• Neuron@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago
      • Neuron@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

    • ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I understand you’re saying China’s administration of Hong Kong should follow UK practices?

      Diplock courts were criminal courts in Northern Ireland for non-jury trial of specified serious crimes (“scheduled offences”). They were introduced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and used for serious and terrorism-related cases during the Troubles.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court

      • Neuron@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re saying that what the UK did in 1973 in was wrong? So China should copy that wrong and withhold a right to trial by jury from their citizens to persecute political prisoners as well? Weird take but alright, if that’s your viewpoint. Enjoy authoritarianism.