“We are basically seeing the Hong Kong government trying to slam shut the really last vestiges of room for criticizing it,” said Kevin Yam, one of 13 overseas pro-democracy activists accused of national security offenses by Hong Kong authorities.

When Britain returned Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997, Beijing assured the former colonial power that civil liberties in the city would be preserved.

On Saturday, Hong Kong enacted a measure that critics charge will further stifle free expression in a city that until recently was known for its freewheeling style, aggressive media and politically active populace.

The bill, called the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance but also referred to as the Article 23 law, took effect following unanimous approval earlier this week by Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature, where it was deliberated over and passed in a record 11 days.

Article 23 is designed to supplement an earlier national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, one that critics say supercharged the erosion of civil liberties here.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t think anyone was under any illusions. Britain didn’t have a choice or any leverage. It was a 99 year lease so there was no legal claim to keep HK and the UK wasn’t going to war with modern China. China could have just taken it if Britain set a bunch of terms.

    Before the handover, they just basically offered Hong Kong residents the right to move to England. Canada, Australia, and the U.S. had special rules for immigrants from HK. (Probably other countries too.)

    • nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Technically only some of HK was under the lease, some was indefinitely controlled by the British. However, you’re still right because of the military force difference.

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not just an issue of military forces. The New Territories were where all the water supplies for Hong Kong Island were located. It would have been a completely untenable situation once the 99 year lease ran out.

      • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were annexed as booty from the Opium Wars. The New Territories were leased at the point of a gun.

        All were inextricably bound to China long before 1997 as they depended on it for both water and electricity.