PCR Non-Consent Process for Hong Kong Airport

A step-by-step, the “non-consent” process for PCR tests that are a requirement for Residents and "vaccinated" Visitors when entering Hong Kong.

This article documents, step-by-step, the “non-consent” process for PCR tests that are a requirement for Residents and "vaccinated" Visitors when entering Hong Kong.  I’ll begin with a narrative description of the experience I had when entering Hong Kong on 7th December 2022, and then summarise with the key steps and appropriate attitude that anyone can use to replicate this process.

I am a Hong Kong belonger with right of abode.  Anyone with this status can use the process exactly as described.  Visitors to Hong Kong without right of abode, or HKID cards can still use the process, but without referral to the Hong Kong Basic Law as a point of leverage.

Note that Hong Kong belongers who have not received a COVID-19 vaccination are now permitted to return to the territory.  Tourists and visitors however are required to have had a COVID-19 vaccine in order to land in Hong Kong. 

As you will see from my description of my actual experience using this process, the Hong Kong Basic Law is being ignored by border enforcers in any case.

Running the PCR Test Gauntlet

Step 1.  Getting to the Testing Station

With the requisite green QR code obtained before boarding the flight to Hong Kong in hand, I arrived at Hong Kong International Airport, disembarking around midday at the deepest darkest terminal furthest away from the immigration counters.  

After walking a few hundred meters through the airport, I arrived at the first choke point where the airport morphed into something resembling the set of a b-rated Hollywood movie such as Dustin Hoffman’s “Outbreak.” I made my choice between the tall ominous overly dramatic fear re-enforcing barrier fences channeling travellers into either international flight transfers or the pathway to enter Hong Kong.  Two female guards were in attendance, in full movie set quarantine costume regalia, complete with face visors, masks and medical smocks.  They less-than-cheerfully directed traffic and ensured that none of the green QR code holding potential ‘contaminators’ would misbehave.

I entered the pathway for entry into Hong Kong, which had fence barriers erected on either side.  The walk from this choke point to the testing station was roughly 50 meters.

The PCR testing process was separated into two stages, the first being registration and the second being private booths for the sample gathering.  Just before the station itself there was another choke point with several people (mostly women) in face visors, masks and smocks checking the green QR code that I received before boarding the flight to Hong Kong.  

Once through this choke point I entered an area with a row of desks placed to left and right of me. Each desk had a computer on it, with a computer operator sitting behind the desk wearing visor, mask and medical smock.

I walked to the desk that had been assigned to me, where I was asked to hand over my green QR code and HKID card.  Data was entered into the computer by the computer operator, who printed out a Bar Code and stuck this on to a sample bag which was then handed back to me along with my HKID Card.  I was told to continue moving forward to the next choke point set up with barrier gates. 

This choke point was also manned by two or three people in visors, masks and medical smocks.  I was asked to present the sample bag to one of these people, who scanned the bar code and then handed me a number representing the PCR sampling booth that I was to go to.

Step 2.  Initial Informed Consent Challenge to the PCR Tester

I estimate there were close to thirty curtained booths set up.  As I arrived to my allocated booth I handed over the sample bag to the young woman who was dressed in the standard medical smock, mask, and visor.   I immediately started the informed consent process by asking:  “Are you a doctor?”

She replied: “No I’m not”.

I chose not to ask about any medical credentials that she might have.

I then asked her: “Is this a medical procedure?” 

She replied “well, yes it is”.

I then asked: “Do you understand informed consent?”

She said that she did. 

I then stated: “I do not consent”  (to the PCR test).

The lady immediately reacted by telling me that they “do not do the nasal swabbing anymore. Rather, they take samples from inside the cheeks”.  [I suspect that the sample gatherers have been trained to respond in this manner because many people would likely be very concerned about the nasal swabs, so the goal of the sample gatherer would be to redirect at this point to calm the arriving passenger.]

I told the lady that, nevertheless, “I did not consent”.

