism" is a subset of "political violence." Wars between countries or tribes, civil wars between populations of a country, revolutions, rebellions, violent political protests, riots, and terrorism can all be considered "political violence." Therefore, violence can not involve terrorism, but terrorism cannot be without violence.

The late Paul Wilkinson, a professor at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, defined terrorism as "the systematic use of coercive intimidation, usually for political purposes." That is to say, terrorist activities should have the following characteristics, first of all, systematic and continuous activities, mandatory intimidation of someone to do something, and serve political purposes. In Purbrick's view, if according to Professor Wilkinson's definition, some of the political violence contained in the relevant definitions of the Anti-Terrorism Regulations do not meet the criteria for objectively understanding "terrorism".

In an interview with Hong Kong and Taiwan recently, the chairman of the Citizen Party, Liang Jiajie, said: "In dealing with explosives, Hong Kong's "Crime Ordinance" already has sufficient provisions." (Photo / Photo by Luo Junhao)

He pointed out, "There is currently no ongoing systematic terrorist activity in Hong Kong, there are no civilians injured by the bombing, and the violence of the demonstrators is mainly directed against the Hong Kong police. This is a hate crime, not terrorism."

In fact, the chairman of the Citizen Party and senior counsel Liang Jiajie said in an interview with Radio Television Hong Kong a few days ago: "In dealing with explosives, Hong Kong's Criminal Offences Ordinance already has sufficient provisions." The maximum penalty for bombing in the Regulations is life imprisonment. That being the case, why did the Attorney General leave the existing laws in use and instead consider prosecuting the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance, which has not been in operation for 18 years after the legislation?

Liu Weicong suspected that in addition to the intentional stigmatization of demonstrators, the authorities also intended to effectively expand the investigative power of the Department of Justice through the Anti-Terrorism Regulations. "Everyone is always talking about the "Terrorism Regulations" which can freeze the property of terrorists, but I think this is not the main intention of quoting the regulations. To be honest, demonstrators have no money."

Liu Weicong pointed out that the introduction of the "Anti-Terrorism Regulations" can effectively expand the investigation power of the Secretary of Justice. (Photo by Zheng Zifeng)

Liu Weicong further explained that the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance gives the Department of Justice the power to make orders to persons identified as "terrorists", asking them to answer questions or provide relevant information on any matters that the Secretary of Justice considers relevant to the investigation. "This means that the relevant suspects do not have the "right to silence"."

The so-called right of silence refers to the right of criminal suspects or defendants to refuse to answer questions or remain silent during interrogation or trial in court. "If the suspect is prosecuted by other laws, he can not say anything that is not good for himself, and he can not confess to others. However, according to the Anti-Terrorism Regulations, he can not say anything that is bad for himself, but he must not confess to others, and he must not Hand over the relevant information. If there is concealment, it is illegal." Liu Weicong explained.

What worries Liu Weicong is that the Anti-Terrorism Regulations have expanded the investigative power of the Secretary of Justice, but the corresponding monitoring mechanism is lacking. "For example, the British Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General are both government officials. They are held by members of the British Parliament in accordance with modern practice. They generally do not have the power to run out. If the prosecution is improperly charged, it will be impeached by the opposition party. Losing the trust of voters. But there is a lack of a corresponding monitoring mechanism in Hong Kong."

Who are the terrorists? Who has the final say?

Purbrick believes that expressing dissatisfaction, using violence, and causing social panic are not legal definitions of terrorism, nor are they close to any other definition of terrorism. This reflects how difficult it is to define terrorism, and why an agency, such as the police, cannot be allowed to define it on its own initiative. Defining terrorism is subjective, and the police are the object of demonstrative violence, and police officers have repeatedly lost control of themselves. Therefore, when the police quote this term, they are prone to emotional prejudice.

Defining terrorism is subjective, and the police are the object of demonstrative violence, and police officers have repeatedly lost control of themselves. Therefore, when the police quote this term, they are prone to emotional prejudice. (Profile picture / Photograph by Liang Pengwei)

Historically, other governments have made the same mistakes. Purbrick cited the conflict in Northern Ireland as an example, pointing out that a misunderstanding of political violence often leads to aggravation of violence. In his master's thesis on terrorism, Pubrick analyzes that in the late 1960s, the wrong British military deployment led to a violent conflict that lasted for three decades.

