ICYMI: I Want to See My Friend, Jimmy Lai.
It is often the case that seasoned activists commit offenses to highlight the injustice of the law they are breaking. That may have been the case with Chow and Ho, two long-time activists who I admire deeply. But with Lai, there is no evidence whatsoever that he incited anyone to attend the assembly. Instead, Judge Woodcock appears to have convicted him simply for being a famous political opponent of the government. And in her written Reasons for Verdict, she did little to hide it. . . .
OK, so Lai attended a lawful gathering, said nothing, lit a candle, and left. Nothing to see here, right? Not according to Judge Woodcock, who convicted Lai along with the others.
Where things get rather dystopian is in Judge Woodcock’s reasoning. She ruled that because Lai “is a prominent public figure known to publicly share similar views as Hong Kong Alliance,” and because at the press conference, he was “surrounded and followed by photographers and reporters,” his very presence was an effort to incite others to attend the gathering. (Pghs 95-97)
In other words, by being a famous person who supports democratic political causes, who other people decided to follow and photograph at an event where someone else allegedly gave a speech inciting others to act unlawfully, Lai committed “a deliberate act to rally support for and publicly spotlight the unauthorised assembly that followed.” (Pgh 97)
If you’re thinking that doesn’t sound right, you’re not the only one. The ruling is plainly, insidiously wrong as a matter of law.
A Hong Kong friend writes: “Woodcock is the judge in all these cases because she always sides with the CCP.”
And honestly, you can see this same approach in the Democrats’ January 6 “investigation.”