Allow and welcome to this special edition of conflict zone on the crisis in hong kong. Over the last year, weve interviewed several probate janan prodemocracy figures, and we challenge them all to justify what theyve done and said some of their arguments have clearly failed to stand the test of time. Nathan law, a leading prodemocracy activist, fled to london in june after a warrant was issued for his arrest. This week i asked him if youd ever believed his movement could take on beijing and when i think we have already achieved a lot of things where demonstrate the courage and bravery of how come people and making sure the well knows that well received thing and collaborating in combating the authoritarian expansion of china. So i think we have awakened the world, but the result isnt in doubt is it, china will get its way, will get its way, wont it . While beijing has been suppressing hong kong people at the cost of our basic freedom. And as a matter of fact, the world has been reacting to that suppression, a lot of sanctioning to an embargo always. And also, plenty of countries abandoning and extradition treaty to hong kong is shows that the world actually know what china has been doing and determined to counter at last years the rioting intensified. Beijing warned protesters to expect what it called a blow from the sword of law. Victor gao, the chinese lawyer and academic tried to suggest that his government had nothing against democratic rights. It was just against violence. So long as democracy democratic rights are exercised, the peacefully and lawfully. Everyone is a winner. No one is a loser. What we need to the popes in hong kong is violence. You. That is the key. You ignore the fact that chinas plan has been to chip away at hong kongs freedoms and democracy until they were all meaningless. And then beijing, good reassert full control in that thats been the plan, hasnt it . Well, not again with due respect, i disagree. Why should beijing of the Central Government in hong kong take away any, liberties or freedoms in hong kong with a deal they did. Mr. Y. , like the kidnapping of 5 homegrown booksellers, it has happened to turn up in mainland china. The crackdown on those who lead the 2014 process, the highly controversial decision to allow mainland Chinese Police to operate in the west station. All this is chipping away at the freedoms of hong kong, did beijing imagine that people wouldnt notice this. I think we need to really keep an eye on the big picture that is ever since the 1997 hong kong has managed to keep its relative independence. Judiciary independence, for example, political system, there has been no change is set, or if you talk about specific cases, we can go into details if you have more time. Now remember when people were still alive and he was the key architect for the one country 2 system. He said for the record that if the one country 2 system will work out for the 1st 50 years, why couldnt it be extended for another 50 years . So there is an uncertainty as to what will happen in hong kong after 2047. I would say everything will come to their end if for example, violence continues in hong kong. However, if stability, prosperity, development, and the improvement of the peoples Living Standards are the normal things all the way leading up to 247. Why couldnt the one country 2 system apply more years . It was, give me, you have to tell me to measure one point, you know, put in hong kong in the overall magnitude of the scale of china, or whatever bad things that have happened in the home of the past 6 months. And things in china is, is, is at the best it can be called a storm in a teacup. Its not going to change meaningfully. Anything thats happening in peoples republic of china had all what beijing is a happy about and adamantly is a pollster to is the violence in hong kong. Lets be honest and straightforward with them. No country either britain of the United States will tolerate the level of violence that has engulfed hong kong for the past 6 months. And that kind of warning fell on deaf ears in the streets of hong kong. With demonstrators were in no mood to step back. Besides, by using violence themselves, they now have the attention of western governments. I put it to joey prodemocracy student that the protesters went so far as to kill, anyone movement would be finished. Yes, i agree. And i prepared to take that risk and you wont come out in public and say, we need to stop this. The British Government has last week slammed what it called the hard core minority said the violence was acceptable. This is the sound of your international support, wavering and believing you, isnt it . Yes, well, i believe the escalation of thousands and with absolutely be very concerning to the international society. When all the free world countries are advocating using peaceful means to bring the situation to a restart, but they tell you theyre going too far already. Doesnt that matter . Well, of course that matters, but i think the most important thing is about how can we hold our government accountable, and how can we bring them to respond to our demands. What about the judiciary . Youve heard criticism from judicial institutions in hong kong, pretty heavy criticism. These are the bodies, enjoy considerable respect around the world for the impartiality. Again, if youre losing them, this is a really bad sign for the law society, for instance, of all forms of honor for violence, particularly against the police, the use of petrol bombs against the police, as well as the apparent attacks on the families of Police Officers and bullying of their children at school. Who proof of those methods, bullying the children of Police Officers that school . Well, i dont agree with those math thats still with us. And so you dont agree with the violence and you dont agree with the bullying of the children. Doesnt sound as though theres much you agree with, but youll stay silent anyway. Now we had the f, a k thing using piece. I mean, for example, like place where