The recent initiative put forth by the Labour government to amend the extradition law is as misleading as the amendments made to Hong Kong’s Fugitive Offenders Ordinance back in 2019. It represents a disgraceful attempt to unjustly assign blame to the Conservative Party once more. Must we ponder if history is doomed to repeat itself?

The Labour Party asserts that the removal of Hong Kong from Category 2 of the Extradition Act 2003—essentially designating Hong Kong as a “region with which the UK has no formal extradition agreement”—would ostensibly align it with China and North Korea, thereby ostensibly raising the threshold for approval and alleviating public concerns. This argument may appear robust at first glance, yet it is riddled with insidious pitfalls.

A meticulous examination of Section 70(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 reveals that should the Hong Kong government submit a request for extradition in accordance with established protocols, such a request is deemed valid. Consequently, should a valid request be presented, the UK court may, after duly considering the pertinent extradition offences and the available evidence, issue a provisional arrest warrant. Although the subsequent fifty sections beginning with Section 71 elaborate on the comprehensive extradition process, I shall refrain from detailing them here due to space constraints. For those interested, I direct your attention to the UK government website, which elucidates the entire extradition process: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#:~:text=When%20an%20extradition%20request%20is%20made%20to,appropriate%20authority%20on%20behalf%20of%20that%20territory.

According to the aforementioned website, for a judge to authorise an extradition order, several conditions must be satisfied:
“The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights.”

While this may seem straightforward, it conceals significant ambiguities. With the rule of law in Hong Kong steadily eroding, one must question: what constitutes an “extradition offence”? What is deemed “prima facie evidence”? And who can provide assurance that human rights will remain unscathed?

As early as July 2020, the Conservative government indefinitely suspended the extradition arrangement with Hong Kong, a decision motivated by reasons that are all too familiar (the relevant extradition framework originated from The Hong Kong (Extradition) Order 1997, which amended The Extradition Act 1989 to encompass Hong Kong, and the 1989 ordinance was subsequently replaced by The Extradition Act 2003). Consequently, although Hong Kong finds itself in Category 2, the suspension of the extradition arrangement renders it impossible for the UK to invoke any provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 to facilitate extradition back to Hong Kong. The probability of extradition, therefore, stands at a firm zero.

Hypothetically speaking, if Hong Kong were to be removed from Category 2, only Sections 193 and 194 of the Extradition Act 2003 would be applicable, which reflects the current “ad hoc” and “case by case” basis of extradition we observe today. In essence, it is akin to saying that a previously nonexistent road has now been forged; it will not be traversed indiscriminately, but rather only when deemed necessary, inviting discussion on a case-by-case basis.

Originally, the possibility of extradition was nil. What might it be now? 0.0000001%? But it is undoubtedly greater than zero.

Let us not overlook the genesis of this news. It is attributable to Dan Jarvis’s correspondence with the Conservatives, in which he stated that the suspension of the extradition arrangement has rendered the UK incapable of extraditing individuals back to Hong Kong, even in the presence of “strong operational grounds.” He himself articulated, “It is in our national interest to have effective extradition relationships to prevent criminals from evading justice and the UK becoming a haven for criminals.” One might be led to believe that all Hong Kongers are Triad bosses who have fled to the UK, thereby transforming it into a sanctuary for fugitives.

From a political standpoint, one must ask: if the original probability was zero, and it is acknowledged that enacting this change will preclude it from remaining zero, what compelling rationale exists for pursuing such a modification? The motivation behind this legislative shift remains enigmatic.

Since assuming office, the Labour Party has consistently maintained a pro-China stance, yet they now assert that the removal of Hong Kong from Category 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 is intended to aid Hong Kongers. Do they genuinely believe the public is lacking in discernment? Are they underestimating the sagacity of the Hong Kong populace or overestimating their persuasive capabilities?

Moreover, the Labour Party has embroiled itself in considerable turmoil within a mere year: the refugee crisis, economic challenges, and international relations are all paramount concerns that surpass the significance of addressing this extradition law. What urgent matters necessitate this focus on an extradition that may not be invoked even once in a century? Is there an undisclosed agenda lurking beneath the surface?

The most audacious aspect of this situation is that the Conservative Party effectively managed the cessation of the extradition ordinance, yet the Labour Party now seeks to present a façade of respect for human rights while simultaneously betraying the Hong Kongers they purport to assist. In doing so, they falsely assert that the Conservatives failed to act, thereby laying the groundwork for their own narrative. This manoeuvre not only reflects a rogue mentality but also reveals a profound self-deception, assuming that the populace is as uninformed as they are.