She immediately then said that I could take the swab and do the swabbing myself, if that would make me more comfortable.

I told her that I still did not consent.

At this point she had reached her limit and told me that she needed to ask her supervisor.  She went away briefly to call the supervisor, then returned.

While waiting for the supervisor to walk over, the lady tester asked me: “Can you tell me why you don’t consent please?”

In return I asked her: “Can the PCR test distinguish between active virus, and inactive viral fragments?” 

She told me she did not know.   I then informed her that PCR test is unable to make that determination, making the entire PCR testing process invalid.

Before I could continue with my other reasons, her supervisor had arrived.

The senior supervisor, a middle aged woman in civilian clothes and a mask only, asked: “What is the problem?”

I immediately went to step 1, and asked her back:  “Is the PCR test a medical intervention?”

She said: “It’s a test”.

I asked, “Is it not one person sticking something into body of another person, for a medical purpose? “  She agreed it was.

I asked:  “Is it therefore not a medical intervention?” 

She agreed it was.

I asked if she understood informed consent.

She said that she did.

I then said: “I do not consent”.

At this point the supervisor conferred briefly with her staff, and then said “get the police over here”.  Immediately the sample gatherer went to call a police officer over to handle the situation.  This was a middle-aged man in civilian dress, just wearing a face mask.

He asked me to walk with him into the space between the testing booths and we began our conversation.

Step 3.  Dealing with Policeman Number One.

The policeman started the conversation by asking me what was the problem.

I immediately asked him:  “Is this a medical intervention”.

He replied: “It’s a test, and you have to do it if you are going to get into Hong Kong. Everybody has to do it.”

He tried to continue telling me all the reasons that I had to do it, that it was the law, etc.  and I held out my hand and said: “stop, stop, stop.,.. please answer my question”.

I then said: “Is this not one person sticking something into body of another person, for a medical purpose?“ 

He agreed that this was the case.  He then began to repeat to me that it was the law in Hong Kong, and that everybody coming in to Hong Kong had to submit to this test by law.  Again, as he was talking, I held out my hand palm facing him and said: “stop, stop, stop”. 

I then asked: “Is this not a medical intervention?”

He tried to continue telling me that it was law, and that I had to obey it.

I held out my hand again and said: “Stop, stop, stop”.  At this point, he was getting angry, and he raised his voice, and said quite loudly “You stop, stop, stop”.

I then said: “Please answer my question – is this not a medical intervention?”

Finally he had to agree that it was.

I asked him: “Do you know what is informed consent”.

He mumbled that he did, but it was clear that he really wasn’t sure. Then he started back into making his statement that it was a legal requirement for me to get tested, and that if I did not get tested then I could not come into Hong Kong.

I said: “Let me speak”, and continued. “In order for any medical procedure to take place, the person receiving the procedure must consent under law.”

He immediately went back to telling me that it was the law in Hong Kong that, unless I agreed to the PCR test, then I could not get into Hong Kong.

I immediately asked him: “Is that not a violation of Article 31 of the Hong Kong Basic Law?” 

He replied: “Don’t talk to me about the Basic Law.  I don’t care about the Basic Law.”

He then continued telling me that I HAD to do the PCR test in order to get into Hong Kong.

I replied: “It’s a medical intervention to which I do not consent”.

He said: “Then you can’t go into Hong Kong”.

I replied: “I have right of abode in Hong Kong, and as such I have unconditional right to enter Hong Kong guaranteed under Article 31 of the Hong Kong Basic Law”.

He said: “Don't talk to me about the Basic Law. The Health Department has instructed us to enforce the law saying that to enter Hong Kong, everybody has to do the PCR test”.

I asked: “Does that mean that the Hong Kong Health Department has authority that overrides the Hong Kong Basic Law?” 

He said: “Don’t talk to me about the Basic Law.   If you don’t do the test, you can’t go in”.

I said: “Well, we have a problem because under the Hong Kong Basic Law I have unconditional right of entry”. 

