The case against online news website “Stand News” has concluded with two chief editors and the parent company found guilty of "conspiring to publish seditious publications." Western governments, including the United States and the United Kingdom, promptly criticized the verdict, alleging that freedom of speech and the press are diminishing in Hong Kong. However, when compared to actions taken by these same Western governments, Hong Kong's measures appear relatively restrained.
In the United Kingdom, swift trials and severe sentencing have once again set a precedent. British Undersecretary of State (Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office), Catherine West, posted on the social media platform X, urging Hong Kong authorities to halt what she termed "political prosecutions" of journalists and to uphold the freedom of the press as stipulated in the Basic Law. This criticism is ironic given the UK's recent harsh sentencing of instigators of domestic riots.
On July 29, nationwide riots erupted across the UK following a knife attack at a children's dance school perpetrated by a member of a minority group. The British government responded by employing rapid trial and sentencing procedures reminiscent of those used during the 2011 London riots. By August 13, authorities had arrested 1,024 individuals, with 572 swiftly prosecuted. Many received immediate prison sentences ranging from several weeks to ten years, including an 11-year-old boy and a 69-year-old man.
By West's own standards critiquing Hong Kong, some of those heavily sentenced in the UK were merely engaging in what could be described as "free exchange of opinions" online, without participating directly in the riots. For example, 28-year-old Jordan Parlour from Leeds admitted to posting racially charged messages on Facebook and was sentenced to 20 months in prison, becoming the first individual sentenced in connection with the UK riots. Parlour's posts included statements such as, "smash [the] f--- out of Britannia hotel (a hotel housing migrants)". He also claimed in a comment on Facebook that migrants were given "the Life of Riley off the tax us hard-working people earn when it could be put to better use". Compared to the 11 articles by “Stand News” deemed seditious, Parlour's comments seem relatively minor. Notably, the maximum sentence for "sedition" in Hong Kong at that time was two years, making it unlikely that the defendants in the “Stand News” case will face harsher penalties than Parlour. In some instances, individuals in the UK received several weeks of imprisonment merely for reacting with supportive emojis to radical posts—outcomes unimaginable in Hong Kong.
Similarly, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated on X that the conviction of “Stand News” represents a direct attack on press freedom and tarnishes Hong Kong's reputation for openness. However, recalling the sentencing following the 2021 Capitol Hill riots, Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the right-wing group Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years in prison—the longest sentence among all defendants involved. Tarrio was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" despite not being physically present at the Capitol during the riots; he was coordinating activities online from a hotel in Baltimore. When comparing the 2021 Capitol Hill riots to the prolonged unrest in Hong Kong in 2019, the U.S. incident was relatively brief, yet one of its organizers received a 22-year sentence. By American standards, it raises the question of why Tarrio's sentence is not considered a violation of freedom of speech.
The situation in France further highlights this apparent double standard. A spokesperson for the European Union's External Action Service criticized the “Stand News” verdict as another example of shrinking press freedom in Hong Kong, warning that it could further limit diverse opinions and the free flow of information—both fundamental to Hong Kong's economic success. But look at what the French did. France recently arrested Pavel Durov, founder of the messaging app Telegram, accusing the platform of facilitating unchecked criminal activities. It’s noted that Telegram was widely used during Hong Kong's 2019 unrest, with several groups directly organizing riots through the app. Despite this, Hong Kong authorities have not taken action against such communication platforms, which often claim they cannot control the content shared by users. Now that France directly hit on a communication software provider, but the EU spokesperson says nothing about freedom of expression in France.
In summary, the United States and other Western governments often exhibit inconsistencies between their words and actions. The UK's handling of rioters and France's arrest of Telegram's founder inadvertently support the Hong Kong court's judgment in the “Stand News” case by demonstrating methods of addressing incitement to rebellion. Notably, the UK's rapid sentencing effectively quelled the riots within 11 days—an approach Hong Kong should seriously study and consider.
Wing-hung Lo
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The most consequential national security trial yet to come is also the one with the most unanswered questions — and at the centre of it is a man who almost made it out.
