——和平表达不是颠覆
作者：吕小静
2026年8月23 日，各界人士在中国驻旧金山总领馆前声援李卓人、邹幸彤（本文照片由关永杰提供）
【旧金山讯】2026年8月23日下午，中国民主党旧金山党部、中国民主教育基金会、美国香港人会馆、支持香港自由协会（AHKF）等团体及各界人士，在中国驻旧金山总领事馆前举行紧急声援活动，声援香港支联会前主席李卓人、前副主席邹幸彤，并呼吁释放所有因和平政治表达而遭监禁的人士。
活动现场，参与者手持李卓人、邹幸彤照片，以及“和平表达不是颠覆”“FREE HONG KONG”“END ONE-PARTY DICTATORSHIP”等横幅和标语。来自香港、中国大陆以及美国当地的参与者先后发言。
这场集会距离香港高等法院8月21日就“支联会案”作出有罪裁决仅两天。
一纸判决引发旧金山紧急声援
活动由李小林、郭志军共同主持。活动开始后，中国民主党旧金山党部活动部副部长李小林首先介绍了此次紧急声援活动的缘起。
他表示，两天前，香港高等法院就“支联会案”作出判决，李卓人、邹幸彤被裁定“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”成立。
面对这一判决，他们没有选择只在手机上转发一条新闻，而是来到中国驻旧金山总领事馆前，把一个无法回避的问题公开说出来：
“纪念历史，为什么会成为罪？和平表达，为什么会成为颠覆？”
现场表示，这场集会不仅是为了李卓人和邹幸彤，更是为了所有因和平表达、纪念历史和追求民主而失去自由的人。
中国民主党旧金山党部秘书长郑云随后简要介绍了支联会的历史。
她表示，支联会全称“香港市民支援爱国民主运动联合会”，成立于1989年六四期间。三十多年来，支联会长期推动六四纪念、支援中国民主运动、声援政治犯，并坚持“平反六四、结束一党专政、建设民主中国”等政治主张，每年在香港维多利亚公园举行六四烛光晚会。
2021年，在《香港国安法》实施后的政治环境下，支联会解散，多名核心成员被捕、起诉。如今，其前主席李卓人、前副主席邹幸彤又因“支联会案”被裁定罪名成立。
曾经照亮维多利亚公园的烛光，如今却成为当局追诉一个组织及其领导人的历史背景之一。支联会的命运，也成为现场参与者观察香港自由空间急剧变化的一面镜子。
北加州香港会代表陈国禧（Ken Chan）表示，当“结束一党专政”这样的和平政治主张都能够被视为“颠覆”，受到审判的就不只是李卓人、邹幸彤两个人，更关系到一个社会能否容纳不同政治意见。
陈国禧回忆，李卓人数十年来投身香港劳工及民主运动。十多年前李卓人到访旧金山湾区，在旧金山市政厅附近偶遇一场关注劳工权益的抗议活动。尽管此前并不了解该活动，他仍主动走进人群，与组织者交流并举牌声援。
这个细节让陈国禧一直记忆深刻。在他看来，这正是李卓人的本色——不仅是一名政治人物，更是一名长期站在普通劳动者身边、为权利和尊严发声的行动者。
谈到邹幸彤，他表示，即使香港纪念六四的空间不断消失，她仍选择站出来；即使身陷囹圄，也没有放弃自己的信念。
陈国禧还分享了来自狱中信件传递的信息：身在监狱之外的人仍然拥有公民社会，仍然能够关心身边与世界发生的事情，因此更应该珍惜并善用这种自由。
当有人因为和平表达而失去自由，高墙之外的人就更没有理由沉默。
美国香港人会馆代表施臻营（Jeni）当天带伤来到活动现场。 她表示，香港六四集会已经举行三十多年，历年活动场地亦曾获得香港政府批准。如今，支联会及其领导人却因相关政治主张被控“煽动他人颠覆国家政权”。
她反问，如果过去和平举行的集会曾经获得政府批准，如今却被视为“颠覆”的一部分，那么这种逻辑本身是否更值得追问？
她认为，当“煽动颠覆国家政权”能够被如此广泛解释，人们必须追问：这究竟是在维护国家安全，还是在以国家安全之名打压政治异见？
施臻营引用香港劳权监察总干事蒙兆达的话说： “判决不单单对李卓人和邹幸彤定罪，也对良知和真相定罪。” 她表示，今天海外香港人能够站在自由的土地上集会、发声，能够呼吸自由的空气，并不是理所当然。 “我们不能忘记，仍然有很多香港抗争者身陷囹圄，还有很多人每天承受政治威吓。”
她当天带伤站在现场，也让这句话有了更加直接的重量：自由不仅意味着自己走出了高墙，也意味着不能忘记仍被留在高墙之内的人。
UC Berkeley学生梁啓骏（Jeffrey）表示，在众多《香港国安法》案件中，支联会案尤其值得警醒，因为支联会并非一个以激进抗争为主要方式的团体。 三十多年来，支联会所做的重要工作之一，就是纪念六四、保存天安门事件的历史记忆，让下一代知道曾经发生过什么。
梁啓骏认为，当一个政权连人民“记住历史”都感到恐惧，甚至将纪念、教育和和平政治主张视为威胁，恰恰反映出它对历史真相与自身正当性的深刻不安。
他说，支联会案带来的答案不应该是停止纪念，而恰恰相反： 越是有人想让六四从历史中消失，人们越应该继续记住；越是有人因为纪念而付出自由的代价，高墙之外的人越不能沉默。
发言之后，梁啓骏在现场演奏《自由花》。乐声响起，参与者举起“FREE HONG KONG”以及声援李卓人、邹幸彤的标语。
长期在旧金山参与、支持中国民主运动的美国音乐家、1989年“六四”事件亲历者赛颂菲（Valerie Samson）也在现场发言。 她回忆当年与哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）记者共同经历的一些往事。她表示，面对中共当局的拘禁，那些记者依然保持冷静和勇气，并拒绝为自己的新闻工作道歉。
她特别谈到中国记者所面对的处境。 赛颂菲表示，她相信中国记者需要付出更大的勇气，因为人们仍然记得当年《人民日报》记者所处的艰难环境。 她说，自己敬佩那些坚持履行新闻职责的人，也不希望看到记者因为从事新闻工作、行使言论自由而受到惩罚。
曾在中国大陆生活、后来移居香港的Keiko Sato（赵桂弘），则把香港政治环境的变化带回到了一个母亲最具体的生活记忆中。 她表示，香港民主运动对自己而言并不是遥远的政治新闻，因为自己孩子曾经的老师黎颖霖在2019年反送中运动后因案件被判入狱。
黎颖霖曾经教导、帮助并陪伴自己的孩子成长。对Keiko而言，那不是新闻报道里一个冰冷的名字，而是一位真正走进过自己家庭生活的老师。
Keiko转述黎颖霖曾对她说： “香港是我们的家，即使我只是一只萤火虫，也要发出一点光，守护我们的家。” 她表示，作为一名母亲，当看到孩子的老师从课堂走进监狱，又看到纪念历史、和平表达和公开声援都可能付出沉重代价，她感到震惊和痛心。
Keiko还表示，自己曾通过合法方式支持香港民主运动，包括在2019年向香港民主党作出政治捐款。在她看来，那不是暴力，也不是犯罪，而是对民主、自由、法治和香港人权的支持。
她最后表示： “我支持李卓人先生，我支持邹幸彤女士，我支持所有香港政治犯，也支持所有仍然相信自由、法治和良知的人。” 她呼吁，不要让历史被擦掉，不要让和平表达被定义成犯罪，更不要让恐惧迫使人们沉默。
在这之后，活动发起人关永杰把问题进一步指向香港自由与法治的变化。 关永杰表示，作为一名广东人，香港曾是他从小认识文明、自由与法治的重要窗口。然而2019年以来，从黎智英案、47人案，到李卓人、何俊仁、邹幸彤等民主人士被定罪，他认为，那个曾经以自由和法治闻名的香港正在发生根本性的改变。
谈到邹幸彤，他表示，网传她被押解上庭时遭戴上手铐、脚镣等高度戒备措施，而她所坚持的却是和平政治表达。 在关永杰看来，一个政权越需要动用强大的国家机器对付和平表达者，越暴露出它对不同声音的恐惧。 他特别指出，邹幸彤是一名接受完整普通法训练的香港大律师，如今却被这套法律体系判处罪名成立，而她在法庭听取判决时依然面带微笑。 关永杰认为，这个微笑，是一个真正理解法治尊严的法律人，对如今香港“只有人治、没有法治”司法体系的蔑视，也是面对强权仍然拒绝低头的姿态。
随后，活动进入现场短采访环节。
主持人李小林向嘉宾、党员及参与者连续提出几个问题：
“你认为纪念六四，就是颠覆国家政权罪吗？”
“主张结束一党专政、建立民主中国，有罪吗？”
“今天的香港，和十年前最大的不同是什么？”
“为什么一个和平政治主张，会走到今天这一步？”
“今天之后，你们准备继续做什么？”
现场多名中国民主党党员及参与者接过话筒。 有人表示，纪念六四是保存历史，不应该成为犯罪；有人认为，“结束一党专政、建立民主中国”是一种和平政治主张，不应因为表达这种观点而受到刑事惩罚；也有人谈到，今天香港与十年前最大的变化，就是能够公开表达、组织和纪念历史的空间正在不断收缩。
不同的声音最终汇聚成一个共同追问： 如果一个政权连纪念历史、和平表达和不同政治主张都无法容忍，那么它真正恐惧的究竟是什么？
现场参与者表示，即使已经身在海外，也会继续发声，不让六四被遗忘，不让香港政治犯的名字从公众视野中消失。
当天活动的另一个重要环节，是“撑港会｜支持香港自由协会（Association for Hong Kong Freedom）”正式发起。
李小林表示，希望建立一个长期平台，持续支持香港的自由、人权、民主与法治，关注政治犯和受迫害人士，并推动美国社会和国际社会持续关注香港。
周云龙表示： “今天只是一个开始。” 他表示，未来将公开寻找核心筹备成员，希望更多志同道合者共同建设、共同承担，并进一步完善协会方向、章程和未来行动。
李小林同时向所有关心香港、认同自由、人权、民主与法治的人发出邀请。 他说： “过去，香港支援中国的民主与自由。今天，我们也应该站出来支持香港。撑港会，从今天开始。”
“撑港会”发起后，三名代表分别宣读当天的三项诉求。
范国林宣读第一项诉求： 立即释放李卓人、邹幸彤，以及所有因和平政治表达而遭监禁的人士。
国盼宣读第二项诉求： 停止以国家安全之名，打压和平表达、历史纪念和民主诉求。
张鹏展宣读第三项诉求： 呼吁美国政府和国际社会，持续关注香港的自由、人权与法治。
随后，参与者共同举起李卓人、邹幸彤的照片以及现场横幅。
“和平表达不是颠覆” 怒吼响彻中领馆前
活动进入尾声，现场参与者面向中国驻旧金山总领事馆，高举李卓人、邹幸彤的照片和横幅，一遍遍高喊：
“释放李卓人！” “释放邹幸彤！” “和平表达不是颠覆！” “释放香港政治犯！” 现场的愤怒，不仅来自两个人被定罪。 在参与者看来，更令人愤怒的是：一个曾经可以让十几万人手持烛光纪念六四的香港，如今连记住这段历史都可能付出失去自由的代价；一句“结束一党专政”、一个和平政治主张，也能够成为刑事追诉的一部分。
他们质问：一个真正自信的政权，为什么如此害怕一支纪念六四的蜡烛？为什么害怕一个律师的坚持？为什么害怕人民说出不同的政治主张？
