The case revolves around an unofficial primary the defendants organised in 2020 to pick candidates for local elections - some 600,000 people voted in it to pick opposition candidates.
Prosecutors alleged that the activists held the primary with the intention of getting into the Legislative Council and disrupting government policies.
The judges noted the prosecution's argument that the defendants - if they had been elected - would have "pursued a course of conduct which was to indiscriminately veto any budgets or refuse to pass any budgets... to be introduced by the Government".
That plan, referred to as "the Scheme" by the court, would have caused chaos, prosecutors argued. They said this was subversion - an attempt to undermine the authority of the central government.
The court agreed saying this would have led to a "constitutional crisis".
This would result in “seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the HKSAR”, the court said.
However, many critics and rights groups have pointed out that this case hinged on hypotheticals: what would have happened if the defendants were elected, and if they pursued the alleged actions.
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiM2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jby51ay9uZXdzL2xpdmUvd29ybGQtYXNpYS02OTA1MTgwM9IBAA?oc=5
2024-05-30 06:22:30Z
CBMiM2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jby51ay9uZXdzL2xpdmUvd29ybGQtYXNpYS02OTA1MTgwM9IBAA
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar