Dear our beloved global community members,
The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked, considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time, uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those who are currently in Hong Kong.
There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is written before it became a law.
2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?
3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the input across the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for its content.
4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates how local laws are passed.
The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the effects in the short run and the long run:
In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact, while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into jail with this piece of legislation.
In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group, Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the local community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open access.
We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because of its controversy of bringing Wikipedia into media attention, and whether such an act violates neutrality principles, plus fierce opposition from editors from China (excl. Hong Kong and Macao).
We hope the glocal community can pay attention to the effects of this bill in Hong Kong, as it would most probably limit free speech and may affect most citizens (including Wikimedia (incl. Wikipedia) editors in Hong Kong), instead of what it proclaimed to be the few, unlawful separatists.
In grave concern of our future,
The Hong Kong offline Wikipedia Community
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
Hello William,
I am very sad to read what is happening in Hong Kong. I am not sure how we can help, but it's important that you continue to inform us. If there is any way we can support your community, please let us know.
Best, Diane
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:09 PM William Chan william@wchan.hk wrote:
Dear our beloved global community members,
The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked, considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time, uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those who are currently in Hong Kong.
There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
- This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation phase.
The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is written before it became a law.
- This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech even
out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?
- It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the input across the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for its content.
- Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to Hong
Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates how local laws are passed.
The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the effects in the short run and the long run:
In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact, while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into jail with this piece of legislation.
In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group, Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the local community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open access.
We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because of its controversy of bringing Wikipedia into media attention, and whether such an act violates neutrality principles, plus fierce opposition from editors from China (excl. Hong Kong and Macao).
We hope the glocal community can pay attention to the effects of this bill in Hong Kong, as it would most probably limit free speech and may affect most citizens (including Wikimedia (incl. Wikipedia) editors in Hong Kong), instead of what it proclaimed to be the few, unlawful separatists.
In grave concern of our future,
The Hong Kong offline Wikipedia Community
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Diane and all,
It seems the the bill is far more dangerous than what we the local community have expected:
1. The bill exerts prosecution power on anything Hong Kong, from Hong Kong soli to water to Hong Kong-registered ships to Hong Kong-registered aircrafts, and applies on both Hong Kong citizens and non-Hong Kong citizens.
2. You can commit this crime anywhere on Earth. Even if such "crime" is carried outside of Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong citizens, this law makes Hong Kong have the judicial power to expirate such "criminal"
3. This means that non-Hong Kong contributors writing positively about the Hong Kong protests and topics about Hong Kong independence in a pro-protester tone can technically violate the bill.
4. If such a person steps onto a Hong Kong registered Aircraft (such as Cathay Pacific Airline Planes) or Hong Kong-registered ships, they can logically be arrested and brought to Hong Kong for trial for acts documented on sec. 3. Even when both the origin and destination is not in Hong Kong.
There seems to be much more problems than expected considering how China manipulates its laws to its own good by violating international treaties and protections on human rights (when it is against their agenda).
Grave Concern, William
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 23:08, William Chan william@wchan.hk wrote:
Dear our beloved global community members,
The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked, considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time, uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those who are currently in Hong Kong.
There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
- This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation
phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is written before it became a law.
- This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech
even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?
- It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the input across the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for its content.
- Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to
Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates how local laws are passed.
The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the effects in the short run and the long run:
In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact, while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into jail with this piece of legislation.
In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group, Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the local community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open access.
We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because of its controversy of bringing Wikipedia into media attention, and whether such an act violates neutrality principles, plus fierce opposition from editors from China (excl. Hong Kong and Macao).
We hope the glocal community can pay attention to the effects of this bill in Hong Kong, as it would most probably limit free speech and may affect most citizens (including Wikimedia (incl. Wikipedia) editors in Hong Kong), instead of what it proclaimed to be the few, unlawful separatists.
In grave concern of our future,
The Hong Kong offline Wikipedia Community
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
Yes, this is very concerning indeed, and please do keep us up to date, especially if any of these measures are used against someone for editing Wikimedia projects or being a part of one of our communities or groups. I know that some countries are considering economic sanctions for these types of measures being taken in Hong Kong, so it is a matter that many are aware of.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:53 AM William Chan william@wchan.hk wrote:
Diane and all,
It seems the the bill is far more dangerous than what we the local community have expected:
- The bill exerts prosecution power on anything Hong Kong, from Hong Kong
soli to water to Hong Kong-registered ships to Hong Kong-registered aircrafts, and applies on both Hong Kong citizens and non-Hong Kong citizens.
- You can commit this crime anywhere on Earth. Even if such "crime" is
carried outside of Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong citizens, this law makes Hong Kong have the judicial power to expirate such "criminal"
- This means that non-Hong Kong contributors writing positively about the
Hong Kong protests and topics about Hong Kong independence in a pro-protester tone can technically violate the bill.
- If such a person steps onto a Hong Kong registered Aircraft (such as
Cathay Pacific Airline Planes) or Hong Kong-registered ships, they can logically be arrested and brought to Hong Kong for trial for acts documented on sec. 3. Even when both the origin and destination is not in Hong Kong.
There seems to be much more problems than expected considering how China manipulates its laws to its own good by violating international treaties and protections on human rights (when it is against their agenda).
Grave Concern, William
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 23:08, William Chan william@wchan.hk wrote:
Dear our beloved global community members,
The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked, considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time, uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found
at
the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those who are currently in Hong Kong.
There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
- This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation
phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on
free
speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation
bill
that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what
is
written before it became a law.
- This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech
even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?
- It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local
policies
could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the
input across
the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for its content.
- Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to
Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates how local laws are passed.
The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the effects in the short run and the long run:
In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact, while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into jail with this piece of legislation.
In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group, Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the
local
community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open access.
We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing
2019-20
Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because
of
its controversy of bringing Wikipedia into media attention, and whether such an act violates neutrality principles, plus fierce opposition from editors from China (excl. Hong Kong and Macao).
We hope the glocal community can pay attention to the effects of this
bill
in Hong Kong, as it would most probably limit free speech and may affect most citizens (including Wikimedia (incl. Wikipedia) editors in Hong
Kong),
instead of what it proclaimed to be the few, unlawful separatists.
In grave concern of our future,
The Hong Kong offline Wikipedia Community
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org