rallies marches to, to express our confidence and demands. And but the point is that we do not publicly condemn those actions, but still we try to use our peaceful means to use our own peaceful means to try to switch the tactic of those using intimidation, mafia, style and intimidation. We have a report of one teenage daughter of an officer being harassed by another out. While she was playing sport, they said to her, what your father is doing is disgusting since when have children responsible for the actions of their parents . Well, 1st off, i dont thing any family members of those Police Officers should be responsible for their own disgusting actions and i made youre making them responsible. Some of your people are making responsible believe in them. Well, i believe that is happening. But after or when the law society says its happening, yes, i can deny that it is actually happening. But still were trying to use play so tactics to, to bring the situation to a resolution. And i believe like bullying family members would not be a very good way to solve the situation. The hong kong bar association. So do the hong kong airport constituted serious struction and was in open defiance of junctions granted by the courts. In other words, you broke the law. Do you want to live in the state governed by the rule of law or only the moves that you like . Of course i would like to live in a state of floor. However, we can see that it is very obvious that the situation of we are flying Home Counties being broken, not by the protesters, but by the government itself. And i believe thats why protesters are marching on the street are taking on to the streets, even though they know that it will break the law. And i believe your experience is something you know, that the most important is to fight to protect the rule of law in hong kong and judicial independence. But youre trashing it at the same time. Well, i believe breaking the law to protect to the more doesnt because well, it is the government that for us as us to take on the streets and to break the laws. It is not a particularly senses, you know, very forces you to break the law or do that. The Government Forces that it is. So obviously thats your interpretation. But here, here are these judicial institutions rule warning, you that criminal contempt as they put it impedes the administration of justice. And if unchecked, will inflict grave and reprobate damage to the rule of law in hong kong, grave and irreparable damage. Thats what they think youre doing. To hong kong doesnt matter. Well, of course that matters, but as i have mentioned, what matters the most about whether we can actually bring a change to our political structure and government structure. And that would be the common goal and would be the most important go for us to achieve for this moment. And i believe, even for the department of justices self as in being totally independent for now, after, after the hangover of hong kong from the British Government to the Chinese Government, we can see that in our core values, our tradition where systems being encroached by the Chinese Government for a while, the protest brought results. The Hong Kong Government scrapped a controversial extradition bill. He would have seen suspects tried in mainland courts controlled by the communist party. The Police Arrested hundreds of protesters in the prodemocracy movement. Have plenty of other demands. Foreign governments want them to open a dialogue with the government, but there was little appetite for them. If you have a son down with the government and hold a dialogue, who would call the talks if we were so who could, who could also rise . Compromises that are essential in the kind of political dialogue. Who in your movement could actually sit down and authorize compromises . I believe nobody could represent our movement because as you know, leave the letters. Nobody will sit down with you. Youre not opening doors, your closing doors when we are going. Or if you just said, nobody could authorize compromises, nobody considers the room for you. Represent you well, back in history of men supposed to talk to well back in june. The chief executive has tried to approach to several student you. Theres a hong kong and we had rejected her offer because she requested a private meeting with only some of this, didnt you, hong kong which, which is not even representing all the students in hong kong. It would be a start, wouldnt that it would have been a start. It wont be a start, it will only be a end to our movement. Because back in 2014, we see that caroline tried to talk to some of the student leaders. Some of the leaders of the umbrella revolution. However, what we got our dirty after did die a lot worse. That was to crack down our family. And then caroline did nothing any of her any of her promises in the dialogue. And we felt like, especially in this leaderless movement, its very important for us to have a public dialogue with as many stakeholders in a society as possible. At least we can not only have the student activists talking to kerry land. Ok, we have to include other stakeholders, youve put forward 5 principle demands of the Hong Kong Government. You and your fellow activists. That the government has only addressed one of them, which was the extradition bill, which they withdrew. But in fact, according to albert chan professor nor the university of hong kong, the government responded to all of your demands, just not in the way that you want it. You wanted an independent investigation into Police Handling of the riots. You didnt get that, but you didnt get nothing either. The independent Police Complaints council appointed 5 overseas experts from britain, canada, australia, and new zealand didnt get everything but they did respond. Well, i believe. What are we calling for is not only a official demand for official response from kerry land. What we are asking for is about the concrete actions by the hand on government. Were asking them to respond to our demands by taking