最近一周内，香港法庭审结了三起与抗议相关案件，并作出了入狱判决。这三名男子的罪责涉及穿着带有示威口号的T恤、在公共汽车座椅上涂写支持“民主”和批评中国国家主席习近平的行为。
这些事件凸显了《国安法》的强大威慑力，这一法律旨在遏制香港的异议声音。法官维克托·苏在二天内对案件进行了审理，而这位法官是由港府领导选任处理国家安全案件的专业人员之一。
过去，这类抗议活动可能不致引起太多关注；但在现在的香港，它们揭示了政治环境的变化：这个曾经汇聚自由表达的金融中心和城市如今更像大陆中国，那里对中国共产党体制的批评少之又少，几乎无处不在。
在1997年回归中国后，香港曾享有50年的“生活方式”，根据“一国两制”协议得到保护。然而，对更高民主的需求最终导致了政局紧缩，取消了一切对北京的政治反对意见的可能空间，并封杀了自由新闻媒体。两位领导倒台的《立场新闻》编辑成为了几十年来因煽动颠覆国家政权而被定罪的第一批记者。
乔治城大学亚洲法中心负责人托马斯·_kellogg表示：“香港的公民空间在国家安全再调整期间，仍处于转型阶段。”公开展开和讨论的自由已成为昔日之影，政府将持续利用其安全工具箱，监控人们的言论与文字活动。
这三名男子是首批根据《国安条例》被判处有罪并收监的人员。此法律扩大了2020年因前一年抗议事件而对香港施加的一项国家安全法中的处罚范围。据香港保安局统计，至少303人被捕，176人和5家公司面临指控。
《国安条例》涵盖叛国、内乱等政治犯罪以及外部干涉等罪行，并设立最高终身监禁的惩罚制度；还包括窃取国家机密等内容。其中一部分针对“煽动”，描述为对于中国及其香港政府产生仇恨、轻蔑或不满，取代了殖民时期的法律，并将刑期从2年增加到7年。
案件的进展如下：在楚凯邦于6月被捕并被判14个月监禁后不久，29岁的钟文杰因在3-4月间在公共汽车座椅上书写“煽动性”文字被判处10个月狱刑。他承认在车辆上留下口号：“解放香港、时代革命”，以及“香港独立，出路唯一”。面对警方调查时，他表示自己认为基于言论自由，有权批评政府。
随后一天，58岁的欧健伟承认犯下“故意发表具有煽动意图的出版物”的罪行，并被判14个月监禁。他的犯罪行为包括在社交媒体上发布数百篇反政府内容，涉及Facebook、YouTube及X平台。
托马斯·kellogg指出，在这三人的情况中，其行为如果不触及破坏社会稳定的极端言论，则在大多数尊重人权的司法管辖区通常不会被视为法律上的可诉罪行。然而，香港法庭认为这些行为旨在煽动民众对当局的仇恨和轻蔑，并需要警示其他可能进行相似活动的人。
法官维克托·苏在其判决中表示：“若法律未能及时介入，任由个人挑衅行为放任不管，将最终导致社会秩序再次陷入混乱。”
港府在一份声明中称，该判决展示了《国安条例》已清晰界定非法煽动行为与合法的建设性批评之间的界限。
然而，相关专家指出，在新的背景下，任何对政府的批判都可能被视为高风险的举动。港府已经建构起了一张严密的网，用以监控并捕捉每一个潜在“威胁”。
新闻来源：www.nytimes.com
原文地址：This Is What Can Land You in Jail for Sedition in Hong Kong
新闻日期：2024-09-27
原文摘要：
Wearing a T-shirt with a protest slogan. Scrawling pro-democracy graffiti on public bus seats. Criticizing Xi Jinping on social media. Three men in Hong Kong were sentenced to prison last week for these acts of protest, which in another era probably would have drawn little notice — showing the power of a newly expanded national security law aimed at muzzling dissent. The rulings, rendered over two days by a judge whom Hong Kong’s leader handpicked, highlight the political transformation that has taken place here. A financial center and a city accustomed to freedom of political expression, Hong Kong now more closely resembles mainland China, where criticism of the ruling Communist Party is rarely, if ever, tolerated. China agreed to preserve Hong Kong’s “lifestyle” for 50 years after the territory’s return to Beijing from British colonial rule in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” formula. But demands for greater democracy, culminating in antigovernment demonstrations that engulfed the city in 2019, led to a political crackdown that has eliminated virtually all public opposition to Beijing. A once freewheeling news media has also been silenced. Two editors who led the now-defunct Stand News were the first journalists in decades to be convicted of sedition. “We are still in the midst of the national security reordering of the civic space in Hong Kong,” said Thomas Kellogg, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Asian Law. “Public debate and discussion is a shadow of its former self, and the government will continue to use its national security tool kit to police what people say and write.” The three men were the first to be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which was passed in March at the behest of Beijing by a legislature lacking any opposition lawmakers. The legislation had previously been shelved for two decades because of fierce local opposition. Sometimes referred to as Article 23, the ordinance augments an existing national security law imposed by China in 2020 in response to the protests a year earlier. At least 303 people have been arrested, and 176 individuals and five companies charged, under both laws, according to Hong Kong’s Security Bureau. The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets political crimes like treason and insurrection, imposing penalties that include life imprisonment. It also covers offenses such as “external interference” and theft of state secrets. The three were all convicted under a part of the ordinance targeting sedition, which the law describes as “hatred, contempt or disaffection” for China and the Hong Kong government. It replaced a colonial-era anti-sedition law by increasing penalties to as much as seven years in prison, up from two. If the person “colludes with an external force” the sentence can be as long as 10 years. The first man sentenced last week was Chu Kai-pong, 27, arrested in June at a subway station for wearing a T-shirt that said, “Free Hong Kong” in English and “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” a popular protest slogan, in Chinese. Mr. Chu pleaded guilty and received a 14-month prison sentence from Chief Magistrate Victor So Wai-tak, one of more than two dozen judges believed to have been selected by Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee to handle national security cases. Shortly after Mr. Chu’s ruling, Judge So sentenced Chung Man-kit to 10 months in jail for scrawling “seditious” graffiti on public bus seats between March and April. Mr. Chung, 29, pleaded guilty to writing slogans such as “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” and “Hong Kong independence, the only way out.” Mr. Chung told the police investigating his case that he wrote the slogans believing he had the right to criticize the government because of free speech protections. The day after Mr. Chung’s sentencing, Au Kin-wai, 58, pleaded guilty to “knowingly publishing publications that had a seditious intention” on social media. Mr. Au, who had no more than 20 online followers, got a 14-month sentence for his crime, which included hundreds of antigovernment posts on Facebook, YouTube and X. Mr. Kellogg said, outside of vandalism, the three men’s offenses would not be considered “legally actionable in most other, rights-respecting jurisdictions” because they would be deemed acceptable political speech. Judge So and the Hong Kong government said the men’s actions were aimed at stirring hatred and contempt for the authorities, and that their convictions needed to deter others. “If the law does not intervene early and individual inciting behaviors are condoned, the cumulative effect will eventually cause society to fall into chaos again,” Judge So said in Mr. Chu’s ruling. The Hong Kong government said in a statement that the convictions showed that “clear lines” had been drawn between “unlawful seditious acts and expressions, and lawful constructive criticisms under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.” Legal experts, however, said any criticism of the government could now be considered risky. “The authorities,” said Eva Pils, a professor in international human rights law at FAU Nuremberg, Germany, “have constructed a tight net to catch everyone.”
