The passing of Hong Kong’s Safeguarding National Security Ordinance under Article 23 has been met with a resounding condemnation from human rights organizations. Amnesty International’s China director, Sarah Brooks, described this moment as a “crushing blow to human rights” in the city. The swift enactment of this law, amidst calls for public protest, has extinguished what little hope remained for safeguarding freedoms in the region.
Brooks emphasized that this legislation reflects the Hong Kong authorities’ relentless desire to align with Beijing’s directives at the expense of previously stated human rights commitments. Despite urgent warnings from UN human rights experts about its incompatibility with international obligations, the Hong Kong government plowed ahead, showcasing its disregard for international norms.
The enactment of Hong Kong’s Safeguarding National Security Ordinance under Article 23 signifies a severe setback for human rights, as described by Amnesty International. The law compromises the freedoms that Hongkongers have historically fought to protect, allowing authorities to criminalize peaceful dissent and broaden investigative powers excessively. This situation calls for a heightened international response to safeguard the rights of the Hong Kong populace.
In the wake of this law’s passage, peaceful protest in Hong Kong carries greater risks, further tightening the grip on personal freedoms. Amnesty International calls for global engagement to pressure Hong Kong authorities to respect human rights standards and repeal oppressive laws. This pivotal moment signals a critical time for sustained advocacy on behalf of Hongkongers facing an imminent threat to their fundamental rights.
On the legislative front, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council voted unanimously to pass Article 23, entailing severe restrictions on freedoms and political expressions. Under this law, local actions such as treason, secession, and sedition against the Central People’s Government are criminalized. The legislation raises serious concerns regarding vague terms like ‘external interference’ and grants authorities new powers, increasing obstacles to fair trial rights.
Original Source: www.amnesty.org
