The plight of Jimmy Lai shames us all
Dictatorships use solitary confinement as a form of torture, designed to break the prisoner's spirit. Under international law, 'prolonged solitary confinement' is defined as exceeding 15 days.
British citizen and 77 year-old media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, in jail in Hong Kong, has now exceeded 1,600 days in solitary confinement, yet has committed no crime.
He has already served several prison sentences on multiple trumped-up charges, including 13 months for lighting a candle and saying a prayer at a vigil commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
He is currently on trial under Hong Kong's draconian National Security Law, imposed by Beijing in 2020, and could face life imprisonment, simply for standing up for the human rights and democratic principles that China pledged to guarantee when it was handed control of Hong Kong from British rule.
The authorities appear determined to drag his trial out for as long as possible. When it started at the end of 2023, it was due to last 30 days. Multiple adjournments have meant that closing submissions will not be heard until August this year and the verdict and sentencing may not come until the end of the year, making it a two-year trial process. This outrageous foot-dragging is designed to test the mental strength of Mr Lai, his family and his legal team.
Despite widespread international condemnation, Mr Lai continues to be held in a tiny cell for more than 23 hours a day, deprived of natural light, and permitted less than an hour a day for physical exercise in a confined space.
This is dehumanising and brutal treatment more often associated with 'maximum security prisons' for extremely violent offenders, while Mr Lai just lit a candle to commemorate a massacre that China has tried to erase from history, and exercised his freedom of expression by founding and publishing a successful newspaper. He is in jail for journalism, and for his opinions.
Mr Lai, who is diabetic, has been denied access to independent medical care, and denied the right to his first choice of legal counsel, when British barrister Tim Owen KC was barred from representing him. His international legal team has received numerous outrageous threats. Even the right to receive Holy Communion has been restricted which, for Mr Lai as a devout Catholic, is a particularly poignant cruelty.
Several governments around the world – including the United Kingdom, United States and Australia – have called for his release, as have the Canadian and European Parliaments. Five United Nations Special Rapporteurs – independent experts on freedom of expression, freedom of association, torture, the independence of judges and lawyers, and counter-terrorism and human rights – and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have expressed concerns about the case.
But the key question is what is the British government actually doing to free its citizen? It is not that no one seems to care – plenty of sympathy and support has been expressed for Mr Lai's plight. The fact that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves have raised the case in their exchanges with China's leaders is welcome. A cross-departmental approach from the Government is the right strategy.
But the important question is how was it raised? In passing, as a box-ticking exercise, or in a meaningful way? If Mr Lai dies in jail, what will be the consequences for China's relations with the United Kingdom, and have they been spelled out?
It is time to turn sympathy into action, and words into meaningful measures. That is why an open letter to the prime minister last week by 22 former prisoners or relatives of former prisoners from around the world, asking him 'to do everything in your power to bring Jimmy Lai home', is so powerful and significant.
Among the signatories are people whose own plight once looked dire. They include Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza and his wife Evgenia, former Iranian prisoner Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband Richard, Chinese-Australian journalist Cheng Lei who was jailed in China, Paul Rusebagina who was imprisoned in Rwanda and the former Soviet dissident
For these reasons, they urge the United Kingdom to take urgent steps to secure Mr Lai's release, 'before it is too late'. They call on the prime minister to meet Mr Lai's family as a matter of urgency, and to take 'robust, principled, strategic action'.
President Donald Trump has said that Mr Lai's case will be on the table in any US-China trade talks. The United Kingdom must be equally strategic in identifying what leverage it can use to free Mr Lai. It must make it clear to Beijing that Mr Lai's continued imprisonment – and the risk that he might die in jail – is not in the interests of either China or Hong Kong. Not if it wishes to remain a significant business partner.
Other countries have been able to secure the release of their citizens from China. Australia worked hard to free Cheng Lai, as did Canada in the case of its citizens Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, and Ireland with the detention of businessman Richard O'Halloran. The United States spares no effort in securing the release of its citizens unjustly imprisoned abroad. Sir Keir Starmer therefore must step up to free Mr Lai.
Mr Lai's name must be on the lips of every world leader, every diplomat, every journalist and every Parliamentarian until he is freed. He should never have been arrested in the first place, but after four and a half years of his detention in solitary confinement it is time to say clearly to Beijing: enough is enough. Free Jimmy Lai now.
