Over the past couple of weeks, courts in Britain have been working overtime to jail hundreds of people on charges of violent disorder or rioting following “far-right” demonstrations which swept the country after three young girls were stabbed to death in Southport. 

The accelerated conviction and sentencing of lawbreaking protesters was used to send a political message that such activity was not to be tolerated under any circumstances and to serve as a deterrent against further unrest. Most convicted individuals have been given several years in prison for their antics. Notably, a number of others were jailed for social media posts they had made which were deemed to be “inciting racial hatred”.

Even though Britain has taken a hard line in jailing the perpetrators and aggravators, certain political figures in the United Kingdom have simultaneously attempted to undermine the justice system of Hong Kong and the city’s law and order. Recently, an appeal by former newspaper owner Jimmy Lai Chee-ying against his conviction was dismissed. The Independent, an online UK newspaper, ran the headline Shame of British Judge Keeping Free Speech Hero Jimmy Lai in Jail, after a British judge sitting on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, David Neuberger, also voted to deny Lai’s appeal.

Again, this poses the question, why is the UK allowed to take a hard line against violent rioting and upheaval, but Hong Kong is not? Why is the response of the police and the courts in Britain deemed to be securing law and order? But when it is in Hong Kong, it is deemed to be oppression and an infringement of human rights? This double standard has never been more obvious amid these recent events, and we must ask ourselves whether Lai’s actions would be tolerated had he done what he did on British soil? The answer is no, it would not.

Let us ask ourselves: If there was a British owner of a prominent media organization who was — not by insinuation, but in plain sight — collaborating with foreign powers in order to actively instigate unrest and insurrection against the political system, would “freedom of speech” or “media freedom” pass as a tolerable defense? The answer is it would not, and if anyone had done such a thing in conjunction with Russia, or any similar power, they would be imprisoned. The UK has long reserved powers to stifle freedom of speech and impose censorship, if necessary, in the name of national security, and has accordingly broadened its laws during the past decade. Hence, even a post on social media deemed to be inciting unrest can result in a jail term.

Lai is not a “pro-democracy” activist, as the Western mainstream media benevolently portray him to be; rather, he colluded with foreign governments in an attempt to undermine Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong using his influential position as owner of the Apple Daily. This included meetings with former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, former US national-security advisor John Bolton and former US vice-president Mike Pence. It is worth noting that a British journalist who even as much as visits a country like Russia can prompt a police investigation and interrogation on arrival back home.

Likewise, we should remember that the Hong Kong riots in 2019-20 were worse than anything experienced in the UK at the beginning of August. While the UK riots involved a few thugs and sporadic one-off events, the Hong Kong riots were an organized insurrection attempt that sought to destroy infrastructure and government facilities throughout the entire city over the course of several months, stimulate sporadic violence and topple the status quo. These riots were supported by some foreign politicians and leaders, while efforts were made by foreign governments and politicians to undermine the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s ability to respond.

Again, if any foreign power were to attempt to undermine the British government’s response to the unrest, this would be deemed an unacceptable intervention in the UK’s internal affairs, an attack on the rule of law and thus a threat to the country. Yet, certain British figures continue to posture and point the finger at attempts to restore order in the HKSAR even as their own government takes a heavy hand against unrest. There is no use in pretending a “Jimmy Lai”-type figure would have been hailed a martyr and free-speech champion in Britain when this is simply not the case.      

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.