I suspect my mindset must have been hampered by the narrowness of my practice as a criminal lawyer. I find myself forced to identify what I have been seeing on my TV screen for the past few months as grave crimes committed against our community: burning bank branches, destroying grocery stores and restaurants, desecrating crucial railway stations and brutally assaulting other citizens, apparently for holding different political views.
Anyone barely civilised would understand that indiscriminate violence is counterproductive. This probably explains why criminal laws in virtually all civilised jurisdictions proscribe violence.…
In the context of the present situation, the collapse of order is bringing significant economic woes and may in the end deal a most severe blow against Hong Kong’s unique but increasingly precarious system of limited self-rule.…
For me, the greatest absurdity is that all the sufferings and destruction serve no meaningful purpose; Hong Kong has become embroiled in the flames of senseless nihilism. At the end of the day, no sensible person expects that the continuing unrest will result in “true democracy”.
Read it all. It’s great. And the comments are running strongly in support. Commenters don’t always agree with the OP, as there are pro-Beijing views, anti-Beijing views, anti-government views, anti-American views. Choy is against the violence, but not obviously pro-Beijing. I suspect that that’s one of the reasons the Bar Association have not come out against the violence. The principle of “one divides into two” (一分为二), leads to polarisation. “Oh, you are against the violence? You must be pro-Beijing!” So the Bar Association may be scared of being tarred “pro-Beijing"
