Free Jimmy Lai
A good man is going to die in a Hong Kong prison for believing in freedom and democracy. His name is Jimmy Lai
So, Hong Konger Jimmy Lai is going to die in prison – a martyr for democracy, freedom, and faith. This might sound a bit dramatic, but if you know the story of Jimmy Lai, you will understand why I describe things as such. The story is also personal, having found myself named in this sham court case and my words used against Jimmy.
Jimmy is a 78-year-old Hong Konger, fashion brand creator (Giordano), owner of the now closed Apple Daily newspaper, a billionaire, Roman Catholic, husband and father of five, and in the eyes of the Chinese Community Party (CCP) and Hong Kong authorities – a criminal.
Jimmy has run afoul of the new National Security Law, introduced by Beijing into Hong Kong in 2020. At the time there were huge protests which were eventually suppressed, with many democracy activists arrested or fleeing the country.
The law effectively ended the freedoms we take for granted here in New Zealand – free speech, a free press, and freedom of assembly. It also has a provision around what the law describes as ‘colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security’. This National Security law effectively put an end to the Sino-British declaration, signed when the United Kingdom gave Hong Kong back to China in 1997, by removing the rights of Hong Kongers to enjoy ‘one country, two systems’ – that is, Hong Kong became part of China but could still operate its own, democratic and free, system. As I write, those in Hong Kong now suffer the same human rights repressions as those in mainland China.
Jimmy was very public in his opposition to this new law and used his newspaper to support democracy and human rights. As time went on, the Hong Kong authorities tightened the screws and eventually arrested him 2020. He has been in prison ever since, awaiting this trial and outcome, which sadly for those of us involved in this matter knew would see him found guilty – not because he has done anything wrong, but because the CCP had pre-determined the outcome.
The trial was a sham – a show trial, a star chamber, a struggle session. Call it what you may, the outcome was predetermined as the CCP have been keen to make an example of the man and ensure one message is heard loud and clear – no one is to challenge the Chinese Community Party, its authoritarian rule, or continuing human rights abuses. In this case, Jimmy has been convicted on one count of conspiracy to produce seditious material and two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.
The ruling is specifically designed and intended to have a chilling effect on media, academics, and democracy activists amongst others. This National Security law applies very widely and captures Chinese, Hong Kongers, and even those outside China’s territorial boundaries. Put simply and for example, an academic critiquing or commenting on the CCP could run afoul of the law, be accused of undermining the regime and colluding with foreign forces had they – as you might expect of any academic or journalist – had a conversation with a foreigner.
The Jimmy Lai case is also personal for I have been named in court several times - along with former Labour MP, Louisa Wall, and thirteen other MPs from around the world, including Marco Rubio and former UK Conservative leader, Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
To be clear, I have never met Jimmy nor communicated with him. Instead, as the Sino-British Declaration was being ripped up and Hong Kong reduced to a vassal of the wider Chinese state, I along with others from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), wrote expressing our concerns and standing in solidarity with human rights activists.
Those statements, and our names, have been tabled in the court to ‘prove’ that Jimmy was colluding with foreign forces and seeking to publish seditious articles. It is not just a nonsense, but a total sham. I suppose now, according to the CCP, I and the others are dangerous foreign agents and a threat to the State. You can anticipate, I will not be traveling to China or Hong Kong anytime soon.
Ironically, in recent days, the Chinese Embassy here in New Zealand has publicly sought to silence a New Zealander writing an op-ed about Taiwan. So Jimmy Lai goes to a CCP prison for offering his opinions, while the Chinese Embassy here rudely, but freely, expresses its view and tries to intimidate dissenters into silence.
I wrote a Substack a while back around this case, noting how the whole issue ‘hurts’ personally. Of course, this is nothing compared to what Jimmy, his family and supporters are experiencing. Even though we anticipated the judgement, I still feel a deep sadness and anger, and to a degree an element of guilt (if that is the right word) that my statements along with other colleagues has seen a good man going to prison, effectively for life. As I wrote previously, part of this sordid process is for the CCP to create a psychological impact on anyone who stands up for human rights, democracy, and freedom.
But the thing about emotions are that they are amoral. By this I mean, we cannot help feel them, but we can choose how to respond to them. In my case - and I know this applies to other members of IPAC, Hong Kongers, and other democracy activists – the emotions we feel around this case are what drive us to advocate even stronger. To advocate for Jimmy, for Andy Li, Hong Kongers, Tibetans, house Christians, Uyghurs, for Taiwan, and all who yearn for freedom.
Free Jimmy Lai.
Would it be too much for Winston Peters to intervene and express our sentiments to China?
China is just as bad as Iran one eyed dogmatics