HONG KONG — Three Hong Kong activists who organized annual vigils in remembrance of China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown were sentenced Friday to about five to seven years in prison in a case that prompted criticism from abroad and is widely seen as a barometer of the city’s eroding freedoms. Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung and Albert Ho were convicted of inciting subversion earlier this year under a Beijing-imposed national security law. Lee received a seven-year prison term and Chow was sentenced to seven years and three months. Both pleaded not guilty. Ho was given a lower sentence of five years and two months, partly because he pleaded guilty. The three were leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which for three decades organized a Tiananmen vigil that was the only large-scale, public commemoration of the 1989 crackdown in China. They were charged in September 2021 and have been held in custody for years. Hong Kong once had a vibrant civil society marked by massive protests and a freewheeling press. But after a 2019 protest movement rocked the city, authorities reduced public choice in elections and prosecuted leaders of news outlets known for their critical reports of the government. Many leading activists were imprisoned under the security law, and dozens of civil society groups dissolved, including the alliance. Beijing says the law was necessary to maintain stability. Lee and Chow plan to appeal After the sentencing, Lee’s wife Elizabeth Tang told reporters that there’s no freedom of speech in Hong Kong and the sentences would shock and anger many people. She said millions of people attended or supported the candlelight vigils. “The sentence is also a punishment for many other people. It’s very hard to accept,” she said, adding that Lee would appeal the result. Chow’s mother Medina Chow Lau Wah-chun joked that she had to thank those who had prosecuted Chow for helping to write the truth of the 1989 crackdown and what happened in Hong Kong in recent years into the court records. “Many years ago, my daughter already said that she wants to have a proper debate with them in court one day,” she said. Chow’s friend Lau Ka-yee said Chow also would appeal. Chow, who represented herself, earlier said the verdict suggested that pursuing democracy is a crime and that she did not deserve even one day in prison. Court cited demand to `end one-party dictatorship’ Three government-approved judges said the defendants had committed a serious offense. The court previously found that their organization’s longtime demand to “end one-party dictatorship” implied an intent to overthrow or undermine the ruling Communist Party’s leadership. In handing down the sentence, the judges noted the case did not involve violence or threats of violence and the group never proposed specific means or a timetable to carry out their demand. But they said the defendants’ offense occurred during a turbulent social atmosphere and that posed greater risk to national security. The ruling insisted the defendants were not being tried because of their political views. “Even when the defendants believed their agenda of `end one-party dictatorship’ might breach the constitution and the national security law, they acted recalcitrantly after the national security law took effect and vigorously promoted their cause,” they wrote. Critics say Hong Kong has changed, but authorities defend the sentences Hundreds and possibly thousands of people were killed as military tanks rolled into the center of Beijing and troops opened fire to end the student-led pro-democracy protests in the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown. The annual vigil drew tens of thousands of people every year for decades. But authorities banned it in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic. The vigils symbolized the civil liberties that set Hong Kong apart from mainland China. Urania Chiu, a lecturer in law at Oxford Brookes University in the U.K., said the guilty verdicts confirmed that even peaceful calls for democratic change in the Chinese regime are now criminalized in Hong Kong. “The mere possibility that its activities might stir up hostility against the state by reminding the public of past atrocities is enough for the court to classify the offence as `serious,”' she said, referring to the alliance’s work. The British consulate in Hong Kong pointed to an earlier U.K. statement saying the extensive use of the security law to restrict freedom of expression undermines the commitments China made to the city, reiterating its call for rights to be respected. Hong Kong, a former British colony, returned to Chinese rule in 1997. The U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong said the U.S. condemned the sentences, saying the vigils held one purpose -- to remember history and honor the lives lost. Anouar El Anouni, the European Union’s spokesperson for foreign affairs, said the ruling undermines confidence in the rule of law and harms Hong Kong’s reputation. Hong Kong leader John Lee said the court already had decided that their actions went beyond the lawful exercise of freedom of expression. “The law has never allowed anyone to use human rights, democracy and freedom as a pretext to openly harm their own country and fellow citizens,” he said in a statement. Steve Li, chief superintendent of the police’s national security department, said anyone plotting to take action should take heed of the sentences and not test the government’s resolve to uphold national security. China’s Hong Kong and Macao affairs office said the sentences were a powerful defence of the constitutional order and criticized Western politicians and media for calling “criminals” fighters for democracy and human rights. Other democracy advocates and supporters attend hearing During the trial, the defence denied they meant to end the party’s leadership and insisted the alliance had not asked people to adopt any illegal means. Lee Cheuk-yan said their call for “ending one-party dictatorship” and moving toward democracy meant letting the people decide who leads them. Ahead of the sentencing, dozens of people lined up outside the court. Roman Catholic Cardinal Joseph Zen was among those sitting in the public gallery. Activists Jimmy Sham and Carol Ng, who have already served sentences after being convicted in a separate security case, were also seen in court. Former vigil-goer Simon Ng said his heart was heavy as the sentencing approached, adding that he felt accusations were not just against the defendants. “I took part in the alliance’s vigils for decades; the ruling amounts to an accusation against me,” he said. Kanis Leung, The Associated Press