现场人士认为，当权力试图把历史记忆变成罪证，把和平表达定义为颠覆，把政治异见者送进监狱时，被囚禁的不只是一个个具体的人，也是在不断收紧整个社会可以说话、可以记忆、可以反对的空间。
主持人在结束时表示，真正重要的不是今天喊了多少口号，而是明天以后，人们是否仍然愿意继续做这件事。
高墙可以夺走李卓人、邹幸彤的自由，却不能命令人们遗忘他们；强权可以禁止一场烛光晚会，却无法抹去六四留下的历史记忆；国家机器可以制造恐惧，却无法让所有追求自由的人同时沉默。
在参与者看来，只要还有一个人因为和平表达被关在高墙之内，高墙之外的人就有责任继续说出他们的名字；只要还有人试图抹去六四、压制香港的自由，就仍然需要有人站出来守住历史、守住良知、守住自由的底线。
因为真正应该被追问的，从来不是人民为什么要纪念、为什么要发声，而是一个政权为什么如此恐惧人民记住历史、表达思想和追求自由。
（ 活动采访发言及现场剪影）
编辑：韩立华 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰
San Francisco Supports ‘HKA Alliance Case’ Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung
— Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion
Author: Lyu Xiaojing
On August 23, 2026, people from all walks of life held a rally in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to support Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung. (Photos in this article provided by Guan Yongjie)
[San Francisco News] On the afternoon of August 23, 2026, organizations including the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation, the US Hong Kongers Club, and the Association for Hong Kong Freedom (AHKF), along with individuals from all walks of life, held an emergency rally in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to voice support for Lee Cheuk-yan, former Chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKA), and Chow Hang-tung, former Vice Chairwoman of the HKA, and to call for the release of all individuals imprisoned for peaceful political expression.
At the demonstration site, participants held photographs of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, as well as banners and placards reading “Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion,” “FREE HONG KONG,” and “END ONE-PARTY DICTATORSHIP.” Participants hailing from Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the local American community took turns speaking.
This rally took place just two days after the High Court of Hong Kong handed down guilty verdicts in the “HKA Case” on August 21.
A Single Verdict Triggers Emergency Support in San Francisco
The event was co-hosted by Li Xiaolin and Guo Zhijun. As the demonstration began, Li Xiaolin, Deputy Director of the Events Department of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, first introduced the origin of this emergency support rally.
