Tai Yiu-ting, one of the organizers of the proposed "Occupy Central" campaign, did not have the guts to give a simple "yes or no" reply when a student asked whether the act of advocating "Occupy Central" is a criminal act and whether a scholar of law has violated the law and professional code of conduct by urging others to break the law during his "lecture" at Heep Yunn School to advocate the illegal campaign earlier this month. Instead he changed the subject by trying to whitewash his criminal intent with the argument that "Occupy" is not for personal gain and therefore is different from robbing a jewelry store. By not admitting "Occupy" is illegal, Tai once again revealed his dishonesty as well as reluctance to face the truth and distinguish between right and wrong. His refusal to address the guilty or not guilty verdict in this case only confirms the fact he knows he is guilty of abetting a criminal act in his capacity as a law scholar.

Tai said he had sought advice from colleagues familiar with Hong Kong's criminal law (I'm assuming he was referring to some of the teachers with the Department of Law at the University of Hong Kong) and they all believed that "Occupy" does not violate any law and neither does what advocates like him have done and said so far. However, a local newspaper reported that several other colleagues told him that urging others to join "Occupy" constitutes abetting a criminal act. Even if his action has not led to any crime yet, any act of abetting crime in its initial stages is still criminal. In the United States, for example, the police can charge someone with abetting criminals if they have physical evidence that the suspect told others to prepare for a terrorist attack whether the act happens or not.

Tai is smart in quoting unidentified persons as saying "Occupy" is not illegal, as if he had nothing to do with that statement. That way he can blame someone else for saying as much when necessary. In common law, however, the prosecution can charge him with abetting a crime if they can prove he had the motive.

Central is the heart of Hong Kong's economy. Anyone who paralyzes financial activities in the district and causes serious damage to public interest by blocking traffic and/or access to important financial institutions there is liable to jeopardize public order and peace, which is a crime in the Public Order Ordinance. Tai has said in writing that "Occupy" is meant to paralyze Central like a "nuclear blast" and make Hong Kong impossible to govern. That means he and his cohorts intend to deny other local residents' individual freedom to access the district or conduct financial activities there by force. That constitutes direct violation of human rights. Anyone with basic knowledge of law knows such an act can get one arrested and charged with a criminal offense.

Tai also said in public that "Occupy" participants need not fear tanks and the organizers will tell them to pull back when bloodshed is imminent. Such comments tell us Tai is urging others to join a criminal act knowing it will lead to violence and its consequences. According to common law any act of crime is a criminal offense that cannot be argued by saying: "I did not know it is a criminal act and I am not familiar with the law in question." When someone has been charged with a crime but argues "my motive is to serve public interest, not for personal gain; and I did not pocket any benefit from the action," the court will not accept it as an excuse because it does not change the fact that someone committed a crime.

Imagine a terrorist detonates an explosive device that kills many people and then tells the court, "I did it for justice and have not profited from the criminal act at all. I'm not guilty because I did not do it for personal benefit." Will any judge in Hong Kong accept that argument? The answer is no. It is basic knowledge in law that a criminal act cannot be defended by arguing the suspect did not profit from the criminal act. "Occupy" is meant to upset public order and therefore constitutes a criminal act. Anyone who takes part in it can be held accountable for a criminal offense.

"Public interest" is such a fantastic excuse that no one who has harmed other people's interest would not try to defend their criminal act by claiming it was for that reason. But, a crime is a crime and no attempt to avoid justice by reaching for moral high ground can change it.

The author is a current affairs commentator. This is translated from his column published in Wen Wei Po on July 15.

(HK Edition 07/16/2013 page1)