Hong Kong court overturns conviction of three former organisers of Tiananmen vigils
Chow Hang Tung, Tang Ngok Kwan, and Tsui Hon Kwong were convicted and sentenced to four and a half months in prison in 2023 for failing to comply with the police demand for data under the city's national security law. The trio had denied the allegations after Hong Kong authorities accused them of being 'foreign agents'.
The trio – members of the disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China – were arrested during Beijing 's crackdown on the city's pro-democracy movement.
The alliance was long known for organising candlelight vigils in the city on the anniversary of the Chinese military's crushing of the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Beijing. But it voted to disband in 2021 under the shadow of a sweeping national security law imposed by China.
Police had sought details about the group's operations and finances in connection with alleged links to pro-democracy groups overseas. But the group refused to cooperate, insisting it was not.
Hong Kong was one of the few Chinese territories which commemorated the event until China imposed a new, stringent national security law in the wake of the pro-democracy protests, punishing acts of subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.
Critics said the shutdown and the case showed that the former British colony's Western-style civil liberties were shrinking despite promises they would be kept intact.
Judges at the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal on Thursday unanimously ruled in the trio's favour, adding that the lower courts 'fell into error' in holding that it was sufficient merely that the police commissioner said he had reasonable grounds to believe the alliance was a foreign agent.
In a lower court trial, the appellants also took issue with crucial details that were redacted, including the names of groups that were alleged to have links with the alliance.
The judges ruled that by redacting the only potential evidential basis for establishing that the alliance was a foreign agent, the prosecution disabled itself from proving its case.
'Non-disclosure of the redacted facts in any event deprived the appellants of a fair trial,' they wrote. The trio have completed their prison terms under this case, however, Ms Chow is still behind bars awaiting a separate subversion case where she faces life in prison.
Mr Tang told reporters outside the court that he hoped the ruling proved that the alliance was not a foreign agent and that in the future they could prove that the 1989 movement was not a counter-revolutionary riot.
'Justice lives in people's hearts. Regardless of the outcome, everyone knows the truth in their hearts,' he said. Ms Chow raised a victory sign as she was led away by corrections officers, while supporters clapped and congratulated her.
During an earlier hearing at the top court in January, Ms Chow, who represented herself, said her case highlighted what a police state is. 'A police state is created by the complicity of the court in endorsing such abuses. This kind of complicity must stop now," she said.
Since the security law was introduced in 2020, several non-permanent overseas judges have quit the top court, raising questions over confidence in the city's judicial system. In 2024, Jonathan Sumption quit his position and said the rule of law was profoundly compromised.
But chief justice Andrew Cheung in January said the judges' premature departures did not mean the judiciary's independence was weakening.
The annual vigil at Hong Kong's Victoria Park was the only large-scale public commemoration of the June 4 crackdown on Chinese soil for decades. Thousands attended it annually until authorities banned it in 2020, citing anti-pandemic measures.
After Covid -19 restrictions were lifted, the park was occupied instead by a carnival organised by pro-Beijing groups. Those who tried to commemorate the event near the site were detained.
Ms Chow and two other former alliance leaders, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho, were charged with subversion in a separate case under the security law.
In a separate ruling on Thursday, judges at the top court dismissed jailed pro-democracy activist Tam Tak-chi's bid to overturn his sedition convictions in a landmark case brought under a colonial-era law that was used to crush dissent.
Tam Tak-chi was the first person tried under the sedition law since the 1997 handover and was found guilty of 11 charges in 2022, including seven counts of 'uttering seditious words'.
The activist argued that prosecutors needed to prove he intended to incite violence. The city authorities last year revamped the offence so it explicitly states that people can be convicted of sedition even if no intent to incite violence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Spectator
Thought for the Day and the elite empathy problem
Like much of Radio 4's output, Thought for the Day is something of a curate's egg – sometimes enlightening and a source of inspiration or comfort. Often, however, it's sanctimonious; auricular masturbation for the comfortable. The BBC has been heavily criticised for its segment on Wednesday morning, featuring Dr Krish Kandiah, a theologian and author, discussing 'fear' in relation to the migrant crisis. His reflections amount to a series of boilerplate platitudes beloved by open borders advocates. He calls for 'empathy over suspicion', 'listening before judging', 'building bridges not walls'. While the Church's managerial class will have nodded sagely along to all this, I wonder how representative this sort of intellectually diluted, unexamined rehashing of comfortable tropes about 'nasty xenophobia' really is among the ordinary people in the pews. After all, plenty of churchgoers will know what the less rose-tinted practical realities of mass migration actually look like. Dr Kandiah speaks with total conviction, and a striking curiosity as to why so many British people feel as they do. 