It doesn’t get much more ironic than this. Hong Kong people who packed their bags for Britain to dodge the controversial extradition bill are now staring down the barrel of a fresh extradition saga—this time, courtesy of the UK government itself. The folks in Westminster want to tweak the Extradition Act, which could—under certain conditions—put extradition back on the table for people wanted in Hong Kong.
Opposition voices aren't holding back. Alicia Kearns, a Conservative MP, blasted the move and human rights groups are calling it a betrayal. The Home Office's Dan Jarvis tried to downplay the fuss, insisting it’s all bureaucratic fine print—nothing really changing, no “restoring extradition cooperation” with Hong Kong. But let’s be honest: If you go from “no way, never” to “maybe, if the judge says so,” you’ve cracked the door open.
For Hong Kong people in Britain who might have some legal baggage back home, this is no joke. The safety net is gone. Now any “serious offense” could have them facing a British judge and, if requested by the Hong Kong Government, they could be landed with a one-way ticket back to where it all began.
The British government's revision is ostensibly a first step towards normalizing relations with Hong Kong and a positive step towards improving relations with China, but there may also be two political considerations behind it.
The Super-Embassy Showdown
There’s a showdown brewing over China’s planned “super-embassy” on the historic Royal Mint site in London—a building project that’s become a lightning rod for protest. Hong Kong diaspora groups have rallied hard against it, and police aren’t taking it lightly. Demonstrators were arrested as soon as they have crossed the line. The media were not allowed to get close to the site to cover the story — gone are the chaotic street scenes of Hong Kong protests.
Radical Hong Kong people have been lobbying MPs and pressing the Labour government to hit the brakes. The government has delayed any decisions for now, but word on the street is approval could be around the corner. Tie the embassy protests together with the new extradition arrangements, and it looks a lot like a warning: Britain’s patience for Hong Kong-style activism is running thin.
Rightward Shift: Immigration and the Political Game
There’s another plot twist: the sharp rise of Britain’s right wing. In May's local elections, the far-right Reform UK party made huge gains, shaking up the usual two-party system. Labour is feeling the heat—partly from America’s new “me first” trade stance, and partly because it needs fresh economic ties with China. The result? London is swinging tougher on immigration, lengthening the road to citizenship, clamping down on crime, and finding new ways to appease right-leaning voters.
The bottom line: commit a crime as an immigrant, and you’re out. It’s a clear signal aimed at would-be troublemakers in the Hong Kong community and a sweetener for the anti-immigrant crowd.
Reality Check: Living by New Rules
Here’s the cold, hard truth: when you’re living under someone else’s roof, you’ve got to play by their rules. For Hong Kong people who moved to Britain ready to replicate the fierce protest tactics of 2019, the outlook’s bleak. In a foreign land, immigrants are always the minority—it’s better to stick to the law, respect the local game, and find a way to fit in. Try to flip the script and you’re just asking for trouble. Play politics, break the rules, and Britain may just pack your bags for you.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.
Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.
On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.
Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."
Court Slams the Door Shut
The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.
The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.
Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.
Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.
1. Chow's passion for making requests
As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).
Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.
This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.
2. Burning public funds on the public's dime
Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.
Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.
3. Prison is not a holiday resort
Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.
Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.
How Prison Oversight Actually Works
I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.
The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.
Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.
I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Lo Wing-hung
