The first to end up in handcuffs, before the disputes, was a man who, according to local media, owned one independent Hong Kong flag. A gesture that, according to the authorities, can configure an offense among those of sedition, separatism, interference foreign or betrayal punished by the new law, intended to shatter the wide autonomy and freedom that Beijing had promised to keep a Hong Kong for at least 50 years, until 2047, according to the ‘one country, two systems’ model. In the meantime, the police have also used the new purple flag for the first time, which serves as a warning to demonstrators who use illegal cloths or banners or who chant choruses and slogans expressing proposals for secession or subversion.
It is precisely to put the gag on the protests that have been filling the streets of Perfumed Port, stopped only for the lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic, which Beijing has put pressure on the complacent local government to approve the new law. It is news of Tuesday, after the Chinese launch of the law, that the suspects may be transferred to China for a trial with the consent of the leader of Hong Kong, while the retroactivity of the rules may trigger the collection of evidence against those who will break the law from July 1st. The penalties provided for range from a minimum of three years of imprisonment tolife sentence, calculated based on the extent of the offense. In addition, the China will establish in the territories of Hong Kong anational security agency.
International reactions – L’European Union, through the mouth of the President of the EU Council Charles Michel, she says she is worried because “this law threatens to seriously undermine Hong Kong’s high level of autonomy and the independence of the judiciary. The EU regrets this decision “. The American secretary of state, Mike Pompeoinstead, he threatened “Reprisals” of the USA, after the hypothesis of sanctions to China, calling yesterday’s “a sad day” for Hong Kong. Words partly shared also by the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson: “Of course we are deeply alarmed,” he said, reserving the right to “check” if the text is “in conflict with the joint declaration” signed with Beijing at the time of the return of the former British colony. Johnson added that he doesn’t want to ride “any synophobia”, but did not rule out reactions on this specific point to be announced “at the right time”.