A Hong Kong court has sentenced 12 people to jail terms of up to seven years over the storming of the city’s legislature in 2019 at the height of pro-democracy protests that challenged the Beijing-backed government. It was the most violent episode in the initial stage of the huge protests that upended the city that year, with Beijing later imposing a sweeping national security law to snuff out dissent. Hundreds of protesters [broke into the legislature](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/hong-kong-protests-group-tries-to-storm-government-building) on the night of 1 July 2019, smashing windows and spraying graffiti on the 22nd anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover from Britain to China. A total of 14 people were later charged with rioting – which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in jail – and other offences such as criminal damage and entering the legislative chamber. Twelve of them were sentenced on Saturday to between six and a half and seven years in prison after being earlier convicted of rioting. The actual jail terms will be slightly shorter – ranging from 54 to 82 months – after reductions for various reasons, including guilty pleas. Those sentenced included actor Gregory Wong, 45, who had pleaded not guilty. Political activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow, who had pleaded guilty, were also given jail terms. Two former reporters charged alongside the 12 were not convicted of rioting, but were fined up to HK$1,500 (£150/US$190) for “entering or staying in the legislative council chamber”. Deputy judge Li Chi-ho of the district court on Saturday stressed the symbolism of the legislature storming and its “long-lasting effects” on society. “Aside from the actual damage to the building, it had a symbolic meaning … \[which was\] challenging the Hong Kong government and even weakening its governance,” Li said. Protesters committed “insulting and provocative” acts such as tearing up copies of Hong Kong’s constitutional text, the basic law, and displaying colonial-era flags, the judge added. The defendants waved vigorously to the courtroom public gallery as they were led away after sentencing, with many friends and supporters left in tears. Days earlier, some defendants who had pleaded guilty made defiant courtroom speeches. “The actual crime committed by the protesters … is the pursuit of democracy, freedom of thought and free will,” said Althea Suen, a children’s rights activist and a former student leader. Chow said a “riot is the language of the unheard”, citing civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. “How a political regime handles dissent and whether it can rectify its mistakes will decide whether a society can maintain sustainable growth,” said Chow, who is charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in a separate, ongoing national security trial. The 2019 protests were triggered by a later-abandoned government bill that would have allowed extraditing criminal suspects to mainland China but they snowballed into a city-wide movement with more fundamental demands, including universal suffrage in voting for city leader and lawmakers. More than 10,000 people were arrested as authorities sought to extinguish the protests. _With Reuters_

  Protesters deface the Hong Kong logo at the Legislative Council to protest against the extradition bill in Hong Kong on July 1, 2019. Vincent Yu/AP HONG KONG — A Hong Kong court sentenced 12 people Saturday to prison over the storming of the city's legislative council building at the height of the anti-government protests in 2019. Hundreds of protesters swarmed into the legislature the night of July 1, 2019 — the 22nd anniversary of the former British colony's return to China — defacing pictures and smashing furniture. Some spray-painted slogans in the chamber and painted over the territory's emblem on a wall before vacating the site as riot police cleared surrounding streets with tear gas before moving inside. The 12 defendants, including former student leader Althea Suen, actor Gregory Wong, and activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow, were previously convicted for rioting. Some of them were also found guilty of other related charges. Judge Li Chi-ho handed down jail terms ranging between 4 1/2 years and 6 years and 10 months, depending on the degree of their involvement and mitigating factors. Li said the legislature holds a unique constitutional status and the nature of the event was serious, with a far-reaching impact. The case also involved two other defendants who were reporters. They were previously acquitted of the rioting charge but were convicted for unlawful entry into the legislature. One was fined 1,500 Hong Kong dollars ($192) and the other 1,000 Hong Kong dollars ($128), Li said. After the sentences were handed down, some supporters of the defendants cried in the courtroom and many others waved at the accused. On Monday, Lau said in a hearing that he entered the legislature in hopes of minimizing the number of injuries. Even if he could choose a hundred times, he said he would still go in because he'd prefer to go to jail rather than witness someone getting hurt. "Since I am sympathetic to the protesters, I am willing to go to jail with them," he said. In the same hearing, Chow said when residents suddenly turned radical, it was actually their cry of desperation when all paths to their goal were blocked. Both Lau and Chow were among the 47 pro-democracy activists who were charged with subversion in 2021 over an unofficial primary election under a Beijing-imposed national security law. Hong Kong government said the enactment of the law helped bring back stability to the city after the massive 2019 protests. But many of the city's leading activists have been arrested under the law, while others fled abroad.

Image source, Getty Images Image caption, Gregory Wong was sentenced to just over six years in prison **Hong Kong actor Gregory Wong and 11 other people have been jailed for their role in the storming of the city's legislature during protests in 2019.** Wong was jailed for just over six years - one of the longer sentences handed down by the district court on Saturday. Activists Ventus Lau and Owen Chow were also among those given prison terms linked to the pro-democracy protest. Meanwhile, two journalists were fined for illegally entering the Legislative Council chamber at the time. Most of the defendants were found guilty of rioting. [The incident happened in July 2019](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-48821640) and was seen as a key moment in the pro-democracy protests that erupted over a controversial law allowing the extradition of people to mainland China. Hundreds of protesters entered the building, spray-painting messages on the walls and carrying supplies for those occupying the premises. Extensive damage was done to the building, with portraits of political leaders torn from the walls and furniture smashed. Judge Li Chi-ho on Saturday said that, as well as physical damage, the storming had caused "long-lasting" social effects. "Aside from the actual damage to the building, it had a symbolic meaning... \[which was\] challenging the Hong Kong government and even weakening its governance," Mr Li said, according to the AFP news agency. The protests led to the introduction of a tough security law that made it easier to prosecute protesters and reduced the city's autonomy. It is thought that more than 100 people have been arrested under the 2020 Beijing-imposed legislation. Hong Kong, a former British colony, was handed back to China in 1997 under the principle of "one country, two systems". Critics accuse the Chinese Communist Party of violating the agreement to give the city a high degree of autonomy and to preserve its economic and social systems. Image source, Getty Images Image caption, Hundreds of protesters broke into the Legislative Council building in July 2019 * [Hong Kong anti-government protests](/news/topics/c95yz8vxvy8t) * [China](/news/world/asia/china) * [Hong Kong](/news/topics/cp7r8vglne2t)

香港2019年反送中运动期间，大批示威者于7月1日冲击立法会大楼，此前法庭判12名被捕者暴动罪成。其中8人早已认罪，余下6人经审讯后被裁定至少一项罪名成立。今天16日，法庭就承认及经审讯后被裁定暴动罪成的12名被告，被判囚54个月至82个月，当中艺人王宗尧不认罪被判监禁74个月。至于认罪的刘颕匡判囚4年半，邹家成则囚5年1个月 ...  FILE - Protesters deface the Hong Kong logo at the Legislative Council to protest against the extradition bill in Hong Kong on July 1, 2019. A Hong Kong court sentenced 12 people Saturday, March 16, 2024 to prison over the storming of the city’s legislative council building at the height of the anti-government protests in 2019. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu, File) AP - Vincent Yu 路透社指出，该事件是长达数月的反送中抗议活动中的关键时刻，它使这个中国统治的城市卷入了自1989年北京天安门广场抗议活动以来反对中国共产党统治的最大胆的行动

