In yet another display of blatant double standards, diplomats from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada recently met with family members and legal representatives of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, the former media tycoon facing national security charges in Hong Kong. These meetings, coupled with statements made at the United Nations Human Rights Council calling for his release, are nothing short of an attempt to interfere in Hong Kong’s judicial process under the guise of “human rights” advocacy.

Lai’s case is not about press freedom. It is about the rule of law and the consequences of endangering national security. The West’s efforts to paint Lai as a victim serve only to expose its own hypocrisy. After all, these same governments have stringent national security laws of their own and have shown no hesitation in enforcing them when their interests are at stake.

History has shown that Western governments are no strangers to meddling in the affairs of other nations under the banner of democracy and human rights. Whether it was the Middle East, Latin America, or Eastern Europe, the pattern remains the same — selective outrage, media campaigns, and diplomatic pressure aimed at advancing their own political agenda.

Take the UK, for example. It has implemented extensive counterterrorism laws, allowing authorities to detain individuals suspected of endangering national security. The US, too, has enacted sweeping legislation in response to security threats, leading to long detentions and severe legal consequences. In both cases, their governments justify these measures as necessary for national stability.

Yet when Hong Kong enforces its own laws to safeguard its security, these same nations cry foul. The hypocrisy is glaring.

It is also important to note that Lai is not just a businessman. He has been accused of actively supporting violent protests, colluding with foreign forces, and lobbying for international sanctions against Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. His involvement in the 2019-20 unrest went far beyond journalism — he used his media platforms to promote chaos, encourage confrontation, and seek foreign intervention.

If a media mogul in the US or Britain had engaged in similar acts — calling for sanctions against their own country, meeting with foreign politicians to push for punitive measures, and funding disruptive protests — would they be shielded by claims of press freedom? Of course not. They would face legal consequences, just as Lai is now.

The legal proceedings against Lai are being conducted in accordance with Hong Kong’s judicial system, which operates under common law principles with an independent Judiciary. His trial is neither a political vendetta nor an attack on journalism; it is about upholding the law.

Western governments and media outlets have been relentless in their criticism of the National Security Law for Hong Kong. Yet, they conveniently overlook the fact that many of its provisions are similar to laws that they themselves enforce. Consider the US’ Espionage Act or the UK’s National Security Act 2023 — both grant authorities broad powers to prosecute individuals deemed threats to national security.

Despite this, when Hong Kong prosecutes someone under similar legal frameworks, it is labeled as repression. When Western nations do the same, it is deemed a necessary measure for national security. This is not a debate about legal principles — it is about geopolitical interests.

Hong Kong’s legal system is built on a foundation of fairness, transparency, and independence. The courts operate free from political interference, and every defendant — Lai included — is given a fair trial. The attempt by foreign diplomats to pressure Hong Kong’s Judiciary not only disrespects the city’s legal system but also undermines the principle of judicial independence that they claim to uphold.

In response to these external pressures, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government should actively engage with international audiences to clarify the facts, counter misinformation, and highlight the city’s commitment to the rule of law. The narrative pushed by foreign politicians must not go unchallenged.

The Judiciary must also continue to handle the case with professionalism and impartiality, like it has always been doing, demonstrating that Hong Kong remains a place where justice is served based on evidence, not political rhetoric.

At the societal level, Hong Kong residents understand the importance of maintaining stability and upholding the law. The events of the 2019-20 protests and riots left deep scars on the city, and there is little appetite for a return to chaos. The vast majority of Hong Kong residents recognize that enforcing the law is essential to ensuring a safe and prosperous future.

The West’s continued interference in Hong Kong’s legal affairs is not just an attack on the city’s legal system — it is an affront to China. The era of colonial rule is long over, and Hong Kong is no longer a pawn for foreign powers to manipulate. The days of external forces dictating the city’s future are gone.

Lai’s case will be decided by the courts, not by foreign diplomats or international media campaigns. Justice must be determined by law, not by political influence. As Hong Kong moves forward, it must remain resolute in defending its legal system against those who seek to undermine it.

The message is clear: Hong Kong’s rule of law is not up for negotiation. And no amount of external pressure will change that.

The author is the convener at China Retold, a member of the Legislative Council, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.