'Our fears are misplaced', he insists, citing 'xenophobia'. All this reflects a widely held belief on the liberal-left, that people only believe what has been fed to them (or, better yet, 'weaponised') by the tabloid press and social media algorithms. Accordingly, no fear can be rational or informed by actual experiences. This argument is becoming harder to maintain as we record more data on, for instance, migrant crime (something the government has been reluctant to do). Indeed, listening to Dr Kandiah yesterday, it already felt outmoded. As a sidenote, it's very apparent that people are only ever accused of 'disinformation' when expressing a 'low-status' viewpoint. Treasury Minister Darren Jones confidently told a Question Time audience recently that the 'majority of people' arriving in migrant boats were 'children, babies and women'. According to the Migration Observatory, around 76 per cent of those arriving in small boats in 2024 were men over the age of 18. Dr Kandiah likewise does his best to waft away such concerns. 'Most crimes against children are committed, not by strangers, but by people they know' he insists; a truism which crucially ignores the important point about likelihood of offending. According to data from the MoJ, foreign nationals make up around 9 per cent of the UK population but are responsible for between 15 and 23 per cent of sexual offences. Certain nationalities are dramatically over-represented in the available statistics. Even expressing these points remains controversial; Sky News recently attempted to 'fact-check' Nigel Farage for citing data on nationality and sexual violence, curiously arguing that he should have compared statistics from two separate metrics rather than using like-for-like data. People like Dr Kandiah seem to possess an apparently boundless empathy for migrants, less when it comes to their fellow citizens. There are echoes of the 'telescopic philanthropy' of Mrs Jellyby from Bleak House, so busy directing her good works towards Tockahoopo Indians and tribes of Borrioboola-Gha in Africa that she doesn't notice or care that her own children are suffering. Comfortable England has an empathy problem; it is willing to contort itself into paroxysms of emotion for migrants yet remains incapable of listening to concerns of the communities affected by mass migration. Yesterday's Thought for the Day epitomised this; by throwing out a slur of 'xenophobia' the speaker thought he could shut down these concerns and proceed to moralise on his terms. That simply isn't going to cut it anymore. Meanwhile, there are obvious theological counterpoints to express. Yes, Christ tells us to love our neighbours, to welcome the stranger. But he doesn't say to do so when they are putting others at risk and undermining the rule of law, nor when the poor, the vulnerable, the un-listened-to are begging you to do otherwise. He also tells sinners to repent, to 'go your way and sin no more', he encourages adults to 'suffer the little children' (i.e. nurture and protect them). He also speaks of sorting 'sheep from the goats', that 'by their fruits shall ye know them' and – in an intensely patriarchal society – he calls for the prayers and worries of women to be heeded. All these would be quite convincing starting points for rebuttals to Mr Kandiah's sanctimony. It is time the Church starts expressing them if it wants to be taken seriously, if and when its appeals for calm become necessary. Frankly, theologians owe the public a better explanation than endlessly rehashing #BeKind platitudes. To dismiss the genuine concerns of a not-inconsiderable number of people as simply wicked and stupid, as Dr Kandiah did, not only shows an arrogance which undermines his cause, but a lack of curiosity about the many potential counterarguments to his view. That these don't appear to him to be worth engaging with suggests that his theological nous is not quite as sharp as he thinks it is. Appealing for calm and seeking to avoid violence is obviously a key part of the Church's mission in the wider context of society, but to be able to do that it must have some credibility – it needs to have listened in the first place. Dismissing public concern with cant will not work, indeed it will almost certainly make people angrier.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
'No casualties': GHF repeatedly denies killings on Gaza aid distribution sites
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has repeatedly denied reports of any killings on its aid distribution sites in Gaza. Since launching operations in May, GHF's large-scale distribution sites - backed by Israel and the US - have become magnets for violence. Nearly 1,400 people have died while seeking food; 859 in the vicinity of the GHF sites and 514 along the routes of food convoys, according to the latest figures from the United Nations (UN). Speaking to ITV News, GHF spokesperson Chapin Fay claims there have been no casualties on any of the group's four aid sites and claims the numbers coming from the UN are "unreliable". "We have had no casualties on our sites. We have never had any casualties except for two incidents of terrorist attacks." The UN recorded deaths are often attributed to Israeli fire - including gunshots and teargas - while the GHF has also been criticised for crowd control incidents and stampedes. Mr Fay reiterated that GHF security personnel "do not shoot at people and do not use live fire for crowd control." "They have never shot at anyone. During a war, every casualty is regrettable, but they don't happen on our sites. And there's no question people are walking sometimes too far for aid." When questioned over the deaths of people who were killed on the journey to GHF aid sites, he added: "We push the IDF to deconflict and to make the rest of Gaza outside of our sites safe. "We push for more humanitarian zones. There's no question that it's a war zone. And this is a very complex, if not the most complex, humanitarian crisis of our lifetime. And it's happening." The GHF describes its mission as "alleviating the suffering" of Gaza's population by the swift delivery of aid, ensuring the territory's population can live with "dignity". But some of those who have worked inside the operation say the reality on the ground can be dangerously disordered. last month that there is 'a whole culture of just winging it' and 'a lot of bad practice'. He recalled an evacuation where 'both of the heads of the Palestinians snapped back and then dropped' after Israeli soldiers were seen running and shouting at "two people that were dressed in regular clothing". The GHF rejected the claims at the time, describing Gaza as an "active war zone". British surgeon Nick Maynard spent four weeks working inside Nasser Hospital in Gaza. He previously told ITV News that there is a pattern of body parts being targeted by gunshots, "almost as if a game is being played".
