Opinion | UK riots: Endangered Hong Kong exiles should return home

By Grenville Cross

On July 30, widespread anti-immigration riots gripped the United Kingdom, with Muslims in the firing line. In the following days, 1,024 people, some as young as 11, were arrested during the country's worst riots since 2011, with 575 charged (as of Aug 13).

On Aug 6, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government issued an amber outbound travel alert to its residents in or planning to visit the UK. They were advised to "exercise caution, attend to personal safety, avoid large gatherings of people and pay attention to local announcements".

Elsewhere, India told its people in the UK to "stay vigilant and exercise due caution", while Nigeria warned that "the violence has assumed dangerous proportions".

In response to the riots, which triggered counterprotests, businesses suspended operations, people worked from home, and doctors' surgeries closed early. Whereas the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, told members of Parliament they could stay away if they feared for their safety, Canterbury Cathedral closed its grounds early as a "safety precaution".

Even the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced that he was not safe as an openly Muslim politician, and he now has a team of 15 police officers to protect him "around the clock", an extraordinary state of affairs.

Although the tech billionaire and owner of X, Elon Musk, hopefully exaggerated by claiming that "civil war is inevitable", there was no minimizing the scale of the crisis. Whereas the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the public had lost respect for the police, the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, warned the impact of the riots would be felt "for years".

As about 150,000 British National (Overseas) passport holders from Hong Kong live in the UK, there are inevitably concerns for their safety, both short- and long-term.

After Hong Kong's National Security Law was enacted on June 30, 2020, the British government, in breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984), urged people in this category to relocate to the UK, with the prospect of British citizenship after six years.

Although portrayed as altruistic, the scheme was nothing of the sort. Its intention was not only to "gut" Hong Kong by siphoning off its brightest and best, but also to provide the UK with a workforce to replace the European workers who were no longer eligible to enter the UK after it left the European Union on Jan 31, 2020.

The scheme was dreamt up by the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, and his foreign secretary, Dominic Raab. They were egged on by the former governor of Hong Kong, Lord (Chris) Patten, a patron of Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China hate machine created by his protege, the serial fantasist Benedict Rogers.

In the event, most of those eligible for the UK's "pathway to citizenship" (approximately 3 million), realized what was afoot and spurned Johnson's scheme. For the most part, Hong Kong people are sensible and patriotic, and not prepared to be cynically exploited by foreign powers with hostile agendas.

Although the gullible were certainly fooled by Johnson's promise of a better life, they were, criminals apart, mainly dreamers, malcontents and losers, and their departure was no great loss. Their safety, however, is a big concern, and it is now clear how badly they were misled.

Although the rioting was triggered by the stabbing to death in Southport of three young girls by a youth of Rwandan heritage, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, on July 29, its causes were far deeper. While the British government claimed the rioters were "right-wing thugs", misled by misinformation on social media about the killer's religion (for which Russia was blamed by some), it has disregarded the anger felt by many people over record levels of immigration, and this does not bode well for ethnic minorities.

Whereas people voted for Brexit in 2016 because they wanted the UK to regain control of its borders and end unlimited immigration, they now feel betrayed. Since the UK left the EU, immigration (legal and irregular) has soared to unprecedented levels. Whereas, in the pre-Brexit years, net immigration hovered at around 200,000 a year, it ballooned to 685,000 in 2023 (an English city like Wolverhampton, for example, currently has a population of 252,791), and this has consequences for everybody.  Massive strains have been placed on the country's infrastructure, including its education, health and welfare systems, which can no longer cope.

Although nobody in their right mind can tolerate racist attacks on asylum hostels, mosques or law offices, no politician worth his salt should allow the British people's hospitality to be endlessly abused by migrants and bogus asylum seekers. The number of migrants entering the UK illegally across the English Channel as of Aug 7 was 17,284, 15 percent higher than this time last year (15,071). This is in addition to the 84,425 asylum seekers who were already in the UK on Dec 31, 2023.

Very little is known about the asylum seekers, and many destroy their travel documents to conceal their true identity. There are real fears they include criminals and even sleeper terrorists, whom their handlers will activate at an appropriate time. Although ministers regularly claim the first duty of the state is to protect its people, they have created huge dangers by countenancing mass immigration by people of whom nothing is known.

This infuriates many people, as also does the treatment of the arrivals. At a time when Shelter, the housing charity, has estimated that at least 309,000 people in the UK are homeless, and around three in 10 children are, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, living in poverty, people are incensed that illegal immigrants are being housed and fed in hotels and hostels at a cost of 5.4 billion pounds ($6.94 billion) in 2023-24, and even provided with basic weekly allowances (49.18 pounds).

Although the migrants could have claimed asylum in France, they preferred the UK. In consequence, taxpayers' money that should have been spent, for example, on the crumbling National Health Service, is being used to house them, which many find intolerable.

Although the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, wants to appear tough on the rioters, he must also be tough on the cause of the rioting, which derives from anger over mass immigration. Instead of addressing the root problem, he simply adopted the measures used during the 2011 riots by the then prime minister, David Cameron, and nobody was satisfied (his popularity plummeted in the opinion polls).

On Aug 9, Johnson explained that Starmer was "deaf" to public concerns over immigration. Having abandoned the plans of his predecessors to control immigration (including the Rwanda deportation scheme), Starmer "gave the clear impression of a man who has no plan to stop illegal immigration, because he simply doesn't care".

Although playing tough, Starmer is only buying time. He announced that suspects would face "substantive sentencing", and were "likely to be dealt with within a week", but this was no panacea. The prisons are already grossly overcrowded, and existing prisoners are being released early to create space for new ones, which would be farcical were it not so tragic.