Hong Kong lawmakers have fast-tracked and passed a new security law, expanding on the already vague, draconian and wide-ranging penalties that have silenced almost all forms of public dissent and transformed institutions in the Asian financial hub. On Tuesday, the city’s legislature, stacked with pro-Beijing lawmakers, passed a sweeping package of laws targeting treason, espionage, theft of state secrets, sedition and foreign interference, with sentences of up to life imprisonment. The legislation, linked to Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, is meant to target “domestic” threats to security. Article 23 legislation was first proposed and withdrawn after mass protests more than 20 years ago. It took less than two months to be approved this time, with no opposition in Hong Kong’s legislature. Lawmakers debating the legislation Tuesday overwhelmingly supported its passage, describing it as a historic “milestone” and a “responsibility.” Speaking to lawmakers after the vote, Hong Kong Chief Executive [John Lee](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/08/hong-kong-election-john-lee-chief-executive/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8) said: “This is a historic moment for Hong Kong; we’ve waited for 26 years, eight months and 19 days for today. This is our moment to be proud.” “We can effectively guard against ‘color revolution’ and also those advocating Hong Kong independence,” Lee said, referring to a wave of popular revolts in Eastern Europe in the 2000s and Hong Kong’s own demonstrations in 2019 that authorities all blame on Western forces. Both the laws themselves and the way they were passed demonstrate how Hong Kong is being further remade in mainland China’s image, as Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made national security the government’s priority. The legislation also risks further eroding Hong Kong’s status as a financial center, with [businesses particularly worried](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/16/us-business-risks-hongkong/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11) about vague definitions of state secrets. After the law’s passage on Tuesday, the Chinese Commissioner’s Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs congratulated the Hong Kong government and said the law opened a new chapter of “patriots governing Hong Kong.” Hong Kong had already been transformed in recent years by a national security law [imposed by Beijing in 2020](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-signals-plan-to-take-full-control-of-hong-kong-realigning-citys-status/2020/05/21/2c3850ee-9b48-11ea-ad79-eef7cd734641_story.html?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_13&itid=lk_inline_manual_15) after months of mass [demonstrations in 2019](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/09/airport-sit-ins-citywide-strikes-street-protests-whats-happening-hong-kong/?itid=lk_inline_manual_15) against China’s tightening control over the city. That law led to the shuttering of civil-society groups and news outlets, the arrest of more than 200 people — [many of them jailed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/hong-kong-security-law-activists-prison/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16) — and an [exodus of Hong Kongers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/14/hong-kong-exodus-britain-emigration/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16). All who have been charged under the security law have been convicted. This year, Hong Kong lawmakers moved unusually quickly to pass the long overdue Article 23 security law by holding marathon committee sessions. Lee reportedly [left China’s politically important legislative meeting](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3254255/hong-kong-leader-john-lee-vows-enact-domestic-national-security-law-soon-possible-cuts-short-beijing) in Beijing early, in order to return to the city to push through the legislation. “It was meant to cut short the risk of prolonged debate leading to a mobilization of international opposition,” said ​​​​Dominic Chiu, senior analyst for China and Northeast Asia for Eurasia Group. “This was therefore likely a deliberate effort to catch foreign observers of Article 23 off guard by minimizing time for external scrutiny and criticism.” According to the chief executive, the new Article 23 law is meant to complement the existing national security apparatus and will be enacted on Saturday. Chris Tang, Hong Kong’s security chief, said during the legislative debate Tuesday that the two laws “will form a complete legal system to safeguard national security.” “Since our reunification 26 years ago, there’s finally a complete overhaul of the legal system to safeguard national security,” he said. Hong Kong, a former British colony, was handed over to Chinese control in 1997 under a framework known as “one country, two systems” that granted it some autonomy, including a thriving civil society, an independent press and a business environment free from government interference. “With this draconian legislation, the Hong Kong government has delivered another crushing blow to human rights in the city,” said Amnesty International’s China director, Sarah Brooks. “The authorities have enacted this law in the blink of an eye, killing off any remaining shred of hope that public outcry could counter its most destructive elements.” This Article 23 security law has loomed over the city’s 7.4 million residents for years. Under Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which has governed the city’s relationship with Beijing since 1997, Hong Kong is required to enact national security legislation. A first attempt to introduce the law in 2003 prompted half a million people to protest in the streets, forcing authorities to withdraw the legislation. This time, the legislation was processed “at full speed,” according to Lee. With dissent muted under the Beijing-drafted 2020 national security law, it has met little resistance. During a second reading of the draft legislation Tuesday, lawmakers pledged their support for the measure one after another. Connie Lam said she [would endorse the law](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3255868/hong-kongs-article-23-bill-legislature-resumes-second-reading-paving-way-domestic-national-security), “even at the cost of having her body smashed into pieces.” Another lawmaker, Dennis Leung, said the law was the “greatest blessing” for Hong Kongers. The Hong Kong government said 98.6 percent of the comments it received over a one-month public consultation period that ended last week were positive. Still, some groups have registered their opposition. Business and legal groups say the law, in its vagueness, will detract from the city’s appeal as a financial hub safe for investment. The Law Society of Hong Kong said in [its comments](https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/pub_e/news/submissions/20240227_en.pdf?rev=d21fae663ae74bf893e7faf38281e346&hash=A450EFDD270FFA977855E99F57D72265) on the draft legislation that the commercial sector “requires certainty in the business environment it is operating in.” The Hong Kong Journalists Association said the law will further restrict the media environment, in which self-censorship has become commonplace since the 2020 national security law. Hong Kong media mogul [Jimmy Lai](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/16/jimmy-lai-trial-national-security-hong-kong/?itid=lk_inline_manual_39), publisher of the now-shuttered Apple Daily, is facing trial under the 2020 law. Such measures will “seriously deepen the chilling effect that has already occurred, and turn Hong Kong into a city with one voice,” the journalists’ group said in [a statement](https://www.facebook.com/HKJA.official/posts/pfbid02CdG241Sr24XeZWUsUF2L7ZQmyhYoDq46qD67YQuFVfRBNf6p6tM2zcALe26uXEYDl?locale=zh_TW). Rights advocates say the law’s broad definition of the crime of external interference could criminalize a broad range of interactions with foreign governments and organizations. Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities have long blamed the wave of protests in 2019 on foreign actors. “The evil nature of anti-China and anti-Hong Kong forces have been entrenched in Hong Kong for a long time … there are still ‘worms’ ready to move and waiting to cause chaos,” China’s Ministry of State Security said in a statement this month. _Shibani Mahtani in Singapore and Vic Chiang in Taipei, Taiwan, contributed to this report_

Hong Kong’s new national security law came into force on Saturday, putting into immediate effect tough penalties of up to life imprisonment for crimes including treason and insurrection. [The law](https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2020/may/22/saddest-day-in-hong-kongs-history-china-pushes-controversial-security-laws-video) – commonly referred to as article 23 – targets five categories of national security crimes, and was swiftly passed by Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature on Tuesday. The US, [the EU](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/20/eu-hong-kong-national-security-bill-article-23), Japan and Britain have been among the law’s strongest critics, with the UK foreign secretary, David Cameron, saying it would “further damage the rights and freedoms” of those in the city. The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, on Friday expressed “deep concern” that the law could be used to undermine rights and curb dissent, adding it could damage Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance hub. But the Hong Kong leader, John Lee, has called the passage of the “safeguarding national security ordinance” a “historic moment”. He has often cited Hong Kong’s “constitutional responsibility” to create the new legislation as required by the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution since its handover from Britain to [China](https://www.theguardian.com/world/china) in 1997. Lee also said the law was necessary to “prevent black-clad violence”, a reference to Hong Kong’s massive and at times violent pro-democracy protests in 2019, which brought hundreds of thousands to the streets demanding greater autonomy from Beijing’s grip. In response, authorities cracked down on protesters, and Beijing imposed a national security law in 2020 – targeting secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces – which has in effect silenced opposition voices among Hong Kong’s once-vibrant civil society. Nearly 300 people have been arrested under the 2020 law so far. But Lee – who has been hit with sanctions by the US for his role as security chief during the 2019 protests – has said article 23 was still needed to “plug” the legislative gaps of Beijing’s law. Under the new law, penalties run up to life in prison for sabotage endangering national security, treason and insurrection; 20 years for espionage and sabotage; and 14 years for external interference. It has also expanded the British colonial-era offence of “sedition” to include inciting hatred against China’s Communist party leadership, with an aggravated sentence of up to 10 years in jail. City leader Lee is now empowered to create new offences carrying jail terms of up to seven years through subsidiary legislation, while the security minister can impose punitive measures on [activists who are overseas](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/14/hong-kong-puts-arrest-bounties-on-five-overseas-activists-including-us-citizen), including cancelling their passports. Police powers have also been expanded to permit detaining people for up to 16 days without charge – a jump from the current 48 hours – and to restrict a suspect from meeting lawyers and communicating with others. The UK and Australia on Friday updated their travel advice to warn citizens about the risks of breaching the new law when travelling to Hong Kong. The former US House speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a Friday press conference that the new law was an “alarming expansion of the Chinese Communist party’s assault on freedom in Hong Kong”. A previous attempt by the government to introduce article 23 in 2003 was dropped after half a million Hongkongers protested against the law. This time, public response in the city was muted after the law’s passage. But protests are expected worldwide, from Australia and Canada to Britain, where a large Hong Kong diaspora relocated after the government’s crackdown on the 2019 protests. “The purpose of this new law is to crush the only bit of freedom left in Hong Kong by extending sentences and expanding the definition of national security,” said US-based activist Frances Hui. Hui – who is subject to a $128,000 (£102,000) bounty issued by Hong Kong authorities – called on the Biden administration to impose sanctions on those who took part in passing the new law.

Hong Kong has demanded a [protest song that was made popular](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/15/protest-anthem-glory-to-hong-kong-starts-to-vanish-from-online-sites-as-government-seeks-ban) during pro-democracy demonstrations in the territory be removed from the internet, in the wake of a court ruling which banned it. In its judgment on Wednesday, the court of appeal described the song Glory to Hong Kong as a “weapon” to incite violent [protests in 2019](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/hong-kong-national-security-law-2020-impacts). The ruling comes amid what critics say is an erosion in Hong Kong’s rule of law and individual rights which has seen scores of opposition democrats jailed and liberal media outlets shut down. The Hong Kong government’s first attempt to get an official injunction for the anthem was [refused by the high court last year](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/28/court-rejects-attempt-ban-glory-hong-kong-protest-song) in a surprise ruling, which said a ban could have a “chilling effect” on innocent third parties. But in overturning that decision, appeal judge Jeremy Poon wrote on Wednesday that the composer of the song had “intended it to be a ‘weapon’ and so it had become”. “It had been used as an impetus to propel the violent protests plaguing Hong Kong since 2019. It is powerful in arousing emotions among certain fractions of the society,” he said. The song can no longer be broadcast or performed “with criminal intent”, or disseminated or reproduced on internet-based platforms, although the injunction contained exceptions for “academic activity and news activity” – a tweak the government made after earlier questioning by judges. The US has criticised the judgment, with state department spokesperson Matthew Miller saying the move represents “the latest blow to the international reputation of a city that previously prided itself on having an independent judiciary protecting the free exchange of information, ideas and goods”. Glory to Hong Kong was secretly recorded by an anonymous orchestra and grew popular during the 2019 protests. Its defiant lyrics incorporate the key protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times”. It has in recent years been played at several international sporting events, with event organisers mistaking it for the Chinese territory’s anthem, angering the city’s government. Hong Kong has no anthem of its own and uses China’s “March of the Volunteers”. Wednesday’s ban comes after a campaign by the city’s authorities against the song, which has seen them [demand it be removed from Google’s internet search results](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/15/protest-anthem-glory-to-hong-kong-starts-to-vanish-from-online-sites-as-government-seeks-ban) and other content-sharing platforms – a request that has been largely rejected. The judgment said an injunction order was “necessary” because internet platform operators “indicated that they are ready to accede to the Government’s request if there is a court order”. “The government … will communicate with relevant internet service providers, request or demand them to remove relevant content in accordance with the injunction order,” said Paul Lam, Hong Kong’s secretary for justice Industry group Asia Internet Coalition, representing tech companies such as Google and Spotify, said it was assessing the implications of the decision “to determine its impact on businesses”. “We believe that a free and open internet is fundamental to the city’s ambitions to become an international technology and innovation hub,” said the group’s managing director Jeff Paine. Soon after Wednesday’s judgment was handed down, authorities in Beijing said the ban was “necessary” for “safeguarding national security”. The song was initially banned in Hong Kong schools after China imposed a [controversial national security law in 2020](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/hong-kongs-security-laws-what-are-they-and-why-are-they-so-controversial). In March, authorities enacted [another set of security laws](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/hong-kong-article-23-national-security-law) that some foreign governments say further undermine rights and free speech. _With Agence France-Presse and Reuters_

