As the national security trial for Jimmy Lai Chee-ying wraps up, we can assume that the Western media and political elites have already made their minds up regarding the former media mogul. Headlines across the board have portrayed him routinely as a “martyr” or a “victim” of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, depicting him as an “advocate of democracy” and seeking to spin this into a broader political messaging that the rule of law no longer applies in the city.

First of all, the Western media circus surrounding the trial actually does more to harm due process than to help Lai. In the United Kingdom, it is considered contempt of court to openly try to use media power to sway the result of a criminal trial, and therefore major news outlets don’t do it. When it comes to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China as a whole, however, the gloves are off. Not only does the biased coverage of Lai’s trial show contempt for Hong Kong’s judicial system, attempting to frame the charges as ultimately politicized and thus illegitimate, but as such seeks to deliberately undermine it.

The coverage, especially from outlets like the BBC, does not try to explore the specific nature or evidence of the charges waged against Lai, but pushes the presumption of innocence based primarily on ideology. If you note, the editorial line of the broadcaster focuses solely on the line “pro-democracy” to describe him and all other people affiliated with the Hong Kong “black-clad riots” of 2019-20. When pushing this line, such coverage never takes into consideration the specific actions of those who have been prosecuted, or why exactly what they have done is illegal, and therefore punishable by law. Rather, it paints them as victims of “systemic persecution” and says that all pushback against them, is unmerited.

Lai, in particular, is accused of foreign collusion and subversion. This is not fantasy or conspiracy, as there is broad material in the public domain which shows he met with US officials and politicians during a time when they were actively supporting unrest in Hong Kong, at the apex of the riots. Some of these individuals, such as John Bolton (then-national security advisor), Mike Pence (then-vice president) and Mike Pompeo (then-secretary of state) are famous for having hawkish, pro-interventionist foreign policy views. In addition to this, Lai, who owned one of the city’s largest newspapers, openly backed the riots. From a legal point of view, why would this not be a liability in the national security sense?

If a British media mogul who had immense influence, openly supported unrest in the UK and met with foreign officials who were hostile to London, are we going to pretend that there would be no legal pushback against this? Would there be no accountability, and moreover would the cherished “democracy” and “freedom” which Britain speaks of and champions serve as a value-based justification for this behavior? Can we imagine in any sense that a London-based Jimmy Lai would not be deemed a national security threat and prosecuted if he incited and supported insurrection?

If a British media mogul who had immense influence, openly supported unrest in the UK and met with foreign officials who were hostile to London, are we going to pretend that there would be no legal pushback against this? Would there be no accountability, and moreover would the cherished “democracy” and “freedom” which Britain speaks of and champions serve as a value-based justification for this behavior? 

And moreover, as I’ve said many times before, but will again, let us not pretend that the cause of freedom has ever been a justification under British law for violent protests, no matter how legitimate the grievances might be. The British state is currently facing overwhelming criticism from human rights groups, including the United Nations and Amnesty International, for its blanket banning of the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organization and for the mass arrest of anyone who even as much as wields their slogan. A few weeks ago up to 500 people were arrested in one day for showing support for it. This is the same country that calls opposition to “Hong Kong independence” separatism, and to other unrest “oppression”.

So, in such a scenario do you think a media mogul who was promoting the banned Palestine Action would be tolerated in the UK? The UK, among others, is in no position whatsoever to even comment on Lai’s trial because the same national security laws they attack Hong Kong for using are often used for much more extreme measures in Britain.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.