Hong Kong activists convicted over Tiananmen vigil

Jimmy Lai, the owner of the now-defunct Hong Kong pro-democracy paper Apple Daily, was found guilty on Thursday for inciting a vigil marking the June 4 anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Lai was among three pro-democracy activists found guilty of unauthorized assembly on Thursday. 

Opposition politician Gwyneth Ho and rights lawyer Chow Hang-tung were also found guilty.

What were the activists convicted of?

Prosecutors proved that Jimmy Lai and Chow Hang-tung had incited others to attend the vigil, District Court Judge Amanda Woodcock said as she delivered her verdict. 

These efforts included an appeal by Chow for people to "light candles all over Hong Kong," including the usual vigil site of Victoria Park.

The court found Lai guilty after he attended a press conference at the entrance of the park along with the vigil organizers for just 15 minutes. 

Judge Woodcock called this a "deliberate act to rally support for and publicly spotlight the unauthorized assembly," despite Lai not speaking at the press conference.

Hong Kong activists under pressure

In total, Hong Kong authorities have charged 26 pro-democracy politicians and activists for participating in the banned vigil. 

Sixteen other activists are already serving sentences of between four and 10 months for the same incident.

The remaining sentences are due to be announced on Monday.

The three convicted Thursday were the only ones to enter not guilty pleas and contest the charges in court, meaning they were the last to receive a verdict. 

However, all three of the activists are already behind bars. They have been remanded in custody after being denied bail for national security law charges.

Two activists, Sunny Cheung and Nathan Law, were also charged in the same case but both fled the city before the hearing began. The court has issued an arrest warrant to them.

Why was the vigil banned?

Many activists have been arrested, jailed or gone into exile since the city's Beijing-backed rulers imposed the draconian national security law last year.

Traditionally, Hong Kong has held the largest vigils, with tens of thousands of people gathering to commemorate the massacre of peaceful pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989. 

Authorities have used coronavirus restrictions limiting gatherings, as well as security concerns, as a reason for banning the vigil over the past two years.  

Activists say the vigil is being banned on behalf of Beijing, whose authorities have long sought to scrub memories and official records of Tiananmen.

'Ridiculous' and 'disturbing' — reactions to the ruling

"The verdict shows how the regime has weaponized public health measures to eliminate political dissents," exiled Hong Kong activist Sunny Cheung told DW. He was charged in the same case but fled the city before the hearing began. 

"The police's excuse to ban the vigil was absurd and groundless as they rejected all kinds of social distancing measures counter-proposed by the organizer," Cheung said.

"It's ridiculous that the court put the blame on what it frames as incitement," Cheung added.

"The verdict is an imperative indicator of how freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression are being crushed. The authorities are stamping out any possibility of remembrance and preservation of truth," he said.

Eric Lai, a Hong Kong law fellow at the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University said the ruling was "disturbing."

"If we refer to the international human rights standard and court cases submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, peaceful protests during pandemic should not result in criminalization," Lai told DW. 

Edited by: Kate Martyr