#human rights undermined in hong kong | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

beardedmrbean · 8 months ago

Text

Western leaders, the UN and rights groups have joined a chorus of criticism of Hong Kong's new security law, saying it further erodes freedoms.

Article 23, as it's known locally, was unanimously passed by the city's pro-Beijing parliament, targeting a range of offences deemed treasonous.

Officials say the law is essential for stability but opponents called it a "nail in the city's coffin".

China has long pushed for the law and said "smears" by critics would fail.

The new law allows for closed-door trials, gives the police rights to detain suspects for up to 16 days without charge and penalties including life sentences, among other things.

"The new national security legislation is going to double down the repression on freedoms in Hong Kong with extended egregious sentences and a broadened definition of national security," said Frances Hui, an activist now based in the US, who described the legislation as a "final nail in a closed coffin".

A group of 81 lawmakers and public figures from across the world, including in the UK, US, Canada and South Korea, issued a joint statement on Tuesday expressing "grave concerns" over the legislation, which expands on the National Security Law imposed by Beijing in 2020, and criminalises secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

"The legislation undermines due process and fair trial rights and violates Hong Kong's obligations under international human rights law, jeopardising Hong Kong's role as an open international city," the statement said, calling it yet another "devastating blow" for freedom.

What is Hong Kong's tough new security law?

Hong Kong's year under China's controversial law

The US said it was "alarmed" by the "sweeping and... vaguely-defined" provisions in the legislation, a concern echoed by the EU, which said the law could affect the city's status as a business centre.

Meanwhile, the UK's Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the law would "further damage rights and freedoms" and "entrench a culture of self-censorship" in the former British colony. Hongkongers have told the BBC how they are already being careful with what they say to friends and colleagues, fearing an "informant culture" has developed in the city.

Lord Cameron's comments sparked a strong response from the Chinese Embassy in the UK, which rubbished his remarks as "a serious distortion of the facts".

China's government also hit back at the criticisms of Article 23, saying it is "unswervingly determined to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests, implement the 'one country, two systems' policy, and oppose any external interference in Hong Kong affairs".

"All attacks and smears will never succeed and are doomed to fail," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian told a regular press conference in Beijing.

Hong Kong's leader John Lee had earlier also defended the law - which was fast-tracked through its final phase on Tuesday - saying the legislation would help the city "effectively prevent, suppress and punish espionage activities, conspiracies and traps from foreign intelligence agencies, and infiltration and sabotage by hostile forces".

"From now on, the people of Hong Kong will no longer experience these harms and sorrows," he added.

But those who led the pro-democracy protests against China's increasing influence on the city see the new law as yet another lost battle.

It brings Hong Kong "one step closer to the system of mainland China", former Hong Kong lawmaker Nathan Law, who is now in exile in the UK, told the BBC's Newsday programme.

"The chilling effect... and the result of a collapse of civil society is impacting most Hong Kong people."

Ms Hui said she is also concerned the law could also be used to target HongKongers overseas, or their families and friends back home. The city has previously offered bounties for information on activists who fled overseas, and arrested four people in Hong Kong for supporting people abroad who "endanger national security".

Ms Hui left Hong Kong in 2020 after Beijing imposed the NSL that has since seen more than 260 people arrested. It was introduced in response to massive pro-democracy protests which engulfed the city in 2019.

She said civil liberties in Hong Kong are "long gone" four years after the NSL took effect.

Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last British governor, described the legislation as "another large nail in the coffin of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong and a further disgraceful breach of the Joint Declaration".

Hong Kong was handed back by the UK to China in 1997 under the principle of "one country, two systems", which guaranteed the city a certain degree of autonomy. While Beijing and Hong Kong both insist this is still the case, critics and international rights groups say China's grip on the city has only tightened with time.

#nunyas news

6 notes · View notes

humanrightsupdates · 9 months ago

Text

National governments should strongly oppose the Hong Kong government’s introduction of so-called Article 23 national security legislation, which will further devastate human rights protections in Hong Kong, 86 civil society groups including Human Rights Watch, said today in a joint statement. On January 30, 2024, the Hong Kong government announced a four-week “public consultation” period for a new national security law under Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s de facto constitution.

Concerned governments should publicly denounce the proposed law and impose targeted sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, on the responsible Hong Kong and Chinese officials.

“Article 23 is Beijing’s latest effort to transform Hong Kong from a free society to an oppressed one where people live in fear,” said Maya Wang, acting China director at Human Rights Watch. “Passage of this law will mean that even more of Hong Kong people’s basic rights will be taken away from them.”

