Book Censorship Begins

Libraries are reviewing books that may be against the new law

Everyday there is a new aspect of the national security law that causes more alarm bells to ring. Now it's library books.

One of Wong's books under review

Nine books written by a localist and pro-democracy activists are "under review" in Hong Kong's public libraries because they may not be compliant with the new law.

The Chinese-language books were written by Joshua Wong Chi-fung, localist Horace Chin Wan-kan, and Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan. When looking up the books on the library website, all nine titles are marked as "under review".

A staff member of the City Hall Library told a reporter posing as a library user that: "A new law has come into effect... so the Hong Kong authorities are reviewing these books to see if they stick to the new law or not, and under this situation the books cannot be checked out for readers now," the employee said. "After our review, then we will update the situation of the books to see if you can borrow them or not."

Chin is known as a localist, who argues Hong Kong must forge its own unique identity to counter the growing influence of the mainland.

Localist Horace Chin

Speaking to the media today, Wong says reviewing two of his books amounts to censorship.

"My books were published years before Hong Kong's anti-extradition movement, and yet they are now prone to book censorship under the new law, one step away from the actual book banning," he said.

Chan, who is a lawyer, was puzzled why her book, My Journeys for Food and Justice, that was published in 2014, was under review, as the government had said the law would not be retroactive.

She asked the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to clarify its policy on making such decisions.

"It [the law] does not just affect a small number of people," Chan said. "It affects the public as the way they can access these books is being taken away."

Philip Dykes of the Hong Kong Bar Association finds this latest move "alarming" in preventing the public's right to information compared to before July 1.

Chan asks why her book is being reviewed

"It clearly constitutes a restriction on the right to seek information," he said. "Because if it a restriction, the censor needs to explain why the books were removed."

However, Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a member of the Executive Council cabinet and a former chairman of the Bar Association, said the books under review did not infringe people's rights, as they could find the books elsewhere.

"As a government establishment, it would be wrong and contrary to the purpose of the law to encourage people to read publications, which might incite people to commit an offence under the law, so I don't think removing these books from a public library is wrong," Tong said.

Tong says the books can be found elsewhere

Here we go again -- do these books really incite people to commit secession, subversion, terrorism or collusion? And also they were written and published before July 1, 2020. The library serves an important function in giving everyone access to to books they may need or cannot afford to buy.

This is only the beginning of more censorship that will affect everyone's daily lives. So perhaps China's repeated mantra that the new law only affects a small number of people is the entire Hong Kong, as a city with 7 million people for China is a small metropolis...

Protest Slogan Pushback

This slogan was adopted in the July 21 protests until now

A slogan from 2016 by a pro-independent activist and was adopted as a protest slogan last year, is now considered subversive and secessionist by the Hong Kong government.

"Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" was first coined by Edward Leung Tin-kei when he was running for the 2016 Legislative Council by-election.

He was later jailed for his role in the Mongkok riots that year, though his slogan was adopted on July 21 during the anti-extradition protests, and chanted at many rallies since.

Edward Leung first coined the slogan in 2016

Last night, the government claimed the phrase incited separatism, but Hong Kong Bar Association council chairman Philip Dykes said it was "premature" for the government to declare the slogan against the law.

"It is for the judges to determine the legal effect of what those words mean," he said. "It is premature to say that those words... fall foul of the new law."

Dykes added that only a court could generate a "binding interpretation" of the slogan, or determine the legal consequences for those who chant it.

Professor Simon Young, associate dean of the University of Hong Kong's law school, said that while the court might find the slogan encourages secession, it would be up to the prosecution to prove the defendant encouraged a second person to commit secession, and that it was successfully followed through.

He said it could be difficult to prove, but the evidence would include the person's previous statements, activities and associations.

Young said possessing material with the slogan could not be an offence of incitement because it has not been shown to anyone and thus no one can be said to have been encouraged.

In the meantime protesters have found creative ways to keep the slogan alive.

One is acrostic, where the characters of the slogan are written vertical, but horizontally are random phrases of everyday life. The hashtag is: #明嘅就會明 'you understand if you understand'.

My friend had a good laugh when he discovered this.

Then there is this one floating around by Chinese dissident artist Badiucao:

There's also an emoticon one that is cute:

Hong Kong people can be very creative!

There are other variations like "GFHK SDGM", the initials of each word, or "36390242", which is similar to the pronunciation in Cantonese.

Defiance Against Further Repression

Saying this slogan is deemed subversive and secessionist

The annual July 1 march was banned by police for coronavirus pandemic reasons, so while there weren't hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets, there were a few thousand who came out to protest against the newly enacted national security law.

One man tried to flee Hong Kong after stabbing a police officer, but was caught as the plane was on the tarmac, while 370 others were arrested.

It remains to be seen if the 10 out of the 370 who were arrested for breaching the national security law will be charged and convicted, but it was enough of a deterrent to prevent most people from coming out.

