Two Pianists, One Star Rises, the Other Falls

Liu stands after his winning performance in Warsaw

 

Just as a new piano star is crowned, another has fallen in disgrace.

On October 21, Bruce Xiaoyu Liu of Montreal, Canada was named the winner of the prestigious 18th Frederic Chopin piano competition that comes with 40,000 euro (US$45,000) in prize money in Warsaw, Poland.

The 24-year-old who was born in France, is taking the big win in stride, though he hopes he can continue his "hobby", because he doesn't want piano playing to become something he has to do out of obligation.

He beat out 86 other young pianists around the world to clinch first prize in the competition that is only held every five years, but was delayed last year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Liu knows his career will accelerate from now on

During the competition Liu wowed the audience with his interpretation of the Piano Concerto No. 1 in E Minor, Op. 11. Even before the last notes were played the people, many of them music critics and Chopin experts, shouted and clapped, impressed by his intense playing. He says the performance was a blur and he didn't get much sleep before the competition.

When asked how he will celebrate his win, Liu said he didn't have time to think about it because he will be going on tour and it will be a while before he returns to Montreal. 

Nevertheless he seems to be taking it all in stride.

Liu describes his victory as a "life-changing event", and knows his career is about to accelerate and he is "ready for it".

But on the opposite end of the spectrum is well known pianist Li Yundi, who was reportedly caught with a prostitute in Beijing.

The news broke on the same evening of October 21 with police reporting they had detained a 39-year-old pianist surnamed Li on suspicion of patronizing a 29-year-old prostitute in the Chinese capital. 

Li also won the Chopin competition in 2000

Cryptically the police posted a picture of a keyboard with a message: "The world is not simply black and white, but one must distinguish black and white. It must never be mistaken."

Li rose to fame in 2000 when he won the Frederic Chopin competition at the age of 18. However, in recent years he has moved away from serious classical music performances and more towards entertainment shows in China.

Later a police statement did not specify how long Li would be detained, but according to Chinese law, soliciting prostitution is illegal and typically leads to administrative detention of between 10 and 15 days. It could be reduced to five days or fewer if the circumstances of the offence are minor.

However, the damage has already been done and the fallout begun -- the "prince of the piano" has been boycotted and numerous organizations have cut ties with Li, including the China Musicians Association, the Sichuan Conservatory of Music, and Mango TV, where he was part of a televised talent show named Call Me By Fire.

Esteemed China law expert Jerome Cohen questions why Li was singled out when so many others solicit the services of prostitutes but aren't prosecuted.

Li detained for allegedly soliciting a prostitute

"Did he offend a leader by some remarks of a political or personal nature? Was he 'set up' for this charge? Can one be confident that the facts alleged are true? Is this the use of the police as an instrument of revenge by some powerful person? Is this simply a part of the current campaign to transform and 'purify' the entertainment and other industries? Will Li be allowed to leave the country after serving his punishment to pursue his career abroad? That seems unlikely," Cohen writes in his blog.

"Prostitution is such a time-honoured Communist Party claim against political opponents that one has to be suspicious of this case. In any event, the manner by which the police have made the matter public only adds to the unsavoury story."

We will have to wait to see the fate of Li, while we hope to one day watch Liu's performance in person.

 

 

The Two Michaels on Trial

Diplomats from 23 countries came out for Kovrig's trial today

 

This morning was the second of the "Two Michaels" trials -- Canadians Michael Spavor in Dandong in northeastern China, and then today Michael Kovrig in Beijing.

Diplomats from 23 countries came to the courthouse to attend the proceedings -- but were shut out on claims that it is a national security case. Kovrig was formally charged last June for allegedly spying and conspiring with businessman Spavor.

Last Friday diplomats from eight countries tried to attend Spavor's trial but were also denied entry, along with journalists in both cases.

Yang criticized the US during the Alaska talks

Both men have been held practically incommunicado since December 2018 in deplorable conditions and then were suddenly put on trial because officials from the United States were meeting with their Chinese counterparts in Alaska, the first meeting since the start of the Biden administration.

China probably hoped to gain more concessions from the US, but the two-day meeting ended in lots of verbal posturing and not much accomplished. May we add that for all of Director of of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission Yang Jiechi's attacks on the US, his daughter Alice graduated from Yale...

But back to the urgent matter at hand.

Marc Garneau, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs said in a statement: "We are deeply troubled by the total lack of transparency surrounding these hearings and we continue to work towards an immediate end to their arbitrary detention.

"The eyes of the world are on these cases and proceedings and I want to thank our international partners for their continued support and solidarity."