He said: “OK, I’m going to get my supervisor”.

He then led me to an area outside the first choke point before the PCR sample gathering station and asked me to wait there.  He told me his supervisor needed to come over from another part of the airport.

Roughly 15 minutes later his supervisor arrived.  He, too, was dressed in plain clothes with only a mask, and his official badge on a lanyard around his neck.

Step 4.  Dealing with Policeman Number Two

As I saw the supervisor arriving I started my phone camera and put my phone in a strategic pocket.

As he arrived, the supervisor asked me: “What is the problem”.

(I should have asked for name and badge number, and written these down, which I did not).

I immediately went back to the start of the process.   I asked: “Is the PCR test a medical intervention”.

As with the others, he replied that it is a test, and you have to do it before you go into Hong Kong.

I asked: “Is it not someone sticking something into somebody else’s body for medical purposes”?  

He agreed that it was.

I said: “Therefore is it not a medical intervention?”

Before he could answer, someone behind me (another staff member, policeman?) said in Cantonese “I think he’s recording you.” 

He looked startled, and uncomfortable.  He asked: “Are you recording me?”

I told him that I was.  He paused – thought for a moment – then said: “OK”.

Then he paused some more and said: “Actually I’d prefer that you don’t record. Be fair”.  (Comment: I’m not sure how this has anything to do with fairness, anyway, we move on.)

In response to his “be fair” comment I asked him “Are you going to be nice?”  He nodded his head in agreement. So, I took the phone out of my pocket and turned off the recorder.  Then we continued.

I said: “So, are we in agreement that this is a medical intervention”?

He reluctantly agreed that it is a medical intervention.  And he then said that it was the law in Hong Kong and if I didn’t submit to the test I would not be able to enter Hong Kong. 

I then asked him if he understood informed consent.  He said that he did, so I continued:

I said, “I do not consent”.

He said, “if you don’t do this test you cannot go into Hong Kong”. 

I said: “Well, since I’m a Hong Kong belonger, if you don’t let me into Hong Kong this is a breach of Article 31 of the Hong Kong Basic Law.”

He said: “Don’t talk to me about the Basic Law.  The Hong Kong Law says that you have to do the test to get in.  We have been instructed by the Hong Kong Health Department to enforce this regulation. “

I said: “But the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 31 states that a Hong Kong belonger can return without conditions. If you don’t let me in, you are in breach of the Hong Kong Basic Law.”

He said: “I don’t care about the Basic Law. If you don’t do the test you cannot come into Hong Kong.  If you want to argue about the law, talk to a judge”. 

At that point I pulled out a liability agreement (See Appendix 1) which, in essence, states that the person insisting I get tested understands that the tests are meaningless, that the process (for Hong Kong Belongers) violates the Hong Kong Basic Law, and that the person insisting on the test will take on full personal legal liability for any harms that occur if I do the test as requested.

I handed him the agreement (Cantonese version) and said: “OK, I’ll do the test if you sign this document”.

He was very surprised but took the one page agreement from me and cast his eyes over it.  Before reading it in full he said: “I’m not sure that I can sign this”. 

I told him to take his time and read it fully.

When he finished reading he said: “Can I take a photo and send this to my supervisor”?

I agreed that he could, and told him to take as much time as he needed.

He took the photo, sent it from his phone to his supervisor, then called his supervisor.   As he was talking to his supervisor he walked away so that I could not hear the call.  A few minutes later he walked back and said that his boss needed time to read the document and come back with an answer.  So we continued with our conversation.

He started off with saying, “I don’t know why you’re here or how long you’re staying but you really should think about your purpose for coming to Hong Kong.  You should put your mind on doing the things that you have come to Hong Kong for”

He then continued,  “You do realise that if you don’t do the test you can’t go in to Hong Kong right?   When you do the test you will be given a green pass.  If you don’t have that pass then you can’t even get through to immigration.  You just won’t get in.”

I said, again, “well in that case the procedure is in violation of the Hong Kong Basic Law”.

