The trial of Jimmy Lai
For the past few months, the Australian media has been besotted by a series of court cases involving former staff members working in the Australian Parliament. Pages of newsprint and hours of television and radio have been devoted to the saga, with more to come next year. The evidence in various criminal and defamation trials has dominated media coverage as every ‘he said she said’ allegation has been breathlessly reported.
Without detracting from the issues involved in these cases, nor downplaying the seriousness of the various allegations, a case of much greater international and regional impact is now underway in Hong Kong. Whether it attracts similar attention remains to be seen, although I suspect it will not.
The Hong Kong case goes to the very essence of freedom. It is likely to be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in Hong Kong, and the unambiguous indication that no matter how much it is dressed in the language of the rule of law, no such thing actually exists under the Chinese Communist Party, including in Hong Kong.
It is also an ominous warning that should the CCP invade Taiwan, the same fate will befall the people of that country.
The case is the trial of Jimmy Lai, the 76-year-old former publisher, who has been charged under the National Security Laws. Under these laws, the CCP claims a 100 per cent success rate in prosecutions!
Any semblance of fairness has already been demolished by the Chinese authorities. Lai was denied his choice of legal counsel, and the judges were handpicked by the regime. Lai has been imprisoned since late 2020.
The trial, which began before Christmas, is expected to run for some 80-days in the new year.
So paranoid are the local authorities about this peaceful advocate for human rights and media freedom, that some 1,000 police were stationed around the West Kowloon court for the opening of the legal proceedings.
The trial is evidence of the brazen disregard for the rule is law, as understood internationally. Xi Jinping has already praised the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, John Lee, for “firmly defending national security.”
A former policeman, Lee has been responsible for the crackdown on any semblance of democratic expression on the island.
A UK citizen, Jimmy Lai, chose to remain in Hong Kong and defend the charges, rather than leave the former colony.
Lai has already been convicted for little more than holding a lighted candle at a prayer vigil. If convicted of the further charges, he is likely to face life imprisonment.
Driven by his deep sense of faith, this convert to Catholicism, has had little support from the official church. His friend, Cardinal Joseph Zen, has been a regular prison visitor. The 91-year-old former prelate of Hong Kong had been one of the few voices supporting Lai.
The Vatican response has been a deafening silence. Instead of standing up for Lai and others, the Holy See is more interested in maintaining a questionable agreement with the CCP about the appointment of bishops in China.
The agreement, which has been breached by the regime, has done nothing to protect the freedom of religion and speech for the millions of persecuted faithful in China. The best the Vatican diplomats seem to be able to say is that the situation is not ideal! Instead of using the very significant global moral voice he has, the pope has been silent.
Other church leaders have spoken out, including Cardinal Charles Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon. No stranger to the experience of totalitarian intervention in Myanmar, Bo has been a strong voice for religious freedom, including in China.
The Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, has also spoken about the injustice. Joining with nine other senior prelates, Archbishop Fisher said:
“Mr. Lai’s persecution for supporting pro-democracy causes […] has gone on long enough. . . There is no place for such cruelty and oppression in a territory that claims to uphold the rule of law and respect the right to freedom of expression. In standing up for his beliefs and committing himself through his faith to challenge autocracy and repression, Jimmy Lai has lost his business, been cut off from his family, and has just surpassed 1,000 days in prison, while facing the prospect of many more years of incarceration to come. He is 76 years old. He must be freed now.”
The Lai case deserves the same media attention that other cases have attracted in Australia. The consequences for the international rule of law, human rights and universal freedom are at stake.
First published in the Epoch Times Australia.