Esteemed legal scholar Jerome Cohen wrote about the Spavor trial, saying it would be ridiculed by all democratic nations.

Spavor (right) and Kovrig were suddenly on trial

While questioning why diplomats and reporters were not allowed into the courtroom, and how was the trial conducted, did Spavor have any interpretation access or were there any witnesses called to testify, Cohen asks and adds:

"Is the handling of this case designed to demonstrate that China has stood up to the world judicially in a blatant exercise of a newly empowered 'sovereignty' that rejects conventional contemporary standards? What can its leaders be thinking? Are we back to the days of Chinese-Western conflicts over Imperial China's criminal prosecutions of Western sailors at the end of the 18th century or early 19th century?"

To Cohen the whole affair is terribly archaic.

Spavor's trial ended in less than three hours and no verdict was announced, while Kovrig's spanned the whole day before a verdict would be given at a later date. 

Meanwhile China's Foreign Ministry criticized the gathering of diplomats outside the courthouse. 

"Be it a few or dozens of diplomats trying to gather and exert pressure, it is an interference in China's judicial sovereignty... and not something that a diplomat should do," said foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying.

Guy Saint-Jacques says this is a political case

Former Canadian ambassador to China Guy Saint-Jacques said he expected the proceedings to be short.

"China does not even try to make this look like a real trial as evidence is not shared with the defence and the judge does not even take the time to review it," he said before Kovrig's hearing. "It just confirms that the process is preordained by the Communist party and this is a political case."

Saint-Jacques seems to be hinting the end result is not going to be good for both Michaels even though they have suffered more than enough already.

We can only hope they still have the will to keep hoping.

 

Bail Hearings for 47 "a Farce of Procedural Fairness"

Leung Kwok-hung flashes a V-sign before bail hearing

 

After a marathon four days of hearing bail applications from the 47 people charged with subversion under the national security law, 15 were granted bail -- but the Department of Justice immediately lodged an appeal, which means those people still remain in custody.

These last few days have given Hongkongers an idea of what could happen to them if they are arrested for violating the national security law. Chief Magistrate Victor So Wai-tak thought he would get through all 47 applications in one day -- it ended just before 3am the first day after defendant and district councillor Clarisse Yeung Suet-ying fainted in the dock and had to be sent to hospital. Three other defendants also felt unwell and sought medical attention too.

Chief Magistrate Victor So

The others were all taken back to their cells and only a few hours later returned the court, hardly having eaten, barely slept or even taken a shower. One defendant, barrister Lawrence Lau Wai-chung apologized to Chief Magistrate So for his shabby appearance because he had no time to shower or change his clothes for three days.

Only then did So decide that the hearings would end at 10pm to allow the defendants time to eat and clean themselves.

All this and not all family members and friends could see their loved ones in the dock, nor give them the clothes and other supplies they needed in prison; members of the media did not have full access to witness the proceedings in the court either and could only watch via a video link. 

The prosecutors have also asked for a three month extension to complete their investigations, which means these 47 could be remanded in custody for a year before they are brought to trial. One legal expert, the esteemed Jerome Cohen, is calling this "a farce of procedural fairness". 

Some of the defendants dismissed their lawyers in a bid to plead their case in their own words.

Tam told the court of his humble upbringing

One was ex-lawmaker Jeremy Tam Man-ho who was a former Cathay Pacific pilot and his story made several reporters cry as they took notes. 

He told the court his family was poor and lived in a wooden hut, but it burnt down and they moved to a squatter area. Tam grew up without any toys and he and his parents shared one packet of instant noodles. His father worked as a taxi driver to provide for his family and was finally able to save up enough to send Tam to Australia to study to become a commercial pilot.

However, his father was diagnosed with colon cancer and the treatment cost HK$30,000 a month. Luckily Tam's pilot salary could pay for it, but what about other people in the same predicament? It was then that Tam decided to help other people in Hong Kong by becoming a politician.

"Judge, if you grant me bail, I am willing to do it at all costs. I will agree to all the terms you say. As you wish, I can even take the stars for you. I only want to hug my kids, my wife, and apologize to them 10,000 times," he said.

Supporters waited outside the court in the rain

Tam's story is an amazing Lion Rock story, literally from rags-to-riches to trying to better the society, only to be arrested under the national security law for trying to gain more representation in the Legislative Council which was legal under the Basic Law.

Now Hongkongers are being shown that this is completely wrong and illegal, and this is what will happen to you if you even attempt to change the system.

Speaking of which, the National People's Congress right now is looking to amend Hong Kong's electoral system to ensure "patriots" rule the city.