Again he said, “I don’t care about that. I don’t know about the Basic Law.  If you want to talk about the law, discuss it with the judge. “

He continued:  “We’re the enforcers.  The Health Department has instructed ensure that everybody gets tested before going into Hong Kong.”

I then asked: “So, does that mean that the Health Department has put itself at a level higher than the Basic Law?”

Again he said: “Don’t talk to me about the Basic Law. If you want to talk about that, talk to the judge. We’re just here to enforce the law”.

He then went on: “If you don’t get tested you will just have to stay out here (on the air side of the PCR testing station).   You can stay here as long as you want, until you are ready to get tested”. 

He then continued: “I will come back to check on you every hour or so. If you are still here after four or five hours, then I’m not sure what we’ll do.  I’ll probably have to take you down to the police station and they can continue this conversation with you there.”

At the point his phone rang, and he walked off to continue talking to his supervisor out of earshot.

About 5 to 7 minutes later he returned and told me that his boss had said that it was best that he did not sign the document I had given him.

At this point I told him “Ok, I’ll do the test”.   I could have chosen to continue to decline the medical intervention, and finally (probably hours later) allow myself to be escorted to the police station. Ultimately, I would have ended up in court facing a magistrate.  Although well prepared for such an eventuality, due to business commitments needing my attention I decided not to continue with my challenge on this occasion.

He was stunned for a moment and didn’t quite comprehend what I was saying.

I repeated: “I will do the test”  (I should have added, but did not, “under duress, protest, and threat of menace”). 

This time he understood, and said, “OK, ok, then let me take you in.”

We walked together back through the first choke point, and then over to the desk at the side where I had initially “checked in”.   My sample bag was still there, and the bag was handed over to me. 

We continued back to the next choke point where my bar code was scanned, and I was given the number of another booth.  Together the officer and I went to the booth.  As we arrived, he said to the tester: “be very gentle with this one”.

I sat down and did the test, which was a swab inside the mouth to each cheek.  The sample collector put the swab into the sample bag and handed me a green card on a lanyard with my personalised bar code on it.  I was reminded not to lose this card, because without it I would not be able to get through the next check point, and therefore would not be able to access immigration.  I was given my sample bag and told to hand it in at the next station.

We then departed the sampling booth and continued towards immigration for another 20 meters or so, where we arrived at the sample bag collection point.  I handed over my sample bag, and we then continue the walk towards Immigration.

For some reason the officer decided to walk with me the whole way, which takes some 15 to 20 minutes.  Along the way we continued our conversation (by now, all in Cantonese).

He asked me why I didn’t want to do the test. I told him that the PCR test is unable to differentiate between “live” virus, and viral fragments, making it meaningless as a diagnostic tool.

I then asked him how many people died of COVID-19 in Hong Kong in 2020.   His reply was around 10,000. 

I told him no, and said that it was only 210 people and that the average age was 78.2

He then said that in 2021 and into 2022 many thousands were dying of COVID.

I told him that, no, many of those deaths were probably due to the vaccines.  I then shared a sample of VAERS data with him, telling him that there were 20 to 30 times more deaths recorded on VAERS since the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out than all other vaccines over a period of thirty years.  At this point he was already finding this information hard to process.

We then chatted briefly about ages (his and mine), origins, and general small talk.  As we chatted I gave him the agreement that he had not signed, and told him to keep it and read it again.  I then suggested that he share it with his friends.

Soon after we arrived at the final checkpoint, where I got my green card scanned and was allowed to go through to the immigration counters. The officer accompanied me right up to the immigration desk, then we shook hands and bade farewell.  At this point I went through Immigration and entered Hong Kong.

Overview of the Structure of Force Being Applied

From my experience, we can see how physical structures, and compartmentalised roles, are being used to exert “soft force”.   There was no violence or aggression applied, but it was made very clear that there was no way through the structure as set up and that continued “non-cooperation” would most likely end up in a temporary holding cell and a court appearance.

