HK's Tiananmen activists guilty in national security trial
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Two Hong Kong activists were found guilty of inciting subversion under the national security law for organizing Tiananmen Square vigils.
- Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung face up to 10 years in jail, with sentencing pending.
- The national security law, enacted in 2020, has been used to suppress dissent, making Hong Kong one of the few places in China where such commemorations were once possible.
Two Hong Kong activists have been convicted of inciting subversion under the city's national security law for their role in organizing annual vigils to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, were found guilty and face a maximum of 10 years in prison, with sentencing to be determined later. A third defendant, Albert Ho, had previously pleaded guilty.
endanger(ed) national security in the name of human rights
Prosecutors contended that the activists "endanger(ed) national security in the name of human rights." Chow, who represented herself, argued that the national security law itself was on trial. Hong Kong was historically one of the few locations in Chinese territory where public gatherings to mark the deadly 1989 crackdown were permitted.
Authorities banned these commemorative gatherings in 2020, citing COVID-19 policies, and they have not resumed since. This ban coincided with the implementation of the national security law, which broadly criminalizes dissent. Lee and Chow were leaders of the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance, established in May 1989 to support pro-democracy students.
the law itself was on trial
The crackdown in Beijing's Tiananmen Square saw the Communist Party use troops and tanks to suppress protests, with death toll estimates varying widely. For over three decades, the Alliance urged authorities to acknowledge responsibility for the crackdown, release dissidents, and introduce democratic reforms. The leaders were arrested in 2021 and have remained in custody. Amnesty International has criticized the case, stating it relies on "vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of 'subversion'."
relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of 'subversion'
Originally published by BBC News. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.