It will be next to impossible to have any kind of meaningful opposition, elected representatives who represent the views of the people.

And at the same time the Heritage Foundation has taken Hong Kong off the top of the list for having the freest economy in the world -- a standing it held for 25 years until last year -- and put it and Macau together under China down at 107th place, above Uganda, among economies that are deemed "mostly unfree". Hong Kong's index score was described as "not available".

Chan blasted HK's ratings drop by US think tank

The right-wing think tank said "developments in recent years have demonstrated unambiguously that those policies are ultimately controlled by Beijing".

Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po struck back, saying: "When they arrived at that decision, they must have been clouded by their ideological inclination and political bias."

He still insisted the city still enjoyed economic competitiveness with the free flow of capital under "one country, two systems", and that rule of law was still respected.

How can Hong Kong's economy still remain free when its political and judicial institutions are being dismantled daily?

Security Bill Destroying Hongkongers' Trust

Lam and her administration support the national security law

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will meet next weekend, and it is believed the national security law will be up for discussion and possibly promulgation, as if it couldn't happen fast enough.

While some believe the passage of this law will put an end to protests, this may be true, but the reality is that it will be the end of Hong Kong as we know it. The city is rapidly changing into a mainland city whether we like it or not, and our government officials and elites trying to one up themselves on telling the public how the national security law is a good thing when they haven't even seen the wording of such an important document.

Kwok says Beijing has lost the trust of HKers

There is a media report that when Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was meeting with the senior leadership in Beijing, she tried to get a copy of the draft but was told it was highly confidential.

So even the leader of Hong Kong has no idea what's in there and not even allowed to have a sneak peek.

That's what loyalty to Beijing gets you these days -- nothing.

And that's what Civic Party lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki has said on RTHK's Letter to Hong Kong today. He accused Beijing of destroying people's trust in the city.

As a result of Beijing making "one country, two systems" null and void, Hongkongers are frantically looking into emigration, applying for British National (Overseas) passports, and businesses moving out of the Central business district.

But what upset him the most is how some pro-establishment figures have chosen to give away Hong Kong's rights and freedoms so easily.

Beijing crushed dissidents like Liu

"Beyond the mainland government's infringement on our city's founding principles, it is even more disappointing to see how local elites and government officials have turned their backs on Hong Kong people," he said.

"Members of the Executive Council and many prominent business owners voiced their support for the legislation. Perhaps fearing backlash from China, top executives from companies like HSBC have also stood by the draconian law."

He said the mainland authorities use the national security law to intimidate political opponents and suppress dissent, citing the examples of Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, recently released Wang Quanzhang, and just sentenced Yu Wensheng.

"With the passing of the national security law, Hong Kong may follow the same dark path of political oppression," Kwok said.

In addition, he accused the SAR government of already using intimidating language towards those who opposed the impending bill.

"To intimidate voices of opposition, Chief Executive Carrie Lam has even called critics of the National Security Act 'enemies of the people'," he said.

Cohen has many questions about the new law

"Anyone who is publicly opposing the national security bill will very likely face prosecution and other consequences. Just this week, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Erick Tsang Kwok-wai (who has a painted plate of Xi Jinping in his office) said that critics of the legislation may be barred from running in the upcoming Legislative Council elections."

Therefore, Kwok said, people who call Hong Kong home are left with no choice but to stand firm and fight against what he calls "this intrusion into our city's autonomy".

Esteemed law professor and China expert Jerome Cohen of New York University School of Law has been blogging non stop about the national security law. He puts it pretty succinctly in his June 20 blog post:

"The Handover has clearly become the Takeover".

Rights Lawyer Wang Quanzhang Still not Home

Emily Lau holds up a picture of Wang in front of the Liaison Office in HK

Chinese human rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang was "released" 15 days ago from prison after serving almost five years in prison for subversion of the state. Then supposedly as a precaution to protect his family from him possibly having the coronavirus, he was sent to his home in Jinan, Shandong province for two weeks.

But that 14-day quarantine is over and yet Wang is not allowed to go back to Beijing to be reunited with his wife, Li Wenzu and their son. She fears that he is being held under house arrest.

"Today is the 15th day and he still can't return to Bejing," she said on Sunday. "I really cannot accept this."

Wang is still under house arrest in Jinan, Shandong province

Li said in the past two weeks she is only able to have phone conversations with Wang -- monitored by the police -- who determine how long the calls are and the content of their dialogue. She said Wang had told her the online posts she made "were causing him trouble" and ordered her to delete them.

