A date has been set for the trial of media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and two former opposition lawmakers. That means the judicial process is now underway and all parties not directly connected to the case must refrain from making public statements that can be construed as attempting to sway or pressure the court. Lai has been accused of criminal intimidation, in addition to the charge of unlawful assembly facing the two other suspects as well.

It is truly a mind-bending task for anyone familiar with the common law system to rationalize, if not justify, attempts by those overreaching entities and individuals to dictate how Hong Kong’s judiciary handles its own business, since there is no ready example of “freedom” overriding criminal laws in the US or UK to date

The central government is authorized by the country’s Constitution to maintain overall jurisdiction over the Hong Kong SAR and therefore obligated to dismiss any undue interference by any political entity, foreign or domestic, in this case. That is why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Office of the Commissioner in Hong Kong have issued pointed statements against unsolicited opinions of the “usual suspects”, including, but not limited to, Washington over the years. The US State Department, in a public statement on Friday, told Hong Kong courts to “handle the case fairly and transparently in a manner that preserves the rule of law and the Hong Kong people’s universal rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression”.

It is truly a mind-bending task for anyone familiar with the common law system to rationalize, if not justify, attempts by those overreaching entities and individuals to dictate how Hong Kong’s judiciary handles its own business, since there is no ready example of “freedom” overriding criminal laws in the US or UK to date.

Not to be left out are former governor Chris Patten and Hong Kong Watch, one of his favorite pet projects designed precisely to encourage and support politically motivated illegal activities in Hong Kong in the name of freedom, human rights and democracy but in total disregard of Hong Kong law. To be fair and objective, this is definitely not the first time these anti-China forces have publicly asserted themselves over court cases in Hong Kong in the past two decades or so, simply because those on trial are their proxies in Hong Kong and “brothers in arms” one way or another. Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction very much like the United States and United Kingdom, which basically molded Hong Kong’s rule of law in the first place.

The US government has long been known for its knack of wanton interference in other sovereign states’ internal affairs whenever it feels like it, whereas the UK government tends to be more careful about its own reputation in such cases and is more likely to mince words. China-basher Patten, meanwhile, has gone on record many times assailing Hong Kong’s Public Order Ordinance, which is the statutory basis for the arrest and prosecution of Lai and the other two, and was imposed by the UK way back when even though Patten, as the last governor of Hong Kong, had plenty of time to have it abolished, but didn’t. Like his Sinophobic peers in Washington, Patten wasted no time to smear Beijing, accusing it of “throttling freedom” in Hong Kong.

It is truly a mind-bending task for anyone familiar with the common law system to rationalize, if not justify, attempts by those overreaching entities and individuals to dictate how Hong Kong’s judiciary handles its own business, since there is no ready example of “freedom” overriding criminal laws in the US or UK to date. The likes of Patten and politicians in Washington owe the world an explanation of when and how offenses such as “criminal intimation” and “unlawful assembly” have been placed under the scope of freedom.