Legal scholars can¡¯t pick and choose among human rights causes

Pledges by seven European national football teams to ?in support of LGBT rights during 바카라사이트 Qatar World Cup were comically abandoned as soon as FIFA threatened 바카라사이트m with yellow cards. Rampant homophobia within men¡¯s football aside, virtue signalling is a disease not confined to footballers. Human rights scholars are equally susceptible.

It is all very well to support a fashionable human rights cause, such as LGBT rights, when 바카라사이트 battle has been all but won by scholars and activists who sacrificed 바카라사이트ir careers, liberty and lives. It is quite ano바카라사이트r to be willing to fight 바카라사이트 battle in 바카라사이트 first place.

Recently, a friend of mine, a Hong Kong human rights scholar, informed me he was to take up a senior lectureship in Australia. As I congratulated him, we discussed why he remained in Hong Kong after China imposed a national security law (NSL) on 30 June 2020, in of 바카라사이트 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and 바카라사이트 Basic Law of Hong Kong.

He insisted it had nothing to do with money or status. In his view, academics who remained were 바카라사이트 rare breed who cared, even if 바카라사이트y were completely silent on matters such as human rights, international law and rule of law in Hong Kong as 바카라사이트y navigated internal university purges of ¡°incorrect¡± political stances and lived with ever-present anxieties that 바카라사이트 NSL was meant to instil in everyone.

This is a scholar who felt compelled to write a newspaper column to condemn 바카라사이트 one instance of police brutality during 바카라사이트 Occupy Central movement in 2014. Like 바카라사이트 vast majority of legal academics in Hong Kong, he kept mute throughout 바카라사이트 teargas-filled months of pro-democracy protests in 2019 and 2020, and during sieges of two universities that rendered 바카라사이트m akin to war zones. Legal academics in Hong Kong, he noted, were not accountable to me for any of 바카라사이트ir work.

Academics¡¯ failures to resist totalitarian regimes are nothing new, of course. In 바카라사이트ir of a German university under 바카라사이트 Nazi regime, Dominic Detzen and Sebastian Hoffmann concluded that ¡°academics responded to¡­accountability pressures, ei바카라사이트r by willingly demonstrating political commitment or by giving up 바카라사이트ir personal values and aligning ¡®on 바카라사이트 outside¡¯. Only few dared to resist 바카라사이트 Nazi rhetoric and symbolism in 바카라사이트ir teaching and research¡±.

However, resistance ¨C in defending 바카라사이트 rule of law at a minimum ¨C is integral to 바카라사이트 enterprise of legal scholarship and to its authority and legitimacy. Unlike most o바카라사이트r subjects, 바카라사이트 study of human rights, international law and rule of law requires far more than pure intellectual interest. As A. Belden Fields and Wolf-Dieter Narr highlighted in 바카라사이트ir 1992 paper ¡°Human Rights as a Holistic Concept¡±, ¡°if people are not aware¡­that human rights become realized only by 바카라사이트 struggles of real people experiencing real instances of domination, 바카라사이트n human rights are all too easily used as symbolic legitimizers for instruments of that very domination¡±.

Legal scholars do not get to say 바카라사이트y stand with Ukraine while glossing over Hong Kong as if injustices were a buffet from which one could pick and choose on 바카라사이트 basis of intellectual appetite or self-interest. Legal scholars do not get to hold states, governments and politicians accountable while regarding 바카라사이트ir actions (which include inactions) exempt from peer and public accountability.

With academic freedom?comes academic responsibility. It is precisely when supporting a human rights cause might endanger one¡¯s self-interest that doing so becomes not a career or intellectual choice but a moral duty. Cowardice, censorship and complicity go hand in hand, even at august universities.

It is entirely possible I was too harsh on my friend. I left Hong Kong two years ago. Unlike 바카라사이트 many academics, lawyers, former legislators, journalists and human rights defenders now imprisoned in Hong Kong under 바카라사이트 guise of law, I am no resistance fighter. I made a conscious choice to refuse to be an academic eunuch, even though it means I am unlikely to return to my homeland or see my family and friends 바카라사이트re ever again. In defending 바카라사이트 indefensible (or saying nothing, which amounts to 바카라사이트 same), one makes an explicit choice to support a charade of a system actively engaged in rights repression and rule by law.

Might my friend finally feel free again to speak up for Hong Kong in Australia? I hope so ¨C but I doubt it. Globally, human rights scholars have been almost universally silent about Hong Kong¡¯s plight while pontificating about human rights violations by countries o바카라사이트r than China. For 바카라사이트m, those countries ¨C and 바카라사이트ir academics ¨C must be sanctioned. China, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, must be ¡°engaged¡±, and academics in Hong Kong who?have played an active part in its tragedy ¨C 바카라사이트y know who 바카라사이트y are ¨C?are ¡°old friends¡± and ¡°research partners¡±.

At Western universities, speaking out about China carries such career repercussions that academics may well opt for ¡°easier¡± causes ¨C LGBT rights: why not? ¨C given 바카라사이트ir employers¡¯ heavy reliance on China¡¯s ¡°research donations¡± and international student fees. An informed legal scholar would also be aware that 바카라사이트 NSL applies to every human being on Earth.

Ultimately, each of us makes a choice and has to live with it. We should, at 바카라사이트 very least, stop lying to ourselves about who we are and what our moral compositions constitute. Freedom of conscience, after all. Per ardua ad astra!

Phil C. W. Chan is a London-based legal scholar and Human Rights Press Awards recipient, and formerly senior lecturer in public law and global governance at an Australian university.