Police authority is unchallengeable
Updated: 2013-01-30 05:31
By Kwok Chung-hang(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
Whistling into a police officer's ear at the top of one's lungs causes bodily harm without there being direct bodily contact and, therefore, is no different from (physically) assaulting a police officer. The latest court ruling on those issues was a much-needed departure from the lenient approach toward violent protesters of the past. If protesters are left to assault and/or verbally abuse police officers without consequence, Hong Kong will suffer as police officers will become reluctant to do their job when challenged by unruly individuals. Challenging police authority is challenging Hong Kong's public security. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining police authority and public security, it's necessary to punish those who affront police authority no matter what the excuse.
Protesters use "human rights" as their excuse to challenge police authority without any regard for the rights of others to live peacefully. They believe their right to make trouble is more important than public security or any right of others for that matter.
A middle-aged construction worker whistled loudly into the ears of five auxiliary policemen's ears during a protest rally on July 1 last year. He was charged with five counts of assaulting police officers. An Eastern Court magistrate found him guilty on three counts of assault last week but adjourned sentencing until March. Some people criticized the court ruling as "too strict" while the head of the Human Rights Monitor (HRM) described the ruling as "dangerous", arguing that it's difficult to determine "assault by sound" objectively. Many opposition legislators also fired broadsides at the court ruling. If such tirades against a district magistrate do not constitute shaking judicial independence and harming Hong Kong's core values, I don't know what does.
The HRM chief completely ignored the legal boundaries and the impact of radical protesters' illegal behavior on Hong Kong's public security when he sided with those unruly individuals. The truth is the real "danger" is not the court ruling in this case but encouragement for radical behavior expressed by advocates of violent protests such as the HRM director. The Eastern Court magistrate found the defendant guilty of assaulting police officers because he whistled vigorously into their ears at close range and caused temporary deafness and/or ringing in their ears. His intent to cause bodily harm is obvious and he succeeded more than once. Assault can be battery or technical assault. In this case, the defendant is found guilty because of the latter. If the HRM chief is not convinced, he can ask someone to whistle into his ear really hard and see how it feels.
Moreover, such public display of decidedly hurtful and provocative behavior is not only intended to intimidate individual policemen but also aimed at challenging the whole law enforcement apparatus. If no punishment is meted out on such criminal acts, the perpetrators would no doubt feel encouraged to go further down that destructive path at the expense of social order and public security.
Hong Kong citizens have the freedom of procession and assembly, but it comes with certain responsibilities as well, the most fundamental of which being following relevant rules and he law. The police are responsible for maintaining public order around protest marches instead of stopping them, but certain protesters have become increasingly fond of challenging police officers on duty during protests in recent years and every time they accused the police of using excessive force while stopping them from breaking into government offices or deviating from the planned route of procession without permission.
Their blatant hostility toward the police and growing penchant for physically assaulting as well as verbally abusing the young officers have inflicted enormous psychological and emotional stress upon them. Many police officers and their loved ones have complained at online forums about the abuse they have to endure on duty and wondered why some protesters have to be so violent and aggressive toward them.
Hong Kong police are known around the world for exercising utmost restraint even when seriously provoked. Our frontline police officers have proven time and again their mettle as defenders of the public interest or ordinary, law abiding citizens as distinct from radical protesters who wantonly assault officers in pursuit of selfish goals at the expense of others. The fact is, the more the police hold back, the more daring and aggressive those unruly protesters become. This is not what the Hong Kong society wants, which is why the magistrate's ruling was made not a moment too soon.
The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.
(HK Edition 01/30/2013 page9)