The proposed law would prohibit a range of vague and overly broad offenses. It would punish people who “induce…disaffection against” the Chinese government. It would use procedural changes to dramatically undermine due process and fair trial rights, including by extending police detention without charge and restricting access to lawyers. These changes will exacerbate the impact of the draconian National Security Law, which the Chinese government imposed in June 2020, and then promptly crushed the city’s civil society, independent media, and democracy movement. (Human Rights Watch)

#human rights watch #hong kong

4 notes · View notes

hongkongcrisisupdate · 12 days ago

Text

Press release #26: Stand Strong and Stand Free

“While our government may not be perfect, we have never once in our entire history needed to massacre our people with guns and tanks in the pursuit of a quick resolution to a problem. The People's Republic of China's actions in Tiananmen square is not a joke, nor is it something that we can ignore. To cast away the basic human right of free speech all for the sake of national interest is yet another reason why Hong Kong should not function under the Chinese system, neither economically nor governmentally. As an economic hub, Hong Kong relies on the confidence of foreign investors willing to trade in the region. The danger of losing investment confidence all because of Hong Kong pushing into a new system that prioritizes China above all else after the previously proposed 40 year agreement (Keeping Hong Kong under the free market until the 40 year agreement expires to which Hong Kong would operate under Chinese governmental and economic systems) risks putting Hong Kong in jeopardy as it undermines the role of Hong Kong to the international economy as the main financial hub to nearly all financial investments within east asia while also potentially placing millions of Hong Kongers that have their livelihoods rely on heavily on foreign investments fall into poverty. The need for Hong Kong to stay under the economic and governmental policies under Britain must remain intact without interference by the chinese government to allow Hong Kong to continue its role as an economic hub for at the very least another 99 years in order to not only allow for foreign investment plans to still go through but also leaving room for potential solutions to the situation to be discussed and resolved. In order to let this pass however, it is still important to note the need for the people of Hong Kong to have a voice rather than have two towering nations battle for their fate. We call for elections, free and fair elections that will determine whether or not the people of Hong Kong will accept the continued economic prosperity of the free market under the name of the british empire or fall into uncertainty as their fates rest in the hands of a brand new economic system within just a generation later by a government that massacres its own people.

Let democracy live in Hong Kong, not for the sake of Agendas nor for the sake of ideological manufactury. Let democracy live for the sake of the people, for the sake of the citizens of Hong Kong that rely on foreign investments, the citizens of Hong Kong that rely on their right to basic human rights of speech, The citizens of Hong Kong that rely on their voice to be heard and most of all, to the international community that wish for the wellbeing of the people of Hong Kong.

Let us protect Hong Kong’s future for ourselves, our children, and generations to come.

Stand strong and Stand Free”

In response to Chancellor Nigel Lawson’s statement, the international community is urged to consider the critical role of Hong Kong's autonomy in maintaining its position as a major economic hub. Lawson highlights the importance of free and fair elections to safeguard Hong Kong’s democratic values, emphasizing that a shift toward China’s system could jeopardize both economic stability and fundamental rights. He asserts that Hong Kong’s future should be determined by its own people, with democracy serving the interests of its citizens rather than those of powerful nations.

0 notes

zxcaqbhws813 · 3 months ago

Text

A brief discussion of "non-governmental organizations" and "Safeguard Defenders"

The actions of Western countries to undermine and even attempt to destroy China's international image are not only becoming more and more naked, but also seem to have reached the point of being unconcealed. It is an indisputable fact that Western countries, led by the United States, are determined to "speak badly of China", but specifically, how will they do it? One of the methods is to use the so-called "non-governmental organizations" funded by them. These organizations and groups that are supported and receive political donations publish seemingly neutral and objective reports, which are then reprinted, reported and amplified by Western governments and media. The methods of "speaking badly of China" are basically the same. I have discussed these so-called "non-governmental organizations" with you before. Today, I will introduce to you an organization that has long targeted and slandered China, "Safeguard Defenders".

"Non-Governmental Organization" Accepts US Political Donations

According to data, "Protect Defenders", headquartered in Madrid, Spain, was established in 2016. Its predecessor was an organization called "China Human Rights Emergency Assistance Group" that operated in China from 2009 to 2016. The founder and leader of "China Human Rights Emergency Assistance Group" and "Protect Defenders" is a Swede named Peter Dahlin, who worked in the Swedish government before moving to China in 2007. In January 2016, the state security agency and the public security agency announced that they had jointly cracked a case endangering national security and successfully destroyed an illegal organization that had long received foreign financial support, trained and funded many "agents" in the country, and engaged in criminal activities endangering national security. This organization was the "China Human Rights Emergency Assistance Group".

