The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued an amber outbound travel alert for the United Kingdom on Tuesday as riots have swept the country over the last week or so. These riots are “far-right” in nature, meaning they are driven by extreme nationalist sentiment in opposition to immigration, multiculturalism and specifically target Muslims. 

Sparked by the mass stabbing of several young girls in Southport, Merseyside, the unrest has swept towns and cities throughout the country, resulting in sporadic violence, clashes with police, destruction of vehicles and property, and arson. The government of Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to employ the full force of the law in tackling the perpetrators, and rightly so.

Would anyone seriously argue that arresting and jailing the instigators of this unrest constitutes an act of oppression?

Of course not, yet that’s precisely what parts of the British media and some politicians did when commenting on the situation when Hong Kong was experiencing unrest.

For me, both matters are a very personal affair, in both Hong Kong, where I lived, but also in Sunderland, my hometown in England, which was struck by a riot on Friday. The impact of experiencing a riot somewhere where you live and care about is traumatic, even if you aren’t directly caught up in it.

The UK government has long maintained a hard line against those who engage in protests and who use violent, disorderly, and destructive tactics ... Yet, when this behavior took place in Hong Kong, some commentators said it should be supported because “it’s freedom and democracy” and therefore the authorities should tolerate it, and any attempt to call a halt would be an act of oppression

Of course, the Hong Kong riots in 2019 and 2020 were far more severe than those in the UK because they were larger, amounted to an attempt at insurrection, and were backed and encouraged by foreign powers, which then sought to undermine attempts by the authorities to restore order.

The UK government has long maintained a hard line against those who engage in protests and who use violent, disorderly, and destructive tactics, irrespective of the principles or ideological beliefs at stake. When climate change protesters attempt to disrupt airports, block motorways or spray orange paint over works of art, they are tried and sent straight to prison. Yet, when this behavior took place in Hong Kong, some commentators said it should be supported because “it’s freedom and democracy” and therefore the authorities should tolerate it, and any attempt to call a halt would be an act of oppression.

There is no government or legal system on the planet that thinks like that, and hence despite encouraging this elsewhere, the UK government has no appetite for it at home. Therefore, why were the authorities of China and the HKSAR not within their rights to take necessary measures to uphold law and order in the city? From what I can see, in Britain, riots are traumatic and destabilizing events which create political polarization and drive a societal backlash and therefore demand exceptional measures from the authorities to restore order with the express goal of preventing the insurgent mode of thought from gaining momentum, destroying the legal status quo. Thus there is a rapid push to make an example out of the perpetrators.

When the key suspects were arrested in the aftermath of the riot in Sunderland, the police made a point of broadcasting footage of themselves breaking into suspects’ houses and hauling them out. The messaging was deliberate: It was the institutional logic of a legal system to deliberately respond harshly to the perpetrators and create deterrence through fear. Would anyone seriously describe that as a form of oppression?

Despite the answer being obvious, this is precisely what the National Security Law for Hong Kong was designed to do, because in a situation far more serious than that in Britain, the culprits had, with foreign backing, initiated an insurrection which proposed to try to forcibly change the political status quo.  

Despite this, Western media and politicians continue to frame the two situations differently, without looking at the institutional aspects. At home, the term used is “riot” but abroad, it is “peaceful protests” and Hong Kong is apparently a “police state” and thus worthy of condemnation. The UK already has broad and sometimes even vague national security laws, which in facing terrorism and insurrection scenarios, allow for the curtailment of certain civil liberties and the expansion of police powers when necessary. Despite that, there is a persistent narrative to try to deprive the HKSAR of those rights, and thus in seeing how the media cover the two violent situations, we can discern a clear display of double standards.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.