He stated that two days prior, the High Court of Hong Kong handed down its verdict in the “HKA Case,” finding Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung guilty of “incitement to subvert state power.”
In the face of this verdict, they did not choose to merely forward a news item on their mobile phones, but instead came to the front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to publicly voice an unavoidable question:
“Why has commemorating history become a crime? Why has peaceful expression become subversion?”
It was expressed at the rally that this gathering was not only for Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but even more so for all those who have lost their freedom due to peaceful expression, commemorating history, and pursuing democracy.
Zheng Yun, Secretary-General of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, subsequently gave a brief introduction to the history of the Hong Kong Alliance.
She stated that the Hong Kong Alliance’s full name is the “Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China,” founded during the June Fourth period in 1989. For over thirty years, the Hong Kong Alliance long promoted June Fourth commemorations, supported the Chinese democracy movement, voiced support for political prisoners, and adhered to political goals such as “vindicate June Fourth, end one-party dictatorship, and build a democratic China,” holding the annual June Fourth candlelight vigil in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park.
In 2021, under the political environment following the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the Hong Kong Alliance disbanded, and multiple core members were arrested and prosecuted. Today, its former Chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former Vice Chairwoman Chow Hang-tung have again been found guilty in the “HKA Case.”
The candlelight that once illuminated Victoria Park has today become part of the historical backdrop against which authorities prosecute an organization and its leaders. The fate of the Hong Kong Alliance has also become a mirror for the rally participants to observe the drastic shrinking of Hong Kong’s space for freedom.
