End of Free Speech in Hong Kong

Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our time.

For 15 days this month, prosecutors and defense attorneys in a Hong Kong courtroom clashed over the story and analyzed the words in the phrase. Going back and forth involved numerous raids in the dark in an attempt to determine the exact meaning of the slogan, created five years ago and popularized during the 2019 pro-democracy protests. There have been deviations in ancient Chinese history and poetry; former nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek retaliated, as did American civil rights leader Malcolm X. The gist of the argument: Could these seven words turn a dangerous driving incident more than a year ago into a terrorist act and secession?

Today, a panel of judges said emphatically that they could and did. She found Tong Ying-kit, the first person to face trial under national security law decided by Beijing last year, guilty of terrorism and incitement to secession. The motorcycle that Tong, a 24-year-old former waiter, was driving, collided with riot police on July 1, 2020, during a demonstration against national security law. A black flag carrying the mantra of popular protest flew from the back of his bicycle when the crash happened. Foreign language actions caused great harm to society, Esther Toh, one of the judges who heard the case, told the court. The protest banner attached to his motorcycle was intended to incite others to secede by separating Hong Kong from mainland China, according to judges ruling. Tong will be sentenced at a later date. He faces the possibility of life in prison.

Read: Permanent Colony

The decision is one of the most important in Hong Kong’s recent history, penalizing one of the most popular slogans from pro-democracy protests sweeping across the city in 2019. It sets a precedent that simply utters a phrase or sings any the song that ignites the government can now be considered one of the most serious crimes in Hong Kong precedent it can, and most likely uses, against dozens of government critics sitting in city jails, awaiting their day in court for alleged violation of security law. The decision simply marks the end of free speech in Hong Kong, as a pure expression of dissenting political opinion can be punished for inciting secession, Eric Yan-ho Lai, a Hong Kong law associate at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, told me briefly. after the decision was announced. Undoubtedly, the decision aligns with government narratives on the slogan and thus criminalizes anti-government speech.

The persuasion of the English language is only the latest development, and one of the most serious, in a relentless campaign by Beijing and its loyalists in Hong Kong to extinguish the weakest gear of dissent in the city. Even before the verdict was handed down, the Tongs case set a dangerous precedent, Lai said. He noted the fact that the matter was not heard by a jury but by a panel of three judges elected by the city chief executive, Carrie Lam, and that Tong was held in custody for more than a year.

Lam has made national security the main focus of her governments’ work and she mentions it in almost all of her remarks. Sometimes, this obsession flows into the absurd. The day before Tong was sentenced, there were five speech therapists arrested on charges of insurrection. Their alleged crime: the publication of children’s books with wolves and cartoon sheep to tell the story of the 2019 city protests. (Pleasant, anthropomorphic illustrations are apparently a constant threat to Hong Kong stability. national security separately assembled a shop known for his cartoon animal print products containing movements for the pro-democracy movement, but made no arrests after searching the premises.)

Hong Kong Police Force, mostly allowed act with impunity during the sometimes violent protests, it was given seemingly unlimited and uncontrolled power. The former police commissioner who oversaw the suppression of demonstrators in 2019 was promoted to secretary of the interior last month. The Home Secretary, also a former police officer, rose to the rank of chief secretary, the second highest-ranking official in the Hong Kong government. Under comprehensive elections changes implemented earlier this year, both will have a role in verifying candidates wishing to run in the next election to make sure they are patriotic enough, giving them unprecedented control over what they can do. enter the political institution. After these promotions were received with concern by some neighborhoods, Alice Mak, a pro-Beijing lawmaker, wondered aloud why anyone was concerned. If it is a police state, why not? it asked last month. I do not think there is any problem with a police state.

Much of the Tongs trial focused on the phrase Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our time, which was used by political activist Edward Leung during his 2016 campaign for a seat in the Hong Kong legislature. Leung, who was jailed in 2018, became a symbol for many young protesters during the 2019 demonstrations. He was hailed by his followers as he had predicted the suppression of Beijing and for advocating for more radical protest tactics. Prosecutors relied heavily on the expertise of Lau Chi-pang, a pro-Beijing history professor at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, who withdrew from Chinese history to argue that the meaning of some words within the slogan had remained unchanged for more than 1,000 years and defended the overthrow of the government. The defense summoned two professors; Francis Lee, of the journalism school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who conducted research during the protests, said the slogans could have multiple meanings. However, the three judges wrote that this argument did not rule out that secession could be one of the meanings.

Baggio Leung, a former pro-democracy lawmaker who helped create the slogan, told me it was opened late at night during a brainstorming session on the balcony of Edward Leungs’s office in January 2016. Edwards’ original idea was very vocal and complicated for a campaign, so four young activists set out to come up with something softer and less erudite that would grab people’s attention. Supplied with cigarettes and Chardonnay, Baggio said, the four settled in Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our time. In 2019, as protests that began in opposition to a proposed extradition bill turned into much bigger calls for democracy and universal suffrage, the slogan became ubiquitous. It was sung in demonstrations and printed on banners and posters. The image of Edward Leungs was stenciled on the street and stamped on flags.

Read: How history is rewritten

Baggio Leung, who now lives in exile in the United States and has nothing to do with Edward, he told me he was entertained by expert witnesses called by the prosecution and the defense, as well as lawyers trying to snatch words thought out late at night from a group of friends. The slogan was supposed to be eye-catching and had nothing to do with Hong Kong separating it from China, he said. They keep asking other people to interpret what it means, but to do so is pointless, Leung told me. Everyone in his heart has his own meaning for him. Who are those who make a comment on how others think about this slogan?

Charge of terrorism with language focused on running his sports bike with red, orange and white stripes. His lawyer argued that Tongs’ dangerous leadership did not constitute terrorism, but the judges were unconvinced. His actions, they write, were a deliberate challenge raised against the police, a symbol of Hong Kong law and order, and he carried out those acts in order to intimidate the public in order to prosecute [a] political agenda.

The decision will undoubtedly be welcomed by Beijing and its loyalists in Hong Kong, who have indisputably fallen in line with their new marching orders and unequivocally reiterate that national security law has greatly improved the city. At the same time, they have tried to curb the influence of the laws, saying that freedom of speech remains unharmed in Hong Kong and that there is room for an opposition camp, even though most of its most prominent figures are in prison or in internim. That the rule of law in the city remains strong is their popular refrain, but their critics say regulated by law it is now more convenient.

Lau Siu-kai, vice president of the Chinese Studies Association of Hong Kong and Macau, a semi-official advisory body set up by Beijing, delivered a triumphant tone earlier this month in state support China Daily Newspaper. The national security law has destroyed the political opposition in Hong Kong, he wrote. The functioning space of the opposition has shrunk drastically, seriously endangering their long-term survival.