She said Wang called her on Saturday to tell her he was not able to come back to the Chinese capital because he had "just come out and needed to get used to (everything)".  She questioned whether he was speaking of his own will.

"This is not the Wang Quanzhang I knew," she said. "The pain is like a knife stabbing into my bleeding heart."

When Chinese rights activists are released from prison but put in de facto house arrest for many years, this practice is called "non-release release" by rights groups and legal experts like Jerome Cohen.

Li Wenzu and her son have yet to be reunited with Wang

Francine Chan, executive director of Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group said: "The harassment, surveillance and effective house arrest of Wang Quanzhang after his 'release' vividly illustrate China's use of the pandemic to extend Wang's imprisonment in violation of Chinese and international law."

What can Li do now to so that she and her son can be reunited with Wang?

He has already suffered so much physically and psychologically since 2015. Isn't that enough punishment already?

Li's fight for Wang will have to continue if she wants to see her husband again, in person.

Shock Arrests in Hong Kong

Martin Lee says he is proud to walk the path of democracy with young people

Today was a very warm day, and after breakfast I went out for a walk along Victoria Road which has few people, perfect for social distancing on a weekend.

But when I came back home I was in shock seeing the news that 15 lawyers and pro-democracy activists had been arrested for their part in organizing and taking part in protest marches on August 18, October 1 and October 20.

The names include former lawmakers, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Albert Ho Chun-yan, Lee Cheuk-yan, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung, and Au Nok-hin, Yeung Sum, Sin Chung-kai, Cyd Ho Sau-lan, and activists Wong Ho-ming, Avery Ng Man-yuen, and tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying. 

What is going on?

Margaret Ng carries a book about Chinese national security

Probably with a sense of irony, one of the arrested, Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee walked into the police station with a copy of China's National Security: Endangering Hong Kong's Rule of Law?

But she later claimed she just happened to be reading up on national security legislation when the police came to her flat to arrest her...

Nevertheless Superintendent Lam Wing-ho of the Hong Kong Island regional crime squad said five of the 15 were also separately involved in unauthorized marches on September 30 and October 19. They will be brought to Eastern Magistrates' Courts on May 18.

"Police operations are still ongoing, and we do not rule out more arrests," Lam said without commenting on why the group was singled out.

Reporters asked why only high profile people were arrested within a single day over protests that had attracted hundreds of thousands.

Lam replied: "Police act in accordance with Hong Kong's laws. We will investigate anyone who allegedly violates the laws. We will make arrests and prosecute when there's adequate evidence."

Meanwhile opposition lawmakers like Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said the arrests were intended to silence dissent, but vowed the pan-democrats would resist and fight back.

The August 18 protest march last year was a wet one

"The timing is too much of a coincidence. In the past week, the liaison office, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, officials and political veterans have criticized us and warned us about national security issues," he said.

Council Front lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching accused the government and police of "playing along with a script written by Beijing".
 After several hours all 14 were released on bail. Martin Lee, 81 years old and someone who was deeply involved in writing the Basic Law told reporters that he has no regrets.

"Over the months and years, I've felt bad to see so many outstanding youngsters being arrested and prosecuted, but I was not charged. Now I've finally become a defendant. I feel proud that I have a chance to walk this path of democracy together with them," said the veteran and democrat and barrister after his first time ever being arrested.

After Lee made this comment, police chief Chris Tang Ping-keung later remarked: "I notice one arrestee who enjoys rather high status in the legal sector and he was proud to join the league of the youth. I was very surprised and worried... he should not be proud, but instead ashamed."

Protesters set fires, damaged Chinese businesses on October 1

Surely Tang should leave the judgment before the courts?

This is what happens when the government uses the law as a weapon, which is called lawfare. In his latest book, City on Fire: The Fight for Hong Kong, lawyer and author Antony Dapiran describes this disturbing trend the government and police are using the law to prosecute in the last few years, but he is optimistic the legal sector will uphold the rule of law.

Will it now after this white terror that has happened today?

We would also like to ask why the police still hasn't arrested anyone for the July 21 attacks in the Yuen Long MTR station? How is that investigation going? There's lots of media footage from that incident...

With the Legislative Council elections that are planned this September, it is believed the pro-establishment side doesn't have much of a chance, and perhaps this is Beijing's way of trying to change the outcome.

Jerome Cohen declares today's arrests an "astonishing attack"

Esteemed China legal expert Jerome Cohen gave a statement on his blog about today's arrests.