Ken Chan, representative of the Northern California Hong Kong Club, stated that when a peaceful political stance such as “end one-party dictatorship” can be deemed “subversion,” what is put on trial is not merely the two individuals Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but something that bears directly on whether a society can tolerate differing political opinions.
Chan recalled that Lee Cheuk-yan has devoted himself to Hong Kong’s labor and democratic movements for decades. Over a decade ago, when Lee Cheuk-yan visited the San Francisco Bay Area, he happened upon a protest focused on workers’ rights near San Francisco City Hall. Although he had no prior knowledge of the event, he still took the initiative to walk into the crowd, engage with the organizers, and hold up a sign in solidarity.
This detail left a deep and lasting impression on Chan. In his view, this exemplifies Lee Cheuk-yan’s true character—not merely a political figure, but an activist who has long stood alongside ordinary workers, speaking out for rights and dignity.
Speaking of Chow Hang-tung, he noted that even as the space for commemorating June Fourth in Hong Kong continued to vanish, she still chose to step forward; even while trapped behind bars, she never abandoned her convictions.
Chan also shared a message conveyed from letters written in prison: those outside the prison walls still possess a civil society and remain capable of caring about what happens around them and in the world, and therefore should all the more cherish and make good use of this freedom.
When people lose their freedom because of peaceful expression, those outside the high walls have even less reason to remain silent.
Jeni Shi, representative of the US Hong Kongers Club, came to the event despite carrying an injury that day.
She stated that the Hong Kong June Fourth vigils had been held for over thirty years, and the event venues over the years had also received approval from the Hong Kong government. Today, however, the Hong Kong Alliance and its leaders are charged with “incitement to subvert state power” due to their relevant political stances.
She questioned: If the peaceful assemblies held in the past had received government approval, yet are today deemed part of “subversion,” then shouldn’t this logic itself be questioned all the more?
She believed that when “incitement to subvert state power” can be interpreted so broadly, people must ask: Is this truly safeguarding national security, or is it suppressing political dissent in the name of national security?
Quoting Mung Siu-tat, Director of Hong Kong Labour Rights Monitor, Jeni Shi said: “The verdict not only convicts Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but also convicts conscience and truth.” She stated that today, overseas Hong Kongers being able to stand on free soil to assemble and speak out, and being able to breathe the air of freedom, is not something to be taken for granted. “We must not forget that there are still many Hong Kong protesters trapped behind bars, and many more who endure political intimidation every day.”
Her standing at the rally while injured that day gave these words an even more direct weight: Freedom not only means that one has walked out from behind the high walls, but also that one must not forget those who remain left inside.
UC Berkeley student Leung Kai-chun (Jeffrey) stated that among the numerous Hong Kong National Security Law cases, the Hong Kong Alliance case warrants particular vigilance, because the Hong Kong Alliance is not an organization whose primary method is radical resistance.
For over thirty years, one of the important works done by the Hong Kong Alliance was to commemorate June Fourth, preserve the historical memory of the Tiananmen Incident, and let the next generation know what once transpired.
Leung Kai-chun believed that when a regime feels fear even towards the people “remembering history,” and goes so far as to regard commemoration, education, and peaceful political stances as threats, it precisely reflects its profound anxiety regarding historical truth and its own legitimacy.
He said that the answer brought by the Hong Kong Alliance case should not be to stop commemorating, but quite the contrary: The more someone wishes to make June Fourth disappear from history, the more people should continue to remember; the more someone pays the price of their freedom because of commemorating, the less those outside the high walls can remain silent.
Following his remarks, Leung Kai-chun played “Flowers of Freedom” (Zi Yau Far) on site. As the music sounded, participants held up placards reading “FREE HONG KONG” and those voicing support for Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung.
American musician Valerie Samson, a long-time participant in and supporter of the Chinese democracy movement in San Francisco as well as an eyewitness to the 1989 “June Fourth” Incident, also spoke at the event.
