Rights groups condemn arrest of Hong Kong activist Anna Kwok's father and brother
Human rights groups have condemned the arrest of relatives of Anna Kwok, an exiled pro-democracy activist who is wanted by the Hong Kong police, in the first example of the city's national security law being used to target the family members of an activist living overseas.
Kwok, 28, is the executive director of the Washington-based Hong Kong Democracy Council, and is one of 19 overseas activists wanted by the national security police, who are offering bounties of HK$1m (£97,000) for information leading to arrest.
Kwok's father, 68, and her brother, 35, were arrested on 30 April on suspicion of 'attempting to deal with directly or indirectly, any funds or other financial assets or economic resources belonging to, or owned or controlled by, a relevant absconder'. The police said the men were suspected of helping Kwok to change the details of a life insurance policy and withdraw its remaining value. Kwok's father was charged and detained while her brother was released on bail pending further investigations.
Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch, said: 'The Chinese government has increased its appalling use of collective punishment against family members of peaceful activists from Hong Kong. The Hong Kong authorities should immediately and unconditionally release Anna Kwok's father and cease harassing families of Hong Kong activists.'
ChinaAid, a US-based human rights group, said: 'This represents a deeply unsettling and significant escalation of the ongoing retaliatory actions against the families of exiled activists … this is a blatant attempt to silence overseas dissidents by targeting their family members at home, a tactic that brazenly disregards fundamental human rights and the rule of law.'
Police in Hong Kong have repeatedly questioned the relatives of exiled activists. In recent months relatives of Tony Chung, Frances Hui and Carmen Lau, overseas pro-democracy activists who are also wanted by the Hong Kong police, have been questioned. Chung and Lau, who are in the UK, have both had threatening letters sent to their neighbours offering rewards for information leading to their capture.
The arrests in Kwok's case mark the first time that relatives have been criminally charged. Kwok's father faces a sentence of up to seven years in prison if convicted. He has been denied bail with the case adjourned to 13 June, according to Reuters.
The Hong Kong police and the Hong Kong Democracy Council did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Kwok could not be reached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New European
38 minutes ago
- New European
Britain enters a new nuclear age
Alongside an ambitious plan to build up to 12 new attack submarines, and to create jobs in six new ammunition factories, one of the most striking commitments is to enter discussions with the USA aimed at 'enhanced participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. This innocuous sounding sentence represents a big change in nuclear posture. Make no mistake: today's Strategic Defence Review marks the start of British rearmament. Not only does it signal the UK's commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but to a type of spending designed to enhance the UK's strategic clout in the world. At present, only Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host US-owned tactical nuclear bombs, with their aircraft designed to be 'dual capable' of delivering such bombs on target. The UK, which lacks tactical nuclear weapons, could now volunteer to do likewise, but would need to buy a different variant of the F-35 combat aircraft than the one that is flown from the Royal Navy's carriers. That would be a major change in nuclear policy – because the British deterrent has, since the 1990s, been strategic-only. As I've argued here before, we need a wider range of options because Putin is now making regular threats to use nukes against Nato, and tactical nukes against Ukraine – so it makes sense to place more of Nato's collective nuclear armoury closer to the front line, and distributed among a larger number of allies. Over and above deterring Russian aggression, almost everything Labour has announced today looks designed to achieve three things: to boost Britain's influence among its allies, to deliver high skilled jobs to places where they are scarce, and to get ahead of the game in the military technologies of the future. These don't only include drones – though the spectacular Ukrainian strike on Russia's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday shows that we've hardly even begun to understand their power. The technological arms race is now focused on niche areas of science – like nanotech, materials and quantum computing – and Labour, to its credit, has understood that it in any conflict with Russia it is the science labs of Oxbridge, Imperial and Edinburgh, not the 'playing fields of Eton', that might be decisive. Suggested Reading We must take a nuclear leap into the unknown Paul Mason For the armed forces, often bound by tradition and prone to inter-service rivalry, making the SDR work will be a challenge. Because in every domain of warfare – land, air, sea, space and cyberspace – they face the same problem: they are running decades-old kit designed for an era when Britain could choose which wars it fights, while at the same time moving to a completely new, digitally enabled way of fighting, in which technological change never stops. In this context, faced with a Russia that has turned itself into a war economy, and itself learned to innovate rapidly – deterrence comes down to showing Putin that our own industry, science and digital technology base could crank itself up to speed, and indeed surpass what Russia itself could achieve. For me, the most basic task of the SDR was to assess the scale of the Russian threat and offer the electorate an honest proposal of how to meet it – within our means. Though it might sound simple to achieve, it was not achieved at any point during 14 years of Conservative government, above all after 2020, when Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings declared a 'tilt' of security priorities towards Asia, while systematically underfunding the ministry of defence. Labour reversed that stance, declaring from day one that its priority is: 'Nato First'. The SDR places maritime warfare as the highest priority and designates