"The PRC is desperate to quell Hong Kong's opposition and therefore willing to boldly gamble on this astonishing attack. I think today's attack will reignite civil war in Hong Kong, despite Covid-19 restrictions, enhance opposition to the forthcoming PRC renewed effort to enact Article 23 repressive "national security" legislation in Hong Kong, and lead to the cancellation of the September Legco election unless the democratic forces see the trap that has been set for them and act in ways that cannot be seen to justify cancellation of the election. A tall order in the face of the current provocation, which is only the most recent of many ones.

"If the election is held, the opposition should win."

Tonight we are all still processing what happened today, April 18, 2020. How do we continue to defend Hong Kong without getting arrested? 

The next battle for the city is about to begin. Again.

When will Wang Quanzhang be Truly Free?

Wang Quanzhang with his family before he was detained in August 2015

 

This morning Wang Quanzhang, the last of the 709 lawyers was released today from Linyi City Prison in Shandong province after serving a five-year sentence for "subverting state power", but he is not received into the arms of his wife, Li Wenzu and their son; instead he was escorted to his hometown in Jinan, also in Shandong, where he has a place.

Apparently this action was taken as a precaution to quarantine him for 14 days because of the coronavirus pandemic, but Li, who is in Beijing, worries this is an excuse to put Wang under house arrest and would be subjected to surveillance.

Jerome Cohen says non-release release is not new in China

"I think (the authorities) have been lying to us step by step," she said. "They used the pretext of the epidemic as an excuse to quarantine him for 14 days when he should have been able to return to his home in Beijing according to the relevant legal guidelines."

This existence of being released, but not fully free from the authorities is what eminent Chinese legal expert Jerome Cohen calls "non-release release".

He explains this is not new in China -- it was used during the Communist Party's "anti-rightist campaign" in 1957-58, when people were subjected to punishment by "reeducation through labour" and has been modified in recent times.

"In the past decade, non-release release has been customized to suit the Party's needs for effectively suppressing human rights lawyers on a more individualized basis than a formal system might allow, and also for a longer time than formal criminal or administrative sanctions might seem suitable. To the public, non-release release looks better than sentencing a lawyer to life in prison, but it can nevertheless amount to a more discreet form of stifling someone forever," he writes.

Li Wenzu has her head shaved in December 2018

Five years ago Wang, a human rights lawyer, was one of 300 lawyers and activists who were arrested in a nationwide crackdown on July 9, 2015 in a bid to silence China's emerging rights defense movement, hence the name 709. Wang was taken away in August.

While other lawyers had already stood trial and released on bail or given suspended sentences, Wang was held incommunicado for three years. His wife Li tried to find out where her husband was held, turning the housewife into an activist.

In April 2018, she started on a 12-day march from Beijing in Tianjin where she believed Wang was being held. However the authorities stopped her from completing her quest. In December that year she and two other women publicly shaved their heads to protest the continuing detention of Wang.

When the state finally gave notice to Wang's family of his detention, they did not tell his family of his whereabouts nor allow them to see him; the lawyers they hired were dismissed by the authorities, and on the day of his trial, he fired the court-appointed lawyer, as if to make the point that the trial was a sham. It resulted in his trial being further postponed.

Li and her son anticipating her husband's release

So while Wang has tried to stand up to the system the best he can, one can only imagine his fragile mental and physical state after being detained for so long without access to his own legal representation let alone his family until last June, which was devastating for Li to see her husband's mental state.

"I can't wait to hold him again, but I don't know when that will happen," she said a few days ago.

On March 12 he sent a letter to her with a simple wish:

"What I want the most after getting out of here is to live freely, where there is no one knocking on my door. Let us restart a life we had built," he wrote.

We hope so too.

Growing Chorus Against Hong Kong's Extradition Bill

Hong Kong people have protested against extradition with no response

Hong Kong people have tried to voice their displeasure and fears of the upcoming extradition bill the government is trying to push through, but they were ignored.

Now the foreign embassies in the city are speaking out -- which they rarely do.

Thirty-two diplomats were invited to a closed-door lunch meeting in the Legislative Council today, where they expressed deep reservations about the extradition bill. The lunch follows a formal diplomatic protest by European Union officials on May 24 against the government's planned changes to the extradition laws, which would allow suspects to be handed over to authorities in mainland China and other places.

Elsie Leung says the bill must be passed soon... but why?

Eleven representatives from the EU handed a formal note to Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, urging her to be more clear about the extradition bill.

Earlier former Justice Minister Elsie Leung Oi-sie insisted the bill had to be passed quickly, and even compared it to the "co-location" joint immigration and customs arrangement at the West Kowloon terminus, saying once it was implemented, nothing happened, and that given time, the same would be the case with the extradition bill.

