Our satire spies have managed to nab the real judgement handed down last Monday, banning domestic helpers in Hong Kong from permanent residency. Take a look...
Ladies, Gentlemen, and also CY Leung,
On behalf of my fellow Justices, I declare that in the matter of permanent residency for domestic helpers, it’s a no-go. Sorry, folks.
The Court does not believe that domestic helpers should share the same rights as established for foreign English teachers and bankers, who have a long, proud tradition of being white. Hong Kong must focus not on what types of immigrants contribute most to our society or best use our parks, but rather, what types of immigrants will make tourists think we are a truly worldly, cosmopolitan city. We recognize that seven years is a very long time to work in a country as a maid, but think about how much more difficult it is as a lawyer, a hedge fund manager or an Information Technology professional. It’s called “Hardship Allowance” for a reason, you know.
Our job as judges is to sort out what is the best decision from a legal standpoint. Whether a law is moral or not is not really our problem. In fact, there have been plenty of morally dubious laws throughout history that have stood the test of legal scrutiny, such as France’s revolutionary-era “Fuck-Rich-People-And-The-Horse-They-Rode-in-on” policy, Canada’s famed “Sending Seniors out to Sea on Ice Floes” policy established in 1996, and of course, every law passed in Iran since 1979. Remember those Jim Crow laws in the US? Those were racist as hell and they stood for almost 100 years! Yes, we have every confidence that we are going to be on the right side of history on this one.
We also reject the notion that this ruling requires an interpretation from Beijing. Hong Kong’s common law history of judicial independence and lack of central government interference is of utmost importance to our legal system, which was founded on liberal democratic principles. It is our duty to staunchly uphold that single democratic tenet, while simultaneously decimating the others, such as the notion of rights, or of equality under the law. The Court of Final Appeal must remain relevant and current. Something as important to our society as immigration is the sole jurisdiction of our court; Beijing should only concentrate on fringe issues, like restricting the pool of candidates for Chief Executive. To, say, one.