Hong Kong's Latest National Security Taboos: 4th of July and a Video Game
Following the Hong Kong authorities' ban of the allegedly 'seditious' mobile game 'Reversed Front: Bonfire,' the Hong Kong education bureau warned teachers against participating in U.S. Independence Day celebrations in the city. The latest restrictions represent yet another phase in the Hong Kong authorities' quest to coerce full allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party regime.
Teachers are just the latest group affected by tightening restrictions and moves toward ideological conformity in Hong Kong. As The Guardian reported, a school principal texted staff advising them 'to be careful about Independence Day activities organised by the U.S. consulate in Hong Kong, and not to participate to avoid violating the national security law and Hong Kong laws.' Staff were also told to seek approval before attending such events and to discourage student participation. Notably, the Education Bureau did not specify which laws would be breached by attending Fourth of July events, leaving teachers and students vulnerable to vaguely determined consequences by the Hong Kong government.
The Hong Kong government's sensitivity around U.S. Independence Day events may stem from the 2019 pro-democracy movement, when many Hong Kongers espoused American ideals such as liberty and self-governance. Protesters often waved American flags at rallies, believing their call for change paralleled grievances from the American Revolution, like 'taxation without representation.'
The Hong Kong government's threats of legal consequences for teachers and students who wish to attend the U.S. Consulate's Fourth of July celebration, or to celebrate in any other way, expose the ongoing erosion of the freedom of expression and the greater dismantling of the education system in Hong Kong. What once was a pluralistic and globally connected system is increasingly constrained by ideological policing.
This censorship echoes other recent moves by the authorities, including the banning of 'Reversed Front: Bonfire,' a mobile strategy game in which players can support the independence of groups from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang (or, alternatively, 'choose to lead the Communists to defeat all enemies,' as the game's description puts it). On June 10, the Hong Kong National Security Department warned that downloading or sharing the game could constitute 'incitement to secession' or 'subversion' under Hong Kong's National Security Law. The National Security Department disabled action on electronic messages related to the mobile game, and the game has been removed from major app stores in the region.
The crackdown on 'Reversed Front: Bonfire' resembles earlier efforts to suppress the freedom of expression, such as the banning of children's books that allegorically depicted wolves (representing the Chinese Communist Party) invading sheep villages (symbolizing Hong Kong). In both cases, metaphor and fiction are treated as threats to national security.
These actions suggest an increasingly brittle government that responds to children's books, digital games, and foreign holidays with legal threats and censorship. The fear of the authorities around the Fourth of July reveals their increasing insecurities around Hong Kongers setting off their own fireworks in response to the increasing crackdown on their human rights.
The U.S. Consulate has already responded. In a statement to the Associated Press, it condemned the repression of U.S. Independence Day celebrations, noting that the Hong Kong authorities' 'attempts to characterize these activities as 'unlawful' only further reveals its insecurity and fear of freedom.'
If celebrating the Fourth of July or downloading a mobile game can be deemed a threat, it raises serious questions about the future of civil liberties in Hong Kong. While the city's government claims to safeguard national security, it increasingly does so at the cost of international human rights norms, including freedom of thought, expression, and belief.
Looking ahead, there is another troubling implication: if holidays like the Fourth of July are now suspect, others such as Christmas and Easter may be next, given that they present narratives inconsistent with the official ideology of the Chinese Communist Party.
Defenders of basic freedoms, both inside and outside Hong Kong, must take note. The situation calls for sustained international scrutiny and action. It is time for the United Nations and democratic nations to treat these escalating restrictions not as isolated incidents, but as part of a systematic dismantling of freedoms in a once-open society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
24 minutes ago
- Japan Today
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
FILE - Mairelise Robinson, a U.S. citizen who is 6 months pregnant, attends a protest in support of birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) By TIM SULLIVAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump's executive order, signed in Januar,y seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Nikkei Asia
2 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
Trump envisions China trip with dozens of CEOs
U.S. President Donald Trump poses with business leaders from American companies in Riyadh during a trip to Saudi Arabia on May 13. © Reuters KEN MORIYASU WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials are drawing up plans for President Donald Trump to visit China later this year with a delegation of dozens of CEOs, Nikkei Asia has learned. Such a visit is expected to resemble the president's trip to the Middle East in May. More than 30 business leaders accompanied him to Saudi Arabia, producing over $2 trillion in deals.
Japan Today
4 hours ago
- Japan Today
Supreme Court in birthright case limits judges' power to block presidential policies
FILE PHOTO: A law enforcement officer stands guard on the day the Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over U.S. President Donald Trump's bid to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, during a protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo By Andrew Chung The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday in a case involving birthright citizenship by curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, changing the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the legality of the policy, part of Trump's hardline approach toward immigration. The Republican president lauded the ruling and said his administration can now try to move forward with numerous policies such as his birthright citizenship executive order that he said "have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court granted the administration's request to narrow the scope of three so-called "universal" injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal members dissented. The ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually applying in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship litigation found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. Warning against an "imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote, "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling a "travesty for the rule of law" as she read a summary of her dissent from the bench. In her written dissent, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, Sotomayor criticized the court's majority for ignoring whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. "Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case," Sotomayor wrote. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. 'MONUMENTAL VICTORY' Trump called the ruling a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law." The policies Trump said his administration can now attempt to proceed with included cutting off funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," suspending resettlement of refugees in the United States, freezing "unnecessary" federal funding and preventing federal funds from paying for gender-affirming surgeries. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue "universal" injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. The ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to seek wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
