Editor's note: Einar Tangen is a CGTN current affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In a stunning departure from legal precedence, or regard for the civil society they swore to uphold, the Hong Kong High Court ruled that the anti-mask law passed under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance was "unconstitutional."

The law made it illegal to cover one's face at protests or to refuse a police request to remove a mask.

It was passed under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance which gives broad powers to the Chief Executive to "make any regulations whatsoever which he may consider desirable in the public interest." As can be seen by the wording, the assumption is that the Chief Executive would be a man.

The ordinance was one of the laws created when Hong Kong was a colony ruled by Britain. It was once invoked 52 years ago during the 1967 riots and upheld by the High Court, thereby making it a legal precedent the current High Court should have followed.

With innocent people being beaten and killed in the streets, terrorized, afraid to leave their homes or to speak out, Hong Kong has become a broken community. The construction worker, father to three children, was sprayed with flammable liquids and set on fire by the protesters, only because he disagreed with them. He is still in a critical condition; an innocent cleaner was killed by a brick thrown by one of the protesters during a scuffle, while the killer has yet not been brought to justice.

Hong Kong citizens and visitors are being beaten because they have different opinions; the damage to public property, including subways and airports has caused havoc with people's lives. Hong Kong also has to pay enormous economic costs caused by the violence and its reputational damage to Hong Kong as an international-famous financial center. Tourism, jobs, and investments are running away. The armed attacks by these masked rioters on police also can not be ignored. Justice is supposed to be blind, but not the judges who are responsible for the rule of law in a civil society.

What should the police say to the families of the victims of these masked criminals, who will get away with their crimes because the police were, and are now, powerless to stop them? This ruling is oxygen for the flames of irrational violence engulfing Hong Kong. As the violence spirals, there will be blood on the hands of the High Court. Each future victim of these violent masked protesters should lay their grievances at the door of those who were supposed to protect the innocent, uphold the rule of law, and maintain the order in a civil society.

The actions of the violent masked and armed rioters are not the actions of people interested in the rule of law and civil society. These are the actions of a mindless vicious mob intent in terrorizing anyone who disagrees with them. Ironically, they constantly claim to be the victims as they victimize others.

The rule of law was the last hope of this fractured society, and Hong Kong's High Court chose to play politics, out of fear of retaliation or indifference, we shall probably never know.