@Pat G.ntmount Who are making ".....too much fuss"? Those who perceived that they have been '... a decline in Hong Kong’s uniqueness' and hence their frustration, or those who worried that their rights, love for the Country and HK, rule of law, stability, and prosperity are being threatened and robbed??? In a time of uncertainty and societal conflicts, wise & peaceful people look to the 'law book' & expecting the sitting government to make a response in accordance with the law. Is the government's response a making 'too much fuss? Bokhary's response on Hong Kong independence is in contrast with the 'discreet and diplomacy' of Lord David Pannick QC. The writing of SCMP in this article paragraph two is sounding 'double-standards' is their normal. The problems of separatism as it happens in HK, is not a 'speech', 'word' and/or 'thought' problem - a non-violence extremism. It is a call - not just advocating, but an incitement to violence as have been displayed in their insurrection, treasonous activities. It has been an open call with no intention to talk and reason. Incitement to violence is already a crime: there should be no difficulty in prosecuting it and any hesitation in doing so is a legitimate matter for complaint against the criminal justice system. I now have serious doubt in the impartiality of Bokhary's judgements. He might have crossed the line of separation of powers - Executive, legislative and judicial. An investigation is now necessary.