Emergency Detention Certificate: Fill & Download for Free

You won't be detained as long as you visit the nearest Indian Embassy and apply for an Emergency Certificate. But you will have to leave Russia immediately. An EC is not a substitute for a passport. It only entitles you to enter India. You should return and apply for a fresh passport.—RegardsStampMyVisa

First a bit of history.Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO) was passed by colonial British government in 1922 to deal with seamen’s strike[1][1][1][1] .In 1967 British government invoked ERO to deal with riots which eventually resulted in 51 deaths, 4,979 arrests and 1,936 convictions.In today riots while miraculously no one has died yet, close to 2,000 arrests have been made and riots have gained intensity. It is not an exaggeration to call current situation an emergency approaching the scale of 1967.Above: In 1967 rioters were not afraid to show their facesCurrent Hong Kong government has inherited the ERO. It empowers the Chief Executive[2][2][2][2]On any occasion which the Chief Executive in Council may consider to be an occasion of emergency or public danger he may make any regulations whatsoever which he may consider desirable in the public interest.such regulations may provide forcensorship, and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication;arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation;control of the harbours, ports and waters of Hong Kong, and the movements of vessels;transportation by land, air or water, and the control of the transport of persons and things;trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture;appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property, and of the use thereof;amending any enactment, suspending the operation of any enactment and applying any enactment with or without modification;authorising the entry and search of premises;empowering such authorities or persons as may be specified in the regulations to make orders and rules and to make or issue notices, licences, permits, certificates or other documents for the purposes of the regulations;charging, in respect of the grant or issue of any licence, permit, certificate or other document for the purposes of the regulations, such fees as may be prescribed by the regulations;the taking of possession or control on behalf of the Chief Executive of any property or undertaking;requiring persons to do work or render services;payment of compensation and remuneration to persons affected by the regulations and the determination of such compensation; andthe apprehension, trial and punishment of persons offending against the regulations or against any law in force in Hong KongIn other words, Carrie Lam is legally entitled to use the sweeping power granted under ERO to end the unrest.Carrie is widely expected to invoke ERO today. Even so she is expected to only introduce the mildest form of restriction, such as the anti-mask law.(You may refer John Chin's answer to How will the Hong Kong police enforce a ban on face masks?)There are also calls for her to increase the detention time for suspect from 48 hours to 90 hours as police are overwhelmed by the administrative workload.In my opinion these are all sensible measures. I hope she will go further.Key consideration for invoking ERO:Judicial review — Opposition may seek court injunction. But I believe the government would have considered the risk. Politically passing the anti-mask law in Legislative Council is not feasible even though there are sufficient votes. First the LegCo cannot convene soon as it is under repair after ransack by rioters. Second rioters will be out in force to damage LegCo again if the law is tabled there. Third the Pan-Democrat opposition will use all tricks to filibuster it. ERO is the only way to deal with grave situation like today.Riots may intensify initially — It used to happen on weekends. Since Oct 1 it happened every night. Hong Kong government should have counter measures in place and stand firm. When necessary, the government is legally entitled to invoke Article 14 of Basic Law to seek reinforcement from central China government. No one (except forces behind the rioters) want to see that happens. But the government should be prepared for all available options.Interference or even sanction from Western countries — especially US, where the Congress is currently drafting the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In my opinion Congress will pass the law, although it is unclear whether President Trump will sign it and whether the law will be watered down. Anyway the law is a double edged sword that hurts US interests in Hong Kong. Therefore I don’t see major short term impacts but it could create long term uncertainty. However given China and US rivalry, it is naive to assume Hong Kong can remain unaffected, with or without current riot. Hong Kong government should do what is right for its society. Leave it to Beijing to deal with US.It only provides temporary reliefs — The ongoing riots are the confluence of many factors: housing issues, lack of social mobility, manipulation by media among others. HK government needs to introduce and follow through bold reforms. It needs to demonstrate courage and determination to overcome roadblocks set up vested interests — from both pro-establishment and the opposition camps.Edit (Oct 6): As expected, by invoking ERO, Carrie Lam has introduced the anti-mask law on Oct 4. The law is formally known as Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation.Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation gazettedHong Kong e-Legislation“Long Hair” and Pan-Democrats lawmakers have separately applied for court injunction against the new law. But their application have been rejected. A judicial review is expected within current month.[3][3][3][3]Footnotes[1] Today in History[1] Today in History[1] Today in History[1] Today in History[2] Hong Kong e-Legislation[2] Hong Kong e-Legislation[2] Hong Kong e-Legislation[2] Hong Kong e-Legislation[3] High Court again rejected injunction application against emergency law[3] High Court again rejected injunction application against emergency law[3] High Court again rejected injunction application against emergency law[3] High Court again rejected injunction application against emergency law

Easy-peasy: Just deny it happened! Failing that, blame it on Obama.Don't believe me? Oh, sweet summer child, you must not read a lot of Trump-supporter answers and comments. Now, good as that surely is for your faith in humanity and general well-being, you're missing out on some essential insights.An artistic renderering of the solution, image credit Etsy.Here's how it goes, using an answer on this very thread as a example; there will be a sampling on any question even remotely related to U.S. politics, but this one tells you exactly the answer to your question.First, deny it happened.Mostly because its completely untrue and only the most gullible idiot would believe its true.See? Didn't happen.Next, explain why it's no big deal and people (read, liberals and the mainstream media) are overreacting:What [the story on Dan Abrams's site] didn’t mention was that according to the state records, they were all emergency procedures. I’m not sure if you are aware but an emergency in medical terms means you must act now to preserve life.Ouch -- the media is trying to deceive you, see? They're withholding information!And why is that information relevant?So they might not have had a translator that was highly qualified in medical terminology available for immediate consultation if they wanted the lady to live. The presence of a regular translator, a legal translator or someone fluent in the language may be able to convey the message but doesn’t count as a medical translator without a certificate.Well, of course. They were just in such a rush to save lives, you see, and emergency hysterectomies happen all the time, obviously. What are they supposed to do? Explain the procedure and why It's necessary? It's not as if an ICE detention center would have Spanish speakers around.Finally, just in case, blame Obama:The real question is; why is this a republican problem? It’s obama’s camp and healthcare system.When I asked the author whether Obama is now in charge of ICE detention centers, she explained that he built them and they're his policies.Then, when I asked if the Trump administration had effected no changes and is not responsible for what happens in ICE detention centers, she called me a communist (lower-case c) and told me that the current administration has been trying but is stymied by a hostile Congress.To cap it off, she called me some things in a reply which was since deleted, and blocked me.The answer I've quoted above.Summa summarum: Any question like this has more or less the same answer. They'll deny it happened, reframe it as no big deal if it did, and also it was Obama, Biden, Clinton, or Pelosi.