Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

theFrenchDutch t1_isnnhun wrote

Reply to comment by WilliamMinorsWords in Hong Kong protester dragged into Manchester Chinese consulate grounds and beaten up by AlxIp

The crazy part is how english police actually entered the embassy grounds to pull this guy out, which they are technically not allowed to do, I think ?

288

Matshelge t1_isnogp2 wrote

Technically not, but also dragging anyone in is also against the law, so this is an issue for the courts and China can shut down their embassy if they feel they are not getting justice.

442

Nanyea t1_isnq5z7 wrote

UK can shut down the Chinese embassy for kidnapping people off the street...

353

Risley t1_iso86g7 wrote

They should just deport all the nationals that were present at the consulate.

82

tall_strong_master t1_isob224 wrote

That would accomplish surprisingly little. China would just shuffle the perps around like a cups game, and probably harvest the organs of the victims.

29

Risley t1_isobgso wrote

At least they are out of the country. DEPORT THEM.

19

alose t1_isqc2ac wrote

Not all of them likely have diplomatic immunity. Throw them all in jail and let the court settle who gets to leave and who doesn't.

3

Such-Wrongdoer-2198 t1_isoirpz wrote

I was going to say: that does sound an awful lot like kidnapping. Also, couldn't the intervention be justified on the basis of "hot pursuit"? I realize that may not work on international claims, but as others have mentioned, what's China going to do about it? Close the consulate?

21

marcusaurelius_phd t1_isnqyc4 wrote

They certainly can enter if there's an emergency, and the diplomatic immunity means those who hold it can't be prosecuted but that doesn't mean they can't be stopped from murdering someone.

107

Banana-Republicans t1_isnwg68 wrote

Diplomatic immunity does not, in fact, mean you can’t be prosecuted. It means that it is a pain in the ass to do so.

91

marcusaurelius_phd t1_isnzn7p wrote

They can't be prosecuted unless their government lifts the immunity.

17

Chimaerok t1_iso2n3n wrote

Pretty sure having video evidence of them kidnapping a foreigner into their embassy to torture and/or murder him gives the UK the right to say "Those people are not diplomats"

36

danbeardan t1_iso8dis wrote

At which point they would be expelled, not prosecuted.

25

Playful-Technology-1 t1_isoab9j wrote

They can be prosecuted even without their country lifting the immunity. What diplomatic immunity grants them is the chance to only be prosecuted by their own country.

If a diplomat commits a crime in their own country they can be prosecuted and, if they are charged with an infraction or a crime abroad, they can choose to be prosecuted by the country they're in. Examples could be something so minor -parking ticket- it's not worth the hustle (and it's better to keep cordial relations), something so ludicrous that there's no way the accusation will stand or when they fear worse repercussions from their own government in the case they were brought to court over there.

6

Tef-al t1_it0ielb wrote

Or kill a motorcyclist then flee back home where they won't face charges

1

Playful-Technology-1 t1_it0locq wrote

Yes, it sucks when you're against someone who's rich and powerful and you're not. Most times, when we're talking about countries that have transparency laws and take seriously accountability and foreign reputation, it works, if we're not talking about those countries, it still sucks that you're against a diplobrat, Trump, Koplowitz, Hearst, Onassis....

Law is clear, they do have to face charges when they're in their own country. It's not like there's any that country doesn't have a precedent on letting the rich and powerful getting scott free .

1

Dat_Boi_Aint_Right t1_isp0mg7 wrote

Can and can't don't have the same meanings at a sovereign level. They can be prosecuted, but they almost certainly won't be.

3

Chimaerok t1_iso2de5 wrote

So technically under UN law / law of nations type stuff, embassy land belongs to the country whose embassy it is. This is a show of good faith, and also lets those working in the embassy abide by the laws of their home country.

What the Chinese did here, then, was kidnap an English citizen across international borders to torture him.

When a foreign country is kidnapping your citizens, that is what I do believe the UN calls "I don't care if it's your embassy China you are violating every notion of peace ever conceived"

25

NorthernerWuwu t1_isoaeo6 wrote

No whataboutism here but the UN hasn't done fuck all in the past when countries have done exactly that and often to many, many people.

3

Dat_Boi_Aint_Right t1_isp0uh0 wrote

The UN isn't a governmental body in that sense. It doesn't ever do anything,ember nations might do something under the color of the UN.

5

Downtown_Skill t1_isnw08z wrote

Someone mentioned earlier that consulates have different laws than embassies although that was another comment and I never verified because verification is for nerds. /s The claim though was that embassies are sovereign territory where consulates are not.

23

Averiella t1_isor6q4 wrote

No they both have similar protections, but neither are truly sovereign territories. The 1961 Vienna Convention sets out rules governing consulates and embassies, and guarantees the “inviolability” of diplomatic premises. What this means is the host state can’t barge in without permission but it doesn’t mean the things that happen inside aren’t subject to the host state’s laws. The rule that allows consulates and embassies to act with their own laws is essentially a courtesy in some ways.

For a more historic example, the saudis who tortured and murder Khashoggi could have an international arrest warrant issued against them. The saudis wouldn’t hand them over but they wouldn’t be able to go anywhere else.

Another example of it not being sovereign territory is a baby born in a U.S. embassy does not have U.S. citizenship.

But they DO still have special protections and rules — for example an attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it belongs to.

10

Thisoneissfwihope t1_isnw9ef wrote

The rules are different for consulates and embassies, iirc, so maybe it’s allowed.

I also suspect that there’s some ‘risk to life & limb’ exception that applies too.

20

LeastRacistGamer t1_isozi7v wrote

When I was in London I got chewed out for trying to take a picture of the embassy's garden. They take their shit seriously.

5

Monkey_Fiddler t1_isnz4uv wrote

Whatever the technical legal situation is, those officers won't be extradited to China to face trial there (human rights grounds are the obvious one, if we even have an extradition treaty).

3

CrucialLogic t1_isnzpqj wrote

Extradited to China? A police officer who was rescuing someone being attacked by foreign embassy workers? Technical or not, they'd never be extradited in any such circumstances and it's ridiculous to even bring up the idea.

16

cincimedes t1_isoqp2t wrote

It was a consulate so it doesn't have the same protections as an embassy. Not sure what they would have done if it were an actual embassy. I would like to think that they would have rescued him anyways but who knows.

3