With numerous firsthand accounts of the 2019 “black-clad” riots in Hong Kong, both video documentaries and written narratives, having flooded the internet, and court hearings on relevant criminal cases such as that of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and the Dragon Slaying Brigade having revealed plots to subvert the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, the whole world knows without a shadow of a doubt that the months-long anti-government campaign was an insurrection, a Hong Kong “color revolution”.  

The song the HKSAR government sought to ban, Glory to Hong Kong, was born during the 2019 insurrection. Its lyrics include lines such as “liberate Hong Kong”, which promotes the separation of Hong Kong from China, and “revolution of our times”, which encourages the use of violent means to achieve the separation goal. The song became the de facto anthem of the “black-clad” revolution, and served as a call to arms.

READ MORE: Commissioner’s office: HK ban on protest song necessary for stability

Thus, the West’s criticisms of the HKSAR government’s move to ban the song and an appeal court’s decision to uphold the government’s move are not only misplaced but ill-intentioned.

For one, the United States’ State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said the move represented “the latest blow to the international reputation of a city that previously prided itself on having an independent judiciary protecting the free exchange of information, ideas and goods”. This begs the question: Why is the US authority forcefully clamping down on the “free exchange of information, ideas and goods” in US university campuses?

Deliberately ignoring the above-mentioned plain facts, Miller presented Washington’s usual, risible logic: Whenever a Hong Kong court rules not the way Washington prefers, it is said that it is not part of an independent judiciary and its verdict damages Hong Kong’s judicial independence.  

Miller’s arbitrary conclusion is hardly unsurprising. In a way, he once again exhibited the nature of the “rules-based international order” that Washington has enthusiastically promoted — an international governance system wherein Washington’s will and dictates must prevail.

Miller ignored the fact that Hong Kong’s robust judicial independence is internationally recognized.  The city was ranked 23rd out of 142 jurisdictions in the 2023 WJP Rule of Law Index, ahead of the Spain (24th), the US (26th) and Italy (32nd).

Amnesty International has never failed to jump on the China-bashing bandwagon. This time is no exception. But its director for China, Sarah Brooks, also only managed to fire some cheap shots at the song’s ban. She presented arguments as ludicrous as Miller’s when she labeled the move “a senseless attack on Hongkongers’ freedom of expression…[that] violates international human rights law”.

ALSO READ: DoJ appeals HK court's refusal to ban protest song

She was craftily twisting the facts. The court ruling only prohibits the use of the song to advocate for Hong Kong’s separation from China and presenting it as the anthem of the city. It said that the song can still be used for academic or news activities.

How could Brooks have equated the promotion of separatism with freedom of expression? And doesn’t she know that a government can legitimately impose restriction on people’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that this right can “be subject to certain restrictions…for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals”?    

By ignoring or twisting plain facts, both Miller and Brooks managed to churn out some cheap shots at Hong Kong. But they won’t serve their intended purpose. Rather, they have further discredited Washington and Amnesty International.

The author is current affairs commentator.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.