Hong Kong activist Chow Hang-tung's full mitigation statement after national security trial conviction

Tiananmen vigil activists Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, along with the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were found guilty of inciting subversion under the national security law. Albert Ho had previously pleaded guilty. The activists face potential jail sentences of up to 10 years.

“

The 206-page judgment, after all, boils down to saying that pursuing democracy is a crime.

Chow Hang-tung, a barrister who represented herself during the trial, was prevented by the judge from reading more than the initial sentences of her mitigation statement in court on Friday. The full statement, later published on her Patreon page, presents a strong defense of democratic principles.

In her statement, Chow argues that the judgment effectively criminalizes the pursuit of democracy. She criticizes the notion that any political party can unilaterally claim sovereignty and demand citizens' obedience, labeling such laws as euphemisms for tyranny. She asserts that believing in democracy over dictatorship is a fundamental belief, and under the current legal framework, holding such a thought is deemed unlawful.

“

I find it entirely unpalatable that any political party can barter away a nation’s sovereignty, claim to represent the will of the people, appoint itself as the sole authority, and then insist that citizens are legally bound to uphold its self-fashioned throne. A law of this nature is nothing more than a euphemism for tyranny.

Chow further contends that while laws cannot govern thoughts, a law that defies human conscience ultimately loses its legitimacy. She draws a stark parallel between the court's actions and the unthinking obedience that led to atrocities under Nazi rule and other totalitarian regimes. She argues that when the court disregards facts and morality to enforce the regime's will, it strips the law of its pursuit of justice, reducing it to a tool of political expediency.

“

Believing that dictatorship is wrong and democracy is right – if that isn’t a belief, then what is? Even if the courts and the government attempt to claim, like a chanted mantra, that they are not judging beliefs, they cannot change the reality: under this judgment, anyone who believes in the principle of ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ has nowhere left to stand. In the eyes of this brand of ‘law’, holding such a thought inherently contravenes the Constitution – rendering it unlawful, an original sin. Even when we engage in entirely legitimate acts, such as commemorating June 4 th , it becomes a crime simply because of the perceived ‘impropriety’ of our thoughts.

She concludes by stating that genuine rule of law cannot survive under a dictatorship. The judgment, she implies, forces individuals to choose between blind obedience and upholding fundamental principles, highlighting a critical distinction between democratic societies and autocratic regimes.

“

Yet the law cannot govern what a person thinks. Not only is it incapable of doing so, but when it openly defies the human conscience, it is the law itself that ultimately suffers – forfeiting its very legitimacy.