Monday (Feb 23) was "Renri" (人日) — the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, meant to be a day of celebration for all people. But for the 12 defendants in the "35+ Subversion Case," there was nothing to celebrate. The Court of Appeal dismissed all their appeals against both conviction and sentencing in full. Unless they push it all the way to the Court of Final Appeal, this case is done. That brings two of the three major national security cases to a close — the other being the Jimmy Lai trial. What remains is the Joshua Wong case, expected to go to trial around mid-year. Like Lai's, it reaches into the highest levels of American politics, and it will almost certainly expose a trove of behind-the-scenes dealings that will shake Hong Kong to its core. The trial is close enough that the details don't need spelling out here. But one mystery absolutely does: Wong was once Washington's darling — so why did he never make it out, while his co-conspirator Nathan Law did? An investigative report by American journalists cracked open the story.
Wong's trial is the last big national security case standing — and the most explosive one yet. How did he never make it out?
Wong's role in the Occupy Central movement and the 2019 unrest needs no introduction. In June last year, while already serving a prison term at Stanley Prison on sedition charges, he was arrested again and charged under the Hong Kong National Security Law with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security. His second pre-trial review at the Magistrates' Court came on 21 November last year, with the next hearing set for 6 March; the full trial at the High Court is expected to begin around mid-year. This case carries weight every bit as significant as the Jimmy Lai trial — the spotlight it commands will be enormous.
The Charges Are Grave
The prosecution alleges that between July and November 2020, Wong — together with Nathan Law and others yet to be identified — conspired in Hong Kong to solicit foreign governments and institutions to impose sanctions against the Hong Kong SAR and the People's Republic of China, and to seriously obstruct the government in enacting and enforcing its laws and policies. The charges carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment. What exactly Wong and Law did, and which foreign officials were involved, the prosecution will lay out in full when the trial begins.
The public has long asked some uncomfortable questions. Did Joshua Wong ever consider fleeing before or after the National Security Law came into force at the end of June 2020? If so, why did it never happen? Did the US government try to help him get out? An investigative report by two American journalists answered part of the puzzle — and sources familiar with the matter, when contacted by Hong Kong media, broadly confirmed what it said.
Wong Begged Washington for Help
The night before the National Security Law took effect, Wong reached out through a senator's adviser to appeal directly to President Trump for help. At the same time, he sent an email to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, explicitly asking to be helped to "travel to the United States to seek political asylum, by whatever means necessary". That email tells you everything. Wong knew exactly how dangerous his situation had become — and he was betting his future on American goodwill.
Around the same time, Wong arranged to meet two officials from the US Consulate General in Hong Kong at St. John's Building, directly across the street from the consulate. He made clear he wanted to walk in and seek refuge. He was turned away on the spot. When Pompeo saw the email, he consulted with his staff and arrived at the same conclusion: letting Wong through the consulate doors was simply not an option — Washington feared Beijing would retaliate by forcing the US consulate in Hong Kong to close entirely.
State Department officials went further, exploring a covert plan to smuggle Wong out of Hong Kong by sea — routing him through Taiwan or the Philippines before eventually reaching the United States. That option was killed too, on the grounds that any such attempt would very likely be intercepted by Chinese authorities, triggering a diplomatic crisis. When the accounting was done, American interests won out — and Joshua Wong was coldly abandoned.
By that point, Nathan Law had already made it out. Seizing Pompeo's visit to London, Law met the Secretary of State privately and raised the question of rescuing Wong one more time — and was once again turned away without sympathy. In September 2020, Wong was arrested on sedition charges and imprisoned two months later. Any remaining window for escape had sealed shut.
Law Moved Fast — and Made It
Nathan Law is named as a co-conspirator in the charges against Wong — meaning that if arrested, they face the same jeopardy. But Law proved far more calculating than Wong. Shortly before the National Security Law took effect, he quietly slipped away, eventually confirming his presence in the United Kingdom on 13 July 2020. He even staged a moment of wistful sentiment, declaring: "With this parting, I do not yet know when I shall return... May glory come soon!" — words that, in the circumstances, could not have sounded more hollow.
Same charges, same case — but Law ran, and Wong didn't. One man made it out clean. The other is still paying the price.
Joshua Wong — sharp-witted all his life — took one step too many in trusting the Americans, and that delay cost him everything. The US government, in the name of "national interest," discarded him without hesitation. As his trial approaches, the reality is this: placing any further faith in American support would be the last illusion he can afford.
Lai Ting-yiu