She recalled past events she experienced alongside Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) journalists back then. She stated that in the face of detention by CCP authorities, those journalists remained calm and courageous, refusing to apologize for their journalistic work.
She specifically spoke about the plight faced by Chinese journalists.
Samson expressed her belief that Chinese journalists need to display even greater courage, as people still remember the difficult environment faced by People’s Daily journalists back then. She said she admires those who persist in fulfilling their journalistic duties and does not wish to see journalists punished for engaging in news work or exercising their freedom of speech.
Keiko Sato (Zhao Guihong), who previously lived in Mainland China and later moved to Hong Kong, brought the changing political environment of Hong Kong back to a mother’s most concrete living memories.
She expressed that the Hong Kong democracy movement was not distant political news to her, because her child’s former teacher, Lai Wing-lam, was sentenced to prison in a court case following the 2019 Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement.
Lai Wing-lam had once taught, helped, and accompanied her child as they grew up. To Keiko, that was not a cold name in a news report, but a teacher who had truly entered her family’s everyday life.
Keiko recounted what Lai Wing-lam had once told her: “Hong Kong is our home. Even if I am just a firefly, I must emit a little light to guard our home.” She stated that as a mother, when she saw her child’s teacher move from the classroom into prison, and saw that commemorating history, peaceful expression, and public support could all carry a heavy price, she felt shocked and deeply pained.
Keiko also stated that she had supported the Hong Kong democracy movement through legal means, including making a political donation to the Democratic Party of Hong Kong in 2019. In her view, that was neither violence nor a crime, but support for democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and Hong Kong’s human rights.
She concluded by saying: “I support Mr. Lee Cheuk-yan, I support Ms. Chow Hang-tung, I support all Hong Kong political prisoners, and I support everyone who still believes in freedom, the rule of law, and conscience.” She appealed to not let history be erased, to not let peaceful expression be defined as a crime, and above all, to not let fear force people into silence.
Following that, event initiator Guan Yongjie further directed the question toward the changes in Hong Kong’s freedom and the rule of law.
Guan Yongjie expressed that as a native of Guangdong, Hong Kong was once an important window through which he learned about civilization, freedom, and the rule of law from a young age. However, since 2019, from the Jimmy Lai case and the 47-person case to the conviction of pro-democracy figures such as Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Chow Hang-tung, he believed that the Hong Kong once famous for freedom and the rule of law is undergoing fundamental changes.
Speaking of Chow Hang-tung, he noted that according to online reports, she was subjected to high-security measures such as handcuffs and leg irons when escorted to court, yet what she insisted upon was peaceful political expression.
In Guan Yongjie’s view, the more a regime needs to deploy a powerful state apparatus to deal with peaceful expressers, the more it exposes its fear of dissenting voices. He specifically pointed out that Chow Hang-tung is a Hong Kong barrister fully trained in the common law, yet today she was found guilty by this very legal system, while remaining all smiles when listening to the verdict in court.
Guan Yongjie believed that this smile is the contempt of a legal professional who truly understands the dignity of the rule of law toward today’s Hong Kong judicial system that has “only rule by man and no rule of law,” as well as a stance of refusing to bow her head when facing totalitarian power.
Subsequently, the event moved into a short on-site interview session.
Co-host Li Xiaolin posed several consecutive questions to guests, party members, and participants:
“Do you believe that commemorating June Fourth constitutes the crime of subverting state power?”
“Is advocating to end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic China a crime?”
“What is the biggest difference between today’s Hong Kong and ten years ago?”
“Why would a peaceful political position reach such a point today?”
“After today, what do you plan to continue doing?”
Multiple members of the China Democracy Party and event participants at the scene took the microphone.
Some expressed that commemorating June Fourth is about preserving history and should not be made a crime; some believed that “end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic China” is a peaceful political stance that should not incur criminal punishment for expressing such views; others spoke of the biggest change in Hong Kong today compared to ten years ago—that the space to publicly express, organize, and commemorate history is continuously shrinking.
