…Chow Hang-tung in the HK Alliance ‘inciting subversion’ trial. A translation of part of her closing statement is here.
From HKFP…
A Hong Kong Tiananmen vigil activist standing in a national security trial has urged the court to safeguard the “dignity and bottom line of the law,” as she warned judges not to become “accomplices” in an alleged government crackdown on free speech.
Chow Hang-tung, a former leader of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, said that authorities have been “reshaping” the city’s long-held values by prosecuting activists who advocate for democracy in China.
…Delivering closing arguments on Tuesday, Chow said the crux of the case was whether the law protects the “perpetual rule” of the CCP or the rights of people to advocate democracy.
“Ending one-party rule means putting an end to the status quo, in which those in power are not bound by the law,” she said in Cantonese.
…She argued it was “unheard of” that a government would accuse its citizen of breaching the constitution.
“Any document that can be called a constitution in the world is to restrict the operation of power, not ordinary people,” she said.
The Standard…
Chow argued that the key question for the court was what the law prohibits and protects, what conditions the defendants sought to end, and what system the Constitution establishes. She questioned whether the law guarantees the permanent rule of the Chinese Communist Party and prohibits citizens from advocating political transition.
She said the defendants had merely advocated ending unrestricted power, and argued that the court could not criminalize the slogan “end one-party dictatorship” while claiming to uphold the rule of law.
Chow also argued that “subversion” should be interpreted as using external forces to rapidly, drastically and abnormally change an existing order, and that this was not limited to physical force. She said “destruction” carried an additional element of malice, involving unfair, unreasonable or unauthorized conduct, while justified criticism without malice did not amount to destruction.
She said the prosecution should directly prove what unlawful means the defendants had allegedly incited others to use, describing the prosecution’s argument that they had failed to call for constitutional amendment through lawful means as groundless.
Chow further argued that the prosecution must prove not only that the defendants broke the law, but also that they acted unconstitutionally, which she said required a much stricter standard.
AP reports…
In previous hearings, the prosecution has focused on “ending one-party rule,” one of the alliance’s core demands, arguing that the group’s advocacy was about inciting others to use unlawful means to overthrow the leadership of China’s ruling Communist Party.
Chow, a barrister who defended herself, said Tuesday that her trial was a “very strange case,” because the defendants neither denied anything they had done nor argued that what they said didn’t reflect their thoughts.
Chow said that “ending one-party rule” means ending a state where power is unrestricted, and that a key question in the case is whether the law is really safeguarding the Chinese Communist Party to rule forever and banning the people from pushing forward democratization.
Chow argued that the standard for determining right and wrong has been turned upside down in this case.
“Speaking the truth has become inciting hatred, seeking justice has become exploiting suffering, limiting power has become violating the constitution, and returning power to the people has become subverting the state,” she said.
She said that if the court fails to gatekeep over the reasonable effects of their statements, it could easily become an accomplice by tolerating the crimes committed by those in power.
Ouch. How will the NatSec judges address these points when they deliver their verdict in around a couple of months? Perhaps just with a simple: “No, you’re wrong.” It’s hard to imagine a response as convincing as Chow’s own argument.
“Any document that can be called a constitution in the world is to restrict the operation of power, not ordinary people,”
Happens all the time with non western constitutions. CCP literally sees the constitution as a list of obligations for ordinary people.
Chow Hang-tung always speaks with such lucidity on the constitutional matters that our nominated officials render as farcical sludge. What a waste that she is incarcerated and vilified, rather than in government, shaping a brighter future for Hong Kong.
She demonstrates over and over again how much more intelligent she is than they are. And they can’t put up with that, especially from a woman.
I fear for the sentence she’s going to get.