A tale of two sentencings: one involving a man who bit off part of another man's ear; the other involving a man found guilty of speech crimes

 
A T-shirt I've not worn in years :S

 

The law courts resumed operations yesterday after the long Easter weekend and the verdict that grabbed the Tuesday headlines involved the sentencing of Joe Chen, the Putonghua-speaking man who -- in one of the most bizarre incidents of 2019 in Hong Kong -- attacked and bit off part of the left ear of then district councillor Andrew Chiu (and BITING OFF part of his left ear), slashed and stabbed another man with a knife, and wounded two others at the Cityplaza shopping mall in Tai Koo Shing one November evening.  

 

Five months after being found guilty as charged by a jury, Chen was sentenced to 14 and a half years in prison; the harshest penalty given thus far to a defendant in a case related to the anti-extradition bill protests.  In view of his being a pro-Beijinger and at least one, if not all, of the people he attacked being identifiably pro-democracy, the lengthy sentence imposed on Chen came as a bit of a surprise.  

 

But I guess even the authorities cannot condone his having bitten off another human being's ear.  And in full view of other people too.  Also, I'm sure it couldn't be swept under the floor that, as Chiu testified in court (and was duly reported in a Hong Kong Free Press piece), "an attempt to reattach his ear surgically had failed. The three other victims of the assault also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder."

 

Two other sections from the Hong Kong Free Press article that I think worth pointing out: Firstly, "Chen’s lawyer argued that the defendant had no political inclination, but [the judge] said the attacks appeared to stem from arguments deriving from different political views"; and, secondly, "Chiu, meanwhile is also in custody. He is among the 47 democrats facing national security charges over the democrats’ primary election in July 2020".   More specifically, Chiu was one of the 47 activists and politicians arrested on February 28th of last year for having taken part in the July 2020 pro-democracy primaries, and has been denied bail and thus been behind bars all this time while waiting for his trial to properly begin -- in 2023.

 

Speaking of that 47: one of them, Tam Tak-chi, was found guilty of sedition and related charges (including the bizarre "conspiracy to utter seditious words") last month.  Today, the handpicked national security judge sentenced the former People Power vice-chairman to 40 months (i.e., 3 years and 4 months) in jail for what essentially are not much more than "speech crimes".  (Initially scheduled for March 31, Tam's sentencing was delayed after the Judiciary adjourned all court proceedings between March 7 and April 11 owing to Hong Kong’s fifth Covid wave.  A reminder: He has been behind bars since his arrest in September 2020.)

 

Because Tam was the first person in Hong Kong since the British colonial era to stand trial for sedition, under a little-used law reintroduced by the city's pro-Beijing prosecutors, his case received international coverage (including in Britain's The Guardian and Germany's DW) as well as was big news locally.  

 

As Helen Davidson reported in The Guardian: " Prosecutors alleged that [Tam] used anti-police slogans as well as phrases commonly heard at the 2019 protests: “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” and “five demands, not one less” on multiple occasions. His trial saw the prosecution and defence debate the meaning of “liberate” and “revolution” throughout Chinese history."  It thus appears to have been proclaimed that the phrase "five demands, not one less" is seditious, and therefore illegal, not just "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times"!

 

The article quoted Maya Wang, Human Rights Watch’s senior China researcher, as stating that Tam’s sentence "exemplifies the dizzying speed at which Hong Kong’s freedoms are being eroded."  On Twitter, she's also stated that "The sentencing of Tam illustrates the appalling state of #HongKong today: that previously widely accepted activities such as shouting slogans can now result in years of prison."

 

Meanwhile, the DW article includes the following observations: "Since the implementation of the contentious security law, there has been a massive growth in number of activists being charged for "seditious speech." However, Tam was the first defendant in 25 years to plead not guilty go through a full trial. His sentencing is expected to set precedent for a number of upcoming sedition prosecutions."

 

Because he is fully aware of this, Tam has stated that he will appeal the ruling.  As he put it in a social media post (that had to be posted with the help of friends as he has no access to the internet while behind bars), "my sentencing will affect Hongkongers' freedom of speech".  Like Samuel Bickett before him, I have a feeling Tam does not have high hopes that his appeal will be successful; but he still feels a need to make it on principle.  

 

Speaking of Samuel Bickett: he may be back in the US but he's still keeping his eyes on Hong Kong and commenting on legal events here.  Among his Tweets today was one responding to Timothy McLaughlin having reported that there were "[n]otable efforts in court today to keep observers from expressing support for Tam. The seating area inside the court was filmed at all times by two men using a video camera and court workers urged people to be quiet". 

 

Getting right to the point, Bickett asserted the following: "Let’s not split hairs: If the [government] is now filming all who attend court hearings, the goal is to intimidate [and] deter people from attending at all. If people consequently do not feel safe attending, then Hong Kong no longer has fair [and] public hearings as guaranteed by [the] Bill of Rights."  Indeed.