In 1969, the original purpose of British troops sent to Northern Ireland was to support the Royal Ulster Police Department to maintain public order. At first, political violence did not cause any deaths, but by 1972, 497 people had died from political violence.

In 1969, as Catholics tried to defend themselves against Protestant attacks, conflicts broke out in areas such as Delhi and Belfast in Northern Ireland, and the authorities lost control of many places. The British army immediately responded to the escalating political violence and imposed a curfew on the Belfast Falls area on July 3, 1970. However, this move led Catholics to confirm their suspicions that the British army was an occupation force of colonial forces, not a "mentor of justice," which directly led to riots and shootings by troops and armed civilians.

In August 1971, the British army arrested more than 300 persons suspected of being associated with the Irish Republican Army (in fact, many people were not involved) without trial. Subsequently, the Irish Republican Army killed 40 British soldiers. In response, the British Army conducted 17,262 house searches in 1971, resulting in substantial property damage and alienation of Catholics. In January 1972, British soldiers shot and killed 14 Catholic civilians in a march in Delhi, also known as the "Bloody Sunday" incident in history.

Former police officer Martin Purbrick believes that the demonstration violence seen in Hong Kong in 2019 has indeed caused damage to property, endangered lives, and posed a danger to public safety, (data picture)

The mistakes of Northern Ireland’s excessive militarization in 1969 and the early 1970s continued to increase violence. The Irish Republican Army and the Provisional Irish Republican Army organized to fight the British army and paramilitary Protestant groups. The British army deployed more troops and began a long-term counter-terrorism operation. The result is that throughout the 1970s and 1990s, violence was characterized by shocking brutality and attacks on civilians. Purbrick pointed out that if the initial military deployment focused more on restoring public order, rebuilding the quality of police capabilities, and handing over street operations to the Royal Ulster Police Department as soon as possible, the results may be different.

Looking back on Hong Kong, despite the failure to compare with the Northern Ireland conflict, the current situation still makes Purbrick worry. He said: "My opinion for many years is that when the government suppresses political dissent and militarizes its response, they often fail for a long time. The Hong Kong police may think that in the short term they will mark the protesters by defeating street protests. Winning for terrorists, but it will alienate the people and cause a strategic failure of the government."

In his view, the demonstration violence seen in Hong Kong in 2019 did indeed lead to damage to property, endangered lives, and posed a danger to public safety. It was intended to intimidate and force the Hong Kong government to respond to the five major demands, which are political. However, the French "yellow vest" demonstrations in 2019, the Iraqi October Revolution demonstrations, and the violent demonstrations in Chile that broke out due to public dissatisfaction and social injustice also fell within the above legal definition, but there is no strong evidence to show that these incidents The political violence should be called "terrorism".

When asked how to determine whether a person or an act is a "terrorist" or terrorism, Purbrick replied: "In any case, to define terrorism, you must first go through political leaders, government executives, and legislatures. , The judicial department and the police review, and then the court will make the final decision. This process must accept the supervision of the people."

related articles︰

[Hong Kong version of National Security Law. Proposal] Legislative consideration of five points to help "one country, two systems" turn crises into opportunities

[Hong Kong version of National Security Law] What is "Hong Kong Security"?

[Hong Kong version of National Security Law] How will the central government formulate legislation to implement it?

【Hong Kong version of the National Security Law】Execution mechanism has a two-pronged approach to local preparation and already has Macao experience

The above excerpt is from the 216th issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly Report (June 1, 2020) "What is Hong Kong's "Native Terrorism"".

More weekly articles:【01 Weekly News Page】

[01 Initiative] Listen to the pains of the four generations to resolve deep-seated structural contradictions

"Hong Kong 01" Weekly, available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores. You can also subscribe to the weekly report here, or click here to preview the weekly e-newsletter to read more in-depth reports.

In-depth report on anti-revision examples, demonstration and supervision committee's anti-revision examples report