YouTube has blocked access to videos of a protest song in Hong Kong to comply with a removal order, days after a court approved an injunction to ban the song in the city HONG KONG -- YouTube has blocked access to videos of a protest song in Hong Kong, days after court approved an injunction banning the song in the city. “Glory to Hong Kong” was an anthem of anti-government protests in 2019. [YouTube](https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/YouTube) said that it would comply with a removal order and block access to over 32 YouTube videos of the song that were deemed to be “prohibited publications” under the injunction. Attempts to access the YouTube videos from Hong Kong on Wednesday showed that they were unavailable. A message showed saying that “This content is not available on this country domain due to a court order.” In approving the government's application to ban the song, the court agreed it could be “weaponized” and used to incite secession. “We are disappointed by the court’s decision but are complying with its removal order by blocking access to the listed videos for viewers in Hong Kong,” YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet Inc., said in an emailed statement. “We’ll continue to consider our options for an appeal, to promote access to information,” the company said, adding that it shared the concerns of human rights organizations about the chilling effect the ban would have on free expression online. Links to the 32 videos on YouTube will also not show up on Google Search for users in Hong Kong, according to YouTube. George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at Asia Group, a Washington-headquartered business and policy consultancy, said it is worth watching how aggressively Hong Kong authorities will be in ordering internet platforms to remove the song. Chen, who was the former head of public policy for Greater [China](https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/Taiwan) at Meta, said that if the government begins sending platforms hundreds of links to remove every day, that would likely undermine investor confidence in Hong Kong. “That will hurt Hong Kong’s reputation as a leading financial center because we know how important a free flow of data and information means to a financial center,” he said. “So the government should be very careful and be aware of some unintended consequences that may impact its economic recovery and investors’ confidence.” Internet and social media platforms such as YouTube typically have policies for removal requests from governments. “Glory to Hong Kong” was often sung by demonstrators during massive anti-government protests in 2019. The song was later mistakenly played as the city’s anthem at international sporting events, instead of China’s “March of the Volunteers,” in mix-ups that upset city officials. Authorities earlier arrested some residents who played the song in public under other offenses, such as playing a musical instrument in public without a permit, local media reported. Critics have said prohibiting broadcast or distribution of the song further reduces freedom of expression since Beijing launched a crackdown in the former British colony following the 2019 protests. They have also warned the ban might disrupt the operation of tech giants and hurt the city’s appeal as a business center. \_\_\_ Associated Press writer Kanis Leung contributed to this report.

YouTube has blocked access to videos of a protest song in Hong Kong to comply with a removal order, days after a court approved an injunction to ban the song in the city HONG KONG -- YouTube has blocked access to videos of a protest song in Hong Kong, days after court approved an injunction banning the song in the city. “Glory to Hong Kong” was an anthem of anti-government protests in 2019. [YouTube](https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/YouTube) said that it would comply with a removal order and block access to over 32 YouTube videos of the song that were deemed to be “prohibited publications” under the injunction. Attempts to access the YouTube videos from Hong Kong on Wednesday showed that they were unavailable. A message showed saying that “This content is not available on this country domain due to a court order.” In approving the government's application to ban the song, the court agreed it could be “weaponized” and used to incite secession. “We are disappointed by the court’s decision but are complying with its removal order by blocking access to the listed videos for viewers in Hong Kong,” YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet Inc., said in an emailed statement. “We’ll continue to consider our options for an appeal, to promote access to information,” the company said, adding that it shared the concerns of human rights organizations about the chilling effect the ban would have on free expression online. Links to the 32 videos on YouTube will also not show up on Google Search for users in Hong Kong, according to YouTube. George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at Asia Group, a Washington-headquartered business and policy consultancy, said it is worth watching how aggressively Hong Kong authorities will be in ordering internet platforms to remove the song. Chen, who was the former head of public policy for Greater [China](https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/Taiwan) at Meta, said that if the government begins sending platforms hundreds of links to remove every day, that would likely undermine investor confidence in Hong Kong. “That will hurt Hong Kong’s reputation as a leading financial center because we know how important a free flow of data and information means to a financial center,” he said. “So the government should be very careful and be aware of some unintended consequences that may impact its economic recovery and investors’ confidence.” Internet and social media platforms such as YouTube typically have policies for removal requests from governments. “Glory to Hong Kong” was often sung by demonstrators during massive anti-government protests in 2019. The song was later mistakenly played as the city’s anthem at international sporting events, instead of China’s “March of the Volunteers,” in mix-ups that upset city officials. Authorities earlier arrested some residents who played the song in public under other offenses, such as playing a musical instrument in public without a permit, local media reported. Critics have said prohibiting broadcast or distribution of the song further reduces freedom of expression since Beijing launched a crackdown in the former British colony following the 2019 protests. They have also warned the ban might disrupt the operation of tech giants and hurt the city’s appeal as a business center. \_\_\_ Associated Press writer Kanis Leung contributed to this report.

6 hours ago BBC The Hong Kong 47 were charged three years ago in what was seen as the biggest crackdown under the National Security Law From a 68-year-old former opposition lawmaker to a 27-year-old student activist, some of Hong Kong’s best-known pro-democracy campaigners await a verdict on subversion charges this week. They are among 47 protesters and activists - better known as the Hong Kong 47 - [who were charged three years ago](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56228363) in what was seen as the biggest crackdown under the National Security Law (NSL) imposed by China. Officials accused the 47 - eight women and 39 men - of trying to “overthrow” the government by running unofficial primaries to pick opposition candidates for local elections. The primaries were held in July 2020 in defiance of Hong Kong officials and amid warnings that they could breach the NSL, which had come into effect days before. Beijing defends the law, which followed mass pro-democracy protests, as necessary to maintain stability, but critics say it has stripped the city of its prized autonomy and freedoms. Who are the Hong Kong 47? ------------------------- Some are famous, such as opposition lawmakers - Claudia Mo, Helena Wong, Kwok ka-ki - and icons of the 2014 pro-democracy protests that rocked Hong Kong - Joshua Wong and Benny Tai. But many like Owen Chow, Ventus Lau and Tiffany Yuen represented a new generation of vocal activists. Mr Lau and Mr Chow were among hundreds who stormed the city's Legislative Council (LegCo) and spray-painted Hong Kong's emblem in what became a pivotal moment in the 2019 protests. Then there are those who were not involved in politics but were galvanised by the 2019 protests - social workers like Hendrick Lui, entrepreneurs like Mike Lam and a former nurse, Winnie Yu. Sixteen of the 47 have pleaded not guilty and, if convicted on Thursday, could be jailed for life, although sentencing is expected later. The remaining 31 have pleaded guilty. Four of them testifed for the prosecution, including former lawmakers Au Nok-hin and Andrew Chiu. While this typically leads to a reduced sentence, it is unclear if it applies to the NSL. “They are forced to make the impossible decision between pleading guilty to a non-existent crime for a potential reduction in sentence, or fighting a losing battle under the unjust national security law," Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director Dana Young said in a report. Other prominent figures such as Nathan Law and ex-legislator Ted Hui also ran in the primaries, but fled Hong Kong. So by the time the 47 were arrested in early 2021, most of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy campaigners were behind bars or in exile. Most of the accused have been in jail since then as pre-trial detentions have become the norm under NSL. The professor - Benny Tai ------------------------- Getty Images Benny Tai made his foray into politics in 2013 China called him a “hardcore troublemaker” for advocating Hong Kong independence and describing the Communist Party’s rule as a “dictatorship”. A scholar and law professor, Benny Tai first drew attention when he wrote a newspaper column proposing an occupy sit-in to demand greater democracy. This eventually became the pro-democracy Occupy Central movement that he founded along with two others. It was a historic civil disobedience campaignt that called for fair and free elections in Hong Kong. The movement died down but five years later, in 2019, Mr Tai was sentenced to prison for his role in the protests. A year later, after the NSL was imposed, he was fired from his tenured job at the prestigious University of Hong Kong (HKU) over his criminal conviction. Mr Tai accused the university of bowing to Chinese pressure and called it the “end of academic freedom” in the city. “I am heartbroken to witness the demise of my beloved university,” the 60-year-old later said in a Facebook post. By then, he was already facing accusations of subversion under NSL for organising what Hong Kong and Beijing officals called an "illegal" primary. The student - Joshua Wong ------------------------- Getty Joshua Wong is arguably one of Hong Kong's most recognisable faces Arguably Hong Kong’s most famous pro-democracy activist, Joshua Wong’s journey into activism started when he was just 14. By 2014, he had become the face of the Umbrella Movement, a mass student protests with the umbrella as a symbol, which sprang up alongside the Occupy Central sit-in. He was just 20 when his activism [first landed him in jail](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40957422). He had more spells in jail, including one in 2019, when he walked out a day after hundreds of thousands marched against a hugely controversial extradition bill - it would allow Hong Kongers to be sent to mainland China to face trial. The protests against the bill engulfed Hong Kong for months. Mr Wong was among thousands who held a 15-hour siege of police headquarters in Wan Chai district - they pelted the building with eggs and sprayed graffiti on its walls - in June of that year. Prosecutors said he led the protest, pointing to a video of him calling for the crowd to "completely besiege police headquarters”. Although Mr Wong was a well-known campaigner, the 2019 protests were widely seen as a spontaneous, “leaderless" movement. He was jailed for his role in them - and placed in solitary confinement. But he remained defiant after pleading guilty: “Perhaps the authorities wish me to stay in prison one term after another. But I am persuaded that neither prison bars, nor election ban, nor any other arbitrary powers would stop us from activism.” He was still serving his sentence when he was charged with subversion under NSL. The 'revolutionary' - Long hair ------------------------------- Getty Leung Kwok-hung held a yellow umbrella in parliament as a form of protest Former opposition lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung, better known as Long Hair for his coiffure, once described himself as a “Marxist revolutionary”. The 68-year-old was known for his political theatrics - one of his signature moves involved hurling bananas as a sign of protest. When he was sworn in again as a lawmaker in 2016, he released a balloon with a political banner and held a yellow umbrella, declaring that the “Umbrella movement would never end”. This got him disqualified from the council. He was arrested and had repeated stints in jail for taking part in the 2019 protests. After the NSL was imposed in 2020, he married his long-time partner, Vanessa Chan, also known as Chan Po-ying, who is a prominent activist. They were among the founding members of a political party, the League of Social Democrats. They said they decided to marry because should one of them be jailed, they would have greater legal rights such as prison visitation. Forty days after the wedding, Mr Leung was charged with subversion over the primary. The longtime activist - Claudia Mo ---------------------------------- Getty Claudia Mo previously covered the Tiananmen crackdown as a journalist Claudia Mo, known affectionately in Cantonese as Auntie Mo, was a prominent opposition lawmaker. She had been a journalist at the AFP news agency, where she covered the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. The 67-year-old helped set up the opposition Civic Party in 2006 and by 2012, she won a seat in LegCo - she gave up British citizenship to hold office. She was among 15 lawmakers who [resigned en masse from LegCo](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54899171) after four pro-democracy lawmakers were ousted in November 2020. The move left LegCo with no opposition presence. ["We had to," she said at the time](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54913367). "We need to protest against what could be the ultimate Beijing crackdown on Hong Kong - to silence the last bit of dissent in the city." Police "smashed through into the living room" to arrest her in the early hours of 6 January 2021, [the FT reported](https://www.ft.com/content/439fb015-8fc7-4d2d-9c7f-8764863090ae), citing an unnamed source who described the raid as "sheer thuggery". She has been in jail throughout. When her husband, British journalist Philip Bowring, was critically ill, Ms Mo was not allowed to visit him from prison. The LGBT campaigner - Jimmy Sham -------------------------------- Getty Jimmy Sham is a prominent LGBTQ activist A long-time political and LGBTQI activist, Jimmy Sham also led one of Hong Kong’s largest pro-democracy groups, the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF). The group disbanded in 2021, saying it could no longer operate amid “unprecedented” challenges posed by China’s crackdown. Mr Sham was violently attacked several times in 2019, and in one instance, was left bloodied on the street, with a head injury. The CHRF accused government supporters of this and other assaults against pro-democracy activists at the time - but it was never proven. The 37-year-old married his partner in New York in 2013 and fought for Hong Kong to recognise overseas same-sex marriages. Hong Kong’s top court granted him a partial victory in 2023 when it ordered the government to establish a framework to recognise same-sex partnerships. By then Mr Sham was in prison for his role in the Hong Kong primaries. Bail has been repeatedly denied, with a judge saying he was a “determined and resolute young man” who would likely continue to commit “acts endangering national security” should he be released. The journalist - Gwyneth Ho --------------------------- Getty Gwyneth Ho shot to fame when she inadvertently live streamed herself being beaten up Thirty three-year-old Gwyneth Ho worked for several news outlets including BBC Chinese, government-run broadcaster RTHK and Stand News, before pivoting to politics. She shot to fame when she inadvertently live streamed herself being beaten up by a mob during the 2019 protests. The attack put her in hospital. She ran in the 2020 primaries deemed illegal by Hong Kong officials - and won a high number of votes in her constituency. Less than a year later, she was arrested. She said during her trial that it was “inevitable” that [the 12 pro-democracy candidates](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53593187), including her, were disqualified from contesting the legislative elections. “I believe that most Hong Kongers knew deep down in their hearts that fighting for democracy under the Chinese communist regime has always been a fantasy,” she said. She was soon stopped by High Court Judge Alex Lee who told her to “calm down”.  _With image contributions from Hong Kong InMedia_ [ What is Hong Kong's tough new security law? ------------------------------------------- ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-68508694)

A Hong Kong court on Thursday found 14 pro-democracy activists guilty of conspiracy to subvert state power while acquitting two others, in a landmark national security case that legal experts say has eroded the credibility of the city’s judicial system. Dozens of Hong Kong’s most prominent activists will now face lengthy prison sentences for their participation in an unofficial, nonviolent primary election in 2020. That vote was organized as a way to pick opposition candidates for a legislative election that was ultimately postponed. A total of 47 were charged, and most have been [held in pretrial detention](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/hong-kong-security-law-activists-prison/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4) for more than three years. Verdicts were handed down Thursday morning local time. Sentencing will come at a later date, according to lawyers. The [remaining 31 defendants](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/05/hong-kong-democracy-national-security-law/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5) did not contest the charges. After the verdict, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice told the judges it intended to appeal the two acquittals. Beijing in 2020 imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong — which was supposed to enjoy a level of autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework — after [months-long pro-democracy protests across the city](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/09/airport-sit-ins-citywide-strikes-street-protests-whats-happening-hong-kong/?itid=lk_inline_manual_7) throughout 2019. The trial, the largest national security case in the former British colony, has been closely watched as a barometer of how far the Beijing-imposed law would be used to punish opposition voices. Judges ruled that those found guilty were planning to undermine the authority of the Hong Kong government, and that their defense was not valid. “The ruling makes clear that the government will no longer tolerate any meaningful opposition,” said Alvin Cheung, assistant professor at Queen’s University in Canada and a former barrister in Hong Kong. “If the lawful use of legislative powers amounts to subversion, one has to wonder whether there remains any scope for dissent in the legislature.” Together, the defendants represented the full gamut of Hong Kong’s once-thriving pro-democracy opposition — from students to lawyers, veteran activists and relative newcomers, their views ranging from moderate to more radical. Their possible sentences range from three years to life in prison. The trial has been overseen by three judges handpicked by the government to try national security cases, departing from the tradition under Hong Kong’s common law system of trial by jury. The judges cited the “involvement of foreign elements” as grounds to waive a jury trial. Among those who pleaded not guilty was Gwyneth Ho, a former journalist who rose to prominence during the 2019 protests, and Leung Kwok-hung, a 68-year-old veteran political and social activist better known as “Long Hair.” The defendants who pleaded guilty to “conspiracy to commit subversion” include 27-year-old activist Joshua Wong and legal scholar Benny Tai, as well as other politicians, former lawmakers and unionists. The national security law, drafted by Beijing and passed without any consultation in Hong Kong, criminalizes broadly worded crimes such as “secession,” “subversion,” “terrorism” and “collusion with foreign forces.” It has transformed Hong Kong and its institutions — including schools, the media, the legislature and the courts — and has chipped away at the territory’s promised autonomy, which was meant to be preserved until 2047. Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said after the verdicts that Beijing “firmly supports the law enforcement and judicial authorities” of Hong Kong to “punish all kinds of acts that jeopardize national security.” The unofficial primary election in 2020 was planned and organized before the introduction of the national security law that year. Tai — the legal scholar and activist who also helped launch protests in 2014 that spiraled into a 79-day [occupation of city streets](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hong-kongs-umbrella-movement-one-year-later/2015/10/01/d496e6ba-6781-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_22) — and the others decided to go ahead with the vote after the Beijing-imposed law was put in place. They hoped to secure a majority in the legislature for pro-democracy candidates. More than 600,000 voters took part in the 2020 citywide primary, but the executive then decided to delay the legislative election, citing issues related to the [coronavirus](https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_23) pandemic. Critics have argued that the prosecution’s case is based largely on hypotheticals, as the defendants did not have a chance to run in the legislative election, let alone take office and then subvert the system, as alleged. Some worry, too, that the ruling could have implications beyond those defendants. Small shops, for example, allowed their spaces to be used as venues for the unofficial primary and could find themselves implicated. “The authorities could use the case as jurisprudence to accuse people who \[rented\] their shops to become makeshift polling stations and volunteers who \[ran\] the stations as co-conspirators,” said Michael Mo, a former district councilor in Hong Kong who now lives in exile in the United Kingdom. Amid the increasingly tight environment for dissent in Hong Kong, “presumption of innocence is no longer there,” Mo said. This March, Hong Kong’s legislature, scrubbed of opposition, unanimously [passed a new package of domestically focused national security laws](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/19/hong-kong-article-23-security-law/?itid=lk_inline_manual_29), known as Article 23, that further squeezed what little space remained for criticism and civil liberties. Ahead of Thursday’s verdict, one of the two acquitted defendants, Lee Yue Shun, [wrote in a Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3636525876620023&id=100007879385881&rdid=xmorQYoW7a4uG0DJ) post that the ruling would do little to change the reality of life in Hong Kong. “Regardless of the outcome, the preservation of the legitimacy of the Hong Kong people’s way of life has already been faced with the most difficult challenges on a daily basis,” he wrote.

A lawyer says activist publisher Jimmy Lai will testify in his defense at his Hong Kong national security trial HONG KONG -- A defense lawyer said Thursday that prominent publisher Jimmy Lai will testify in his defense in the landmark [national security trial](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-jimmy-lai-trial-opens-dfeabcb9baa8d31852321cf95a871800) brought under a Beijing-imposed law that has all but wiped out public dissent. Lai, [the 76-year-old founder](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-jimmy-lai-arrests-media-national-security-442e2f6671e25cb7f45ea73d33f92402) of the now-defunct [Apple Daily](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-trials-45ac5f77462ecd0e4971c3bc099a587d) newspaper, was arrested in 2020 during a crackdown on the mass pro-democracy protests that rocked Hong Kong in 2019. He [was charged](https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-lai-apple-daily-trial-hong-kong-sedition-46dbed26bb81d591fcc440985166559b) with colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security and conspiring with others to put out seditious publications. If convicted, he faces up to life in prison. On Wednesday, Lai’s lawyer Robert Pang argued his client had no case to answer because the prosecutors’ evidence was insufficient. Pang said the prosecution had failed to prove Lai’s intent after the introduction of the 2020 law and stressed the importance of freedom of speech. But judges Esther Toh, Susana D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee, who were approved by the government to oversee the case, ruled against him on Thursday. “Having considered all the submission, we ruled that the first defendant has a case to answer on all charges,” Toh said, without elaborating. Lai appeared to be at ease after the ruling. Pang said in court that Lai would testify in his defense. The case has been adjourned to Nov. 20. Observers said Lai's [high-profile case](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-jimmy-lai-crackdown-dissidents-cb2fee8ebfb49c0a963b0b2cdaa32092), which has already stretched over 90 days, is a trial of press freedom and a test for judicial independence in the Asian financial hub. When Britain handed back Hong Kong to China in 1997, the city was promised to have its Western-style civil liberties kept intact for 50 years. However, the freedoms that once set Hong Kong apart from mainland China, including freedoms of press and assembly, have drastically shrunk since the enactment of the 2020 security law. Beijing and Hong Kong governments insist that the law brought back stability to the city following the social unrest. The prosecutors [have alleged](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-china-jimmy-lai-trial-ed8d33fb5f9828ad5ab6c72ed2a613f3) that Lai had engaged in requesting foreign countries, especially the United States, to take actions against Beijing “under the guise of fighting for freedom and democracy.” They pointed to Lai's meetings with former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other senior senators in the United States in July 2019 to discuss a now-withdrawn extradition bill that sparked the massive anti-government protests that year. They alleged Lai had sought support from the U.S. on sanctioning Beijing and Hong Kong’s leaders who allegedly cracked down the movement. In 2022, six former Apple Daily executives entered guilty pleas and [admitted to the court they conspired with Lai](https://apnews.com/article/business-arrests-beijing-hong-kong-national-security-0cd73c38635a14fc5500c824f8d8b420) to call for sanctions or other hostile activities against Hong Kong or China. They were convicted and await sentencing behind bars. During the trial, some of the former executives, alongside two others who also pleaded guilty to collusion charges, have testified as the prosecution’s witnesses. Hong Kong, once seen as a bastion of media freedom in Asia, ranked 135th out of 180 countries and territories in Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index.

Hong Kong’s top court on Monday unanimously dismissed the bid to overturn the convictions of media mogul [Jimmy Lai](https://www.theguardian.com/world/jimmy-lai) and six other pro-democracy campaigners for an unauthorised assembly in 2019. Lai, 76, the [founder of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/16/jimmy-lai-editors-from-around-the-world-call-for-release-of-hong-kong-media-mogul), and six others including veteran democracy campaigner Martin Lee, had been found guilty of organising and participating in an unauthorised assembly in August 2019 during months-long pro-democracy protests in the China-ruled city. While a lower court had overturned their conviction for organising the unauthorised assembly, their conviction for taking part in an unauthorised procession was upheld. Their appeal centred on whether the conviction was proportionate to fundamental human rights protections, a principle set down in two non-binding decisions of Britain’s supreme court known as “operational proportionality”. David Neuberger, a former head of Britain’s supreme court, was one of the five judges on Hong Kong’s court of final appeal (CFA) who heard this case, adding to the debate over whether foreign judges should continue to sit on the city’s highest court amid a national security crackdown. The judgment came two months after the resignations of two British judges from the CFA, Lawrence Collins and Jonathan Sumption. Sumption said Hong Kong was becoming a totalitarian state and the city’s rule of law had been “profoundly compromised”. Beijing imposed a national security law in 2020 after months of pro-democracy protests in 2019 and the Hong Kong legislative council passed a new national security law, also known as Article 23, in March. Neuberger told Reuters in mid-June he would remain on Hong Kong’s highest court “to support the rule of law in Hong Kong, as best I can”. Lai and three former lawmakers – Lee Cheuk-yan, 67, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, 68, and Cyd Ho, 70 – were jailed for between eight and 18 months. Martin Lee, 86, a founding chairman of Hong Kong’s Democratic party, barrister Margaret Ng, 76, and veteran pro-democracy politician Albert Ho, 72, were given suspended sentences. Lai has been held in solitary confinement for more than three years since December 2020. He is now facing a separate [national security trial](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/02/jimmy-lai-trial-plea-not-guilty-hong-kong-democracy-advocate) and serving a sentence of five years and nine months after being convicted of violating a lease contract for his now shuttered newspaper’s headquarters. According to the Security Bureau, 301 people were arrested over acts or activities that endangered national security. Among them, 176 persons and five companies were charged.

A man in Hong Kong has pleaded guilty to sedition for wearing a T-shirt with a protest slogan, becoming the first person to be convicted under the city’s controversial national security law known as Article 23, [passed in March](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/23/hong-kongs-new-national-security-law-comes-into-force). Chu Kai-pong, 27, pleaded guilty to one count of “doing acts with seditious intent”. Under the [new security law](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/08/new-hong-kong-national-security-law-treason-life-sentence-article-23), the maximum sentence for the offence has been increased from two years to seven years in prison and could even go up to 10 years if “collusion with foreign forces” is found to be involved. [ Hong Kong journalists harassed in ‘systemic and organised attack’ ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/13/hong-kong-journalists-harassed-systemic-organised-attack) Chu was arrested on 12 June at an MTR station for wearing a T-shirt with the slogan: “Liberate [Hong Kong](https://www.theguardian.com/world/hong-kong), revolution of our times” and a yellow mask printed with “FDNOL” – the shorthand of another slogan “five demands, not one less”. Both slogans were frequently chanted in [the huge pro-democracy protests of 2019](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/hong-kong-huge-rally-china-condemns-us-gross-interference). Chu, who has been held in prison for three months, told police that he wore the T-shirt to remind people of the protests, the court heard. Chief magistrate Victor So, handpicked by the city’s leader, John Lee, to hear national security cases, adjourned the case to Thursday for sentencing. Hong Kong was returned from Britain to [China](https://www.theguardian.com/world/china) in 1997 under Beijing’s promise its freedoms, including freedom of speech, would be protected under a “one country, two systems” formula. Beijing imposed a [national security law in 2020](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/hong-kongs-security-laws-what-are-they-and-why-are-they-so-controversial) punishing secession, subversion, terrorism or collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison, after the months-long protests in the financial hub. It has since been used against [dozens of pro-democracy figures](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/02/we-refuse-to-disappear-the-hong-kong-47-facing-life-in-jail-after-crackdown), including journalists and former politicians. In March 2024, Hong Kong passed a second security law – [a homegrown ordinance also known as Article 23](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/hong-kongs-article-23-national-security-law-explained-in-30-seconds), according to its parent provision in the city’s mini constitution, the Basic Law. Authorities said both laws would be used side by side. Critics, including the US government, have expressed concerns over the new security law and said the vaguely defined provisions regarding “sedition” could be used to curb dissent. The new law expands the British colonial-era offence of sedition – which has also been increasingly used against dissidents – to include inciting hatred against China’s Communist party leadership. Hong Kong and Chinese officials claim it was necessary to plug “loopholes” in the national security regime.

A Hong Kong man has been sentenced to 14 months in jail after pleading guilty to sedition for wearing a T-shirt with a protest slogan on it. The jail term is the first handed down by the city's court under a new local national security law that was passed in March. The law, also called [Article 23](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-68508694), expands on the national security law that was imposed by Beijing in 2020. Critics feared the law could further erode civil liberties in the city, while Beijing and Hong Kong defended it, saying it was necessary for stability. Chu Kai-pong, 27, was arrested at a subway station in June wearing a T-shirt sporting the phrase "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times". He was also wearing a mask that read "FDNOL" - initials for another slogan, "Five demands, not one less". Both slogans were frequently heard in large-scale protests in Hong Kong during the months-long anti-government demonstrations in 2019. Local media reported he was also carrying a box containing his excrement to use against people opposing his views. Chu was arrested on 12 June, the anniversary of a key date of the 2019 protests when particularly large crowds took to the city's streets. The court heard Chu told police he wore the T-shirt to remind people of the protests, according to Reuters. He was previously jailed for three months in a separate incident for wearing a T-shirt with the same slogan, as well as possession of other offensive items. Chu has been remanded in custody since 14 June. On Monday, he pleaded guilty to one count of doing an act with a seditious intention". In his judgement read out on Thursday, chief magistrate Victor So, who was handpicked by the government to hear national security cases, said Chu intended to "reignite the ideas behind" the 2019 protests. He said Chu "showed no remorse" after his previous conviction, and that the sentence reflected the "seriousness" of the sedition charge. The conviction and sentencing have been criticised by human rights groups. Amnesty International's China director Sarah Brooks described it as "a blatant attack on the right to freedom of expression", and called for the repealing of Article 23 in a statement. The sentencing comes after a landmark ruling of another case last month, when two journalists who led the pro-democracy newspaper Stand News were found guilty of sedition. That marked [the first sedition case against the city's journalists](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gq75qwve8o) since Hong Kong's handover from Britain to China in 1997.

A Hong Kong court has sentenced a former editor of a shuttered news publication to 21 months in prison in a sedition case that is widely seen as an indicator of media freedom in the city, once hailed as a beacon of press freedom in Asia HONG KONG -- A Hong Kong court sentenced a former editor of a shuttered news publication to 21 months in prison on Thursday in a sedition case that is widely seen as an indicator of media freedom in the city, once hailed as a beacon of press freedom in Asia. A second editor was freed after his sentence was reduced because of ill health and time already served in custody. Former [Stand News editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen](https://apnews.com/article/business-media-crime-arrests-hong-kong-2315777ace6e85c58eeb876c6c66feba) and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam are the [first journalists](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-stand-news-sedition-trial-8f881d61fc1356264689557cc2291371) convicted under a colonial-era sedition law since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Chung was sentenced to 21 months, while Lam was also sentenced but allowed to go free. The news outlet was one of last in Hong Kong that dared to criticize authorities as Beijing imposed a crackdown on dissidents following massive pro-democracy protests in 2019. The closure came months after the demise of pro-democracy newspaper [Apple Daily](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-europe-newspapers-business-97cf6aec4153c9201ae8cda679ff0e3d), whose [jailed founder Jimmy Lai](https://apnews.com/article/business-crime-asia-beijing-hong-kong-e6e240bf69e43ecf0f41d88d0322567e) is battling [collusion charges under a tough national security law](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-jimmy-lai-crackdown-dissidents-cb2fee8ebfb49c0a963b0b2cdaa32092) imposed by Beijing in 2020. Last month, the court found Chung and Lam guilty of conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious materials, along with Best Pencil (Hong Kong) Ltd., Stand News' holding company. They faced up to two years in prison and a fine of 5,000 Hong Kong dollars (about $640). Judge Kwok Wai-kin began the sentencing hearing two hours after the scheduled time. The journalists' lawyer, Audrey Eu, requested a sentence mitigation, saying Lam had been diagnosed with a rare disease and she was concerned that he could not be treated by the hospital handling his case if he were sent to jail again. She argued that they be sentenced to up to time served, saying their case was different because they were journalists whose duties were to report different people’s views. The pair were detained for nearly a year after their arrests before being released on bail in late 2022. In his sentencing, Kwok said the defendants were not genuine journalists but had participated in the territory's resistance movement. Kwok wrote in his verdict in August that Stand News had become a tool for smearing the Beijing and Hong Kong governments during the 2019 protests. He ruled that 11 articles published under the defendants' leadership carried seditious intent, including commentaries written by activist Nathan Law and veteran journalists Allan Au and Chan Pui-man. Chan, who is also Chung’s wife, earlier pleaded guilty [in the Apple Daily](https://apnews.com/article/business-arrests-beijing-hong-kong-national-security-0cd73c38635a14fc5500c824f8d8b420) case and is in custody awaiting her sentence. Kwok said Lam and Chung were aware of and agreed with the seditious intent, and that they made Stand News available as a platform to incite hatred against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and the judiciary. Eu told the court that the articles in question represented only a small portion of what Stand News had published. The defendants also stressed their journalistic mission in their [mitigation letters](https://apnews.com/article/stand-news-hong-kong-sedition-patrick-lam-chung-puikuen-9b5013854e4ad74f938a4bb7f6e44977). On Thursday morning, dozens of people waited in line to secure a seat in the courtroom. Former Stand News reader Andrew Wong said he wanted to attend the hearing to show his support, though he felt it was like “attending a funeral.” Wong, who works in a non-governmental organization, said he expected the convictions last month, but still felt “a sense that we've passed a point of no return" when he heard the verdict. “Everything we had in the past is gone," he said. Their trial, which began in October 2022, lasted some 50 days. The verdict was postponed several times for reasons including a wait for an appeal outcome in [another landmark sedition case](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-sedition-activist-tam-tak-chi-appeal-ab0783f33ba06218e1138b4853cf222b). Hong Kong was ranked 135 out of 180 territories in Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index, down from 80 in 2021, and 18 in 2002. Self-censorship has also become more common during the political crackdown on dissent following the 2019 protests, with [increased reports of harassment](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-journalist-harassment-press-freedom-0ec9cad8ef6ee91578266666ea955664) against journalists in recent months. In March, the city government enacted another [new security law](https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-new-security-law-explainer-633e91d7d3aef09381b349282a7dec1f) that raised concerns about further curtailment of press freedom. \_\_\_ This story corrects the spelling of the judge's name to Wai-kin instead of Wai-king. \_\_\_ Follow AP's Asia-Pacific coverage at [https://apnews.com/hub/asia-pacific](https://apnews.com/hub/asia-pacific)

A decade ago today Hong Kong’s Central district filled with protesters, angry at Chinese government plans to renege on a promise of a fully democratic vote. What became known as Occupy Central, or [the Umbrella protests](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/hong-kong-democracy-protests-china-umbrellas-police), paralysed the city’s financial centre and galvanised a generation of young people. Today Hong Kong’s streets are quiet. Protest has been largely criminalised, and many of the leaders of the Umbrella movement have been exiled, jailed or otherwise silenced. Looking back, Wendy\* remembers the feeling of that first day of Occupy. She was 25 and believed in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, and its promise to deliver universal suffrage to the people now that the territory had been returned from British to Chinese control. But instead, China’s government announced that in elections people would only be able to choose from a few candidates handpicked by a mostly pro-Beijing committee. “It seemed that the government wanted to break their promise,” Wendy tells the Guardian from Hong Kong. “So I went out.” [](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive-10-years-after-umbrella-protests-hongkongers-remember-chinas-crackdown#img-2) A pro-democracy activist holds a yellow umbrella in front of police in Mongkok district in November 2014. Photograph: Chris McGrath/Getty Images Protest action against Beijing’s plan had long been in the works. Three activists known as the Occupy Trio – academics Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man, and reverend Chu Yiu-ming – had for months been training a few thousand people in non-violent resistance to occupy Hong Kong’s finance district [as a last resort](https://hongkongfp.com/2019/01/12/full-transcript-umbrella-movement-convener-chan-kin-mans-testimony-trial-occupy-9/) if demands weren’t met. But student protests earlier that week had escalated to the storming of a public square, and the Occupy start date was brought forward. Thousands more joined. * **[Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email](https://www.theguardian.com/email-newsletters?CMP=copyembed)** It was 28 September. Wendy thought it would be peaceful, but stayed clear of the frontlines just in case. Then at 5:58pm, police fired teargas into the peaceful crowd. “I smelled some strange scents and my eyes got uncomfortable,” Wendy says. “I looked up to the bridge over me, seeing a group of police holding shields and stepping forward to the protesters. The scene was frightening. I just kept asking in my mind ‘Why do they treat us in that way?’.” Emily Lau, a veteran pro-democracy advocate and then a sitting legislator, had gone to speak to police earlier that day about bringing in some equipment for the Occupy Trio. Instead, they arrested her. By the time she was released later that night “the whole world had changed”. Lau and a colleague took a taxi from the police station to the top of a hill overlooking Central. “When we looked down, we were shocked because the roads were blocked and there were people just everywhere occupying Connaught Road,” she says. ‘The first step in a bigger war’ -------------------------------- The police force’s decision to use teargas on day one against a peaceful crowd had just brought more people to the streets. Soon a vast self-sufficient tent city took over the Admiralty district. Other camps formed in Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. Volunteer groups took care of provisions, sanitation, and tutoring of students, while calling for Beijing to reverse its plans and for Hong Kong’s chief executive, CY Leung, to step down. Tony\*, then a “regular office worker”, joined the camp in his lunch breaks and evenings. He describes what he saw as “astonishing”. [](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive-10-years-after-umbrella-protests-hongkongers-remember-chinas-crackdown#img-3) People shield themselves from pepper spray with umbrellas as riot police clash with tens of thousands of protesters in September 2014. Photograph: Bobby Yip/REUTERS “It was a completely new Hong Kong, a beautiful Hong Kong that I had never seen before. We saw Hong Kong people were really passionate about democracy, about their future and having a say in how the city is run.” Thomas\*, a Hong Kong writer now based in London, says a lot of people got engaged in the movement for the first time because of how government and authorities had responded to their concerns. “There wasn’t any attempt \[by Beijing\] to just sort of say: I understand this isn’t quite what you want, but this is the best we can get … It was literally: thank us and love us for it, aren’t we wonderful,” he says. But as Occupy stretched on, the public’s tolerance waned and divisions deepened among protesters. The government remained unmoved, and police became more aggressive. Court injunctions ordered sections of the camps to clear, and Joshua Wong, a leader of the student protesters, ended his hunger strike. Numbers dwindled as the Trio urged people to leave, but the more radical student groups were determined to stay. “T\[he trio\] didn’t think the whole thing should drag on for so long,” says Lau. “I supported ending it because it doesn’t mean ending the whole thing. You just go home and prepare to fight another day.” It ended on 15 December after 79 days, without having achieved its stated aims and with deep fissures between pro-democracy factions, but still with a sense of hope. “There was a big banner that said ‘We will be back’,” recalls Tony. “People were hugging each other and saying farewells. There was a sense that the battle hadn’t succeeded but it might be the first step in a bigger war.” In an editorial one year later, the South China Morning Post said the outcome of the Occupy protests “proved that Beijing will not yield to confrontational tactics”. Protest leaders from both the older and [student cohorts](https://qz.com/1055810/hong-kongs-government-finally-managed-to-put-democracy-fighter-joshua-wong-behind-bars), including Tai, Chan and Wong, were eventually [convicted and jailed](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/09/hong-kong-umbrella-movement-protesters-guilty-over-pro-democracy-rallies-jail). But, Lau says, “the protests had woken up the young people”. New political parties and activist groups emerged. In June 2019, [millions took to the streets again](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/28/hong-kong-cant-go-back-to-normal-protesters-keep-umbrella-spirit-alive) in massive pro-democracy protests. Participants used tactics and strategies fine-tuned during Occupy. [](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive-10-years-after-umbrella-protests-hongkongers-remember-chinas-crackdown#img-4) Police use water cannon against pro-democracy protesters outside government headquarters in September 2019. Photograph: Isaac Lawrence/AFP/Getty Images But there was less of the hope and fight of 2014. Instead, the 2019 protests felt like a defiant “last cry of an animal that was dying”, says Thomas. Again Beijing did not yield, launching a crackdown that shocked even the most pessimistic observers. “The atmosphere and political reality today are totally different \[to 2014\],” says Willy Lam, a senior non-resident fellow and China specialist at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington. Wendy looks back at how she felt in 2014 and laughs a little. “I thought 2014 was shit at that time, but compared to 2019 it was just a piece of cake,” she says. “I was so naive, believing the government would be sensible, respect people’s voice, and abide by the promise in the Basic Law. But now I can say I was totally wrong.” Tony, now a lawyer based in the UK, says the Occupy protests left an important legacy, strengthening Hongkongers self-identity and their aspirations for democracy, human rights, and rule of law. “Now I see that as part of the diaspora … and I hope people in the free world don’t forget Hong Kong. There is still something to be fought for.” _\*Names have been changed upon request of interviewees_

Getty Images Hong Kong saw explosive pro-democracy protests in the last decade - but hopes for a freer city have faded in the wake of Beijing's crackdown The memories began rushing back as Kenneth strolled through Hong Kong’s Victoria Park, once a focal point for the city’s resistance to China. As a child, Kenneth would buy calligraphy posters from pro-democracy politicians at the annual Lunar New Year fair. Then there were the protest marches he joined as a teenager, that would always start here before winding their way through the city. When he was just 12, he began attending the park's massive vigils for the Tiananmen massacre - a taboo in mainland China, but commemorated openly in Hong Kong. Those vigils have ended now. The politicians’ stalls at the fair are gone, protests have been silenced and pro-democracy campaigners jailed. Kenneth feels his political coming-of-age - and Hong Kong’s - is being erased. “People still carry on with life… but you can feel the change bit by bit,” said the former activis, who did not want to reveal his real name when he spoke to us. “Our city’s character is disappearing.” On the surface Hong Kong appears to be the same, its packed trams still rumbling down bustling streets, its vibrant neon-lit chaos undimmed. But look closer and there are signs the city has changed - from the skyscrapers lighting up every night with exultations of China, the motherland, to the chatter of mainland Mandarin increasingly heard alongside Hong Kong’s native Cantonese. It’s impossible to know how many of Hong Kong’s more than seven million people welcome Beijing’s grip. But hundreds of thousands have taken part in protests in the past decade since a pro-democracy movement erupted in 2014. Not everyone supported it, but few would argue Beijing crushed it. As a turbulent decade draws to a close, hopes for a freer Hong Kong have withered. China says it has steadied a volatile city. Hundreds have been jailed under a sweeping national security law (NSL), which also drove thousands of disillusioned and wary Hongkongers abroad, including activists who feared or fled arrest. Others, like Kenneth, have stayed and keep a low profile. But in many of them lives the memory of a freer Hong Kong - a place they are fighting to remember in defiance of Beijing’s remaking of their city. Getty Images Thousands occupied the streets of Hong Kong during the 2014 protests, which earned the names Umbrella Movement and Occupy Central When Hong Kong, a former British colony, was returned to China in 1997, it was under the assurance that the city would keep some rights, including free speech, freedom of assembly and rule of law for 50 years. But as Beijing’s power grew, so did the disquiet within the city’s pro-democracy camp. In September 2014, tens of thousands of protesters began to stage mass sit-ins in downtown Hong Kong, demanding fully democratic elections. It propelled a new generation of pro-democracy campaigners to prominence - such as Joshua Wong, then a 17-year-old student, and Benny Tai, a college professor, who called the movement Occupy Central. It also seeded the ground for more explosive protests in 2019, which were triggered by Beijing’s proposal to extradite locals to the mainland. The plan was scrapped but the protests intensified over several months as calls grew for more democracy, becoming the most serious challenge to Beijing’s authority in Hong Kong. “Without Benny Tai, there would have been no Occupy Central,” says Chan Kin-man, who co-founded the campaign with Tai and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. “He had the temper of scholars and spoke his mind… that’s why he was bold enough to push for changes and think about big ideas. It is always people \[like this\] who change history.” Getty Images Chu, Tai (centre) and Chan were at the forefront of the Occupy Central movement in 2014 Chan Kin-man In 2013 the trio celebrated Tai's birthday, holding up a birthday gift of wood carvings spelling out "persevere, peace, love" Chan and Rev Chu are both exiles in Taiwan now. Chan moved to Taipei in 2021, after serving 11 months in jail for inciting public nuisance in his role in Occupy Central. He is now a fellow at a local research institute. Tai is still in Hong Kong, where he will spend the next decade behind bars. Earlier this month he was sentenced to jail for subversion, [along with more than 40 other pro-democracy campaigners](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2l4eynl4zo) including Wong, many of whom have been in jail since their arrest in early 2021. As Wong left the courtroom, he shouted: “I love Hong Kong.” The following day 76-year-old billionaire Jimmy Lai, a fierce critic of China, testified at his trial for allegedly colluding with foreign forces. Frail but defiant, he told the court his now-defunct newspaper Apple Daily had only espoused the values of Hong Kong’s people: “Pursuit of democracy and freedom of speech”. The trials have passed quietly, in stark contrast to the events that led to them. Small signs of protest outside the court were quickly shut down - a woman sobbing about her son’s sentence was taken away by police. Beijing defends the restrictions - including the NSL under which the trials are happening - as essential for stability. It says the West or its allies have no right to question its laws or how it applies them. But critics accuse China of reneging on the deal it struck in 1997. They say it has weakened the city’s courts and muzzled the once resounding cry for democracy in Hong Kong. BBC Chinese / Joy Chang Chan has been living in Taipei since 2021 Chan has watched these events unfold from afar with a heavy heart. After 2014, there had still been the possibility of change, he said. Now, “a lot of things have become impossible… Hong Kong has become no different from other Chinese cities”. Faced with this reality after campaigning for democracy for more than a decade, “you can say that I have failed in everything I have done in my life”, he said with a wry smile. But still he perseveres. Besides teaching classes on Chinese society, he is writing a book about Occupy Central, collecting items for an archive of Hong Kong’s protest scene, organising conferences, and giving virtual lectures on democracy and politics. These efforts “make me feel that I haven’t given up on Hong Kong. I don’t feel like I have abandoned it”. Yet, there are moments when he grapples with his decision to leave. He is happier in Taiwan, but he also feels “a sense of loss”. “Am I still together with other Hongkongers, facing the same challenges as them?” Getty Images Hong Kong's iconic trams still rumble down the streets... Getty Images And its neon-lit chaos remains undimmed “If you are not breathing the air here, you don’t really know what’s happening… if you don’t feel the pulse here, it means you are truly gone,” said Kenneth, as he continued his walk through Victoria Park. With friends leaving the city in droves in the last few years, he has lost count of the number of farewell parties he’s attended. Still, he insists on staying: “This is where my roots are.” What irritates him is the rhetoric from those who leave, that the Hong Kong they knew has died. “Hong Kong continues to exist. Its people are still here! So how can they say that Hong Kong is dead?" But, he acknowledged, there have been dramatic changes. Hongkongers now have to think twice about what they say out loud, Kenneth said. Many are now adapting to a “normalised state of surveillance”. There are red lines, “but it is very difficult to ascertain them”. Instead of campaigning openly, activists now write petition letters. Rallies, marches and protests are definitely off-limits, he added. But many, like Kenneth, are wary of taking part in any activism, because they fear they’ll be arrested. A [t-shirt](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0m0v99pd3vo), [social media posts](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2qq47qdqwlo) and [picture books](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64985527) have fallen foul of the law recently, landing their owners in jail for sedition. Getty Images Victoria Park once hosted annual vigils for victims of the Tiananmen massacre Getty Images A recent mid-autumn festival celebration in the park marked the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China These days Kenneth goes out less frequently. “The contrast is so drastic now. I don’t want to remember what happened in the past.” Still, as he walked out of the park and headed to the Admiralty district, more memories unspooled. As he neared the government headquarters, he pointed to the spot where he choked on tear gas for the first time, on 28 September 2014. That day, the police fired 87 rounds of tear gas on unarmed protesters, an act that enraged demonstrators and galvanised the pro-democracy movement. As the protests deepened and tear gas became a common sight, many sheltered behind umbrellas, spawning a new moniker - the Umbrella Movement. Getty Images Kenneth choked on tear gas on 28 September 2014 when police fired it on protesters The final stop was his alma mater, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, also known as PolyU. It was a key battleground during the 2019 demonstrations that saw protesters battling police on the streets, hurling projectiles against tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets. Five years on, the PolyU entrance where students fended off the police with bricks and petrol bombs in a fiery showdown has been reconstructed. A fountain which saw the most intense clashes has been demolished. Like elsewhere in Hong Kong, the campus seemed to have been scrubbed of its disobedient past. Kenneth believed it was because the university “doesn’t want people to remember certain things". Then, he darted away to a quiet corner. Hidden beneath the bushes was a low wall pockmarked with holes and gobs of concrete. It was impossible to tell what they were. But Kenneth believes these were traces of the battles which escaped the purge of memories. “I don’t believe we will forget what happened,” he said. “Forgetting the past is a form of betrayal.” BBC Chinese / Lok Lee The pockmarked wall made of PolyU's trademark red bricks BBC Chinese / Lok Lee Kenneth keeps a secret collection of protest memorabilia At a Tesco’s café in Watford in the UK, Kasumi Law remembered what she missed about her old home. “I never thought I’d love the sea in Hong Kong so much. I only realised this when I arrived in the UK,” she said, as she tucked into a full English breakfast. Unlike the cold and dark ocean surrounding Britain, “in Hong Kong the sea is so shiny, because there are so many buildings… I didn’t realise how beautiful our city is”. Kasumi’s decision to move to the UK with her husband and young daughter had stemmed from an unease that crept up on her over the previous decade. The Occupy Central protests began just months after her daughter was born in 2014. In the following years, as Beijing's grip appeared to tighten - [student activists were jailed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40957422) and [booksellers disappeared](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-35219260) - Kasumi's discomfort grew. “Staying in Hong Kong was, I wouldn’t say, unsafe,” she said. “But every day, little by little, there was a feeling of something not being right.” Then Hong Kong erupted in protest again in 2019. As Beijing cracked down, the UK offered a visa scheme for Hongkongers born before the 1997 handover, and Kasumi and her husband agreed it was time to go for the sake of their daughter. They settled in the town of Watford near London, where her husband found a job in IT while Kasumi became a stay-at-home mum. But she had never lived abroad before, and she struggled with a deep homesickness which she documented in emotional video diaries on YouTube. One of them even went viral last year, striking a chord with some Hongkongers while others criticised her for choosing to emigrate. Kasumi Law One of Kasumi's happiest memories is playing with her dog Glory at Lamma Island in Hong Kong Youtube / Kasumi Law A screenshot from Kasumi's viral video about her difficulty adjusting to life in the UK Eventually it was too much to bear, and she returned to Hong Kong for a visit last year. Over two months she visited childhood haunts like a theme park and a science museum, scoffed down her mum’s homecooked fuzzy melon with vermicelli and stir fried clams, and treated herself to familiar delights such as egg tarts and melon-flavoured soy milk. But the Hong Kong she remembered had also changed. Her mum looked older. Her favourite shops in the Ladies Market had closed down. Sitting by the harbour at Tsim Sha Tsui one night, she was happy to be reunited with the twinkling sea she had missed so much. Then she realised most of the people around her were speaking in Mandarin. Tears streamed down her face. “When I looked out at the sea it looked familiar, but when I looked around at the people around me, it felt strange.” Kasumi wonders when she would visit again. With the passing of [a new security law this year - Article 23](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-68508694) - her friends have advised her to delete social media posts from past protests before returning. It is a far cry from the fearlessness she remembers from 2019, when she brought her daughter to the protests and they marched on the streets with thousands of people, united in their defiance. Getty Images A familiar sight in the 2019 protests: demonstrators' raised hands, symbolising their five demands “It’s too late to turn back,” she said. “I feel if I go back to Hong Kong I might not be used to life there, to be honest. “My daughter is happy here. When I see her, I think it’s worth it. I want her world to be bigger.” Kasumi’s world is bigger too - she has found a job and made new friends. But even as she builds a new life in the UK, she remains determined to preserve the Hongkonger in her - and her child. Kasumi and her husband only speak in Cantonese to their daughter, and the family often watches Cantonese films together. Her daughter doesn’t yet understand the significance of the 2019 protests she marched in, nor the movement that began in 2014, when she was born. But Kasumi plans to explain when she is older. The seeds Kasumi is planting are already taking root. She is particularly proud of the way her daughter responds to people who call her Chinese. “She gets angry, and she will argue with them,” Kasumi said, with a smile. “She always tells people, ‘I’m not Chinese, I’m a Hongkonger'." Hong Kong protests: A city's identity crisis Read more about Hong Kong -------------------------