Benedict Rogers is Senior Director of Fortify Rights and a co-founder and trustee of Hong Kong Watch
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
37 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Hegseth warns Indo-Pacific allies of ‘imminent' threat from China
SINGAPORE — U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reassured allies in the Indo-Pacific on Saturday that they will not be left alone to face increasing military and economic pressure from China, while insisting that they also contribute more to their own defense. He said Washington will bolster its defenses overseas to counter what the Pentagon sees as rapidly developing threats by Beijing, particularly in its aggressive stance toward Taiwan. China has conducted numerous exercises to test what a blockade would look like of the self-governing island, which Beijing claims as its own and the U.S. has pledged to defend. China's army 'is rehearsing for the real deal,' Hegseth said in a keynote speech at a security conference in Singapore. 'We are not going to sugarcoat it — the threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.' The head of China's delegation accused Hegseth of making 'groundless accusations.' 'Some of the claims are completely fabricated, some distort facts and some are cases of a thief crying 'stop thief,'' said Rear Adm. Hu Gangfeng, vice president of China's National Defense University. He did not offer specific objections. 'These actions are nothing more than attempts to provoke trouble, incite division and stir up confrontation to destabilize the Asia-Pacific region,' he said. China has a stated goal of ensuring its military is capable of taking Taiwan by force if necessary by 2027, a deadline that is seen by experts as more of an aspirational goal than a hard war deadline. China also has built sophisticated, artificial islands in the South China Sea to support new military outposts and developed highly advanced hypersonic and space capabilities, which are driving the United States to create its own space-based 'Golden Dome' missile defenses. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a global security conference hosted by the International Institute for Security Studies, Hegseth said China is no longer just building up its military forces to take Taiwan, it's 'actively training for it, every day.' Hegseth also called out China for its ambitions in Latin America, particularly its efforts to increase its influence over the Panama Canal. He urged Indo-Pacific countries to increase defense spending to levels similar to the 5% of their gross domestic product European nations are now pressed to contribute. 'We must all do our part,' Hegseth said. Following the speech, the European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas pushed back at Hegseth's comment that European countries should focus their defense efforts in their own region and leave the Indo-Pacific more to the U.S. She said that with North Korean troops fighting for Russia and China supporting Moscow, European and Asian security were 'very much interlinked.' Hegseth also repeated a pledge made by previous administrations to bolster the U.S. military in the Indo-Pacific to provide a more robust deterrent. While both the Obama and Biden administrations had also committed to pivoting to the Pacific and established new military agreements throughout the region, a full shift has never been realized. The Indo-Pacific nations caught in between have tried to balance relations with both the U.S. and China over the years. Beijing is the primary trading partner for many, but is also feared as a regional bully, in part due to its increasingly aggressive claims on natural resources such as critical fisheries. Hegseth cautioned that playing both sides, seeking U.S. military support and Chinese economic support, carries risk. 'Economic dependence on China only deepens their malign influence and complicates our defense decision space during times of tension,' Hegseth said. Asked how he would reconcile that statement with Trump's threat of steep tariffs on most in the region, Hegseth he was 'in the business of tanks, not trade.' But Illinois Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who is part of a congressional delegation attending Shangri-La, objected to pressuring regional allies. 'The United States is not asking people to choose between us and the PRC,' Duckworth said, in reference to the People's Republic of China. Australia's Defense Minister Richard Marles welcomed Hegseth's assurance that the Indo-Pacific was an American strategic priority and agreed that Australia and other nations needed to do their part. 'Reality is that there is no effective balance of power in this region absent the United States, but we cannot leave it to the United States alone,' he said. Copp and Rising write for the Associated Press.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Hegseth challenges China in its own backyard
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday in Singapore attempted to woo Asian defense leaders to Washington's side as he warned of the 'imminent' threat China poses to the Indo-Pacific region. Hegseth, who took the stage at the Shangri-La Dialogue, sought to seize on a gap China created in declining to send its own defense minister to the major annual gathering of diplomats, military officials and business leaders — an opportunity for the U.S. to make inroads with Asian countries. 'Here in the Indo-Pacific, our futures are bound together,' Hegseth told attendees. 'We share your vision of peace and stability, of prosperity and security. And we are here to stay.' 'And as a matter of fact, we are here this morning, somebody else isn't,' he added. Hegseth's trip to Singapore — his second visit to the region as Pentagon chief — takes place amid the backdrop of heightened rhetoric between Washington and Beijing, which President Trump accused Friday of violating a temporary trade deal. European and Indo-Pacific countries have found themselves at a crossroads as of late, increasingly pulled between the competing interests of the U.S. and China as both struggle for dominance. There's also uncertainty in the region over the U.S.'s commitment to the defense of Taiwan, which China has threatened to overtake, a potential reality Hegseth played into. 