Public Eye | Long arm of the law shortens with civil disobedience

It is different. What's different? Civil disobedience. So go ahead, ignore court injunctions in its name. The law allows you to break the law in such cases. Shrugging off such nonsense is easy if it comes from people who don't know any better. But this is coming from lawyers, law professors and even legislators who are lawyers. Public Eye actually heard a law professor say the court injunction against those who blocked the entrances of Apple Daily was different from the injunctions against Occupy Central protesters blocking roads and buildings. How so? What makes a court order against blockage of the Citic Tower car park entrance in Admiralty carry less weight than an injunction against blockage of the Apple Daily building in Tseung Kwan O? Where in our laws does it say Apple Daily owner Jimmy Lai Chee-ying is more equal than those with shops and offices in Citic Tower? We find clownish the argument that one injunction can be ignored in the name of civil disobedience but the other must be enforced so that Lai can get his newspapers out in the name of media freedom. Where does it say media freedom supersedes the rights of shopkeepers? Public Eye was once fined for jaywalking. We should have pleaded civil disobedience. Go ahead, folks, barricade your neighbour's door, pee in the streets and ignore injunctions in the name of civil disobedience. The law lets you do that.

What do Hongkongers want? They want genuine democracy. And they regard Beijing's electoral reform framework as fake democracy. That is the mantra of pan-democrats. How sure are they that this mantra reflects public opinion? Dead sure, they insist. If they are so sure, they should not be afraid to put their money where their mouths are, right? Wrong. The students have put their money where their mouths are. They carried out a threatened class boycott and when Occupy erupted, they kept their pledge of an indefinite boycott. Many are still camped out in Admiralty. What about pan-democratic legislators? That is a different story. Student leaders want these legislators to resign to trigger a de facto referendum through a by-election. Here is how most pan-democrats reacted: hold your horses, we could lose. Put bluntly, they do not dare put their Legislative Council seats where their mouths are. Why not, if they are so certain Hongkongers reject Beijing's framework? Surely they will win back their seats with even more votes. Government officials have predictably pooh-poohed the idea, insisting a referendum is a waste of public money and not legally binding. Public Eye takes no position on the matter, but it can't be denied that a by-election can accurately measure where the people stand on Beijing's framework. Pan-democratic legislators say resignations by some in their camp would rob them of their veto power, enabling the government to sneak the reform framework through Legco. Why would all 27 not resign? Sneaking the framework through would then be lunacy because it would totally lack legitimacy. So how about it - want to put your Legco seats where your mouths are?