Moreover, the victims of less high-profile crimes, including sexual assaults, many of whom have waited months if not years to see justice done in their cases, have been appalled to see public order cases being fast-tracked at the expense of their own.

Taking his cue from Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, the current DPP, Stephen Parkinson, said there should be "no doubt" that culprits "are going to prison", which was fair enough. However, he then threatened, "We will also consider terrorism offenses." He was supported by Neil Basu, the former head of UK counterterrorism, who said that some of the violence had "crossed the line into terrorism".

By any yardstick, this was over the top, and Elon Musk described prosecutors as the "woke Stasi".

Although the UK's Terrorism Act should not generally be used in straightforward rioting situations, it is draconian and there is no legal bar to doing so. It is broadly drawn, and serious damage to property or violence for ideological reasons can be classified as terrorism. If prosecutors really wanted to abuse their powers, the act could even be used against Palestinians who protest too vociferously over Israeli atrocities against Gaza's civilians.

However, the UK's anti-terrorism powers were not created to deal with public order situations that can be prosecuted within the ordinary criminal law, and its prosecutors should objectively choose the most appropriate charges. Notwithstanding pressure from the government and the police, Parkinson must avoid overkill.

The UK's Terrorism Act is rarely invoked for sound policy reasons and its provisions are designed to counter the most serious, violent and organized threats, and not public protests that have overstepped the mark. Indeed, the UK government's independent reviewer of terror legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has warned politicians not to rush into classifying riots as terrorism.

This was recognized in Hong Kong during the black-clad insurrection of 2019-20. Although a violent attempt was made by political thugs to overthrow the "one country, two systems" policy, the offenders were prosecuted for traditional crimes like riot, arson and wounding with intent. By using conventional means, the police bravely contained the situation.

Although the rioters have not specifically targeted the UK's Jewish community, they are far from safe. The Daily Telegraph has reported that "concerns were raised about anti-Semitism at some counterprotests" (Aug 9). On Aug 8, moreover, the Community Security Trust (CST), a Jewish charity, disclosed that anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2024 reached another record high. Between January and June, it recorded 1,978 anti-Jewish hate incidents, up from 964 in the first half of 2023.

Whereas the CST recorded 121 assaults across the UK in the first six months of 2024 (a rise of 41 percent year-on-year), cases of damage and desecration to Jewish property rose by 246 percent over the same period in 2023 (to 83 from 24).

Threats to Jewish people increased by 158 percent in the same period, from 55 to 142, and there were 162 cases of anti-Semitism affecting people and property in education (an increase of 119 percent).  There was also a 465 percent increase in anti-Jewish hate incidents involving higher education.

The CST's chief executive, Mark Gardner, called the figures "unprecedented", while the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, called them "truly appalling".

Given the high levels of hostility toward asylum seekers and minority communities, it is no surprise that Hong Kong immigrants have also been threatened. According to Simon Cheng Man-kit, a Hong Kong exile and national security fugitive who founded Hongkongers in Britain, the premises of two Hong Kong community groups in London have been identified as targets by right-wing elements.

Although Cheng is a notorious fantasist who, while employed by the UK Consulate General in Hong Kong, confessed to soliciting prostitutes in Shenzhen, and then backtracked after his release from custody, there is no reason to suppose he is lying on this occasion, and there are real concerns arising from his disclosures.

Indeed, Hong Kong Aid, which assists Hong Kong people seeking asylum in the UK, indicated that the threats appeared to be racially motivated. Although the rioters have not specifically attacked Hong Kong individuals, their anti-immigrant activities have raised the possibility of their being targeted in future.

On Aug 8, moreover, Dimsum Daily reported that an online post on a UK Telegram channel had suggested it was time to notify the far-right English Defense League to "visit" the offices of Hong Kong support groups in the UK. It accused them of trying to bring more Asians to the UK at taxpayers' expense. In other words, immigrants were again being targeted, but this time they came from Hong Kong.

Although Cheng alerted the Metropolitan Police to the dangers, they responded that the sheer volume of reports made it difficult for them to investigate individual cases. This will do little to comfort anybody from Hong Kong who listened to Johnson, Raab and Patten and moved to the UK in search of the Promised Land.

There is no reason to suppose that the situation in the UK will improve anytime soon, quite the contrary. It is expected to worsen, and, given the government's inability to control immigration, the resentment of the indigenous population will intensify. As the situation deteriorates, it is increasingly clear that many of the people who moved to the UK from Hong Kong in search of a better life were given a false prospectus.

It is, however, not too late for those responsible for their plight to try to put things right. If Johnson, Raab and Patten can seek to organize another of their "lifeboat plans" for the people they misled with their promises, some at least may forgive them. If they can help to facilitate the return to Hong Kong of the people they led up the garden path, some will be able to get their lives back on track in a safe environment.

However, some of their victims will have burnt their bridges and cannot return, whether because of age, financial or social constraints. These people, therefore, must be provided with proper protections, although other minorities, notably the Muslims, may require prioritization. Unfortunately, the UK police forces, like their criminal justice partners, are desperately short of cash and overstretched, and there is not much they can do. It must be hoped, therefore, that the Hong Kong exiles can return home before the situation deteriorates further, as expected.

If so, the HKSAR government will undoubtedly be sympathetic to their plight, and as accommodating as possible. Everybody makes mistakes, and people who were lured away under false pretenses should be welcomed back as they seek a secure and happy future in the land of their birth.

 

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The article was first published in China Daily.