However, she is comparing apples and oranges, and the fact that she insists the law has to be changed as soon as possible means Leung is not concerned about all the details in the bill and its implications.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, chairwoman of the New People's Party, and one of the chief executive's advisers in the Executive Council, said no diplomats voiced support for the bill.

"Some were worried whether human rights protections under the amendments were too weak, because [the proposal] will not be scrutinized by Legco," she said.

Ip added some diplomats felt the government did not hear the views of international business sector on the issue. That led her to suggest the Hong Kong government has to do more to explain the changes in the bill.

Carrie Lam needs to explain the bill more clearly to everyone

Meanwhile, Dennis Kwok, a Civic Party lawmaker, said diplomatic representatives of the European Union and at least five other foreign countries, including Germany and the United States, expressed deep concerns over the extradition bill, as well as the government's decision to bypass the bills committee's scrutiny.

The diplomats also voiced concerns over the lack of legal protection and the unlikeliness of the chief executive not refusing Beijing's demands.

These really are the core issues -- Lam is stuck between a rock and a hard place, while the changes to this extradition bill will prevent people in Hong Kong from having the legal protection they enjoy now.

Starry Lee Wai-king, chairwoman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong claimed some diplomats supported the bill but refused to divulge who they are.

Shall we hazard a guess?

In any event, the fear is that when the extradition bill is passed, it would allow the transfer of fugitives to any jurisdiction which Hong Kong lacks any treaty with, including the mainland.

Cohen says the extradition bill could have scary implications

China legal scholar Jerome Cohen says democratic governments have not signed an extradition treaty with the mainland because they know alleged offenders cannot get a fair trial. And so even 22 years after Hong Kong's handover to China, there has been no extradition treaty made with Beijing.

He adds China's failures to meet international standards of due process are well known, including its arbitrary, often lengthy, secret and incommunicado detention, widespread existence of torture and frequent denial of the help of defense counsel.

The police, prosecutors and judges all work for the Communist Party political-legal committee, and the new National Supervision Commission that controls them, Cohen says. "A single party leader's brief instruction can determine guilt or innocence, the duration of a sentence or even the death penalty."

Cohen says once the extradition bill is passed, it will be easier for China to extradite those "fugitives" it wants without having to kidnap them -- like tycoon Xiao Jianhua being whisked out of the Four Seasons Hong Kong in 2017-- and that person will not have much access to a legal defense.

"Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the impending amendment is its application, not only to all SAR citizens and foreign and Chinese residents of the SAR, but also to anyone who passes through Hong Kong," he says. "This will lead to more than the reciprocating of Canada's recent detention of Huawei's CFO at Vancouver airport for extradition based on alleged violations of American law while in Hong Kong."

Is that chilling enough to be worried about Hong Kong passing the extradition bill?

About 3,000 people marched yesterday in protest, and expect tens of thousands more to show up June 4 in Victoria Park.

Another Human Rights Defender Jailed

Human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong in court in Changsha, Hunan province

The Chinese government continues to prosecute human rights lawyers and earlier this week Jiang Tianyong was jailed for two years for "inciting subversion"; his wife Jin Bianling said he was innocent and probably made to confess.

The 46-year-old Jiang was convicted of posting social media messages that attacked government departments, did interviews with overseas media, and attended overseas training courses of a political nature.

He pleaded guilty when he first appeared in court in Changsha, the capital of Hunan province in August and asked for leniency. After he was sentenced, he told the court he would not appeal.

Jerome Cohen asked Jiang to help Cheng Guangcheng

In his blog, China legal expert Jerome Cohen writes that Jiang was originally a primary school teacher who felt he could do more for his country if he studied law and learned how to defend human rights.

Cohen remembers in 2010 meeting him and fellow human rights lawyer Li Heping with their client, the blind "barefoot lawyer" Chen Guangcheng just hours before Chen was seized by Shandong police who came to Beijing without notifying their local counterparts.

Li was prosecuted before Jiang, and served prison time before being "released" as Cohen describes it NRR or "non-release release". He is in accessible and recovering from his horrific experiences in jail.

On a sad side note, Li's younger brother Li Chunfu followed in Li Heping's footsteps in also becoming a lawyer. He too was imprisoned, but when he was released suffered from serious mental illness, where Cohen writes, Li Chunfu was forced to take drugs in the guise of medicine for a non-existent illness.

Jiang managed to stay out of legal trouble for the most part, respecting his legal minders by informing them of his actions, who would, according to Cohen, advise Jiang if he could attend or not. Cohen describes this as PDD or "pre-detention detention".

