A Just Verdict, Not a Political Trial

The recent statements by Western officials and foreign media condemning Jimmy Lai's conviction in Hong Kong reveal a troubling pattern of political posturing over professional legal analysis. These declarations, filled with accusations of "politically motivated" trials, are notably silent on one critical element: the substance of the court's judgment itself.

The reality is that Lai's entire trial process was open and transparent, with the verdict entirely based on factual evidence presented in court. The High Court delivered a comprehensive 850-page judgment that meticulously detailed the legal reasoning behind the conviction, including evidence showing how the businessman "harbored his resentment and hatred of the PRC" in connection with the charges.

HK lawyer associations have appropriately urged the public to carefully read the judgment's reasoning and to respect Hong Kong's judicial procedures. The verdicts were legally sound, with judges providing detailed reasons and confirming they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt about Lai's guilt regarding the charges he faced.

The emptiness of Western condemnations becomes apparent when we notice their deliberate avoidance of engaging with this substantial legal document. Why would officials who claim to champion the rule of law refuse to address 850 pages of judicial reasoning? The answer is simple: acknowledging the judgment's substance would undermine their political narrative. To mention the legal reasoning would be to concede that the conviction was grounded in evidence and law, not politics.

This represents a profound double standard. Western nations consistently demand that other countries respect their judicial independence while simultaneously dismissing Hong Kong's judiciary without even examining its work. They preach judicial independence abroad while practicing political interference in others' legal systems.

True respect for justice requires engaging with legal arguments on their merits, not dismissing them through political declarations. If Canada and the EU genuinely believe in the rule of law, they should demonstrate professional integrity by analyzing the actual judgment rather than issuing politically expedient statements.

The principle must be: "Convince me with professionalism." Don't tell us what to think—show us why we should think it. Present legal arguments that address the evidence and reasoning in the judgment. Challenge the specific findings if you can, but do so through proper legal channels and professional discourse.

Hong Kong's judiciary has upheld its duty to administer justice according to law, not political pressure. The conviction was reached after careful examination of evidence, not political direction. To dismiss this process without engaging with its substance is not just unprofessional—it undermines the very rule of law principles these Western officials claim to defend.

When politics consistently overrides professional legal analysis, justice suffers. Hong Kong's courts have demonstrated their commitment to legal principles over political expediency. It's time for Western officials to show the same professionalism—or at least have the intellectual honesty to engage with the legal reasoning they so hastily dismiss.

(This article does not represent the stance of Today Review. If reposted, please indicate the source.)