These different voices ultimately converged into a common question: If a regime cannot even tolerate commemorating history, peaceful expression, and differing political views, then what exactly is it truly afraid of?
Participants at the site expressed that even though they are now overseas, they will continue to speak out, refusing to let June Fourth be forgotten and refusing to let the names of Hong Kong’s political prisoners vanish from the public eye.
Another important segment of the day’s event was the official launch of the “Association for Hong Kong Freedom (AHKF)” (known as Cheng Gang Hui).
Li Xiaolin expressed hope to establish a long-term platform to continuously support freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Hong Kong, keep focus on political prisoners and persecuted individuals, and promote sustained attention to Hong Kong within American society and the international community.
Zhou Yunlong stated: “Today is just the beginning.” He noted that in the future, they will publicly recruit core organizing members, hoping more like-minded individuals will join to build and bear responsibilities together, as well as further refine the association’s direction, bylaws, and future actions.
Li Xiaolin also extended an invitation to everyone who cares about Hong Kong and identifies with freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. He said: “In the past, Hong Kong supported China’s democracy and freedom. Today, we should also step forward to support Hong Kong. The Association for Hong Kong Freedom starts today.”
Following the launch of the Association for Hong Kong Freedom, three representatives separately read out the three demands of the day.
Fan Guolin read the first demand: Immediately release Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung, and all individuals imprisoned for peaceful political expression.
Guo Pan read the second demand: Stop suppressing peaceful expression, historical commemoration, and democratic aspirations in the name of national security.
Zhang Pengzhan read the third demand: Call upon the United States government and the international community to maintain sustained attention on Hong Kong’s freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.
Subsequently, participants together held up the photographs of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, as well as the banners at the site.
“Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion”—Shouts Resound in Front of the Chinese Consulate
As the event drew to a close, participants on site turned toward the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco, holding high the photographs of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung alongside banners, chanting again and again:
“Free Lee Cheuk-yan!” “Free Chow Hang-tung!” “Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion!” “Free Hong Kong Political Prisoners!”
The anger at the site stemmed not merely from two individuals being convicted.
In the view of the participants, what inspired even greater outrage was that a Hong Kong that could once allow over a hundred thousand people holding candles to commemorate June Fourth now exacts the loss of freedom as the potential price for merely remembering this history; and a single phrase “end one-party dictatorship”—a peaceful political stance—can likewise become part of a criminal prosecution.
They questioned: Why is a truly confident regime so afraid of a single candle commemorating June Fourth? Why is it afraid of a lawyer’s perseverance? Why is it afraid of the people voicing differing political positions?
Those present maintained that when power attempts to turn historical memory into evidence of crime, define peaceful expression as subversion, and send political dissidents to prison, what is incarcerated is not merely individual, concrete human beings, but also the continuous tightening of space in which an entire society can speak, remember, and oppose.
The host stated at the conclusion that what truly matters is not how many slogans were chanted today, but whether, after tomorrow, people remain willing to keep doing this work.
High walls can strip away the freedom of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but they cannot command people to forget them; totalitarian power can prohibit a candlelight vigil, but it cannot erase the historical memory left by June Fourth; the state apparatus can manufacture fear, but it cannot force all who pursue freedom into silence simultaneously.
In the eyes of the participants, as long as a single person remains confined behind high walls for peaceful expression, those outside the high walls bear the responsibility to continue speaking their names; as long as someone still attempts to erase June Fourth and suppress Hong Kong’s freedom, there remains the need for people to step forward to hold the line for history, conscience, and freedom.
For what truly ought to be questioned has never been why the people commemorate or speak out, but why a regime is so profoundly terrified of the people remembering history, expressing thoughts, and pursuing freedom.
(Event Interview Remarks and On-site Vignettes)
Editor: Han Lihua Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing
