“It seems the goal of both governments is to silence the opposition,” Davis wrote in an email from New York. ‘Why set up an entire case in moderation? [democrats] who has long advocated non-violence? ”
“The resentment is old,” he says, “but the attempt to get these people out is new.”
Their efforts date back to the 1997 handover to China, which saw many in Hong Kong as the opportunity to build democratic rule for the first time in the city’s history. In more than a century as a crown colony of Britain, the inhabitants never had free elections or the right to govern themselves.
Many Hong Kongers wanted to lose the colonial yoke and become part of China because they felt they could help the country that had plagued Mao to emerge from decades of cruel politics and poverty. Then came the spring of 1989. After members of the People’s Liberation Army opened fire on people in Beijing, some joining a rallied sit-in for liberties, Hong Kong broke out in peaceful protests. The Chinese government knew it had to calm the residents and the markets. Beijing has agreed to a constitution that gives freedoms to protest, collect, publish and strike. The constitution that Hong Kong promised would have 50 years of these rights and a ‘high degree of autonomy’, and would eventually elect leaders through democratic elections. The Chinese legislature would have the power to intervene only in matters of foreign affairs and national security.
Beijing could not get rid of Hong Kong’s affairs from the beginning. The pace of these intrusions accelerated in 2014. By that time, Xi Jinping was president and Hong Kong was once again stirring for full suffrage, especially the freedom to elect its chief executive without being investigated by Beijing. It touched a 79-day mass-sit-in known as the Umbrella Revolution for the device used when police overloaded crowds with pepper spray. Beijing did not give in to their demands, but exhausted Hong Kongers knew that there were many soul-seekers whose anger could be re-used.
Protest-related persecution has increased throughout 2020, with new ones starting all the time. The government enforced strict laws on public collection of British colonial days on the books. More danger to protesters came last June when Beijing filled a broad national security law with vague provisions. The law is designed to curb acts of secession, undermining, terrorism and collusion with foreigners, and allows the government to recreate defiant acts as something more sinister and destabilizing than mere opposition to laws or officials. Some protest tactics, such as shouting or placing popular slogans, are considered attacks on the Chinese central government. A few people are up for it.
The law arrested 100 people and imposed at least 54 prosecutions, including Lai, founder of Next Media. Lai has insisted on US sanctions against China during interviews with overseas officials and the media, saying that prosecutors could consider conspiracy with foreign forces during the trial. Most residents were blinded in February when the Hong Kong government charged 47 lawyers, district councilors and activists with conspiracy to undermine the government. Their transgression was linked to an unofficial primary election aimed at picking a slate that was strong enough to overthrow the majority bloc of China and put greater pressure on Beijing.
In a city that used to seemingly celebrate most holidays with a protest, there is no tolerance for big, organized disagreement with the government. Police have not approved any marches, vigilance or protests since early 2020, citing the pandemic. This included the annual candlelight vigil that honored Tiananmen victims on June 4, 1990. (People are rightly being prosecuted for pushing the barriers away and gathering in Victoria Park on 4 June 2020.) Many residents are convinced that vigilance under the new security law will never happen again in Hong Kong.
As democracy argues fell silent in early 2020, and the police go to work to assemble hundreds of protesters, observers wondered why the seven people in courtroom 3 were charged at all. Martin Lee and colleagues played at most small roles during demonstrations the previous year. Only one accused served in the Civil Human Rights Front, the civilian group that organized mass marches for years. (The man, Au Nok-hin, pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial. He is now in jail, also charged in the main case in July.)
Avery Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats, the party started by Leung Kwok-hung, attended the trial for some of his twenty days and said the prosecution of the seven ‘is the easiest way to fear to arouse in the public. ‘ In a separate case, Ng is facing his own charges of disorderly conduct. “If the most cautious, least radical leaders can be tried to walk in the rain,” he told me during a break, “it sets a low bar for the rest of us.”
The trial turned in part into a referendum on Hong Kong’s ‘march laws’, a remnant of British colonial rule that gives police the right to allow or refuse a public march, however peaceful. The defendants’ lawyers argued during the closing days of the trial that the march to the legal rally should never have been banned. With all entrances of the metro jammed, the accused and thousands of participants had no choice but to leave the packed rally by walking. And yes, they shouted slogans and carried a banner while doing so.
Police officers told the court that they refused to punish the request’s march on that day because several previous protests ended with some people throwing Molotov cocktails. They said they would allow a moving protest, the theme of which was anti-police, would have caused trouble. By setting up the defense, the defense argued, the police punished the peaceful group for the violent actions of others.
The defense also made a constitutional argument: allowing the police to block sanctions or protest marches created an improper block for their freedom of speech, in violation of the city’s constitution.