In response to the sentencing of Hong Kong activist Ma Chun-man, nicknamed “Captain America 2.0”, to five years and nine months in prison for “inciting subversion” under the National Security Act, the Secretary-General Amnesty International Deputy Kyle Ward said:
“In Hong Kong’s biased political landscape since the passage of the National Security Act, peacefully expressing a political point of view and seeking the support of others is interpreted as ‘incitement to subversion’ and punishable by many. years in prison.
“It is absolutely scandalous that Ma Chun-man has been sentenced to more than five years in prison for simply chanting slogans and sharing his political views on the Internet. The Hong Kong authorities must stop criminalizing simple acts of expression without a demonstrated link to the use of force or the threat of violence.
“This conviction clearly shows that the restrictions on the right to freedom of expression in Hong Kong are dangerously disproportionate. The two judgments handed down in trials under the National Security Law failed to respect the human rights guarantees that the authorities say the law includes.
“The Hong Kong government must stop continually broadening its definition of ‘endangering national security’ in order to imprison people expressing views it does not like. ”
Further information
Ma Chun-man, nicknamed “Captain America 2.0” for wearing the superhero’s shield during protests, was sentenced Thursday, November 11 to five years and nine months in prison for “inciting the subversion of the power of the State ”under the National Security Act, which entered into force in Hong Kong in June 2020.
His conviction is linked to his chanting slogans, waving placards and giving media interviews during a series of protests last year.
In finding him guilty, the judge made it clear that it did not matter whether his actions were peaceful or not. However, the guarantees of national and international human rights law were hardly discussed during his trial.
International standards clearly state that states cannot invoke national security reasons to restrict the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, which covers peaceful discussions and support for independence movements. Even where national security may justify limiting certain fundamental rights, this limitation must be done through well-defined laws and in a manner specific, necessary and proportionate to a demonstrated threat.
The general definition of “national security” by the Hong Kong authorities, modeled on that of mainland China, is arbitrarily invoked as a pretext to restrict fundamental rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, fair trial and freedom, as well as to suppress dissent and political opposition.
Between the 1is July 2020 and late October 2021, police arrested or ordered the arrest of at least 154 people under the National Security Act. As of October 31, at least 82 people have been formally charged, 59 of whom are currently in pre-trial detention.
According to a report released last June by Amnesty International, the Hong Kong National Security Act has decimated freedoms in the city and shaped a landscape where human rights protections are increasingly scarce.
–
