Law society condemns Occupy Central plan
Legal group's leader says he is angry about the disruption of social order and the rule of law by groups in city 'abusing the name of justice'
The city's largest lawyers' group yesterday joined the chorus condemning the Occupy Central civil disobedience plan, with its president saying the action was without legal grounds and the notion of "peaceful violence" was just "beautiful rhetoric".
And the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office warned against "a confluence" of the plan and Taiwanese independence, after a controversial meeting between a key Occupy Central organiser and a former leader of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party.
The movement plans to blockade the business district next summer if the government fails to come up with a satisfactory plan for full democracy in the 2017 chief executive election.
Law Society president Ambrose Lam San-keung yesterday said he did not support any civil disobedience action, and insisted the concept of civil disobedience "was not a legal principle".
In a rare gesture, he also said he was "angry" about recent attempts to challenge the social order, although he refused to say whether he was pointing the finger at the Occupy Central movement. He denied his comments were based on "orders from Beijing". "I am angry that many people are disrupting the social order and the rule of law by abusing the name of justice," Lam said. "There are ample channels for individuals to express their discontent against the system - either through the legislature or the courts to change the laws."
Lam also drew a comparison between the situation facing the Occupy Central movement and those of India's Mahatma Gandhi and America's Martin Luther King. He said Hong Kong's situation could not be compared to the conditions faced by the two civil disobedience advocates. "Our systems are running and working," said Lam. "Peaceful violence was just beautiful rhetoric. It is never a legal principle that can stand up in court."
