Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/42

-42- 124. At paragraph 18 of the Defence Expert Report, the Defence Experts gave the opinion that the assumptions of Professor Lau and the arguments and conclusion of Professor Lau founded on those assumptions are flawed, for the following reasons:
 * (1) 光復 (“liberate”) and 革命 (“revolution”) both have meanings in use other than those identified in Professor Lau’s report prior to and, particularly and most pertinently in the recent development of Hong Kong’s socio-cultural context in 2019 and 2020.
 * (2) At least part of the Chinese Slogan has an established and verifiable intertextual history that preceded its adoption by Leung for his electoral campaign in early 2016. In other words, Leung may not accurately be characterised as the “Creator of the Slogan” or the sole “Creator” as stated by Professor Lau.
 * (3) Leung devised the Slogan for the purpose of electoral campaigning. While the Slogan was juxtaposed with his campaign speeches, individual specific items or objects in Leung’s campaign speeches cannot be automatically equated to the meaning of the Slogan.
 * (4) Studies by the Defence Experts established that the recent history of the Slogan, its context and use are demonstrably different from that of Leung in early 2016. While the Slogan was used by Leung for his electoral campaign in early 2016, it was not in general usage in the few years afterwards. The empirical evidence established that the Slogan only re-emerged