- Hong Kong’s electoral system is undergoing fundamental changes after the Chinese National People’s Congress voted unanimously Tuesday to amend the territory’s constitution.
- Under the new rules, the number of directly-elected legislators to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council will be reduced to less than one-fourth of its members.
- Additionally, any candidates must be sufficiently “patriotic,” and any who fail to meet the requirement will be denied an opportunity to run for office.
- Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam defended the system, saying it still allows for those with pan-democratic views, though critics say it fundamentally undermines Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status.
Electoral System Overhaul
Hong Kong officially took a step backwards on Tuesday after the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference unanimously voted on provisions that would fundamentally change elections in the semi-autonomous territory.
The Conference was working to smooth out the kinks of a bill passed earlier in March by the Chinese National People’s Congress, which voted 2895-0 with one abstention to change Hong Kong’s election system. Initially, the only differences that were publicly known included clauses that only “patriots” would be allowed to seek elected office and that the number of seats in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council would change.
With the details officially decided, it’s now known that Beijing enacted wide-reaching changes to Hong Kong’s Basic Law, their constitution. Changes include how the city’s Legislative Council is formed, how many seats are in the council, and who can run for office.
In the Legislative Council, Beijing had a two-pronged approach to diluting the power of democratically elected leaders. It not only reduced the number of directly elected seats but also increased the total number of seats available, meaning that just under one-fourth of the now 90 seats are up for grabs. Additionally, another 40 seats of the legislature will be appointed by the territory’s Election Committee directly. The Election Committee is a now-1,500-man electoral college that chooses the Chief Executive.
Formerly, the Committee was made up of various aspects of Hong Kong society, including businesses, special interest groups, political parties, and district councils. Some of the seats were directly elected by Hong Kongers. Even though directly-elected officials had little power in the Committee, their elections were often used to voice dissatisfaction with Beijing policies, leading to pro-democracy groups often winning the seats. In response, Beijing has decided to remove all the directly elected spots in the Electoral Committee and will appoint the officials sitting on the Committee.
System Is Skewed Towards Pro-China Views
In addition to choosing the Chief Executive and directly appointing 40 members to the Legislative Council, the Election Committee now has the power to vet the remaining 20 directly-elected members before they are allowed to run for office. Since the Election Committee is inherently pro-Beijing, as getting on the council is impossible without that stance, candidates who are critical of China’s heavy-handed approach against Hong Kong are unlikely to be allowed to run.
There’s actually another layer to prevent this. Before the Election Committee considers a candidate they must be approved by the national police. If the police decide they cannot run for any reason then the decision is final. There is no way to oppose the decision. With that said, who gets to run for office? The overriding criteria is that a candidate must be “patriotic.”
Officials like Chief Executive Carrie Lam thinks the “patriotic” clause won’t limit who can run for office, saying, “The whole arrangement to improve the electoral system of the [Hong Kong Special Administrative Region] is to ensure patriots administrate Hong Kong. They have to fulfil a requirement, which actually is in our electoral law – that they have to bear allegiance to the HKSAR and also uphold the Basic Law.”
However, the move has been widely criticized as a fundamental undermining of the long-standing democratic institutions in Hong Kong. That’s because even if the people elected all pro-Hong Kong lawmakers, they’d have effectively no power to do anything compared to Beijing-appointed officials.
Elections for the new Legislative Council are to be held in December.
See what others are saying: (South China Morning Post) (Los Angeles Times) (New York Times)
U.K. Court Rules Julian Assange Can Be Extradited to U.S.
The judgment overrules a lower court decision that blocked the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition on the grounds that his mental health was not stable enough to weather harsh conditions in the American prison system if convicted.
New Developments in Assange Extradition Battle
A British court ruled Friday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to the United States to face charges of violating the Espionage Act that could land him in prison for decades.
Prosecutors in the U.S. have accused Assange of conspiring with former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010 to hack into a Department of Defense computer network and access thousands of military and diplomatic records on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The information obtained in the hack was later published by WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011, a move U.S. authorities allege put lives in danger.
In addition to a charge of computer misuse, Assange has also been indicted on 17 espionage charges. Collectively, the charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 175 years.
The Friday decision from the High Court overturns a lower court ruling in January, which found that Assange’s mental health was too fragile for the harsh environment he could face in the U.S. prison system if convicted.
Notably, the January ruling did not determine whether or not Assange was guilty. In fact, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser explicitly rejected the defense’s arguments that the charges against him were politically motivated and that he should be protected under freedom of press.
However, she agreed that the defense had provided compelling evidence that Assange suffers from severe depression and that the conditions he could face in the U.S. prison system were “such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.”
The U.S. appealed the ruling, arguing that Assange’s mental health should not be a barrier to extradition and that the psychiatrist who examined him had been biased.
