Given the Chinese Communist Party’s sway over Hong Kong, it’s not surprising that a court in that once-free city convicted two leading journalists of sedition on Aug. 29. That doesn’t make the verdict, the first of its kind against journalists since China assumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, any less disturbing. It will probably have negative ramifications for the reputation of Hong Kong’s courts, its future as a global financial center and, perhaps most important, for journalists still trying to cover the city accurately and independently.
Комментарии 0
...комментариев пока нет
Hong Kong sedition verdict threatens more than just press freedom
Chung Pui-kuen, the former editor in chief of Stand News, and his successor Patrick Lam, who was acting editor in chief, stood accused of publishing articles designed to “spread hatred and anti-government sentiment with disinformation” and of inciting resistance against both the Chinese government in Beijing and the Beijing-controlled local authorities in Hong Kong. Stand News’s parent company was also found guilty of being an anti-China “localist” outlet, meaning an advocate of Hong Kong independence from mainland China. The two editors are out on bail after spending nearly a year in jail, but they face lengthy prison terms at sentencing later this month.
The judgment involved 11 articles published on the Stand News website between July 2020 and December 2021, when hundreds of armed police raided the outlet’s newsroom and then shut it down. Eight of the articles in question were opinion pieces, including one by exiled former legislator Nathan Law, a 31-year-old democratic activist who helped lead the city’s 2014 Umbrella Movement. Two other articles were interviews, including one with exiled former legislator Ted Hui, whom Hong Kong officials despise for having advocated U.S. sanctions against them.
Also at issue in the case was a feature story about a violent student takeover of Chinese University in 2019, at the height of antigovernment protests. The judge ruled that the article “glorified the behavior of the rioters” and made false allegations against the police. This is the classic language of censorship, from the mouth of a single judge presuming to determine whether a specific article was sufficiently fair and balanced.
Follow Editorial Board
The verdict was expected because Judge Kwok Wai-kin, who presided, had been handpicked by the city’s top leader, John Lee — who in turn had been installed at Beijing’s behest in 2022. Perhaps in commercial litigation or contract disputes, the courts can continue to exercise some autonomy. But on what authorities consider “national security cases,” the record is now clear: Hong Kong courts, once praised for their independence, have become weaponized in China’s campaign to crush any remaining embers of dissent.
Many international news agencies based their regional headquarters in Hong Kong, owing to its first-class communications and transportation, its proximity to the Chinese mainland, and Hong Kong’s role as a preeminent business and financial center. This verdict calls into question whether any media outlet can operate freely in the city.
Mr. Law, the former legislator, has written opinion pieces for this newspaper as well as the New York Times, the Guardian and others. Under this ruling, all of these outlets could now be threatened with a sedition charge in Hong Kong. Any media outlet with a bureau in Hong Kong or China might begin to think twice before interviewing an exiled dissident for fear of running afoul of the city’s national security law. Even a publication far outside the city might be accused inciting antigovernment hatred, since Hong Kong’s draconian security law contains a far-reaching “extraterritorial” provision, Article 38, that says anyone, anyplace in the world, can be charged with an offense against the city. China uses this kind of uncertainty as a means to try to keep journalists — and its own population — in check. A spokesman for the Hong Kong government said: “Members of the public (including journalists) in Hong Kong are, as always, free to make comments or criticisms that are based on facts, and to enjoy and exercise freedoms of the press and of speech in accordance with the law, without fear of unwittingly violating the law.” Officials in the past have defended extraterritoriality as similar to laws in various countries.
Still, media outlets have already moved all or part of their operations out of Hong Kong. Others are probably exploring exit plans. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club, Hong Kong, after the verdict, said: “The FCC will further assess the details of this verdict and its implications for our operations. Doubtlessly, news organizations throughout Hong Kong will be doing exactly the same.”
Hong Kong’s economy is struggling. Its property market is in a slump. The stock market has seen multiyear declines. Tourists from the United States and Europe have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Local and expatriate professionals have left the city or are considering leaving. The city has come up with various gimmicks — new talent schemes to attract overseas experts, funds to lure supposed “mega-events” like concerts and conventions. None are likely to work as long as the repression continues, the courts continue to do Beijing’s political bidding and the press is shackled.