'There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,' he said, adding that any move on Taipei by Beijing 'would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world.' In an attempt to sway Indo-Pacific nations, Hegseth promised continued American partnership and support to those wary of the Trump administration's commitment to the region. But the pledges came with a caveat repeated in Europe, Africa and elsewhere in the world: a call for an increase in defense spending. 'We ask, and indeed we insist, that our allies and partners do their part on defense,' he said. 'Sometimes that means having uncomfortable and tough conversations.' The Shangri-La Dialogue, put on by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, traditionally gives U.S. defense leaders a soapbox to lay out America's strategy in the Indo-Pacific, with an audience of senior officials from across the globe. China, instead of sending its defense minister, sent only an academic delegation to the gathering. Hegseth took advantage of this absence and delivered the Trump administration's most concrete stance on U.S. security policy in the region since the president took office in January, pledging American support for allies while painting China as the common enemy. 'We do not seek conflict with communist China. … But we will not be pushed out of this critical region, and we will not let our allies and partners be subordinated and intimidated,' Hegseth said. 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo Pacific,' he continued. While China has not sought war with any nation, it has flexed its military and economic might in the seas around East and South East Asia, attempting to dominate vital shipping lanes via its powerful navy and man-made islands laden with military equipment. Beijing has also built up its nuclear and conventional arsenals, amassing vessels for a navy that now outstrips the U.S. Navy in number of ships. And an ever looming presence is China's firm eye on Taiwan, which it views as its own territory and has vowed to 'reunify' with the island, using force if necessary. To that end, Beijing has increased war games around Taiwan and stepped up political pressure. The U.S. has made clear, however, that it will not be pushed from the region, with tens of thousands of troops based in Japan and South Korea, and several U.S. owned or maintained military bases in Australia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. Hegseth affirmed the U.S. alliance in the region when he visited the Philippines and Japan in March. The Pentagon also announced the development of a new defense strategy in May centered on 'deterring' China in the region and 'increasing burden-sharing' with international partners. But in Saturday's speech Hegseth expanded on Washington's plan, which includes improving U.S. forward force posture, rebuilding defense industrial bases, and helping allies and partners strengthen their defense capabilities. The pledges came, however, with an all-too-expected push for countries to ramp up their own defense spending, something the U.S. has already pushed its European allies to do. 'It doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to [spend more] while key allies in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat — I've mentioned North Korea,' Hegseth said. While he didn't mention any specific spending goal, it is speculated that Hegseth will push Asian nations to increase defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)— the new spending goal for NATO members in Europe. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby hinted as much when he posted to the social media platform X on Wednesday that 5 percent 'is the new standard for our allies around the world, especially Asia.' Asian countries spent an average of 1.5 percent of GDP on defense in 2024 — a figure that has stayed constant over the last decade — but spending on weapons is spiking amid a darkening security outlook, according to a study released Wednesday by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. To nudge things along, Hegseth suggested on Saturday that European allies focus on security on their own continent, freeing up the U.S. to zero in on Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. 'We would much prefer that the overwhelming balance of European investment be on that continent, so that as we partner there, which we will continue to do, we're able to use our comparative advantage as an Indo-Pacific nation to support our partners here,' he said during a Q&A portion after his speech. Hegseth's comments mark a turning point in his usual messaging, which has heavily centered around domestic issues such as protecting the U.S. southern border, restoring the 'warrior ethos,' and countering so-called 'woke' initiatives, including diversity, equity and inclusion programs, in the military. He still mentioned those issues, but played to a more international audience on Saturday. 'We are not here to pressure other countries to embrace or adopt our politics or ideology. We are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues,' Hegseth said. 'We respect you, your traditions and your militaries. And we want to work with you where our shared interests align.' It's unclear how Hegseth's message was met by allies in the region, but China was certainly rankled, calling his comments 'steeped in provocations and instigation.' 'Mr. Hegseth repeatedly smeared and attacked China and relentlessly played up the so-called 'China threat,'' the Chinese embassy in Singapore wrote on its Facebook page. 'As a matter of fact, the U.S. itself is the biggest 'troublemaker' for regional peace and stability.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