Tam wonders if the new law isn't harsh enough

However, Tam Yiu-chung, the sole Hong Kong delegate of the National People's Congress Standing Committee that drafted the new law says yesterday's turnout shows the national security law isn't harsh enough.

The pro-Beijing loyalist told a RTHK radio program that if the law, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment were harsh, no one would dare defy it.

Has Tam underestimated Hongkongers? It seems Beijing has misread the people yet again. While the large numbers didn't come out, there were enough who were willing to test and defy the law because they are very angry that Tam and the Hong Kong government have sacrificed the city without the consent of its residents.

They are worried but they are also defiant. And they will find another way to show their displeasure.

Meanwhile Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li issued a rare statement today [Thursday], saying it is the judiciary's mission and constitutional duty to protect its independence and rule of law.

Ma continues to uphold the rule of law

The new law gives the Chief Executive the power to choose a list of judges to handle future cases, which critics say would undermine the judiciary.

Justice Ma stressed judges should only be appointed on the basis of judicial and professional qualities, not politics.

"Judges should not be designated on the basis of any political considerations. This reinforces the principle that in the handling or determination of any legal dispute, only the law and legal principle will be considered," he wrote.

"Judges of foreign nationality are not excluded. They are expressly permitted to be appointed as judges in Hong Kong," Ma said.

He also clarified that appointments of judges under Article 88 of the Basic Law are made by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, which is chaired by the Chief Justice. "This has always been the position in Hong Kong," the statement said.

It seems Ma is pushing back as much as he can, but will Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and Beijing listen? How does the new national security law interface with the Basic Law? This question hasn't been clearly addressed yet.

Is this considered art or subversive message?

Yellow shops aren't taking any chances, many of them taking down their "Lennon Walls", a colourful collection of Post-It notes with messages on them, as well as any posters that may be deemed subversive or secessionist.

One restaurant in Shau Kei Wan was warned to remove its Lennon Wall by the police after the force received a complaint about it. If it didn't comply, the restaurant could be prosecuted.

However, in the Hong Kong Museum of Art, there are some whimsical sculptures by Rosanna Li Wei-han that portray everyday life in Hong Kong. One of them features a Lennon Wall, and someone putting up a poster that says. "post no bills".

Does this piece of art need to come down too?

Oh and this just in -- the protest slogan that was chanted regularly during gatherings is now deemed by the government as having a secessionist and subversive meaning...

The New Normal

People were defiant in showing how they felt about the new law

Despite the national security law having the ability to affect all aspect of life in Hong Kong, thousands were defiant and came out to express their unhappiness with the law by "going shopping".

However the police were already prepared, dressed in riot gear even before lunchtime the officers were patrolling the streets in Causeway Bay. Less than 15 hours after the law had been promulgated, a man was arrested for violating the national security law.

How will this sign go down in today's climate?

He had what happened to be a flag that said "Hong Kong Independence", but on closer inspection it had in small letters "no to". What happened to him? Was he charged or let go?

The police had all their gear ready, including a water cannon that went up and down Hennessy Road in Causeway Bay and Wan Chai. Someone in the water cannon vehicle was trigger happy, shooting water at journalists wearing high visibility vests. Hello? They were also pepper sprayed when protesters weren't around.

It seemed that as long as people kept moving, they would be relatively safe; some who loitered around Sogo were later surrounded by police and then kettled and arrested.

Later in the afternoon "shoppers" descended on Times Square and periodically shouted slogans -- which is now deemed illegal. While some shoppers kept moving, going up and down escalators and walking around the shopping mall, others literally sat on the floor. Eventually the police moved in and arrested those who did not leave.

In the end over 370 people were arrested, 10 of which were for breaching the national security law. One officer was stabbed in the upper arm as he tried to arrest people, while some protesters resorted to last year's tactics and hoisted railings, or dug up bricks to slow down the police.

Times Square shopping mall was "occupied"

As the protests were going on, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah and Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu held a press conference to answer reporters' questions about the national security law.

However, they were unable to definitively shed some light on the specifics of the law. They were asked since the Chinese government keeps saying the new law will only affect "a small group of people", how small is small? A dozen, a hundred? a thousand people?

They could only reply as few as possible, and no specific number in mind.

Would it be a crime to criticize the national security law, a correspondent from CNN asked.

Lam replied as media, no, but if CNN colluded with foreign forces then, yes. She chuckled at the latter part of her answer, as if to make it sound preposterous but, but no one laughed with her.

Cheng, Lam and Lee holding copy of the law

The trio could only point to certain parts in the law to answer reporters' questions, not giving their own interpretation or what they understood to be the interpretation of the law.

It seems people will only know if they have broken the law is if they have been charged and convicted.

Meanwhile somewhat related, Simon Cheng Man-kit, who fled to the UK has now been granted asylum there.

"The decision is based on the United Nations convention with rigorous rule of law system, to recognize my case is intrinsically political persecution," he writes on Twitter. "Leaving means just a beginning. We continue to fight against the expanding totalitarianism, be back with democracy and freedom."