Jiang's wife Jin Bianling and their daughter are in the US

When Chen was forced to return to his rural home, he was under house arrest. He called Cohen, who was in Beijing, and asked him to persuade a lawyer to travel to his Shandong village that night to prove the confinement was illegal and get him out.

"I telephoned Jiang Tianyong, who agreed to book a train ticket," writes Cohen. "He later called me and said the police, having listened to our phone conversation, had forbidden him from making the trip. At least that spared Jiang the beating by village thugs, who, under police guidance, always used violence to prevent outside contact with Chen."

Jiang was detained last year after he tried to visit Xie Yang, one of the some 300 lawyers and advocates who were swept up in a central government crackdown on civil rights two years ago called "709" as the campaign began on July 9, 2015..

His wife Jin had hoped Jiang's guilty plea would lead to his release on bail. She is now in the United States with the couple's daughter, where they fled in 2013.

Amnesty International's William Nee with Jiang's poster

"He was not allowed to leave China but he is there today mostly because he didn't want to leave other human rights lawyers behind in the midst of the 709 crackdown that year."

Cohen describes Jiang's "prosecution/persecution" as a "tragic farce" since he was detained a year ago, and Amnesty International China researcher William Nee blasted the Chinese powers that be.

"[Jiang's] unjust conviction is a textbook example of the Chinese authorities' systematic persecution of those brave enough to defend human rights in China today," Nee said.

"Jiang Tianyong's trial was a total sham," he continues. "Even with the most rudimentary examination of the facts the case against him crumbles. His so-called confession and apology, most likely extracted under duress, were nothing more than an act of political theatre directed by the authorities."

We can only hope Jiang has nerves of steel to withstand whatever unjust treatment he faces in the next two years.

Will Taiwan's Same-Sex Ruling Liberalize China?

Taiwan is the first place in Asia to recognize same-sex marriage

The news yesterday that Taiwan is the first place in Asia to legalize same-sex marriages was an euphoric moment for the LGBT community on the island.

Taiwan's top court, the Council of Grand Justices, ruled the current law barring same-sex marriage was a violation of the constitution, as everybody -- regardless of gender -- should enjoy the same marriage rights.

Now the government has two years to revise the civil code. "Even if the authorities fail to revise the law at the end of the two-year period, gay couples can always register with local household offices to make their marriages legal and... enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples," said Lu Tai-lang, secretary general of the Council of Grand Justices.

Chi Chia-wei (in rainbow top) launched the suit in 2015

A statement issued by the Marriage Equality Grand Platform after the court's decision said, "the ruling will make Taiwan Asia's model of [same-sex] unions".

The suit was launched by veteran gay rights activist Chi Chia-wei, 59, two years ago. He asked if the current law violated the constitution after his attempt to register a marriage to another man was rejected by a Taipei household registration office in 2013, and subsequent appeals failed.

While there are the usual groups that oppose the ruling, we can't help but wonder what China thinks of it, considering how repressive it is when it comes to human rights. That said, eminent legal scholar Jerome Cohen seems to think the news won't be complete censored on the mainland.

"The Mainland's strict censorship and manipulation of the media will not entirely prevent people from knowing about the decision and its meaning," he writes in his blog.

"Although many in the Mainland may not welcome the decision, China traditionally has been more open to same sex relations than more Christian-dominated countries, and the more educated classes will appreciate not only the wisdom and fairness of the decision on the merits, but also the significance of the role of the judiciary in a genuine government under law country."

How will Taiwan's ruling affect China's views on gay unions?

And then today, there was news that the operations of the gay dating app Grindr will be taken over by a mainland Chinese company after it pays a total of US$240 million, and it will build expansion in and beyond China.

Game developer Beijing Kunlun Tech is owned by 38-year-old billionaire Zhou Yahui, and the company plans to pay another US$152 million to by the remaining 38 percent of Grindr it doesn't yet own.

By the way it paid US$88 million for the company last January for a 62 percent stake, which shows the social media app's valuation has gained 161 percent.

"[With the deal,] we also aim to be a world leading social media company in the future, and to expand our plaforms into film, streaming and animation," Kulun said in a statement.

It'll be interesting to see where Kunlun takes Grindr, while its main competition will be Blued, a Chinese gay-dating app that has over 27 million registered users -- almost on par with Grindr.

Blued was founded in 2012 by former policeman Ma Baoli, and last year its latest round of fundraising boosted its net worth to US$300 million, more than Grindr's HK$240 million.

So will more of these gay-dating apps push China to be even more gay friendly and possibly lead to allowing same-sex marriages? Stay tuned.

