Hong Kong: Man Jailed for Wearing 'Seditious' T-Shirt

Improve the News Foundation -
0:00
/1861

Facts

  • Hong Kong resident Chu Kai-pong, 27, has been handed a 14-month prison sentence for wearing a t-shirt and a mask sporting protest slogans deemed seditious by the city's court.[1]
  • Chu was detained on June 12 donning a t-shirt with the protest slogan 'Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times' and a mask with 'FDNOL' — an abbreviation for another protest slogan, 'Five demands, not one less' — written on it.[2]
  • The date of his arrest marked the fifth anniversary of the 2019 anti-government protests, in which thousands of people surrounded the city's legislative council complex against the now-withdrawn extradition bill.[3][4]
  • On Monday, he pleaded guilty to 'doing with a seditious intention an act.' His conviction is the city's first under the second national security law, also known as Article 23, passed in March.[5]
  • In his judgment on Thursday, Chief Magistrate Victor So stated that Chu intended to 'reignite the ideas behind' the 2019 protests and that his sentence reflected the 'seriousness' of the charges.[6]
  • Under Article 23, which expands on the national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, the maximum penalty for sedition is 10 years in jail.[7][8][9]

Sources: [1]BBC News (a), [2]Al Jazeera, [3]Dw.Com, [4]ABC News, [5]Taipei Times, [6]RFI, [7]Bangkokpost, [8]Evening Standard and [9]BBC News (b).

Narratives

  • Pro-China narrative, as provided by Nikkei Asia. Chu had planned to incite ordinary citizens to use illegal means to challenge the country's fundamental system, revive the idea of the unrest, and cause a significant risk to social order. He knew the slogans called for the separation of Hong Kong from China and the city's return to British rule. The legal system had to intervene to protect society from falling into chaos again.
  • Anti-China narrative, as provided by Amnesty International. Chu's conviction is a blatant attack on the right to freedom of expression and highlights the sheer malice of Hong Kong's new national security law — passed by the PRC to stifle free speech and curb dissent further. The city must reverse this sentencing and consider repealing the law that erodes freedoms and silences critics under the pretext of protecting national security.

Predictions