In October, the Biden administration vowed that if Assange were to be convicted, he would not be placed in the highest-security U.S. prison or immediately sent to solitary confinement. Officials also said that the native Australian would be eligible to serve his sentence in his home country.
High Court Ruling
The High Court agreed with the administration’s arguments in its ruling, arguing that the American’s assurances regarding the conditions of Assange’s potential incarceration were “sufficient.”
“There is no reason why this court should not accept the assurances as meaning what they say,” the ruling stated. “There is no basis for assuming that the USA has not given the assurances in good faith.”
Assange’s fiancé, Stella Moris, said in a statement that his legal team would appeal the decision to the British Supreme Court at the “earliest possible moment,” referring to the judgment as a “grave miscarriage of justice.”
The Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to hear the case based on if it believes the matter involves a point of law “of general public importance.” That decision may take weeks or even months.
If the U.K. Supreme Court court objects to hearing Assange’s appeal, he could ask the European Court of Human Rights to stay the extradition — a move that could set in motion another lengthy legal battle in the already drawn-out process.
Assange and his supporters claim he was acting as an investigative journalist when he published the classified military cables. They argue that the possibility of his extradition and prosecution represent serious threats to press freedoms in the U.S.
U.S. prosecutors dispute that Assange acted as a journalist, claiming that he encouraged illegal hacking for personal reasons.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)
Early Data Indicates Omicron is More Transmissible But Less Severe
The studies come as Pfizer and BioNTech claim that preliminary research shows a third shot of their COVID vaccine appears to provide sufficient protection against the new variant, but two doses alone may not.
More Information About Omicron
Several preliminary studies published in recent days appear to show that the new omicron COVID-19 variant may be more transmissible but less severe than previous strains.
One recent, un-peer-reviewed study by a Japanese scientist who advises the country’s health ministry found that omicron is four times more transmissible in its initial stage than delta was.
Preliminary information in countries hit hard by omicron also indicates high transmissibility. In South Africa — where the variant was first detected and is already the dominant strain — new COVID cases have more than doubled over the last week.
Health officials in the U.K. said omicron cases are doubling every two or three days, and they expect the strain to become dominant in the country in a matter of weeks.
In a statement Wednesday, World Health Organization Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that while early data does seem to show high transmissibility, it also indicates that omicron causes more mild cases than delta.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevent Director Rochelle Walensky echoed that sentiment, telling reporters that of the 40 known omicron cases in the U.S. as of Wednesday, nearly all of them were mild. One person has been hospitalized so far and none have died.
Studies on Vaccine Efficacy
Other recent studies have shown that current COVID vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness and death in omicron patients, and boosters provide at least some added protection.
On Wednesday, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that laboratory tests have shown a third dose of their COVID-19 vaccine appears to provide sufficient protection against the omicron variant, though two doses may not.
According to the companies, researchers saw a 25-fold reduction in neutralizing antibodies for omicron compared to other strains of the virus for people who had just two Pfizer doses.
By contrast, samples from people one month after they had received a Pfizer booster presented neutralizing antibodies against omicron that were comparable to those seen against previous variants after two doses.
Still, Pfizer’s chief executive also told reporters later in the day that omicron could increase the likelihood that people might need a fourth dose earlier than previously expected, which he had initially said was 12 months after the third shot.
Notably, the Pfizer research has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it remains unclear how omicron will operate outside a lab, but other studies have had similar findings.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Bloomberg) (NBC News)
40 Camels Disqualified From Beauty Contest After Breeders Inject Their Faces With Botox
The animals were barred from competing for $66 million in prizes at this year’s King Abdulaziz Camel Festival in Saudi Arabia.
Camels Booted From Beauty Contest
More than 40 camels were disqualified from a beauty contest in Saudi Arabia this week after judges found artificial enhancements in their faces, marking the biggest crackdown on contestants in the competition to date.
The animals were competing for $66 million in prizes at the King Abdulaziz Camel Festival, a month-long event that is estimated to include around 33,000 camels.
However, according to The Guardian, they were forced out of the contest when authorities found that breeders had “stretched out the lips and noses of the camels, used hormones to boost the animals’ muscles, injected heads and lips with Botox to make them bigger, inflated body parts with rubber bands, and used fillers to relax their faces.”
Those types of alterations are banned since judges look at the contestant’s heads, necks, humps, posture, and other features when evaluating them.
An announcement from the state-linked Saudi Press Agency said officials used “specialized and advanced” technology to detect tampering.
“The club is keen to halt all acts of tampering and deception in the beautification of camels,” the SPA report added before warning that organizers would “impose strict penalties on manipulators.”
While it’s unclear what that actually entails, this isn’t the first time people have tried to cheat in this way.
In 2018, 12 camels were similarly disqualified from the competition for injections in their noses, lips, and jaw.