Keir Starmer, a seasoned human rights lawyer, is undoubtedly cognisant of the ramifications of such a change. He cannot possibly overlook the distinction between zero and one; therefore, this alteration cannot be dismissed as unintentional but rather appears to be a deliberate and calculated action.

In light of the potential ramifications for the BNO visa, exacerbated by the recent white paper, and now this amendment to the extradition ordinance concerning Hong Kong, it becomes increasingly apparent that the British Labour government is not merely neglecting the Hong Kong community, adopting a pro-China stance, but is also disregarding its historical obligations. They seem to have forgotten the promises the UK once made to the people of Hong Kong—promises that should not simply dissipate with the passage of time.

We staunchly advocate for equal rights, for it is solely through the BNO status—the singular remnant of British identity that the UK has conferred upon Hong Kongers—that they can remind the British populace of their historical entitlements, thereby facilitating their ability to establish a foothold abroad.

The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the UK has transformed the Sino-British Joint Declaration into a mere talisman. Prior to 2019, despite assertions from the mainland Chinese authorities that the Sino-British Joint Declaration had devolved into a historical document and despite the absence of universal suffrage, the UK maintained in its annual reports that “One Country, Two Systems” was functioning effectively. It was universally acknowledged that should the UK assert any wrongdoing, it would bear the concomitant responsibility. This policy of denial may afford temporary tranquility, yet it jeopardises the long-term interests of Hong Kong.

It was only post-2019 that the veil was lifted, and China could no longer conceal its intentions. It is now glaringly evident that China’s approach towards Hong Kong is to retain the territory while discarding its people. Even legal practitioners from Hong Kong are being supplanted by individuals fluent in Mandarin. The UK appears to be striving to avoid confrontation, proffering BNO visas without establishing a definitive pathway to citizenship, leaving many BNO passport holders to apply for refugee status. Such treatment is unbecoming of individuals holding national identity, thus exposing the vacuity of the UK government’s commitments to Hong Kong.

In response to inquiries regarding our course of action, we find ourselves compelled to take a stand, for the Labour Party has misled the Hong Kong populace to an extent that we can no longer afford to remain passive. We must take a gamble—one that hinges on the level of support from the Hong Kong community. The success of this political gamble rests upon the choices made by every Hong Konger.

We have engaged auditors, gathered birth certificates, and are now initiating a crowdfunding campaign to seek legal counsel and assemble a legal team. Resources permitting, we will escalate our case to the European Court of Human Rights.

We acknowledge the formidable nature of this battle. Nonetheless, we firmly believe that as long as we stand united and articulate our case with reasoned arguments, we shall ultimately prevail in securing justice for Hong Kong. This struggle transcends mere personal interests; it is about safeguarding the freedoms and dignity of future generations.

The people of Hong Kong have endured a protracted period of oppression, spanning nearly four decades. Since the retrocession of sovereignty, they have found themselves in a precarious situation, with few nations willing to extend a helping hand. Instead, Hong Kongers have been relegated to the status of political pawns, manipulated and exploited in the service of broader geopolitical agendas. Once promised universal suffrage, they now find themselves stripped of their right to express dissent in any arena. It is imperative that the United Kingdom recognises that the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be wielded as a justification for the helplessness of Hongkongers. The time for action is now.

We are compelled to advocate for equality and justice, and we are launching a crowdfunding campaign to galvanise support for our cause. We urge you to contemplate the significance of this struggle and consider joining us in our fight for dignity and rights.

It is essential to approach this endeavour with a realistic perspective. The legal battle we face necessitates a long-term strategic plan, and we will ensure transparency regarding the allocation of resources once our legal team has confirmed their viability. We are committed to addressing queries through our social media channels, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose.

Our target for this crowdfunding initiative is set at £500,000, and the project will unfold in three distinct phases, with the current focus being Phase One: the establishment of a dedicated legal team.

For those wishing to support our mission, please follow the link to our crowdfunding campaign: https://gofund.me/042d7e3c. Together, let us forge a path towards justice and equality for the people of Hong Kong.

Chinese Version: 就讓我們提醒工黨中英聯合聲明的真正意義

📢 Join the “UK Life & Current Affairs Channel” (DOVC.co.uk) Community! 🇬🇧

👋 Want to stay up-to-date on the latest UK life information, news, current affairs, policy changes, or share experiences with fellow Brits? Welcome to join the UK Life & Current Affairs Channel (DOVC.co.uk) to discuss and share useful information together!

📌 Community Features: ✅ Real-time updates on UK current affairs and policies ✅ Exchange of information on UK life, immigration, work, study, etc. ✅ Mutual support with like-minded friends

📲 Join us now!

🔹 WhatsApp Group 👉 Click here to join 🔹 Facebook Fan Page 👉 Follow us

Welcome to join us and explore UK life together! 🎉