A recent court ruling on the right to stage protests has re-opened the debate on Hong Kong's public-order laws - and raised some most uncomfortable questions.
What we seem to have is an example of the government taking a slice of international law intended to protect our freedoms - and using it to suppress them. Not an easy feat to achieve.
This, I hasten to add, was not the finding of the court. It upheld controversial provisions of the Public Order Ordinance (POO). But the decision was not unanimous. And the dissenting judgment of Mr Justice Frank Stock provides much food for thought.
All of the three judges attached great importance to the freedom of speech and assembly, both protected by the Basic Law. These freedoms, it was said, lie at the heart of Hong Kong's existence. It is easy to see why. Public protests are among the most visible signs that Hong Kong's freedoms are alive and well.
Whether it is a march calling for the harbour to be protected, a protest against civil-service pay cuts, or the mass demonstration on July 1, the public's right to make their voices heard is frequently exercised. And so it should be.
The court expressed the view that these rights must be 'jealously guarded'. But it is highly questionable whether the upholding of these public-order laws serves that purpose. Certainly, one of the judges did not think so. Mr Justice Stock ruled that the provisions are unconstitutional. But he did more than that.