Recently the opposition camp has talked of when the illegal "Occupy Central" campaign will officially begin and how the central government is likely to respond. At least 10,000 occupiers are planning to block the main routes in Central which pass a strategic spot - Chater Garden. Media hype suggests the organizers will launch the "Occupy" campaign when the SAR government publishes its report on the next phase of constitutional development. Some sources say the government report could be published later this month.

The occupiers' reasons are simple: there is no way the central government will give in to their threats to harm Hong Kong's economy. The SAR government has no choice but to introduce a constitutional reform plan which does not meet the "international standards" demanded by the "Occupy" leaders. This will provide them with the excuse they are looking for to launch their campaign and wreak havoc in Central.

While the "Occupy" leaders cannot convince everyone to recognize their illegal campaign, this has not prevented them from constantly arguing that they are trying to achieve "international standards" of democracy. But is it too much to ask the "occupiers" themselves to follow "international standards" and protest in a moderate, reasonable way? Then we would see how truly sincere they are. Of course, the leaders of the "Occupy" campaign are unlikely to agree to this.

Benny Tai, one of the three masterminds behind the campaign and a constitutional law expert, said the illegal nature of "Occupy" was justified. This is because it is modeled on the civil disobedience movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. Some commentators and political scientists have noted that Tai's use of the term shows he really has no respect for "international standards" when it comes to civil disobedience. Indeed, the "Occupy" campaign has broken just about every principle upon which these standards are based.

Take the issue of non-violence. Some "Occupy" protesters have admitted they cannot guarantee they will control themselves if things get out of hand. Some of them may be tempted to act violently. This may be acceptable to Benny Tai and other "Occupy" organizers, but it is unacceptable to most people in Hong Kong. After all the "Occupy" organizers have said in the past that their campaign would be non-violent and their followers would also control themselves.

But this does not sound very convincing. In fact, it sounds like one of those baby formula advertisements we often see on television. These ads claim that "fortified" milk powder is like some kind of magic potion! They aim to deceive gullible consumers. But the manufacturers of the milk powder are not held accountable if consumers complain that their products don't work. They will simply say the ads are not to be taken seriously.

It is the same sort of thing with the "Occupy" campaign. The organizers are also saying they cannot be held accountable for what individual protesters may do should chaos descend on Central. They will argue it is not their fault if some of their followers don't believe in non-violence. They will just claim their goal is "justice" and this is all that matters.

Generally, a true act of civil disobedience is directed at a specific legal injustice. It aims to force the relevant authorities to end the injustice through peaceful non-cooperation by showing popular opposition to an unjust law. In Hong Kong today, the "Occupy" organizers will claim that the "unjust law" is Article 45 of the Basic Law together with relevant decisions by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) concerning methods for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. They will argue that because there is no proper way to force the NPCSC to amend the Basic Law they have no choice but to force them to do so with their illegal campaign. But this is nonsense. It is totally against the principles of true civil disobedience.

Moreover, the protesters will also criticize the people who are worried about suffering economic losses resulting from the "Occupy" campaign. They will argue these people do not really care about "true democracy" or "genuine universal suffrage".

It is widely believed that the "international standards" to which the opposition camp refers is the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. But the convention is not merely concerned with political rights. It is also about many other basic rights and freedoms - such as the right to subsistence, the freedom of movement and freedom from all kinds of prejudice.

Theoretically, these rights and freedoms are equally important, but the opposition camp seems convinced they can ignore or even trample over these basic rights to get what they want. They are actually sacrificing other people's rights rather than their own. The ones they really want to secure are only those rights and freedoms which will benefit them, personally. Can "international standards" really be any more random, inflexible and inconsistent than this?

There is another important fact which is worth noting. Furthermore the idea of "public nomination" demanded by the "occupiers" does not conform to international standards. They should have checked these claims by referring them to obvious examples overseas before arguing for "international standards". For instance, they should have looked carefully at how candidates in United States presidential elections are selected or how the British prime minister is returned to power. They would then realize that there are actually no universal international standards for nomination.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 07/11/2014 page9)