cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/60115513

Archived

Prosecutors on Sept. 29 indicted two men for allegedly throwing feces and paint at the Comedy Club in Taipei on May 29. A 33-year-old man surnamed Liu (劉), allegedly acting on instructions from an unidentified person in China, recruited a 35-year-old man surnamed Kuo (郭), who threw bags containing human feces and white paint inside and outside the club in Zhongshan District (中山), prosecutors said.

The incident happened on a night when comedian Huang Yi-hao (黃逸豪), who had mocked Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), was scheduled to perform.

Property was damaged, staff were frightened and some customers sought refunds, prosecutors said.

It was an act of Chinese “transnational repression” intended to restrict freedom of expression, they said, recommending that Liu be given a prison term of one year and 10 months, and Kuo one year and eight months.

[...]

It was not the first time people apparently acting on behalf of Beijing have been accused of trying to intimidate or silence critics in Taiwan. In 2017, Hong Kong democracy advocate Joshua Wong (黃之鋒) was targeted by pro-China protesters, including in an alleged attempted assault, upon his arrival at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.

In 2019, Hong Kong singer and democracy advocate Denise Ho (何韻詩) was splashed with red paint while speaking to reporters before a rally in Taipei to support the territory’s democratic movement.

Prosecutors identified the main suspect as a member of the China Unification Promotion Party.

Other Hong Kong rights workers have also faced harassment. In 2020, former Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kee (林榮基), who had fled to Taiwan, was splashed with paint at a Taipei cafe.

Security officials have said that attacks and vandalism targeting Hong Kongers and their businesses in Taiwan are suspected of being carried out under Chinese direction.

[...]

Economic pressure is another avenue of intimidation. This week, TV host Kevin Tsai (蔡康永) attended a campaign event in Taipei for Shen, who is the DPP’s mayoral candidate for the capital. After Chinese social media users called for a boycott, Chinese electric-vehicle maker Leapmotor removed promotional material featuring Tsai, while Harper’s Bazaar China took down its interview with him.

These incidents show the potential consequences for Taiwanese entertainers and businesses that operate in China when Beijing interprets their political activity as support for “Taiwanese independence.”

[...]

Political satire and making fun of politicians are generally lawful and strongly protected forms of expression.

Huang’s political satire of Xi and other politicians is protected by Taiwan’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. Taiwanese must not be intimidated into self-censorship. If fear of Beijing causes people to silence themselves, Taiwan risks surrendering the freedoms that distinguish its democratic system from the Chinese regime while encouraging further attempts at transnational repression.

That is why prosecutors and courts must continue to hold accountable those who use threats, violence or other criminal acts to silence others. Defending free expression does not mean allowing intimidation to go unanswered; it means ensuring that intimidation never determines what Taiwanese are allowed to say.

Ultimately, Taiwanese — not Beijing — will decide what can be said in Taiwan. The nation’s democracy is strong when its people exercise the freedoms they fought hard for, rather than allowing fear of China to dictate the limits of their speech.

[...]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 2 weeks ago

Your understanding of politics is about what one expect from an American high schooler. The UN resolution recognizing One China is very clear. The article about current day censorship in Taiwan is also very clear. The fact that it provides historical context does not mean Taiwan does not continue to do censorship.

Back when [Hong Kong] was cool

Was that before or after the British realized they had to develop an anti-communist movement in their, now former, colony. Presumably after. If you had family that had to flee, they were either European colonizers or they were working for the Europeans, either way, not exactly winning any points with anyone who understands history.

  • source
  • parent