FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Outlawing Subversives

by DAVID LINDORFF

 

There’s a certain irony in the verbal support being offered by the U.S. government and members of Congress for democratic activists in Hong Kong who are fighting a quixotic battle against Hong Kong government plans to pass a sedition and treason law for the territory and former British colony. Among the biggest concerns to Hong Kong democracy advocates–and target of U.S. critics–is a portion of the law that would allow the Hong Kong authorities to ban, i.e. outlaw, any organization associated with some organization inside China deemed to be subversive by Chinese government authorities.

Let’s think about this.

Under the USA PATRIOT ACT, federal authorities are allowed to arrest people who are connected with overseas organizations which the U.S. authorities in their wisdom (but without any hearing or court ruling) decide are “terrorist.”

Indeed, under current, post 9-11 law, if an American citizen gives money to an organization in the U.S.–say a charity — which then gives that money to a foreign organization which, unknown to the U.S. donor, has been labeled “terrorist” by the State or Justice Department (perhaps even in secret), that person could be arrested and charged with being a terrorist or supporter of terror.

Exactly how different is this from the proposed Hong Kong law, known as Section 23 (a reference to its proposed position in Hong Kong’s “constitution,” called the Basic Law), to which the U.S. is objecting?

The remarkable thing is that in Hong Kong, a city of 7 million that is not known for its political activism, half a million people–a tenth of the adult population of the so-called Special Administrative Region–came out on a sweltering day on July 1, despite police obstacles and alternative inducements like free movie and amusement park tickets offered by an anxious government, to protest the proposed new security law.

In the U.S., so far, most people don’t even know what the USA PATRIOT Act is, and among those who do know, many are completely untroubled by its draconian features. While the Hong Kong security law has been bitterly debated for the past year and has been intensely covered and analyzed in the local media, the USA PATRIOT act–a treacherous undermining of the Bill or Rights crafted by Attorney General John Ashcroft– was passed by a craven Congress, almost without dissent, and with no debate, two months after the 9/11 attacks, and has subsequently largely been ignored by the U.S. corporate media.

Why the dramatic difference in public–and media–response to these two draconian laws in the U.S. and Hong Kong? Probably it’s the fact that the majority of the population in Hong Kong is composed of people who either fled China’s totalitarian society or who are one generation removed from people who fled that police-state political system (many too, remember how Hong Kong’s British rulers used their own sedition laws to terrorize people in the colony over the years before limited democratic rule was introduced). The whole populace–even those who are generations removed from China, have only to look across the border at Shenzhen to be aware of what happens when authorities are handed the right to arrest people for thought crimes, or for supporting organizations that oppose the ruling political elite. In the U.S., unless you are a member of a minority group, or are an immigrant, you and your more recent forebears have probably never experienced such a thing. White middle-class America simply has no experience with the midnight knock on the door.

Hong Kong, which is now under Chinese sovereignty, will probably end up with a nasty sedition law on its books, but the dramatic July 1 protest has clearly registered with authorities in both Hong Kong and Beijing, and it is unlikely that Section 23 will lead to any serious restriction of freedom in the city for at least a while. Neither government wants to risk even larger protest at a time that the city is reeling from the SARs epidemic and an Asian economic crisis. Massive protest against the new law has made it, at least in the near term, unenforceable.

But what about the U.S.?

Public quiescence about the federal government’s ongoing assault on civil liberties has encouraged the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice to propose a strengthening of the USA PATRIOT ACT courtesy of a second measure, dubbed PATRIOT II, with Ashcroft claiming that he doesn1t yet have enough extra-judicial power to spy on and detain Americans.

We’re unlikely to see millions taking to the street to object to passage of PATRIOT II.

Maybe we who do oppose the Bush Administration’s treasonous assault on our treasured rights and libeties should turn to China and Hong Kong for help. Perhaps their governments and diplomats would be willing to send letters to Washington objecting to these dreadful laws.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A collection of Lindorff’s stories can be found here: http://www.nwuphilly.org/dave.html

More articles by:

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail