DOCSLIB.ORG

Written Evidence from Stand with Hong Kong (FOE0121)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Written Evidence from Stand with Hong Kong (FOE0121) Written evidence from Stand with Hong Kong (FOE0121) About Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong. Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong is a completely independent, grassroots, crowdfunded group of individuals who have come together to fight for freedom and democracy for Hong Kong. Our members come from all walks of life and are united by a shared vision. Following the promulgation of the National Security Law in June 2020 by the Chinese Communist Party, we are now the only grassroots organisation representing the voice of Hongkongers in the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. Introduction Since coming into force in June 2020, the National Security Law (NSL) has been used to suppress freedom of expression, of the press and of assembly, both on the streets and online in Hong Kong. This has impacted academic freedom as well. We have seen the introduction of national security education, new censorship guidelines encouraging students and teachers to monitor each other for ‘thoughtcrime’, and the removal of pro-democracy academics. These trends ensure the National Security Law will have an adverse chilling effect on the education sector in Hong Kong and will profoundly harm our future generations. The NSL has also impacted university students in the UK. One of the key features of the law is that it also asserts jurisdiction over non-Hong Kong residents, who can be prosecuted or arrested for their acts outside of Hong Kong. Article 38 of the NSL is having a wider effect on UK universities as it allows for persons to be prosecuted for offences committed “from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region”. This means that critics of China – including Hong Kong’s large diaspora – may face legal risks if they enter or return to the city. As a result, university students and academics in the UK are at risk of prosecution for criticising China, should they enter Hong Kong. This submission explores in more detail how Hongkongers’ freedom of expression has been curtailed in UK universities as a result of this new law. How has the situation changed in universities in the two years since the Committee’s report on the issue? The NSL is a direct assault on academic freedom by the Chinese Communist Party, preventing vigorous debate and withholding from students the safe space for unfettered debate without fear. In September 2020, it was reported that students studying at Oxford University specialising in the study of China are being asked to submit some of their work anonymously, to protect them from the possibility of retribution under the NSL.1 Additionally, with classes now being 1 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/28/oxford-moves-to-protect-students-from-chinas-hong-kong- security-law 1 delivered online due to coronavirus, students are told not to record the content or share the material with anyone outside the class.2 Separately, a growing fear exists amongst pro-Hong Kong students that supporters of the Chinese Government might report their peers. The student’s union at the University of Warwick saw a motion to support the democratic and human rights of Hongkongers voted down by unprecedented numbers of Chinese students voting in support of Beijing.3 This example serves as a warning of the mobilisation of nationalist sentiment by China in the name of student activism. Lord Patten of Barnes, who was the last Governor of Hong Kong from 1992 to 1997, has warned that many Chinese students who come to the UK to study are used to cameras in classes, as well as “paid informants and narks” to tell them what is going on. He has warned that unless we are careful, this could leak to UK universities.4 Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute think tank, said that it must be made clear to overseas students that free speech, flags, protesting and campaigning were all legitimate activities at universities in the UK.5 It is unfortunate that all universities have not been forthcoming in taking a stand against the new National Security Law. Universities must act with their conscience, and ensure that they do not allow a growing sense of internationalism, market pressures, and financial pressures dictate their moral compass. Universities must not compromise their independence, and promotion of liberties including freedom of expression, at the hands of the pressure from the Chinese Communist Party. Even before the NSL was in place, academic freedom at UK universities was jeopardised by Chinese influence. In November 2019, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee warned of China’s threats to academic freedom, exposing mounting evidence of foreign influence in United Kingdom universities, including “alarming evidence” about the extent of Chinese influence on UK campuses.6 This includes the monitoring of anti-China student activity on campuses by pro-China students.7 2 ibid 3 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/motion-backing-hong-kong-blocked-after-campaign-by-chinese-students-at- warwick-fsdfphr26 4 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/12/academics-warn-of-chilling-effect-of-hong-kong-security- law 5 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/beijings-law-threatens-hong-kong-students-at-our-universities-warns-mp- 3kjnsp35q 6 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmfaff/109/109.pdf 7 http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Foreign- Affairs/Autocracies-and-UK-Foreign-Policy/Oral/102827.html 2 Concerns have also been raised about the influence of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) on campuses throughout the UK. The Foreign Affairs Committee also detailed how CSSA chapters had been active in attacking pro-Hong Kong protests at UK universities.8 The National Security Law and the influence of China on universities in the UK put the academic integrity of universities at risk, and universities have a duty to protect the freedom of expression of staff and students. The UK Government must take steps to guarantee that universities enjoy maximum academic freedom and ensure that Hongkongers and other academics in the UK are not subject to censorship as a result of the National Security Law. We suggest introducing punitive measures against individuals and organisations found to be undermining freedom of expression within the UK as one form of deterrent. 27/01/2021 8 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmfaff/109/109.pdf 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Submission to the Parliament Inquiry on Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement by Hong Kong Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation1
    Submission to the Parliament Inquiry on Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement by Hong Kong Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation1 1. On 26 March 2019, Australia and Hong Kong signed the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement, which was expected to consolidate the following cultural and economic ties between the two territories: a. Approximately 100,000 Australians live in Hong Kong, while around 96,000 Hong Kong people live in Australia;2 b. Over 120,000 people in Hong Kong are alumni of Australian universities;3 c. In 2018, Australian companies based 35 regional headquarters4, 50 regional offices5, and 87 local offices6 in Hong Kong, with more than 600 Australian business having a presence in the city;7 d. In 2018, Australian total merchandise trade with Hong Kong amounted to A$11.4 billion, making Hong Kong Australia’s 14th largest trading partner; in particular, Hong Kong was Australia’s 7th export destination, totalling A$10.4 billion;8 e. In 2018, the total stock of Australian investment in Hong Kong amounted to A$52.2 billion, while the total stock of Hong Kong investment in Australia amounted to A$118 billion, making Hong Kong Australia’s 12th largest source of inwards FDI stock.9 2. However, China’s encroachment on Hong Kong’s autonomy has been eroding the city’s freedom of speech and rule of law which underpin its ideal business environment for Australian companies, as shown by the following cases: a. In 2015, five booksellers who were based in Hong Kong and sold works critical of Beijing were abducted to mainland China and suffered from detentions and forced confessions;10 the incident constitutes a serious breach to Hong Kong’s freedom of press and human rights; 1 The Hong Kong Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation (the Delegation thereafter) was founded in July 2019 amid a series of protests against the government’s proposed extradition bill in Hong Kong.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament 2019-2024
    European Parliament 2019-2024 TEXTS ADOPTED P9_TA(2021)0356 Hong Kong, notably the case of Apple Daily European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2021 on Hong Kong, notably the case of Apple Daily (2021/2786(RSP)) The European Parliament, – having regard to all its previous resolutions on Hong Kong, in particular those of 21 January 2021 on the crackdown on the democratic opposition in Hong Kong1, of 19 June 2020 on the PRC national security law for Hong Kong and the need for the EU to defend Kong Kong’s high degree of autonomy2, of 18 July 2019 on the situation in Hong Kong3 and of 24 November 2016 on the case of Gui Minhai, jailed publisher in China4, – having regard to its previous resolutions on China, in particular those of 20 May 2021 on Chinese countersanctions on EU entities and MEPs and MPs5, of 12 September 2018 on the state of EU-China relations6 and of 16 December 2015 on EU-China relations7, – having regard to its recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on Hong Kong, 20 years after handover8, – having regard to the joint statement by Members of the European Parliament David McAllister and Reinhard Bütikofer on the new national security law in Hong Kong of 1 July 2020, – having regard to the European Parliament Conference of Presidents’ press statement of 6 July 2020, – having regard to the statements by the Spokesperson of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 23 June 2021 on the closure of Apple Daily’s Hong Kong operations 1 Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0027.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Hong Kong
    CHAPTER 6 HONG KONG Key Findings • The Hong Kong government’s proposal of a bill that would allow for extraditions to mainland China sparked the territory’s worst political crisis since its 1997 handover to the Mainland from the United Kingdom. China’s encroachment on Hong Kong’s auton- omy and its suppression of prodemocracy voices in recent years have fueled opposition, with many protesters now seeing the current demonstrations as Hong Kong’s last stand to preserve its freedoms. Protesters voiced five demands: (1) formal with- drawal of the bill; (2) establishing an independent inquiry into police brutality; (3) removing the designation of the protests as “riots;” (4) releasing all those arrested during the movement; and (5) instituting universal suffrage. • After unprecedented protests against the extradition bill, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam suspended the measure in June 2019, dealing a blow to Beijing which had backed the legislation and crippling her political agenda. Her promise in September to formally withdraw the bill came after months of protests and escalation by the Hong Kong police seeking to quell demonstrations. The Hong Kong police used increasingly aggressive tactics against protesters, resulting in calls for an independent inquiry into police abuses. • Despite millions of demonstrators—spanning ages, religions, and professions—taking to the streets in largely peaceful pro- test, the Lam Administration continues to align itself with Bei- jing and only conceded to one of the five protester demands. In an attempt to conflate the bolder actions of a few with the largely peaceful protests, Chinese officials have compared the movement to “terrorism” and a “color revolution,” and have im- plicitly threatened to deploy its security forces from outside Hong Kong to suppress the demonstrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong: in the Name of National Security Human Rights Violations Related to the Implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law
    HONG KONG: IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG NATIONAL SECURITY LAW Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 10 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2021 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2021 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: ASA 17/4197/2021 June 2021 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 1. BACKGROUND 3 2. ACTS AUTHORITIES CLAIM TO BE ‘ENDANGERING NATIONAL SECURITY’ 5 EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY 5 EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 7 EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION 9 ENGAGING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ADVOCACY 10 3. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ENABLED BY THE NSL 12 STRINGENT THRESHOLD FOR BAIL AND PROLONGED PERIOD OF PRETRIAL DETENTION 13 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 15 RETROACTIVITY 16 SPECIALLY APPOINTED JUDGES 16 RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL 17 ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES TO PREPARE A DEFENCE 17 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong's National Security
    FEBRUARY 2021 HONG KONG’S NATIONAL SECURITY LAW: A Human Rights and Rule of Law Analysis by Lydia Wong and Thomas E. Kellogg THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAW constitutes one of the greatest threats to human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong since the 1997 handover. This report was researched and written by Lydia Wong (alias, [email protected]), research fellow, Georgetown Center for Asian Law; and Thomas E. Kellogg ([email protected]), executive director, Georgetown Center for Asian Law, and adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center. (Ms. Wong, a scholar from the PRC, decided to use an alias due to political security concerns.) The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the draft report. We also thank Prof. James V. Feinerman for both his substantive inputs on the report, and for his longstanding leadership and guidance of the Center for Asian Law. We would also like to thank the Hong Kongers we interviewed for this report, for sharing their insights on the situation in Hong Kong. All photographs by CLOUD, a Hong Kong-based photographer. Thanks to Kelsey Harrison for administrative and publishing support. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i The National Security Law: Undermining the Basic Law, Threatening Human Rights iii Implementation of the NSL iv I INTRODUCTION 1 THE HONG KONG NATIONAL SECURITY LAW: II A HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW ANALYSIS 6 The NSL: Infringing LegCo Authority 9 New NSL Structures: A Threat to Hong Kong’s Autonomy 12 The NSL and the Courts: Judicial
    [Show full text]
  • Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: an Assessment 20 Years After the Handover
