There was some perverted logic on display yesterday as the Government sought to portray its request that Beijing ride roughshod over Hong Kong's highest court as a move to protect the SAR's autonomy.
Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie even came close to suggesting it would enhance such autonomy. Her dubious reasoning was that, since re-interpretation is strongly backed by public opinion, Beijing will simply be implementing the wishes of Hong Kong people.
'If there is a strong demand in the community for the problem to be resolved, an interpretation should not be seen as an interference in Hong Kong's autonomy but rather as a response to that demand,' Ms Leung told legislators.
In other words: as long as the Government can rally public opinion - even if this involves heavy manipulation - that is reason enough for overriding the SAR's highest court. But even she could not entirely deny that seeking a re-interpretation from the National People's Congress Standing Committee sets a precedent which could, in theory, be used in future to erode human rights.
'That is correct as a matter of law,' Ms Leung admitted, insisting there were practical reasons why this would never happen. 'We must distinguish between those things which are legally possible and the political reality.' But these supposed constraints do not mean very much. One is the much-cited statistic that the Standing Committee has only issued eight such interpretations since 1954. But, as professional investors like to say, past performance is no guide to the future, especially now a precedent has been set to justify interference.
Nor is much protection offered by the other supposed safeguard, that any interpretation must reflect the 'true legislative intent' of the Basic Law.
The recent judgment striking down the law on defacing the national flag, now before the Court of Final Appeal, should offer an early test of how often this unfortunate precedent is to be invoked. But if the Government also refers that issue to Beijing then it is unlikely considerations of 'true legislative intent' will stop the Standing Committee from overruling that judgment as well.