We depend on more than the courts for our rights
Like the sea of candle lights in Victoria Park on June 4, Falun Gong demonstrations have become part and parcel of the Hong Kong scene, making it unique in a nation where freedom of expression elsewhere is locked in chains.
Unlike the commemoration of Tiananmen Square victims that strikes a chord, bringing back as it does some bitter memories, the protracted fight by Falun Gong members for justice in Hong Kong has an important bearing on mainland politics and society.
There is no denying the activities of the spiritual-cum-physical movement in Hong Kong have been controversial since the group was outlawed on the mainland, raising the issue of finding a delicate balance between civil liberties and public order under 'one country, two systems'.
At issue was a demonstration by 16 Falun Gong members outside the central government liaison office in 2002. On Thursday, the Court of Final Appeal unanimously overturned the convictions of eight practitioners on charges of wilfully obstructing and assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty.
The appeal judges said police must have 'reasonable suspicion of an unreasonable obstruction' before arresting protesters. They maintained fundamental freedoms should be given a generous interpretation, while stopping short of criticising the police officers involved.
The ruling will not be welcomed by some people who are unsympathetic to the Falun Gong cause. In view of the hypersensitivity of mainland-Hong Kong relations, they may find the protests of the Falun Gong needlessly provocative towards the mainland authorities.
To them, the Falun Gong members have taken refuge behind the tenet of 'one country, two systems' to test the limit of Beijing's tolerance for activities it deems anti-government.
Subscribers to the conspiracy theory are likely to interpret the Falun Gong ruling as yet another example of the liberal leanings of the Court of Final Appeal judges on issues concerning civil rights and freedom.
Against the backdrop of gloom and doom over human-rights protections, developments in the city since the handover have come as a pleasant surprise. There have been no arrests of dissidents, no closures of publications and no bans on demonstrations.
While the letter of human-rights laws has been strictly adhered to, there are concerns about whether the spirit of the rule of law has been equally observed.
In the Falun Gong case, one is tempted to ask whether the law governing obstruction was being used as a political tool to curtail the legitimate right to demonstrate in the face of potential embarrassment to the central authorities.
In making its landmark ruling, the court has stayed clear of politics. It has found no substantiated proof of a case of obstruction. More important, it has laid down, if not reaffirmed, the principle of a generous interpretation of laws on fundamental freedoms.
What constitutes generous interpretation and enforcement of civil liberties laws is itself a subject of interpretation. Common sense has it that circumstantial evidence of the protest shows the law on obstruction was narrowly applied.
The way the relevant law has been applied by the police and the government, however, strikes a dissonant note in a society known for its high degree of accommodation and tolerance of dissent.
In making sure common sense and reason prevail, the court has ironically earned more praise from society for its role in upholding rights and freedoms.
It is saddening and potentially destabilising, however, if citizens can count only on judicial authorities to guard against possible abuses and curbs of human rights.
If the government and the police remain credible institutions, it is because people trust they are able to stick to the law with reason and sensibility, and, equally importantly, play a leading role in upholding the core values of society.