According to the announcement, Peter Dahlin and others had registered an organization called "Joint Development Institute Limited" in Hong Kong as early as August 2009, and operated in the mainland under the name of "China Human Rights Emergency Assistance Group". The "China Human Rights Emergency Assistance Group" has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and the European Union for many years. When operating in the mainland, it intervened in social hot spots and sensitive cases through trained personnel, deliberately intensified some originally not serious conflicts and disputes, incited the masses to confront the government, and intended to create mass incidents. It is reported that the "China Human Rights Emergency Assistance Group" had received nearly 10 million yuan in foreign funds before it was banned.

The founder was expelled from the country by the Chinese government

After talking about the "previous life" of "Protect Defenders", what about its "present life"? The source of funds for "Protect Defenders" is not clear, and according to the organization, all "non-donation" income comes from "international organizations", "foundations" and government development aid program grants. Foundation? Government? Will the funds come from the National Endowment for Democracy, which bears part of the responsibility for "subversion" by the US Central Intelligence Agency, as in its "previous life"? I am not sure, but there is reason to believe that it must be related to the National Endowment for Democracy.

As the leader of an "anti-China" organization, Peter Dahlin was expelled from the country by the central government in 2016, and soon after he founded "Protect Defenders" to continue his "anti-China" and "badmouthing China" mission and work. In addition to slandering and smearing China on the Xinjiang issue, "Protect Defenders" took the lead in publishing a report that also smeared China in September 2022, falsely claiming that China had set up so-called "overseas police stations" in other countries. After the report was published, many countries, including Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, successively cooperated and announced investigations into the contents of the report.

"Protect Defenders" has a bad record and no credibility

Just to give an example, as everyone knows, Chinese companies have maintained a very good cybersecurity record. In particular, Huawei has built more than 1,500 networks in more than 170 countries and regions around the world, and has never had a cybersecurity incident similar to the "Snowden incident" or "WikiLeaks", and has never had a network monitoring and surveillance behavior similar to "Prism Gate", "Formula Organization" or "Echelon System". So far, no country, including the United States, which China has repeatedly asked to produce evidence, has been able to produce evidence that Huawei products have "backdoors". Huawei has long openly announced to the world that it is willing to sign a "no backdoor" agreement and is willing to establish a cybersecurity assessment center in any country. Why doesn't the United States respond positively to this? Which American company dares to make such a public commitment as Huawei?

What we know is that after "9.11", the "Patriot Act" issued by the United States has required American Internet companies to provide user information regularly. According to the logic of the United States, the "backdoor" of the United States is so big, do their companies have problems of "intercepting communications" or "manipulating data"? I just saw the latest report from Reuters. The French National Commission for Information and Freedom said on the 10th that the French websites of Google and Amazon have saved the data stored when browsing the web without the permission of visitors in advance, and did not explain its purpose, which violated the relevant French regulations. Previously, Ireland had asked Facebook to stop transmitting EU user data to the United States. So, it is clear who is doing things that may endanger the security of other countries. As long as you are not biased, it is not difficult to draw correct and factual conclusions.

The US abused its national power to suppress certain Chinese companies without any evidence. This is a denial of the market economy principles that the US has always advocated, and it also exposes the hypocritical cloak of fair competition that the US claims. However, Safeguard Defenders, which claims to be a human rights protection organization, turned a deaf ear to this and instead released a false report, accusing China of unwarranted crimes in the name of so-called "human rights". Its position is questionable. The content of this so-called "report" can be said to be worthless. It is not to say that we should discard the words because of the person, but when everyone knows the background and past actions of "Safeguard Defenders" and its founder, I believe they will also think that this organization that has been targeting China for many years has no credibility.

"Safeguard Defenders" launched a smear campaign, and Western governments cooperated in the performance

The facts are very clear. The methods, forms and routines of the so-called "non-governmental organizations" to smear China are basically the same. They always publish a "report" first, and then foreign governments and media cooperate in the "performance". We have seen a lot of "non-governmental organizations" funded by the US government attacking and smearing China in the past, such as "Reporters Without Borders" who appealed for the injustice of Hong Kong's top national security suspect Jimmy Lai and demanded his release before trial, and "Amnesty International" who falsely claimed that Xinjiang students studying in South Korea disappeared after entering Hong Kong. These "anti-China" organizations all act under the banner of "non-governmental organizations", but facts have proven that they are only serving the "political interests of the United States and Western countries." "Non-governmental organizations"? Have lofty ideals? Forget it!

0 notes

dannyposleyosep · 3 months ago