[ad_1]
Image source,Reuters
Some Democrats came out of court to support the defendants.
Several pro-democracy leaders, such as Li Zhiying, chairman of Hong Kong Next Media Group, and Martin Lee, founder of the Democratic Party and senior adviser, were charged with organizing and participating in an unauthorized assembly on August 18, 2019. Among the nine defendants, Liang Yaozong and Ou Nuoxuan previously pleaded guilty, and Li Zhiying, Martin Li, Li Zhuoren, Wu Aiyi, Liang Guoxiong, He Junren and He Xiulan have pleaded not guilty.
West Kowloon Magistracy Judge Hu Yawen delivered a verdict on Thursday (April 1), seven defendants who pleaded not guilty were convicted of “organizing an unauthorized assembly” and “knowingly participating in an unauthorized assembly.” According to Hong Kong media reports, other than Liang Guoxiong, Li Zhiying and Martin Lee were all convicted for the first time.
Before the court ruling was delivered, many defendants and Democrats raised banners in front of the court “opposing impeachment and protesting political repression.” One of the defendants, Li Zhuoren, said that the repression of all parties by the regime has intensified, but that he will continue to defend his beliefs and face multiple prosecutions in the future. According to Hong Kong media reports, Li Zhuoren once raised the “May 1” gesture at the defendant board. Liang Guoxiong also once chanted slogans such as “political persecution is shameful” and “the top five demands are indispensable.”
One of the arguments of the defense was that the accused wanted to help the evacuation of the masses, but the judge refused to accept it. They believed that their gestures and chanting slogans had a common purpose. The police also previously opposed their demonstrations, but only approved the assembly and the defendants led the mass demonstrations Organizing and participating in unapproved meetings.
The judge decided to postpone the allegations and sentences of seven people who pleaded not guilty until April 16. Li Zhiying and Liang Guoxiong must remain in pre-trial detention due to the National Security Law case. Others were granted bail but were not allowed to leave Hong Kong and had to surrender all travel documents.
Hong Kong media analysts believe that the outcome of the trial will also have a major impact on citizens’ freedom of assembly in the future. The sentence can serve as an indicator for other similar cases.
Image source,EPA
On April 1, 2021, Hong Kong Democrats gathered to protest in front of the West Kowloon court building.
Image source,Reuters
This is the first case in which Martin Lee (left) has been prosecuted.
What is the dispute in the case?
On August 18, 2019, the pro-democracy organization “Civil Human Rights Front” (FDC) launched a “fluid demonstration” in Victoria Park to oppose controversial amendments to the Fugitive Criminals Ordinance and police actions against demonstrations. 1.7 million people attended at the time, and Hong Kong police said the highest number of people who attended the rally at the same time was 128,000.
This demonstration was a rare peaceful protest at the time, and it did not escalate into a serious violent conflict, and the police did not enforce the law. No (peaceful, rational, non-violent) “.
However, the controversy in this demonstration is that the protesters did not follow the police instructions “Notice of No Objection” and then left the meeting place to march. The nine defendants involved raised banners and led protesters from Victoria Park to the pedestrian zone on Chater Road, Central.
Image source,AFP
That day there were many protesters.
Image source,AFP
The prosecution claimed that they knew that the police were opposed to the march, yet they still used a “fluid demonstration” as a cover, leading people to march along the original route, and traffic was severely blocked.
The defense noted that the FDC estimated that there would be a large number of people in the assembly early in the morning and announced the evacuation arrangements of “running water” in advance, in the hope that the participants would be able to leave the meeting place of orderly manner. However, when many protesters “left” that day, the police did not or did not arrest them. Warning, make people think this can be done. The defense also noted that the original intent of the “Notice of No Objection” legislation was to serve as a “notification” system, rather than that citizens had to be “approved” by the police to exercise their right to demonstrate. However, the prosecution did not agree, considering that this is not only a “notification” system, but to prepare the police to respond, and emphasized that freedom of assembly is not absolute and must be duly regulated.
In the written judgment, the judge stated that after carefully reading the allegations of the prosecution and the defense, he believed that there was no room for the dispute over proportionality and the constitutional issues raised by the defense. The prosecution provided evidence to the extent not without a reasonable doubt and successfully demonstrated that the defendants committed the two crimes.
The judge found there was no evidence that Victoria Park was in danger of being overcrowded that day, and the nearby subway station was also open for crowds to emerge. The headline of the parade that day was held up by many people with banners printed with slogans. You can see that the parade was there. The common purpose. When the defendants led thousands of people on the march, they shouted slogans with a common purpose along the way. They also noted that the march did not require police approval, instead instructing the crowd on how to leave. All the signs indicated that it was a march rather than an evacuation plan.
The judge said that after noting that some defendants had appealed to the public to participate in the assembly after the appeal of the procession was rejected, expressing their dissatisfaction with the police ban on the procession. public that could participate in the procession on behalf of the assembly and the evacuation. The judge criticized the defendant for evacuating the masses, using only words to violate and circumvent the law and organize an unauthorized assembly.
The judge also noted that all of the defendants were Democrats, including many former legislators and highly experienced attorneys. In addition, the decision of the police to oppose the demonstration was widely publicized, so it was believed that all the defendants participated “knowingly” in the unapproved assembly. .
Hong Kong Legislative Council Member Ip Liu Shuyi: Hong Kong is even freer than Xu’s democratic country
Western governments have long issued a statement condemning the arrest of the pro-democracy figures mentioned above.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused China of conducting political trials, seriously undermining the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people and putting pressure on judicial independence, academic and press freedom.
Beijing and the Hong Kong government have refuted that foreign governments should not interfere in China’s internal affairs and Hong Kong affairs.
“One Country, Two Systems” and “Hong Kong Independence” in the Eyes of Martin Lee
