Letter from Falun Gong Association (UK) to Hong Kong Secretary for Justice

Dear Ms. LEUNG

On March 14, 2002 basic freedom in Hong Kong was sharply and perhaps permanently curtailed, when the Hong Kong police detained 16 Falun Gong practitioners, including four Swiss nationals, as they held a peaceful public vigil in front of the Chinese liaison office. The goal of the vigil was to raise awareness of Beijing’s persecution of Falun Gong in mainland China, and more particularly, to protest peacefully against the torture and arrest of Falun Gong practitioners China’s city of Changchun. Soon after the onset of the vigil, the Hong Kong authorities charged the practitioners with obstructing the pavement in front of the liaison office, when in fact the evidence – which includes the size of the pavement (140 square metres) and the size of the vigil (less than 7 square metres) – indicates that such obstruction could not and did not occur. In the words of defense counsel Haynes, “to conclude that a small demonstration is such a large public area could or might obstruct…or endanger persons is neither logical nor reasonable and is an unjustifiable … restriction on the Hong Kong right to demonstrate.”

Many have observed that this trial, which lasted some 26 days and has featured one of the most prominent and senior of prosecutors – a man who himself has never before tried a mere obstruction of pavement case – has been politically motivated and unduly influenced by Beijing. According to defense counsel Haynes, both factors give the impression that the government of Beijing attaches great importance to this trial, and that more is at stake here than the mere obstruction of a pavement.

The possible negative impact of this sham trial to the rule of law in Hong Kong and to the political and economic future of Hong Kong cannot be overlooked. As an important member of the Hong Kong government you may wish to consider the international impact of the trial to the long-term development of Hong Kong. You will undoubtedly see the importance of the rule of law and the importance of the promise of “one country two systems.”