When Hong Kong returned to China in 1997, it was promised that trials by jury, previously practiced in the former British colony, would be maintained under the city’s constitution. But in a departure from the city’s common law tradition, the security law allows no-jury trials for national security cases.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is also the standard the world over

[–] Neuron@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's absolutely not. There used to be right to trial by jury in all cases in Hong Kong before China took it away, which is what this article is about. So already it's clearly not the "world standard." Another example, United States routinely holds jury trials with classified national defense information and goes to great lengths to create a system to do this, since there is a constitutional guarantee to a trial by Jury. Process explained in this article: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/trump-trial-classified-documents-public-00102023 in regards to the trump case, which is a great example involving highly sensitive national security information. And that involves a jury too. I'd say you could just search online yourself and find out how wrong you are, but i doubt you're arguing in good faith. So as you can see, the standard in China is not the same thing as the standard "the world over." This was a right forcibly removed from the people of Hong Kong by China.

Take your authoritarian apologist made up nonsense elsewhere.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 year ago

LOL, unironically accusing me of authoritarian apologia because I am for the reintegration of a former British colonial holding with the country the British stole it from.

[–] zephyreks@programming.dev 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You're comparing to a country that has FISA courts? That extrajudicially assassinates foreign nationals? That operates one of the most notorious extrajudicial agencies in living memory?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/pentagon-guantanamo-secret-courtroom.html

https://www.npr.org/2013/06/07/189430580/the-history-behind-americas-most-secretive-court

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1991/us/

https://www.aclu.org/documents/frequently-asked-questions-about-targeting-killing

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

Not even just foreign nationals, remember when Obama drone-killed that 16 year old American?

[–] Neuron@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fisa courts are a process to obtain search warrants. They don't try suspects. If a warrant resulted in information that led to charges, they would be indicted by a grand jury and that would then lead to a public jury trial. You're also changing the subject because you're clearly wrong here and don't want to admit it, or more likely just arguing in bad faith. You said it was the "world standard" to strip someone of a right to trial by jury if it involved national security information. And that's obviously untrue. Hong Kong (until China changed it) and the USA are two such places where it is not the standard. Some quick internet searching would show you many countries in the world protect a right to trial by jury, even in cases involving national security information. Which I really doubt is the case here, more likely some pretext by the Chinese government so they can continue to persecute any political opposition to their one party authoritarian rule. Just because China decided to not grant their citizens a trial by jury right does not mean it is the standard in the whole world. Don't conflate the two.