My name dragged through the dirt again in #JimmyLai's trial today, along with
Long-ish post, trying to explain how this show trial is reaching fever pitch.
Context here is that the prosecution wants to try to link Jimmy Lai to IPAC's work. But he wasn't involved at all, so they're using the following to "prove" a National Security Law offence.
Prosecution argued:
Lai was "aware of IPAC before launch". Prosecution says he received a message from letting him know I was setting up IPAC, and then messages from me informing him of the press release.
"We submit the involvement of in IPAC is another clear evidence [sic] of the pursuance of the agreement to request foreign countries for [sanctions on Hong Kong]" (an abbreviation is used instead of "sanctions", quote otherwise verbatim).
-------
On : by this logic every single media outlet in Hong Kong is guilty of a National Security Law offence.
I briefed every Hong Kong media outlet ahead of IPAC's launch. This includes South China Morning Post, RTHK, Ming Pao etc etc. I *think* the prosecution intends to claim that receiving a press release and passing it along to someone else is a National Security Law offence.
On : This is just completely made up. The decision to incorporate Stand With Hong Kong in IPAC's Central Secretariat was my decision, and my decision alone. It had nothing to do with Jimmy Lai or Mark Simon.
I have correspondence proving this point, and offered to make it available to the court. They refused. Indeed, the correspondence they cite between me and Andy Li proves this point. The judge asked a whole bunch of leading questions about it.
It is an invention. Not a shred of truth in it. I state again: neither Jimmy Lai, nor Mark Simon, nor any other related party had *or have* anything whatsoever to do with IPAC decisions.
----
These two flimsy predicates are being used to send an elderly man to prison. This really is an accurate reflection of the absurdity of Hong Kong's contemporary legal system, distorted beyond all recognition. Nothing to crow about here. It's just sad, and the relative silence of is sadder still.
Prosecution argued:
Lai was "aware of IPAC before launch". Prosecution says he received a message from letting him know I was setting up IPAC, and then messages from me informing him of the press release.
"We submit the involvement of in IPAC is another clear evidence [sic] of the pursuance of the agreement to request foreign countries for [sanctions on Hong Kong]" (an abbreviation is used instead of "sanctions", quote otherwise verbatim).
-------
On : by this logic every single media outlet in Hong Kong is guilty of a National Security Law offence.
I briefed every Hong Kong media outlet ahead of IPAC's launch. This includes South China Morning Post, RTHK, Ming Pao etc etc. I *think* the prosecution intends to claim that receiving a press release and passing it along to someone else is a National Security Law offence.
On : This is just completely made up. The decision to incorporate Stand With Hong Kong in IPAC's Central Secretariat was my decision, and my decision alone. It had nothing to do with Jimmy Lai or Mark Simon.
I have correspondence proving this point, and offered to make it available to the court. They refused. Indeed, the correspondence they cite between me and Andy Li proves this point. The judge asked a whole bunch of leading questions about it.
It is an invention. Not a shred of truth in it. I state again: neither Jimmy Lai, nor Mark Simon, nor any other related party had *or have* anything whatsoever to do with IPAC decisions.
----
These two flimsy predicates are being used to send an elderly man to prison. This really is an accurate reflection of the absurdity of Hong Kong's contemporary legal system, distorted beyond all recognition. Nothing to crow about here. It's just sad, and the relative silence of is sadder still.