This content was first published by Radio Free Asia, and it is now being reprinted with permission.
Over the weekend, Hong Kongers protested a second national security law known as” Article 23,” which opponents claim violates the right to freedom of expression and connection, as governments updated travel advisory lists to warn people of heightened confinement risks.
In London, around 400 activists holding flags that read” Free Hong Kong, Revolution Presently”! — a phrase of the 2019 pro- politics movement that has been banned in the city — rallied outside the American government’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to rally the , Safeguarding National Security Law, which took effect on Saturday.
They chanted,” Say no to dictatorship”! and” Hong Kong democracy is the only solution”! as they marched through Chinatown to the march, where protesters threw the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s standard symbol.
Demonstrations also took place in Sydney, Vancouver, Taipei and abroad.
The legislation is the next national security law to get passed since 2020, and did lock “loopholes” left by the , 2020 National Security Law , imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in the midst of 2019 demonstrations, according to the state.
But critics say Article 23 will probably expand the existing usage of “national protection” charges to prosecute , quiet dissent , and , political antagonism, striking a further blow at human rights protections in the town.
Citizens who” support individuals who are considered to be breaking the national safety laws” may be detained or sent to mainland China for some offenses, or face charges, according to the American government’s travel tips on March 22 updated its travel guidance for Hong Kong. This includes statements that are crucial of the authorities, including those made online, including online.
Australia updated its advice the same day to warn its citizens about a higher chance of detention if they travel to Hong Kong.
The advice now reads,” Hong Kong has strict laws on national security that can be interpreted broadly.” You could violate the law without making an effort to break it, face a charge, and be denied legal services. We continue to advise … a high degree of caution”.
The advice was referred to as “scaremongering,” according to a spokesman for the Hong Kong government on Friday, saying it was “tactics aimed at destabilizing Hong Kong.”
Avoiding political topics
In addition to Vancouver, where around 300 protesters formed a human chain and sang the protest anthem” Glory to Hong Kong,” which has been prohibited from public performance or dissemination in Hong Kong, protests against the new law took place in several Canadian cities.
Others carried placards urging the city’s independence, which has seen a sharp decline in its rights and freedoms since the city’s transition to Chinese rule in 1997.
Some wore masks, reflecting , recent reprisals , by authorities in Hong Kong against overseas activists and their , families back home.
Two protesters who merely used the nicknames Amy and Candy admitted to coming to Canada under the lifeboat visa program, but they make sure to keep their families ‘ interests at bay when speaking with them in their home countries.
” You have to think carefully before you say anything, because if someone hears you, they could report you and get you arrested”, Candy said.
Amy added:” They want to find an excuse to target anyone they do n’t like”.
Anyone can be targeted under Article 23 because the definitions of the” crimes” in Article 23 are very broad, according to a spokeswoman for the protest organizers Vancouver Brothers, who used the name Christine out of fear of reprisals.
She cited the retaliation for the 2018 arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in China by Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor on “espionage” charges.  ,
We want to ask the international community to help save Hong Kong, and we want to impose sanctions on Hong Kong’s Chinese Communist Party and officials because they have revoked Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy, Christine told RFA.
‘ Last nail ‘
In Sydney, dozens of protesters sang” Glory to Hong Kong” and watched performance artist Pamela Leung perform a piece of music called” The Last Nail” that depicts the Article 23 law as the “last nail” in the long list of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.  ,
Since the city’s first round of national security legislation was passed, protesters have also draped chains around the protest site while carrying placards mentioning more than 1,700 political prisoners.
The chains are only a reference to political prisoners in Hong Kong, according to a protester who used the name Ivan to avoid reprisals to address RFA on the spot. ” The world will grow and fall if governments do n’t take steps to stop it,” says one author.
Former political prisoner Lee Ming-cheh said at a rally held by the Hong Kong Outlanders campaign group that Taiwan’s 23 million residents might be the next to blame for how China handled Hong Kong.
” China has never followed the law, does n’t abide by its own commitments, and has ignored international law, so China will consider Taiwan, which it has never ruled, its territory”, Lee said.
Taiwanese should show their support for Hong Kong. If there is no way to curb China’s destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong … the next victim will definitely be Taiwan”, said Lee, who served a , five- year sentence , for” subversion” in a Chinese jail.
Harder for journalists
Mike Chinoy, a former CNN China correspondent, claims that the Article 23 and National Security Law will make it harder for foreign journalists to work in the city.
” The National Security Law and Article 23 are going to make people reluctant to talk to journalists”, Chinoy said, adding that the 2019 protest movement had likely “terrified” Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In a recent interview with RFA, Chinoy claimed that there was always a lot of suspicion about Hong Kong because it was so Westernized and isolated.
They must have absolutely terrified them because they saw in Hong Kong a rebellious peripheral region that was heavily influenced by foreigners and was challenging the central government, in my opinion.
Former colonial governor Chris Patten said the law was “another large nail in the coffin of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong” in a statement released on March 19.
He predicted that “international investors will take note,” as well as governments and parliaments from all over the world.
On March 22, Chris Smith, the head of the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, warned that the new law might affect Hong Kong residents and that the business community should take the necessary steps to carefully consider the risks posed by it.
Meanwhile, 88 parliamentarians from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, EU and other countries said the law was a “flagrant breach” of China’s obligations under the 1984 Sino- British Joint Declaration, a U. N. registered treaty governing the handover of Hong Kong to China.
Benedict Rogers, CEO of the London- based rights group Hong Kong Watch, said the Article 23 legislation was a “death knell” for Hong Kong’s remaining freedoms.
” We urge the international community to address the new threats posed by Article 23 legislation by imposing targeted sanctions, broadening lifeboat schemes for Hong Kongers, ensuring that the law is not applicable overseas and used for transnational repression”, Rogers said, calling for a review of Hong Kong’s special status, including the city’s separate , Trade and Economic Offices , in foreign countries.