Of note is the fact that the Police see themselves as enforcers of laws coming down from the Health Authority and that, for some reason, they have never considered that such instructions are in violation of the Basic Law in Hong Kong. The officer was correct in his statement that ultimately the courts will have to rule on this matter. What is important to understand that, if the Hong Kong Basic Law is to mean anything, health regulations cannot be used to override guarantees within the Basic Law.

For those who are not Hong Kong belongers, the use of “soft force”, duress and threat of menace to coerce a medical intervention to which one does not consent can also be a basis for arguing a case in court.

What we did learn from this test of the process is that overt violence will not be used in Hong Kong if this process is followed in the way that it was designed to be used.  One does not even need to contemplate going to prison or court, as long as one finally agrees to submit to the demands being made and do the PCR test.  By throwing up one’s hands in “surrender”, all is forgiven (so to speak).

Principles for Using This Non-Consent Process

The purpose of this non-consent process is to stress test the systems that are in place to force PCR testing and maintain the COVID Hoax (yes, it is a hoax, but that is for another day).  The purpose is also to put the issue of lawfulness of the process in front of all those individuals who are running and enforcing the system and educate them as to what is going on. 

 Anybody can use this process, and walk away without any loss or harm, except for the time required to have the necessary interactions with the authorities.  The key principles, however, must be rigorously followed.  They are as follows:

·      Be polite and respectful at all times. Do NOT be belligerent and aggressive. The minute one becomes belligerent and/or aggressive, one is inviting force or restraint to be used.

·      Ask questions, and avoid making statements, unless the statement is “I do not consent”, or “I am doing this under duress, protest, and threat of menace”.

·      Ask each question three times to get the answer needed.  If after three times one is not getting the answer needed, say “you have not answered my question, so we are now in agreement that…. (e.g. this is a medical intervention). “

·      Sequence questions so that, when you get to the point of saying “I do not consent” the foundation points for that non-consent are already agreed.

·      Expect this to be escalated.

·      When one is talking to the right person, which most likely will be the person arguing the fine points about lawfulness, tell them that you can agree to do the test if they sign a liability agreement.  Then hand over the agreement to let them read (see Appendix 1).

·      Be prepared to go up through as many levels as necessary.

·      Always be friendly, calm, and professional.  Keep being the one to ask questions, so they are having to answer.

·      When one has taken it as far as one feels comfortable then just throw one’s hands up in surrender and agreed to do the test.  If you want to go the whole way, including going to the police station, or having a court hearing, that too is possible. Remember however that one needs to prepare well for the Court.

·      I did not go all the way to the Court because my goal in this case was to test the first level, and survey the process at the airport. 

Broad Application

For those who are interested in using this process understand that you don’t need to go the whole way. Rather, NUMBERS are going to be what makes a difference. 

In my case it took one supervisor and three levels of police to deal with me, over a process that consumed roughly 90 minutes. As far as I could tell, there was only one officer on duty at the test station, with a superior on backup 15 minutes walk away. 

Imagine what would happen if 20, 30, 50, or 100 people did this in one day.  Every single person would only need to take this up to the most senior level available, have conversations taking up to an hour of their time, then “surrender” and move on.  Very quickly the staffing resources would be overwhelmed, and this problem would be reported to very senior levels that would need to begin considering a policy change.

The key is to make them work for it.  You might have to concede in the end but make them really work for it.

In addition, if every person hands over the liability agreement to be signed this will be fed up the chain of command. Before long senior government lawyers will be asked to look at the issue and determine what liability the government would be facing.

The pressure on staffing that can be created by this, and the questions that will have to be asked and addressed at “senior management” levels, will be worth the effort.

The more the merrier!    Please pass on and let’s get as many people as possible testing this boundary.   

APPENDIX 1 - Liability Agreement (English)

PCR Test Agreement for Personal Liability

I, _____________________________,

(full name)

1. Acknowledge that I am requiring <<Insert your own name>> to undergo a PCR test in Hong Kong in order to detect the presence or absence of a COVID-19 infection.