Finally Gao Appears and Speaks

Gao spoke to AP sometime earlier this year about what happened to him

We were so relieved to read Associated Press had an exclusive face-to-face interview with leading Chinese rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng.

He dropped out of sight in April 2010 and although he was released over a year ago, we wondered what had happened to him in that time.

Turns out he told AP he was tortured with an electric baton to his face and spent three years in solitary confinement during his latest period of detention since 2010.

Despite the harsh treatment, Gao refuses to leave China even though he is separated from his wife and two children who are living in the United States.

When he was released from prison in 2014, the formerly outspoken lawyer could barely walk or speak full, intelligible sentences, which raised concerns that Gao had been permanently broken physically and mentally.

But a year later he seems to be himself...

His wife Geng He is living in exile in the US with the children

"Every time we emerge from the prison alive, it is a defeat for our opponents," he told AP.

Gao now lives in a dug-out cave on a cliff in Shaanxi province with his older brother, though he is constantly under surveillance. He apparently managed to finish manuscripts for two books that were secretly sent out of China for publication.

In the interview and in one of his books, Gao said he spent three years in solitary confinement that he survived thanks to his faith in God and his unwavering hope for China.

"I thought about giving up and giving my time to my family, but it's the mission God has given me" to stay in China, Gao, a Christian, said.

His wife Geng He said from Cupertino, California, that she didn't understand why her husband was imprisoned and why he continued to be under house arrest.

"I don't understand why the government has to imprison him. He is just a lawyer. His legal profession requires him to help and serve others. Why is he being treated like this? He is standing up for greater freedom in China."

She later posted on her Twitter account a letter from her husband urging her to decline an invitation to meet a US deputy secretary of state before the summit between US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

He told her such a meeting would be futile. Since the administration of President Bill Clinton, "the American political class has disregarded the basic humanitarian principles and muddied itself by getting close to the sinister Communist Party," Gao wrote, according to his wife.

In one of Gao's books -- that has yet to be published -- he predicts the authoritarian rule under China's Communist Party will end in 2017 -- a revelation he says he received from God. He also outlines a plan to build up a democratic, modern China after the party's collapse. The book also details his inhumane treatment in prison.

The other book is addressed to his son and tells of his family's story.

Jerome Cohen, a New York University law professor and expert on China's legal system, says Gao has become a symbol of the repression of rights lawyers in the country, and that it was heartening to hear he had given an interview.

"I had worried that Gao had become a forgotten man," Cohen said. "He was the leading human rights lawyer in China. He was a bold, courageous, outspoken person, and they broke him, they broke him in the cruelest way."

In Gao's book, he said he endured more torture, including with an electric baton to his face -- a moment he remembers as a near out-of-body experience when he heard his own voice.

"Undoubtedly, it was from me. I don't know how to describe it," Gao wrote. "That sound was almost like a dog howling when its tail is forcibly stepped on by its master. Sometimes it sounded like what a puppy makes when it's hung upside by its tail."

During these years of detention, Gao says he was able to build a mental barrier against the physical perception of pain. "This is a special ability I have acquired to allow me to survive difficult times," he said in the interview.

He says he was secretly tried in December 2011, and it was only then that the government acknowledged it was holding him by sending him to prison.

This was the first time he was taken outside -- albeit hooded -- for the first time in 21 months. "It was the first time I heard a dog bark and that I could breathe fresh air," he said.

Then he was moved to a prison in Xinjiang and while he was no longer beaten, he had to stay in a room of 8 square metres (86 sq ft) without windows or ventilation for three years.

As a result he could not cope with being in large spaces after his release. "I found I could not walk at the airport, but i could walk inside the locked-up room," he said.

Gao said at one point during his three-year period in prison, the authorities installed a loudspeaker in his cell that spouted propaganda on socialist values for 68 weeks straight. "You cannot imagine the mental harassment they inflicted on me," he said.

Now out of prison (but constantly being watched), Gao is able to speak to his wife and children daily, but feels he cannot leave China to be reunited with them.

"My wife is suffering, but I can do nothing," he said. "I understand those persecuted souls who have left China and I am glad for them, but I cannot be among them. I cannot go," Gao said.

If what Gao says is true, the Chinese authorities have no shame in torturing a human being to the point of physical and mental breakdown. A government that prides itself on being on a "peaceful rise" is far from the truth.

Does China think we on the outside cannot see this? We understand that people like Gao and Liu Xiaobo need to do their work from the inside, but we need them to know we are on their side cheering them on, to tell them they are not alone.