Trump's trade war has hit walls everywhere, shattering his strategy. Now, with fires literally erupting in his own backyard, the deportation of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles has triggered massive riots, with protesters and police clashing in the streets. Fearing things might spiral completely out of control, Trump swiftly deployed the National Guard and urgently banned troublemakers from wearing masks – his moves both swift and ruthless.
Trump, feeling the pain when the needle pricks his flesh, unleashed heavy-handed tactics to suppress Los Angeles riots to prevent his backyard fires from spiraling out of control – one harsh measure being his order banning people participating in protest activities from wearing masks.
It's funny how quickly things change when the tables turn. Legal professionals watching Trump's uncompromising crackdown can't help but recall Hong Kong's 2019 protests when the Hong Kong government urgently enacted the Anti-Mask Law. Back then, Alan Leong and Johannes Chan immediately jumped out to fiercely condemn it, calling the law draconian and claiming it violated citizens' freedom and privacy. Their righteousness was blazing, their moral outrage palpable. Now that Trump's approach is several times more severe, they should logically stand up to strongly condemn him – yet they're completely absent, revealing their true colors.
Trump's Heavy-Handed Response
It's interesting how perspectives shift when situations reverse. During Hong Kong's street chaos, American officials and politicians called it a "beautiful sight to behold" and fabricated claims that police were suppressing peaceful protesters while fanning the flames behind the scenes. But now that riots have erupted in Los Angeles, Trump – suddenly facing his own crisis – is unleashing heavy-handed measures in rapid succession, with tactics disproportionate to the scale of unrest.
The scale of his response is frankly disproportionate to the unrest itself.
When the Shoe's on the Other Foot
First, he rapidly deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles for riot control – a move that completely broke convention. As president, he decided to deploy military forces without receiving a request from California's governor, something unprecedented in decades. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have even stated that 500 Marines have been put on "prepared to deploy" status (while 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms already heading to the city.) The message is clear: this administration means business.
Third, Trump issued an order effectively banning people from wearing masks during protests. His explanation was typically blunt: "Also, from now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???" The implication being that anyone covering their face during protests must be up to no good.
Trump says protesters will not be allowed to wear masks.
The Hong Kong Parallel
Sound familiar? A legal professional friend of mine, seeing this news, immediately recalled October 2019, when street violence kept escalating and black-clad protesters wore masks while assaulting police officers and vandalizing property. Chief Executive Carrie Lam, watching the situation deteriorate, invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to implement a mask ban.
A group of pan-democratic legislators immediately jumped out in fierce opposition. Civic Party Chairman Alan Leong penned angry op-eds claiming the ordinance violated international human rights law and aimed to intimidate peaceful protesters. Meanwhile, Johannes Chan – then Dean of HKU's Faculty of Law – represented 24 pan-democratic legislators in challenging the legislation through judicial review. In court, he argued passionately that the government wrongly assumed citizens wore masks for illegal purposes, when people at peaceful assemblies might simply want to protect their identities.
The Hong Kong High Court eventually ruled the mask ban unconstitutional, saying it "goes further than necessary" in restricting fundamental rights. Chan and Leong's legal victory was complete – or so it seemed.
The Deafening Silence
But here's where things get interesting. Those same legal minds who gnashed their teeth over Hong Kong's Anti-Mask Law, extensively discussing freedom, human rights, and democracy, are now completely silent about Trump's far more heavy-handed approach.
Where's Alan Leong's fiery New York Times op-ed condemning Trump's "draconian" measures? Where's Johannes Chan's principled legal challenge to protect Los Angeles protesters' rights to anonymity? The silence is deafening – and telling.
Alan Leong and Johannes Chan once fiercely criticized the Hong Kong government's Anti-Mask Law as violating human rights and freedom, now remain completely silent and invisible regarding Trump's current ban.
You'd think these champions of human rights would be first in line to condemn Trump's deployment of military forces against civilians, his bypass of state authority, and his blanket ban on masked protesters. After all, if Hong Kong's measured response to actual rioting was "authoritarian overreach," what does that make Trump's response to relatively minor unrest?
The truth is, these legal eagles were never really about principles – they were about politics. Now that it's Trump doing the heavy lifting, suddenly their moral compasses have gone quiet.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