2. I acknowledge that the PCR test is a medical intervention.

3. I acknowledge that the swabbing process of a PCR test has the potential to create damage to the body of the man/woman being tested, including but not limited to permanent or long-term damage to the nasal passages.

4. I understand that the PCR test is incapable of differentiating between active virus and inactive viral material, and therefore I understand that a positive result has no diagnostic significance.

5. I understand that the PCR test generates significant numbers of false positive results, which are unquantified in Hong Kong, and therefore a positive result has no diagnostic significance.

6. I understand that a positive PCR test result does not indicate that the man/woman tested is ill with COVID-19.

7. I understand that a positive PCR test does not indicate that the man/woman is infectious, and it does not indicate that the man/woman so tested poses any danger to others.

8. I acknowledge that <<Insert your own name>> does not consent to the medical intervention that I am offering (the PCR test).

9. I acknowledge that I am insisting that <<Insert your own name>> accept the PCR test because I am following orders from my superiors.

10. I therefore acknowledge that I am forcing <<Insert your own name>> to accept the PCR test medical intervention without his express permission and against his expressed will, as a condition for his entry into Hong Kong.

11. I acknowledge that forcing <<Insert your own name>> to accept a medical intervention in order to enter Hong Kong is a breach of Article 31 of the Hong Kong Basic Law.

12. I acknowledge that my actions described herein also amount to trespass against the body, assault and battery, which are criminal offenses for which I can personally be held accountable in a court of law.

13. I agree to accept full personal legal, civil and criminal liability for any and all harms, damage or loss, that may be experienced by <<Insert your own name>>, including but not limited to physical, mental, emotional or financial damages and harms, that come as a direct or indirect consequence of my actions.

_________________________ _____________________

Signed HKID Card Number

_________________________

Date

APPENDIX 1 - Liability Agreement (Traditional Chinese)

個人責任 PCR 測試協議

我______________________

（全名）

1. 確認我要求 <<Insert your own name>> 先生在香港接受 PCR 檢測，以檢測是否存在 COVID-19 感染。

2. 我承認 PCR 測試是一種醫療干預。

3. 我承認 PCR 檢測的測拭過程有可能對接受檢測的男性/女性的身體造成傷害，包括但不限於對鼻腔造成永久性或長期損傷。

4. 我了解 PCR 檢測無法區分活性病毒和非活性病毒材料，因此我了解陽性結果沒有診斷意義。

5. 我明白 PCR 測試會產生大量假陽性結果，在香港是無法量化的，因此陽性結果沒有診斷意義。

6. 我了解 PCR 檢測結果呈陽性並不表示接受檢測的男性/女性感染了 COVID-19。

7. 我了解 PCR 檢測呈陽性並不表示該男性/女性具有傳染性，也不表示如此檢測的男性/女性對他人構成任何危險。

8. 我承認 <<Insert your own name>> 先生/女士不同意我提供的醫療干預（PCR 測試）。

9. 我承認我堅持要求 <<Insert your own name>>先生/女士接受 PCR 檢測，因為我是在聽從上級的命令。

10. 因此，我承認我在未經<<Insert your own name>>先生/女士明確許可且違背其明確意願的情況下強迫他接受 PCR 測試醫療干預，作為他進入香港的條件。

11. 我承認強迫<<Insert your own name>>先生/女士接受醫療干預以進入香港違反香港基本法第三十一條。

12. 我承認我在此處描述的行為也構成侵犯身體、襲擊和毆打，這些是我可以在法庭上被追究責任的刑事犯罪。

13. 我同意對 <<Insert your own name>>先生/女士可能遭受的任何及所有傷害、損害或損失承擔全部個人法律、民事和刑事責任，包括但不限於身體、精神、情感或經濟上的損害和傷害， 作為我的行為的直接或間接後果。

_________________________ _____________________

簽名 香港身分證號碼

_________________________

日期