    WILL THE HONG KONG MODEL SURVIVE?: AN ASSESSMENT 20 YEARS AFTER THE HANDOVER HEARING BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 3, 2017 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26–340 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 U:\DOCS\26340 DIEDRE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Senate House MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Cochairman TOM COTTON, Arkansas ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina STEVE DAINES, Montana TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois TODD YOUNG, Indiana MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California TIM WALZ, Minnesota JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TED LIEU, California GARY PETERS, Michigan ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Not yet appointed ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Staff Director PAUL B. PROTIC, Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 U:\DOCS\26340 DIEDRE CO N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 1 Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Tale of Hong Kong: from Freedom to Crackdown
    The Tale of Hong Kong: From Freedom to Crackdown POLICY PAPER / JANUARY 2021 AMEDEO GASPARINI 0 POLICY PAPER | January 2021 The Tale of Hong Kong: From Freedom to Crackdown Policy Paper – Amedeo Gasparini, January 2021 Introduction1 Protests in Hong Kong started in summer 2019 after growing pressures and interferences from Beijing sparked public disorders. «Five demands, not one less» became the slogan of the protesters demanding more democracy and less complacency regarding the “One Country Two Systems” (OCTS) rule. Among the requests was the withdrawal of a bill enabling China to obtain the extradition of anyone in Hong Kong; […] the allowance of the people of Hong Kong to democratically elect their own government; and accountability for multiple acts of police brutality» (Diamond 2019). The extradition bill which had triggered protests was later withdrawn, but protests continued until the passing of the National Security Law (NSL, SCMP 2020). The law was drafted behind closed doors in Beijing and imposed on the Hong Kongers without their consultation, effectively limiting their freedom of expression and defining regime-criticism as unpatriotic, thus making it illegal. From July 1, 2020, the city has become a «separation point between authoritarianism and democracy» (Talia 2020). «Democracy means “rule by the people”. President Xi Jinping and his communist colleagues reject such an idea» (Edwards 2019). The NSL criminalizes dissent in Hong Kong and legislatively brings the city even closer to mainland China. Leaders in Beijing and the pro-mainland-China government in Hong Kong used the chaos in the city as an excuse to impose an authoritarian rule over the former British colony.
    [Show full text]
  • Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games to Urge You Immediately Cancel Your Broadcasting Deals
    7 September 2021 Dear Tom Buhrow, Chairman; Tim Davie, Director General; Mirko Bibic, President and Chief Executive Officer; Hubert T. Lacroix, President and Chief Executive Officer; David M. Zaslav, President and Chief Executive Officer; JB Perrette, President & Chief Executive Officer; Merete Eldrup, Chief Executive Officer; Andrew Georgiou, President; Giorgos Gampritsos, Chief Executive Officer; Delphine Ernotte Cunci, Chief Executive Officer; Jorge Nóbrega, Chief Executive Officer; Kazimir Bacic, Director General; Dániel Papp, Chief Executive Officer; Jeff Shell, Chief Executive Officer; Gerard Timmer, Chief Executive Officer; Joe Natale, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jean-Paul Philippot, Chief Executive Officer; Stefán Eiríksson, Director General; José Manuel Pérez Tornero, Executive President; James Warburton, Chief Executive Officer; Sophie Maloney, Chief Executive Officer; Calvo Mawela, Chief Executive Officer; Marc Jury, Chief Executive Officer; Merja Ylä-Anttila, Chief Executive Officer; Dr. Thomas Bellut, Chief Executive Officer; We, a coalition of over 200 global campaign groups representing Tibetans, Uyghurs, Hongkongers, Chinese, Southern Mongolians, Taiwanese, and other affected and concerned communities, are writing to you as the planned broadcasters1 of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games to urge you immediately cancel your broadcasting deals. All of your companies are at serious risk of being complicit in China’s plan to ‘sport wash’2 the severe and worsening human rights abuses and embolden the actions of
    [Show full text]
  • NBA Backs Free Speech but Likely to Tiptoe with China
    10/14/19, 11:01 PM Page 1 of 3 Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] NBA Backs Free Speech But Likely To Tiptoe With China By Zachary Zagger Law360 (October 10, 2019, 10:16 PM EDT) -- A tweet by the Houston Rockets general manager in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong put NBA Commissioner Adam Silver in a lose-lose situation in trying to mend the league's lucrative relationship with China and still defend freedom of expression, a situation experts say will force NBA players and executives to tread carefully in commenting on China. The Oct. 4 tweet by Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey, who shared a picture with text saying, "Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong,” has caused a firestorm for the National Basketball Association and jeopardized its business in China. The Hong Kong protests are an extremely sensitive political issue for the Chinese communist regime. A preseason game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Brooklyn Nets in Shanghai proceeded as scheduled Thursday, won by the Nets. But according to several reports, that contest and an upcoming rematch have been pulled from Chinese state television, and Chinese sponsors are pulling out despite the league's decadeslong presence in the country. The NBA is one of the most popular sports leagues in China, and the country has proven to be a lucrative and growing market for the league. While experts say the incident is likely to blow over, that does not seem to be happening fast after Silver publicly said the NBA will not apologize for Morey’s comment or punish him.