the Atlantic and the Arctic as the UK's prime areas of interest. There's been a row today over the precise form of words Keir Starmer is using – describing the 3% target in the 2030s as an ambition. I think it's clear that Labour means to find the money to achieve that – but it stands way outside the term of UK fiscal forecasting, and no chancellor would allow it to be stated as a firm commitment outside of a budget statement. The real question with the SDR is: do the capabilities match the threats? The answer is: only if you believe Russia can be deterred through Nato remaining cohesive and the UK leading an enhancement of continent-wide nuclear deterrence. If it cannot, then 3, 4 or even 5% won't be enough. In 1939, after seven years of rearmament, Britain's defence budget was 9% of GDP – and once war broke out it rose above 50%. Today's focus on the big stuff – submarines, which are the capital ships of the 21st century, and a £15bn upgrade to nuclear warheads – reflects Starmer's determination for this country to avoid any impression that it wants to be 'Little Britain'. With a cash-strapped treasury, it is a decision to spend on what's strategic, and rely on allies for that which is not. There is even the promise, thinking long term, to specify within this parliament a replacement for the Dreadnought submarines, currently being built at Barrow: and they don't even go out of service until 2050. I would like to have seen more spending and faster – above all because defence industrial investment is one of the surest ways to boost growth and social cohesion in communities that have seen too little of it. But until Labour can win the argument with the British people that they need to pay more tax, and tolerate more borrowing to fund defence, progress is going to be incremental. That, in turn, will depend on the outcome of Ukraine's peace negotiations with Russia. If they fail – and that looks likely – people may wake up to the fact that the prospect of endless war on our doorstep requires a change of attitude to defence. In that sense, the SDR was the start, not the end, of something.
Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
Fifth partner leaves Paul Weiss to join new firm
June 2 (Reuters) - Another partner has left law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, joining Karen Dunn and others who split to launch their own firm late last month. Kyle Smith, a Washington-based litigator who has represented Amazon, Uber and other clients at Paul Weiss, is the fifth partner to join newly formed Dunn Isaacson Rhee. Smith, who announced the move in a LinkedIn post on Sunday, could not immediately be reached for comment. Paul Weiss in March became the first of nine firms that struck deals with the White House to avoid being targeted by President Donald Trump's administration. The Wall Street firm pledged $40 million in free legal work to mutually agreed causes with the administration in return for Trump rescinding an executive order that threatened the firm's access to government officials and its federal contracting work. Dunn, a prominent litigator and Washington Democrat, left Paul Weiss on May 23 to found the new firm along with Jeannie Rhee, Bill Isaacson and Jessica Phillips. They did not cite Paul Weiss' deal with Trump in an internal email announcing their departures that was viewed by Reuters. Last month, former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson retired from Paul Weiss for a leadership post at Columbia University. Paul Weiss in a statement thanked Smith for his contributions to the firm. Its chairman Brad Karp has defended the agreement with Trump, arguing it was necessary to protect the firm. Dunn Isaacson Rhee said the new firm would soon formally announce its expanded team. 'Since the news of our firm became public last week, we have received a truly overwhelming amount of support and interest from lawyers and staff who want to join us," the firm said. The firm since its launch is continuing to represent Google and Qualcomm in litigation, alongside Paul Weiss lawyers that are still on the cases, court records show. Four firms sued the Trump administration after they were hit with executive orders like the one against Paul Weiss. Judges have permanently struck down the orders in three of the cases so far, ruling that Trump unconstitutionally retaliated against the firms for their past cases and associations.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Romanian pleads guilty to 'swatting' US lawmakers and top officials
WASHINGTON, June 2 (Reuters) - A Romanian man has pleaded guilty to participating in a years-long series of dangerous hoax phone calls and bomb threats targeting American legislators, law enforcement leaders, and government officials, the U.S. Justice Department said Monday. In a statement, opens new tab, the department said that Thomasz Szabo, 26, who was extradited to the United States last year, admitted targeting more than 75 officials, four religious institutions, and multiple journalists in his campaign of intimidation. Officials said Szabo targeted private residences, including the homes and families of senior government officials. Authorities say Szabo routinely phoned in bomb threats and reports of ongoing violence or hostage situations at his targets' homes or places of work, a technique called 'swatting' because it is meant to elicit the emergency deployment of heavily armed police officers. Emails seeking comment from Szabo's lawyers were not immediately returned. Justice officials described Szabo as the leader of a group that made a series of false reports to U.S. law enforcement, including a December 2020 threat to commit a mass-shooting at New York City synagogues and a January 2021 threat to detonate explosives at the U.S. Capitol and kill then-President-elect Joe Biden. The department said that, in a two-month period alone, members of Szabo's gang targeted at least 25 members of Congress or their family members, six then-current or former senior U.S. federal officials, "including multiple cabinet-level officials," at least 13 then-current or former senior federal law enforcement officials, including the heads of multiple federal law enforcement agencies. Others targeted included members of the federal judiciary, state government officials, and members of the media. It was during that time that one of Szabo's subordinates boasted of "creating massive havoc" in the United States, the department said.
