You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
"The Chinese leaders are ineducable...blinkered by dogma and deeply ignorant of how a place like Hong Kong works." — British Ambassador Percy Cradock, colonial egotist and all-around prat Hong Kong and the extradition controversy. A thread.pic.twitter.com/VzlhLgvTfX
Protests have been taking place in Hong Kong over the past week in response to proposed amendments to the two ordinances, primarily the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO). These amendments create a process for the transfer of fugitives to places with no formal extradition treaty.
Because the jurisdiction of this change would naturally extend to the rest of China, meaning criminals could be sent to the People's Republic of China for trial, segments of the population opposed to the mainland have come out in force against the bill.
Some have pointed out connections between these groups and United States subversion outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy.https://www.mintpressnews.com/hong-kong-protests/259202/ …
Others have shared pictures of protesters expressing nostalgia for Hong Kong’s colonial period under British rule.pic.twitter.com/xyENnHX8U0
While both these factors are worth examining, they don’t tell the whole story. There is sizable, genuine anti-China sentiment in Hong Kong that can’t be explained simply by foreign funding or a lingering love for the Union Jack.
(By the way, that “Chinese colonists” picture is from a protest a few years back, not the current one — though the same people are likely involved now. Regardless, we shouldn’t be sharing inaccurate images, no matter how embarrassing they are.)
But how does all this relate to extradition, and why wasn’t there an agreement between Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China in the first place? One is legally part of the other, after all.
As you might expect in any discussion of colonial history, it all comes back to the damn Brits.pic.twitter.com/7WVIN9eeMQ
Pre-handover negotiations were fraught from the start. Thatcher’s team insisted they were at a disadvantage, since the old and busted colonialism had already been replaced by the new hotness of neocolonialism in most of the world.
This is a bald-faced lie. Britain was contemptuous of China for having the temerity to want its territory back. Thatcher’s arrogance was such that for the first rounds of discussion her team insisted on advocating continued British administration, an absurd proposal.pic.twitter.com/mUTMOST5ef
The Chinese respond with a perfectly fair question, enraging Ambassador Cradock and providing this thread’s header quote.pic.twitter.com/BhweVeOUWD
Thatcher at one point demanded military options for the “defense” of Hong Kong. Definitely something a good-faith actor does.pic.twitter.com/7dTNfGRslX
Since China’s No. 1 priority was the peaceful transfer of sovereignty, a number of concessions would have to be made. This included not only maintaining the colony’s capitalist system to appease Britain, but also forging alliances with local business elites to avoid panic in HK.pic.twitter.com/tfEc4yyhYe
Extradition was a big sticking point. Rather than deal with the thorny question then, negotiators kicked the can. They made no arrangements for fugitive transfer to the rest of China, turning Hong Kong into a big criminal safehouse. (Hence, all those HK gangster movies.)
Their reasoning was China’s court system was a set of phony Communist star chambers, incapable of meting out justice. But were they right? Is Chinese law so exceptional it's unthinkable to send fugitives there? And do China’s extradition practices vary from international norms?
We’ll have to ask the countries who’ve already agreed to repatriate criminals to China. Here’s all of them.pic.twitter.com/tTKh6BfKvy
You’ll notice traditional Chinese allies like Russia and Iran have ratified treaties, as have other terrible horrible no-good authoritarian states like…France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Huh. Don’t they know any better?!
Maybe they’re just confused. Let’s see what whacky stuff is in Chinese extradition law.
The generally agreed upon set of standards for an extradition includes the following: The dual or double criminality rule, the specialty rule, the prima facie rule and the political offenses rule. Some also include a non-discrimination principle.pic.twitter.com/VmgVdN7vik
Let’s start with the specialty rule. Not only has it been honored in Chinese extradition treaties, it’s in the law. Here’s evidence for both.pic.twitter.com/jzUowOR7MT
Next is the “dual criminality” rule. Again, this basic principle is spelled out in Chinese law.pic.twitter.com/mj3OYd4YOj
Now, the political offenses rule. This can also be found in the law, but the conditions for what constitutes a “political offense” are not specified. Which seems like it’s a point in the protestors’ favor.pic.twitter.com/p3Ov5QyRPe
However! The political offenses rule is a relatively recent one, and the specifics of what one country sees as a political offense vs. another are rarely enumerated in extradition treaties. It is commonly left to discretion.pic.twitter.com/MzUslpo3dB
Plus the application of this rule can be capricious. An Italian anti-fascist fleeing to the US after a shooting was considered a political escapee and therefore unsuitable for extradition. But a Palestinian did not get the same privilege, despite clear political motives at play.pic.twitter.com/itaXzemxTM
The final major rule is the prima facie requirement. As before, this is clearly an observed practice in Chinese law.pic.twitter.com/P6RnoQ1fLm
Lastly, the non-discrimination rule. Not only does this exist in the extradition law, it even includes political opinion — which further solidifies the political offenses rule.pic.twitter.com/2LNARFSOoR
Since it follows major international rules for extradition, it makes sense China would have agreements with so many countries. But this does not happen without concessions.
France, for instance, is vehemently against the death penalty and only agreed to a treaty in cases where China would guarantee the accused would not be executed.pic.twitter.com/ResVVpKXxQ
This isn’t unique to France. As a matter of fact, another place that has had no problem sending criminals to China is…Hong Kong!
You heard right. Before the handover, there wasn't so much concern trolling over human rights or the Communist Party, just unease about the death penalty. Like France, if there were guarantees of no execution there was no issue transferring fugitives.pic.twitter.com/CL3JSDquEK
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