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in Hong Kong CDP-0076 (2021) by John Curtis, Julie Gill, Tim Robinson 7 June 2021
    Debate Pack Human rights in Hong Kong CDP-0076 (2021) By John Curtis, Julie Gill, Tim Robinson 7 June 2021 1 Background 2 2 Press and media articles 8 3 Press releases 10 4 PQs 19 5 Further Parliamentary material 27 6 Further reading 32 Summary A Westminster Hall debate on 'Human rights in Hong Kong' has been scheduled for Wednesday 9 June 2021 from 2.30-4:00pm. The debate has been initiated by Tom Randall MP. Human rights in Hong Kong 1 Background Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842 until the UK transferred sovereignty over Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China in 1997, after which it became a Special Administrative Region of China. In preparation of the handover, in 1984 Great Britain and China agreed the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong (Joint Declaration). Joint Declaration and period up to 2019 The Joint Declaration states that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) will be directly under the authority of the People’s Republic of China but will enjoy a “high degree of autonomy” and its social and economic systems and lifestyle will remain unchanged for fifty years. However, in recent years there has been growing concern the principle ‘One Country, Two Systems’, in which Hong Kong is part of China but has separate legal and economic systems, is being steadily eroded. The UK Government has catalogued such fears in its six-monthly reports on Hong Kong, as has the Foreign Affairs Committee in reports on Hong Kong and China in 2015 and 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • The Validity of the Hong Kong Protests
    AN UMBRELLA OF AUTONOMY 1 An Umbrella of Autonomy: The Validity of the Hong Kong Protests Ciera C. Lehmann A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Fall 2020 AN UMBRELLA OF AUTONOMY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Mary Prentice, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Professor Edna Udobong Committee Member ______________________________ Dr. David Schweitzer Assistant Honors Director ______________________________ Date AN UMBRELLA OF AUTONOMY 3 Abstract Hong Kong has been fighting for democracy and to retain its autonomy from China, and the world has been watching. Over time, Hong Kongers have seen Beijing blatantly tighten its grip before time was up for the fifty-year agreement since the handover in 1997. In 2014, and again in 2019, hundreds of thousands of citizens filled the streets to participate in pro-democracy demonstrations with the protests only gaining momentum and influence. While there has mostly been support for Hong Kong’s independence movement, there has been argument that Beijing’s actions are completely justified. Should Hong Kong remain autonomous from China, and if so, what is the justification? This paper will discuss Hong Kong’s need to regain and maintain autonomy from China as well as solutions to help it achieve this. AN UMBRELLA OF AUTONOMY 4 Introduction Events within Hong Kong have gripped global awareness and have been the source of international scrutiny due to its unique status and economic significance in trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong: in the Name of National Security Human Rights Violations Related to the Implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law
    HONG KONG: IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG NATIONAL SECURITY LAW Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 10 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2021 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2021 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: ASA 17/4197/2021 June 2021 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 1. BACKGROUND 3 2. ACTS AUTHORITIES CLAIM TO BE ‘ENDANGERING NATIONAL SECURITY’ 5 EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY 5 EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 7 EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION 9 ENGAGING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ADVOCACY 10 3. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ENABLED BY THE NSL 12 STRINGENT THRESHOLD FOR BAIL AND PROLONGED PERIOD OF PRETRIAL DETENTION 13 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 15 RETROACTIVITY 16 SPECIALLY APPOINTED JUDGES 17 RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL 17 ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES TO PREPARE A DEFENCE 18 4.
    [Show full text]