Why are there foreign judges serving in Hong Kong?

It is a holdover from Hong Kong’s past as a British colony. After the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the agreement between the countries stipulated that the special territory would continue to operate with its freedoms and systems for 50 years- including its common law legal system which operates in several other jurisdictions worldwide. Currently there seven foreign judges remaining on the court– three British and four from Australia.

So, foreign judges who are meddling in HK affairs are upset that China (the inheritor of HK) is meddling in HK affairs?

If the West actually cared about HK independence, why do they wish to maintain colonial judges in HK courts? If they cared, shouldn’t HK judges be in HK courts?

While China has been heavy handed in its effort to speed up the timeline of the power transfer, in the end, the West has concluded that HK is to be Chinese territory. By the West’s own policy, these are foreign judges getting kicked out by the “rightful” new rulers, just a bit early.

If the plant tastes very bitter or soapy

brb, eating soap

I would say it is quite well established that Israel wants to continue the conflict. I don’t think that is an opinion at this point.

Sure, the title isn’t the best, but isn’t that also the point they are trying to make?

To put it briefly, the story is being reported on, but it seems that the media who live off clicks and eyeballs are basically doing the equivalent of “anti-clickbait” and downplaying the significance of these stories.

The referenced article primarily critiques the phrasing and tone of the headlines. Through engineering of the headline, you can affect how the body of the article is perceived. The headlines are all quite flaccid and downplay the significance of the refusal. Not coming to an agreement right now, is an admission of intent to enter Rafa.

Headlines are very important as many people will only skim the title. Perhaps you did the same here, and were bamboozled by the headline of the original article?

The links you posted here are just more examples of what the original piece was criticising.