tim's experiment

Freedom of the Press? Our government not only does not care for it; it does not know the meaning of the words.

Consider the current prosecution of two journalists and the production company of Stand News. We must not, while the case is ongoing, explore the legal peculiarities of the case. We can, though, deduce a great deal from the policing techniques.

As soon as Apple Daily had been killed, a policeman was assigned the task of collecting items from Stand News’s website. He collected more than 300. Of these 17 were selected as a basis for prosecution, and a further 13 were disclosed to the defence. The existence of the other 270 only emerged during the trial.

None of the 17 articles selected was prosecuted as subversive in itself. The selection is supposed to show the subversive intentions of the two editors on trial.

And this really will not do. It is an important function of a news outlet to report the existence of a wide range of points of view, including many with which it may not agree. If you are allowed to take half a per cent of a website’s output and construct a “line” with it then you can show that it agrees with almost anything.

I would not be surprised to hear that Stand News was broadly sympathetic to the democratic cause, but this cannot be shown by picking out 17 articles. What was in all the other stuff?

It would be interesting to know if one of the national security cops is now working on a similarly selective approach to Ming Pao, which has been getting some stick from the Security Bureau lately.

The latest spat concerns CBD (cannabidiol for scientists), on which the government intends to impose a total ban. Imports and possession will be treated as drugs offences and will attract accordingly draconian sentences.

The bureau was offended, apparently, by a commentary written by Lun Chi-wai, former chairman of the Hong Kong Social Workers General Union. Brevity is not among the bureau’s virtues but the heart of its complaint goes like this:

“When commenting on the publication of a gazette notice for bringing CBD under the control of the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, the article seriously distorts the intent of safeguarding public health by controlling CBD through legislation, and purposely misinterprets such legislation as relating to the policy of the Mainland, which may sow discord between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Government has repeatedly explained the hazards of CBD and its scientific justifications for controlling the substance as a dangerous drugs to the Legislative Council, members of public and the sectors concerned. The welfare sector has also voiced its support. The article turns a blind eye to these facts, downplays the harmful effects caused by drug abuse and irrationally associates our legislation with the Mainland. The content may cause dissention between the two places, and may confuse the public as well as affect their vigilance against drugs. We are deeply regret over it.”

Now it may be true that the government has repeatedly explained the hazards of CBD and the alleged scientific justifications for treating it as a dangerous drug, but that does not – in places which enjoy press freedom — require op ed writers to assume uncritically that the hazards are real and the scientific justifications can be substantiated by a look at the evidence.

The government’s view of the matter may be compared with that of the World Health Organisation, which is that “In humans, CBD exhibits no effects indicative of any abuse or dependence potential…. To date, there is no evidence of public health related problems associated with the use of pure CBD.”

The nameless enthusiast who compiled CBD’s very substantial Wikipedia entry has this: “In 2022, the HKSAR Government proposed a ban on any use of cannabidiol (including for academic research and by medical professionals) within the Hong Kong territory, making Hong Kong the first jurisdiction in the world to have complete prohibition of cannabidiol, starting from Feb 1, 2023, in part due to the possible presence of THC which is illegal in Hong Kong..” THC is the active ingredient in the cannabis fun leaves.

We’re unique. This suggests that there may be something eccentric about the official local view of the matter. This is tough luck for some people. A CBD drug called Epidiolex has been approved in both the US and Europe for the treatment of some rare forms of epilepsy found in young children.

Studies continue on the use of CBD for adults to treat anxiety, insomnia, chronic pain and addiction to booze and tobacco. In Canada there is a committee on cannabis products, which “unanimously agrees CBD is safe and tolerable for short-term use (up to 30 days) at doses from 20 milligrams per day to … 200 mg/day via oral administration for healthy adults, provided they discuss the use of all other medications and substances used with their pharmacist.”

In 2020 the Therapeutic Drugs Administration of Australia decided to “allow TGA approved low-dose CBD containing products, up to a maximum of 150 mg/day, for use in adults, to be supplied over-the-counter by a pharmacist, without a prescription.”

Back in Canada a subcommittee also agreed that “there was sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of CBD for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis in dogs.”

All these careful musings concerned the use of CBD as an internal medicine. Adding a bit of it to face creams and such like seems to be entirely uncontroversial in most places.

Under the circumstances it seems at least arguable that Hong Kong’s proposed blanket ban is a hysterical over-reaction to the fact that CBD comes from the evil cannabis plant, although it is well established that you can’t have illlicit fun with it.

What really puzzles me, though, is the bureau’s indignant denial that the legal situation on the mainland had anything to do with the decision. This is odd. Surely any responsible government would consider the problems which have emerged when things obtainable in Hong Kong were not available on the mainland – from racy books to dependable supplies of baby formula.

Anyway, whatever you think of CBD there is an intimidating conclusion to the Security Bureau’s diatribe, which goes like this:  “The SB expressed grave concern about the misleading articles published by Ming Pao recently, including the commentary on the Immigration Department’s handling of screening of Trafficking in Persons cases and the newspaper cartoon about the police officer’s handling of requests for assistance by schools.”

Big Brother really is watching you. Me too, probably. Can’t say I feel as free as I used to.