Hong Kong’s flagship airline, Cathay Pacific, has apologised over the inclusion of a Family Guy episode in its inflight entertainment system that features a scene depicting Tiananmen Square. The airline [told the South China Morning Post](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3289257/hong-kongs-cathay-says-sorry-removes-family-guy-episode-tiananmen-tank-man-scene) it had apologised to customers after a complaint was raised on social media that the episode might breach Hong Kong’s [national security laws](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/hong-kong-47-hk47-sentencing-national-security-trial). “We emphasise that the programme’s content does not represent Cathay Pacific’s standpoint and have immediately arranged to have the programme removed as soon as possible,” a spokesperson for the carrier told the outlet. The US animated comedy series is known for pushing boundaries and sensitivities. In the seven-second scene, main character Peter Griffin is depicted standing next to a protester in front of a line of Chinese tanks – mirroring famous scenes of an unknown individual now known as “Tank Man” that were captured during the Chinese military massacre of student protesters on 4 June 1989 in Beijing. Cathay Pacific told SCMP it had ordered its third-party provider to thoroughly investigate and strengthen oversight. The Tiananmen massacre is one of the most sensitive topics inside [China](https://www.theguardian.com/world/china) and is strictly censored. For three decades Hong Kong hosted an annual vigil, with sometimes hundreds of thousands attending to mourn the victims by candlelight. However in the aftermath of pro-democracy protests in 2019, Hong Kong and Chinese authorities launched a sweeping crackdown on opposition and dissent, and introduced draconian national security legislation. People attempting to organise or attend Tiananmen vigils of any size since 2020 have been prosecuted, although some government officials say private markings of the date are acceptable. The crackdown has targeted activism and politics, as well as academia and culture in Hong Kong. Any depiction or reference to the protests or related subjects are considered highly sensitive. In January, Amazon Prime’s blockbuster TV series – Expats – was [released everywhere except in the city it was set](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/29/amazon-the-expats-series-not-available-in-hong-kong-where-it-is-set), Hong Kong. The series featured scenes from the 2014 protest movement. And in 2021, Disney+ launched in Hong Kong, but with a missing episode from [The Simpsons](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/29/disney-channel-launches-in-hong-kong-without-the-simpsons-tiananmen-square-episode). The missing episode depicted Tiananmen Square, and a plaque that reads “On this site, in 1989, nothing happened”.

A Hong Kong judge has convicted seven people, including a pro-democracy former lawmaker, of rioting during mob violence at a subway station at the height of the city’s [anti-government protests in July 2019](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/21/hong-kong-mass-china-extradition-bill-demonstrations-protestors). Prosecutors accused the former legislator Lam Cheuk-ting and six other defendants of [provoking members of a group of about 100 men](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/26/hong-kong-pro-democracy-lawmakers-arrested-over-2019-yuen-long-protests) armed with wooden poles and metal rods who attacked protesters and bystanders at a train station. The men, all clad in white shirts in contrast to the black worn by protesters, claimed to be protecting their homeland in Yuen Long, a residential district in Hong Kong‘s New Territories. Dozens of people, including Lam, were injured in the violence, a key chapter that escalated the protest movement as the public criticised police for their delayed response. The landmark ruling could shape the city’s historical narrative of the incident. Judge Stanley Chan ruled that Lam was not acting as a mediator as he had claimed, but rather was trying to exploit the situation for political gain. He said Lam’s words, directed at the white-shirted men, had “fanned the flames”. The seven defendants are expected to be sentenced in February. Several members of the public sitting in the gallery cried after hearing the verdicts. Others waved at the defendants, with one shouting to Lam, “Hang in there, Ting!” The prosecution alleged the defendants had either berated the white-shirted men, used obscene hand gestures, hurled objects or shot jets of water at them with a hosepipe. The defendants had pleaded not guilty to the rioting charge. During the trial, Lam said he chose to go to Yuen Long because he hoped his then position as a lawmaker could pressure the police to act quickly. He said he could not leave the scene while fellow residents were in danger. Some defendants who targeted the white-shirted men with a hosepipe argued that they were trying to stop the attackers from advancing. Chan, the judge, rejected the arguments of some defendants that they acted in self defence. The 2019 protests were sparked by a [proposed extradition law](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/the-last-fight-for-hong-kong-activists-gear-up-to-protest-extradition-law) that would have allowed criminal suspects in Hong Kong to be sent to the mainland for trial. The government withdrew the bill, but the protesters widened their demands to include direct elections for the city’s leaders and police accountability. The social movement was the biggest challenge to the Hong Kong government since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997. In response, Beijing imposed a [national security law in 2020](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/30/china-passes-controversial-hong-kong-national-security-law), leading to the arrest of many activists. Others were silenced or went into exile. In November, Lam was sentenced to six years and nine months in jail in the city’s biggest national security case. More than 10,000 people were arrested in connection to the protests for various crimes, such as rioting and participating in an unauthorised assembly. About 10 white-shirted men were convicted in other cases related to the mob violence in July 2019, local media reported.