British courts' swift trials and severe sentencing a good reference for Hong Kong

The case against online news website “Stand News” has concluded with two chief editors and the parent company found guilty of "conspiring to publish seditious publications." Western governments, including the United States and the United Kingdom, promptly criticized the verdict, alleging that freedom of speech and the press are diminishing in Hong Kong. However, when compared to actions taken by these same Western governments, Hong Kong's measures appear relatively restrained.

In the United Kingdom, swift trials and severe sentencing have once again set a precedent. British Undersecretary of State (Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office), Catherine West, posted on the social media platform X, urging Hong Kong authorities to halt what she termed "political prosecutions" of journalists and to uphold the freedom of the press as stipulated in the Basic Law. This criticism is ironic given the UK's recent harsh sentencing of instigators of domestic riots.

On July 29, nationwide riots erupted across the UK following a knife attack at a children's dance school perpetrated by a member of a minority group. The British government responded by employing rapid trial and sentencing procedures reminiscent of those used during the 2011 London riots. By August 13, authorities had arrested 1,024 individuals, with 572 swiftly prosecuted. Many received immediate prison sentences ranging from several weeks to ten years, including an 11-year-old boy and a 69-year-old man.

By West's own standards critiquing Hong Kong, some of those heavily sentenced in the UK were merely engaging in what could be described as "free exchange of opinions" online, without participating directly in the riots. For example, 28-year-old Jordan Parlour from Leeds admitted to posting racially charged messages on Facebook and was sentenced to 20 months in prison, becoming the first individual sentenced in connection with the UK riots. Parlour's posts included statements such as, "smash [the] f--- out of Britannia hotel (a hotel housing migrants)". He also claimed in a comment on Facebook that migrants were given "the Life of Riley off the tax us hard-working people earn when it could be put to better use". Compared to the 11 articles by “Stand News” deemed seditious, Parlour's comments seem relatively minor. Notably, the maximum sentence for "sedition" in Hong Kong at that time was two years, making it unlikely that the defendants in the “Stand News” case will face harsher penalties than Parlour. In some instances, individuals in the UK received several weeks of imprisonment merely for reacting with supportive emojis to radical posts—outcomes unimaginable in Hong Kong.

Similarly, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated on X that the conviction of “Stand News” represents a direct attack on press freedom and tarnishes Hong Kong's reputation for openness. However, recalling the sentencing following the 2021 Capitol Hill riots, Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the right-wing group Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years in prison—the longest sentence among all defendants involved. Tarrio was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" despite not being physically present at the Capitol during the riots; he was coordinating activities online from a hotel in Baltimore. When comparing the 2021 Capitol Hill riots to the prolonged unrest in Hong Kong in 2019, the U.S. incident was relatively brief, yet one of its organizers received a 22-year sentence. By American standards, it raises the question of why Tarrio's sentence is not considered a violation of freedom of speech.

The situation in France further highlights this apparent double standard. A spokesperson for the European Union's External Action Service criticized the “Stand News” verdict as another example of shrinking press freedom in Hong Kong, warning that it could further limit diverse opinions and the free flow of information—both fundamental to Hong Kong's economic success. But look at what the French did. France recently arrested Pavel Durov, founder of the messaging app Telegram, accusing the platform of facilitating unchecked criminal activities. It’s noted that Telegram was widely used during Hong Kong's 2019 unrest, with several groups directly organizing riots through the app. Despite this, Hong Kong authorities have not taken action against such communication platforms, which often claim they cannot control the content shared by users. Now that  France directly hit on a communication software provider, but the EU spokesperson says nothing about freedom of expression in France.

In summary, the United States and other Western governments often exhibit inconsistencies between their words and actions. The UK's handling of rioters and France's arrest of Telegram's founder inadvertently support the Hong Kong court's judgment in the “Stand News” case by demonstrating methods of addressing incitement to rebellion. Notably, the UK's rapid sentencing effectively quelled the riots within 11 days—an approach Hong Kong should seriously study and consider.

Wing-hung Lo

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Western nations, particularly the United States, have long portrayed themselves as global leaders in environmental protection.  However, when national interests are at stake, environmental concerns are often sidelined, discarded as conveniently as a used paper diaper.

Recently, the United States announced a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). It also  put to pressure on its Western allies to adopt similar measures. Under U.S. influence, the European Union also imposed additional tariffs ranging from 9% to 36.3% on Chinese EVs. Notably, the EU’s minimum 9% tariff applies to vehicles produced at Tesla's Gigafactory in Shanghai, clearly favouring American owned manufacturers.

Canada soon followed suit. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently declared a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, stating that "Canada is in step with other major economies" and accusing China of not adhering to the same rules as the West.

However, the "rules" Trudeau refers to—such as refraining from subsidizing domestic manufacturers—are flagrantly disregarded by the United States, Europe, and Canada themselves. These countries are heavily subsidizing their own EV industries, with Canada even planning to allocate tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to attract foreign companies to establish EV and battery factories within its borders. The irony is striking: while these Western nations subsidize their own industries, they justify high tariffs on Chinese imports as a response to China's subsidies. This fundamentally undermines their commitments to reducing emissions.

The United States, the European Union, and Canada have all pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, a goal that hinges on transitioning the vast number of fossil-fuel-powered vehicles on the road to clean energy alternatives. Even Canadian environmentalists have criticized Trudeau's tariff increase on Chinese EVs. Joanna Kyriazis, Director of Public Affairs at Clean Energy Canada, a clean energy policy research organization, remarked, "Canada made a decision today that will result in fewer affordable electric vehicles for Canadians, less competition and more climate pollution." Environmental advocates in Canada argue that these tariffs will only keep EV prices high, thereby discouraging the adoption of zero-emission vehicles.

Western-made EVs are already expensive, and their competition with affordable, high-quality Chinese EVs is further hampered by protectionist tariffs. This trade policy, aimed at bolstering domestic industries, effectively slows the local transition to EVs. For example, a BYD electric car costs only RMB 79,000 in China, while a electric car in the same category is priced three to four times higher in the United States. If Western countries could produce  EVs at similar  level of afforability, the pace of emission reduction would undoubtedly accelerate.

In the case of China, it has not only excelled in the production of EVs but also in other clean energy sectors such as solar and wind power, where it has achieved large-scale, high-quality, and cost-effective production. According to recent data from China's National Energy Administration, China added 25 gigawatts of wind and solar installed capacity in July alone, bringing the total installed capacity to 1,206 gigawatts.

At the end of last year, China's renewable energy installed capacity exceeded 50% of the country's total power generation, surpassing thermal power for the first time in history. In 2020, China committed to reaching its carbon peak by 2030 and is now expected to achieve this milestone six years ahead of schedule. It is likely that China will also reach carbon neutrality ahead of its original target of 2060.

China has demonstrated its commitment to environmental protection through both words and actions. Its production of affordable, high-quality EVs, wind power, and solar energy equipment has not only benefited its own people but also those in other countries by enabling them to achieve energy conservation and emission reduction goals at low costs. This has made a significant contribution to global emission reduction efforts.

However, the U.S.-led imposition of tariffs on China’s new energy products directly undermines China’s export of high-quality goods and hinders global efforts toward energy conservation and emission reduction.

The irony here is glaring: while China genuinely pursues green initiatives, the United States and its Western allies fall short. It is perplexing that international environmental groups, active in places like Hong Kong, remain silent on the most pressing environmental issue of our time—climate change. Instead, they focus their resources on criticizing Hong Kong's development project such as "Lantau Tomorrow", while ignoring the U.S., EU, and Canada’s tariffs on Chinese EVs that are stalling global emission reduction efforts.