‘Convictions do not erase the truth about Hong Kong’

Hong Kong () – The day after the very harsh sentences imposed on the 45 pro-democracy activists accused of “subversion” for having organized primary elections in 2020, to build the consensus of their own front in view of the vote for the Legislative Assembly, the judicial interrogation of Jimmy Lai, the Catholic businessman who founded the newspaper AppleDailyalso silenced by Beijing’s decision. The first day of an interrogation that promises to be long, in which, answering questions from the defense, Lai denied having ever supported violence or “the absurd idea of ​​an independent Hong Kong”, and rejected the accusation of “collusion with foreign forces.” He explained that behind the AppleDaily There was always only one idea: “The more information you have, the more informed you are, the freer you are.”

Regarding the meaning of these battles and what is happening in Hong Kong, we publish below a reflection by Gwyneth Ho, a journalist imprisoned since 2021 and one of the people who were sentenced yesterday, who was sentenced to seven years in prison. The sentence has been particularly severe because he did not even formally plead guilty, which would have guaranteed him a reduction in sentence. After a long silence, yesterday he appeared in your profile Facebook an extensive reflection that he managed to get out of prison so that it could be disseminated on the day of the sentencing. Below we publish extensive passages of our translation.

I ran in the last free and fair elections in Hong Kong. For this reason, I was charged in the first Soviet/Chinese Communist style subversion case ever tried in a court of common law. I pleaded not guilty to defend the political expression of 610,000 people in Hong Kong, which the regime is trying to distort and reduce to a conspiracy of 47 foreign pawns and infidels, with life imprisonment on the table.

The situation is disastrous and yet, if you go into the details, it is also a bit comical: the unforgivable subversive act of the accused was aimed at obtaining a parliamentary majority with veto power over the annual budget. Following this logic, it could be stated that democracies around the world suffer subversion attempts every 4-6 years. However, in a reality similar to that described in the book “1984”, democratization – or the simple requirement of democratization – is equivalent to the subversion of state power. All this makes a lot of sense.

Behind the rhetoric of secession, collusion with foreign forces, etc., our real crime for Beijing is that we have not been content to play along in rigged elections. We organize to overcome fragmentation into parties, we unite and try to succeed. We dared to try to gain effective power to hold the government accountable for its actions. Although all of this is enshrined as a right of the people by Hong Kong’s Basic Law, Beijing never intended to allow it to happen.

We dared to confront the regime with the question: is democracy possible within a structure like this? The response was a total repression of society on all fronts. Our case, involving politicians and democracy activists of all stripes, was seen as the breaking point from which Hong Kong became a lost cause. People were frightened and forced to give up hope for democracy in Hong Kong.

Sitting in the dock, I mentally reviewed the historical trials I had read about. At a distance of decades, brave and dignified defenses seemed the natural components of final victory. But at that precise moment, when the regime seems invulnerable and change is not in sight, why does one choose to continue fighting despite the certainty of condemnation?

The narrative proposed by the prosecution is not just a distortion of the facts or a threat to public opinion. It goes much further: it forces the accused to deny the experiences they have had. It tells you that genuine solidarity was just an illusion. That the bonds, the unity, the honest conversations between people so different and yet so united to each other cannot be real. That the difficult construction of a collective united in diversity with a shared vision of a better future is just a utopian dream.

But it is not like that. They are not just idealistic dreams, but that is the reality that I have lived. I have chosen to fight to demonstrate that these links are not only possible, but that they have been effectively lived and continue to be lived. The only illusion is to believe that brutal oppression can deny its existence.

It is not a responsibility or a moral obligation. It is the strong impulse I feel within me to do justice to what I have witnessed and experienced, because it is part of me and defines who I was. And now it will define who I am.

I find myself alone in the face of these accusations, not as an isolated individual, but as one of those who took to the streets and raised their voices to demand the autonomy of the city. Just like all those who have found themselves in the same position facing unfair courts anywhere in the world.