actual actions. By june, this year, beijings patience would run out. It published the draft of a new law that opened the way for its feared security agencies. So operated will in hong kong, regina, a member of the City Government and chair of the new beijing Peoples Party tried to play it all down. I dont think theyre talking about direct and forstmann of Law Enforcement of laws will continue to be the responsibility of our policeman. Thats not what it says. It is against the basic on. No, no, no, thats what what you described. They did not say what it is, what they only said that some National Security agency made the set up on the need basis as an mocambo because our National Security council, you have known what is that, another national marshalling hands out means doesnt mean the big winner cravenly well, its actually we know an awful lot about vetoes, so you cant get out of all as well. You should not, you cant give any comforting but as you have not about this. And you cannot give any unwarranted accusations. If there are no facts, you are making unwarranted accusations. Will these agencies operate under mainland law or hong kong law . You dont know, do you . No, no, no. Its in the basic law. They must obey hong kong law. What i said there is, it is not clear yet what any new National Security agency would be responsible for. It could simply be responsible for public education, publish it in promotion. You know, you cannot come to the conclusion that they are, they will be enforcing hong kong law. Thats what they bring. Thats what they do when they bring in their National Security organs of the Central Police government does it. It was sent to peoples government. Thats what they are looking for. Education is it, you dont know that again, you arent, you, and you have no, no factual basis for making those sort of statements you are simply making are sweeping allegations based on your own assumptions and bias when theres no assumptions and bias. When you look at how the National Security organs of the central peoples government operate when theyre in on the mainland, and were not talking about mainland, were talking about one country 2 systems. Lets come back to hong kong. It doesnt look as though its one country 2 systems that have really in the National Security organs have and imposing their security laws on hong kong. It doesnt look like 2 systems. It looks like one country, one system. If you do that, they are an acting, they are trying to enact a hong kong specific version which is consistent with our common law systems. If they just wish to implement, impose chinas system on us, they could just apply this to us, chinas National Security law, but they are not doing this. They are now Consulting Hong Kong experts about and drafting a hong kong specific version for us to take account of our separate systems. Those comforting predictions turned out to be wide of the mark when beijing security law was published. It was all that the prodemocracy movement had feared, and more cold cases could now be handed over to the mainland for investigation judgement and punishment trials could be held in secret. And though the new security agencies were not required to follow hong kong law to be fair, regina hadnt seen the full text when we spoke, but she firmly rejected the suggestion that the law reflected beijings paranoia about free speech and freedom in general. And thats a very unfair statement. In the past 12 months, the police have uncovered at least 22 cases up extremely dangerous key in keeping explosives or that in chin one in the school. And lots of weaponry, dangerous weapons have been using a lot of socalled, peaceful protests, you know, and innocent people have been killed. These are violent events have never occurred in hong kong. And there are people waving, promoting hong kong independence, you know, waving hong kong flat, chanting revolutionary songs. You know, these are activities that no government would allow. A lot of hong kong people are very angry about it. John fund revolutionary song, or insulin, or out of trance again as a lucia . Yes, absolutely. A prophet every regard to the chant, revolutionary songs in free countries. Regina europe, you can go to london or washington and chant, whatever revolutionary songs you want, why dont you try it . It depends on whether the songs are chanted as in an opera, Les Miserables la or chant as a part up, a well organized and well planned action plan to stalk separatist sentiments at the end of the day. Your, your reason your pitch to the people of hong kong is trust beijing. This security law will not be used in the same way that beijing uses security laws to tamp down on freedoms on the mainland. This is what you are asking them to accept that china is not going to behave the way it behaves on the mainland in hong kong. If you really believe that, of course, trust our motherland, our motherland has nothing but good intentions for the people. And also trust the basic law trust one country 2 systems which has worked well in the past 23 years. You know, why doesnt it have better intentions towards its own people on the mainland . Why is it torturing them in prisons and locking up a 1000000 wigans in socalled reeducation camps . Why is it doing that . I must ask you to. I must ask you not to confuse and feels the issues, but keep talking about making allegations about the mainland, which have nothing to do it one country, 2 systems. I ask you to come back to the situation in hong kong, how one country 2 systems really operate and dont allow your biased to color your, you know, your reports on the hong kong thats totally unfair to hong kong people. I take strong objection to that. Whatever the objections, the chinese president xi jinping has moved indisputably to cement his hold over hong kong and his record on the mainland speaks for itself. The most serious crackdown on human rights there for 25 years. Because beijing really believed the people of hong kong would give up their rights and embrace