قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Seven democracy activists were convicted. What is the real trial?

Seven democracy activists were convicted. What is the real trial?



Davis wrote in an e-mail in New York: “The goal of the two governments seems to be to silence the opposition.” “Why keep the entire case within a moderate range.” [democrats] Who has long advocated non-violence? “

He said: “Having a grudge, but the effort to bring these people out is new.”

Their efforts can be traced back to the handover to China in 1997, and many people in Hong Kong see it as an opportunity to establish democratic rule for the first time in Hong Kong’s history. As a British royal colony, in more than a century of history, its residents have never been allowed to elect freely or govern themselves.

Many Hong Kong people aspire to lose colonial rule and become part of China. They feel that they can help Mao Zedong̵

7;s country, which has been plagued by decades of cruel politics and poverty, to rise. Then came the spring of 1989. After the Chinese People’s Liberation Army opened fire on the people of Beijing, some people joined the mass sit-in for freedom, and peaceful protests broke out in Hong Kong. The Chinese government knows it needs to calm the locals and the market. Beijing agrees to a constitution that gives freedom to protest, assemble, publish and strike. The constitution promises that Hong Kong will have these rights and a “high degree of autonomy” for 50 years, and finally elect its leaders through democratic elections. The Chinese legislature will have the power to intervene only in foreign affairs and national security affairs.

From the beginning, Beijing will not reject Hong Kong affairs. In 2014, the pace of these intrusions accelerated. At that time, when Xi Jinping was the president, Hong Kong once again encouraged full voting rights, especially the freedom to choose the chief executive without censoring Beijing. This triggered a 79-day large-scale sit-in event called the “Umbrella Revolution”, named after the device deployed by the police when they sprayed pepper spray in the crowd. Beijing did not succumb to their demands, but exhausted Hong Kong people know that there are many like-minded people who may use their anger again.

Prosecutions related to protests are increasing throughout 2020, and new prosecutions have been started all the time. Since the British colonial era, the government has been strictly enforcing strict public assembly laws. In June last year, Beijing implemented a broad national security law containing vague rules, and protesters faced greater danger. The law aims to prevent secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreigners. The law allows the government to rewrite provocative behaviors into more sinister and destabilizing behaviors, not just opposition to the law or officials. Some protest tactics, such as shouting or posting slogans seeking revolution, are seen as attacks on the Chinese central government. Some people face trial for this.

The decree arrested 100 people and prosecuted at least 54 people, including Lai, the founder of Next Media. In interviews with overseas officials and the media, Lai urged the United States to impose sanctions on China, and prosecutors may consider colluding with foreign forces during the trial. In February, when the Hong Kong government accused 47 lawyers, district councillors and activists of conspiring to subvert the government, most residents were blindfolded. Their offense was related to an informal primary election aimed at selecting slate sufficient to overthrow the majority of pro-China groups and exert greater pressure on Beijing.

In a city that used to commemorate most holidays with protests, large-scale, organized disagreements with the government can no longer be tolerated. Since the beginning of 2020, the police have not approved any marches, vigils or protests on the grounds of the pandemic. These include the annual candlelight vigil to pay tribute to the victims of Tiananmen Square on June 4th every year since 1990. (In good circumstances, people gathered in Victoria Park on June 4, 2020 to commemorate the event after overthrowing the obstacle.) We are convinced that under the new security law, Hong Kong will never be on guard again.

Since the democratic protest By the beginning of 2020, the police began to gather hundreds of protesters. Observers wanted to know why all seven people in courtroom 3 were charged. In last year’s demonstrations, Martin Lee and his colleagues played at best a secondary role. The Citizens Human Rights Front is a civil society that has organized mass demonstrations for many years, with only one defendant. (That person, Au Nok-hin pleaded guilty on the first day of the trial. He is now in jail and charged in the main case in July.)

Wu Guoxing, chairman of the Social Democratic League initiated by Liang Guoxiong, participated in the 20-day trial. He said that prosecuting these seven people is “the easiest way to cause fear among the public.” Wu faced his own protest barrier charges in another case. He told me during a break: “If the most cautious and least aggressive leader can try to walk in the rain, this will set a low threshold for the rest of us.”

The trial part became a referendum on Hong Kong’s “Procession” Act, which is a vestige of British colonial rule, giving the police the right to allow or refuse any public demonstrations regardless of peace. At the closing ceremony of the trial, the defendant’s barrister argued that the procession after the legal assembly should never be prohibited. With all subway entrances blocked, the defendant and thousands of participants had no choice but to leave the crowded assembly on foot. Yes, they shouted slogans while holding up banners.

The police told the court that they refused to approve the march requested by the front that day because the previous protests had ended and some people threw Molotov cocktails. They say that allowing a turbulent protest will cause trouble, and the theme of the protest is anti-police. The defense argued that by imposing a ban, the police punish the peace organization for violent actions by others.

The defense also put forward a constitutional argument: allowing the police to sanction or stop protests, causing an undue prevention of freedom of speech, which violates the city’s constitution.


Source link