I have traveled far with words, from contemporary Russia to mainland China, Thailand, 20th century Chicago, Taiwan and Pretoria. I have met countless times with Navalny, whose cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights are now open to all political defendants in the world, who will be able to cite them in their legal battles. And in this particular case, who has more to offer than human rights defenders from mainland China?

None of us have won our case. Many of those I have read about are still serving harsh sentences in unknown places, unheard of and forgotten. Most of them will never have the chance to know how much they inspired me: the only way to honor them was to fight the best fight possible. And that’s what I did.

I was sent to solitary confinement for having refuted the false testimony of a prosecution witness from the dock. Shortly before I had read about the Belarusian Maria Kolesnikova. Her case was behind closed doors, but the lawyers risked their registration to reveal that on the day of the verdict Kolesnikova made her last statement, just under 3 hours long, “about moral choice, about love for people, about the future of Belarus”.

I tried to imagine what it means to make a speech only in front of people who have been complicit in depriving you of your freedom, looking at their apathetic (if not downright mocking) faces. I couldn’t. However, she did it. He poured his heart into a speech of which he knew no one would hear a word.

She was violently silenced, but the echo of her voice crossed the entire Eurasian continent, overcoming the closed courts and the prohibition of making a complaint, the reinforced walls and censorship to reach me at the moment when I needed it most. I felt close to her, even though I will probably never meet her. I feel dear.

Today no democracy is immune to the crisis of legitimacy that derives from the lack of trust among citizens. Calls for the “orderly” and “efficient” government of authoritarianism grow inexorably. The news of fruitless movements and continued suffering of persecuted freedom fighters in far-off and hopeless places is indeed disheartening.

But without a doubt you can help a lot. Defend and restore your democracy. Reject the corruption of power, recover faith in democratic values ​​through action. Give authoritarian dictators one less example of failed democracy to justify their rule and freedom fighters around the world one more inspiration to continue the fight with better alternatives. Fight on the ground that is most familiar and dear to you. Show the world at every possible moment, no matter how small, that democracy is worth fighting for.

Because if on the one hand suffering can inspire concern and compassion, on the other it obfuscates and reduces the sufferer to a victim worthy of pity but without character, part of a nameless number. What really defines our identity is not the suffering itself, but how we deal with it. It is in action that we define ourselves, and only people who truly know who they are can open up, create new connections in the most unexpected circumstances, and bring about change. It is for the wonders of human diversity, of creativity and possibilities, for a world in which we can connect as we truly are, that we dare to act and we dare to suffer.

It is not suffering that defines identity, but how we face it. If the current situation is Hong Kong’s inevitable destiny, at least in 2019 we choose to face it, not stay in the village of “virtual freedom” and then leave it to future generations.

Democracy and freedom never mean quiet: true democracy is when voices overlap and become very loud (Hong Kong citizens should have understood this), and freedom is being able to choose, think, decide and take responsibility. If we limit ourselves to being outraged, to supporting others, to helping them, to doing what is morally right without reflecting on what we really want, it is difficult to perceive freedom. Freedom is the moment when you realize that “you can do it.”

You will encounter many limitations and obstacles, but precisely by confronting reality you will discover who you are and, through continuous self-doubt, you will be able to hone true determination.

History is not written by the victors, but by those who have will and freedom. The body of this city will not disappear, its old soul is dead, but the birth of a new life is inevitably painful. No one can define “what Hong Kong is”, but everyone can expand the perimeter of “what Hong Kong can be”.

The decisions and actions I have taken are my response to “what Hong Kong can be”. The joy of learning and the happiness of being able to synchronize with others beyond all difficulties are my greatest achievements. If I can continue to grow, I hope to do so.

Now I have nothing, I am alone with the knowledge I have studied, the value to which I have testified and the passion in which I have immersed myself. I am grateful that the curiosity is preserved and that the determination is clear. I sincerely hope that you have the courage to face yourself, to open up, to explore the world, to perceive others and not to settle for the illusion of “freedom of thought”. You have to be free in the real world. “What could Hong Kong be?” I hope to see many more responses.

* journalist sentenced to 7 years in prison in Hong Kong