Talk:2020 Hong Kong national security law

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible local law supplements or replaces NPCSC law?

@173.68.165.114: hello again; I should like to ask whether you have any reliable sources in saying that the NPCSC may not enact its draft if the LegCo passes Article 23 legislation. If you do, feel free to add them and remove the citation needed tags. According to Carrie Lam, the HKSAR still will have to comply with Article 23 even after the law, and the NPCSC law won't repeal Article 23 or replace the need to enact a law under it, which suggests to me that the NPCSC law is going to be passed anyway, and it may be that the LegCo will pass another law in addition. Docentation (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The text reads NPCSC has been authorised to enact a national security law for Hong Kong if Hong Kong does not "legislate national security law according to the Basic Law as soon as possible". It did not say NPCSC cannot enact a national security law is HK does so, instead, it's technically possible (technically the NPCSC can legislate 32768 national security laws for Hong Kong and write them all into Annex III but I don't see a point to write such possibility into Wikipedia). However, it's very unlikely that HKSAR and NPCSC each enact a national security law because if HKSAR did so there's literally no point NPCSC do the same again, as that do nothing to China except start a new wave of international headlines one more time. In their news/briefing they have made it clear: the root cause is the 20 years delay of law legislation, while the triggering event is Henley Lee's case. Just look at Macau: there's no sign the state is going to be adding anything about national security, as there's no point. Some official news-briefing, though, are intimidating about NPCSC legislation without mention any potential HK legislation. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'm pretty sure the NPCSC and HKSAR will synchronize their action to make sure for the outside world it looks like they are in harmonious cooperation, but for whether NPCSC will behave patient-less and enact one before HK can enact one, I have no idea. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm slightly confused on this. My understanding is that the NPC have decided that the NPCSC will go ahead and draft the law, and that they have also decided to have it enacted by inclusion in Annex III—they will not drop the law even if the HKSAR hurries up and completes legislation under Article 23 of the Basic. According to the China Law Translate translation, the decision says that the HKSAR ‘shall complete legislation for preserving national security as provided for in the Basic Law…as soon as possible’ in Article 3, and then authorises the NPCSC to draft laws on national security in Article VI. Article VI also says that the NPCSC ‘is to list the above-mentioned relevant laws in Annex III’, and not that it might enact such laws (though maybe the translation is bad?) Also, the first article you cited seems mostly to be foreign commentators supporting the decision/law or opposing foreign interference, and the second seems to suggest that the NPC wants to go ahead anyway, not that it will stop the drafting/enactment process of a national law if Article 23 legislation is completed. In the second one (on the website of the Chinese embassy in Laos), it says ‘基于上述考虑，我们将采取“决定+立法”的方式，分两步予以推进。第一步，全国人民代表大会根据宪法和香港基本法的有关规定，作出关于建立健全香港特别行政区维护国家安全的法律制度和执行机制的决定，就相关问题作出若干基本规定，同时授权全国人大常委会就建立健全香港特别行政区维护国家安全的法律制度和执行机制制定相关法律；第二步，全国人大常委会根据宪法、香港基本法和全国人大有关决定的授权，结合香港特别行政区具体情况，制定相关法律并决定将相关法律列入香港基本法附件三，由香港特别行政区在当地公布实施。’—so it seems that the NPCSC is definitely going ahead, and will definitely include the law in Annex III. And of course there's that Carrie Lam press briefing I cited earlier, where it seems the central government will just go ahead without waiting for the HKSAR because HK would take too long anyway, even though they are still expected to complete Article 23 legislation at some point. My Chinese is pretty bad so I'll defer to you and/or other people with better Chinese if my understanding is incorrect here. But I'm pretty sure based on these that they're definitely going to proceed with NPCSC+Annex III, regardless of whether HK also happens to enact Article 23 legislation. Docentation (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that legislation for a Hong Kong national security law has been attempted during both coronavirus disease epidemics?
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Jutta Hering-Winckler
• Comment: Only two CoV epidemics: SARS and COVID-19, both of which gutted HK for the first half of 2003 and 2020, when controversial national security legislation was and is being attempted. SARS discussed in the 2003 section, I'm drafting a part about COVID-19 tensions now.

5x expanded by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 00:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

• Hook looks good, maybe needs a link to coronavirus. You still need the source for the hook though. Article got nominated for deletion, but it leans being kept. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• What do mean needs a source? (thinks) Do you want me to fill out sources in the template? That's not needed (and, IMO, encourages reviewers to not check the article, from experience) - the hook information should be (and is) in the article, supported by sources with inline citations. (Yes, someone nominated it for deletion because another page has a misguided requested move discussion pointing to this title. Despite being about something else.) Kingsif (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Alright, if you insist. The source checks out. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Magnovvig page moves

Copied from User_talk:Magnovvig#Hong_Kong_national_security_law_page_moves

Hi there, you've recently been moving the Hong Kong national security law article without discussing it. The first move you did was to an inaccurate title. The latest one, which I haven't undone, is also inaccurate (but less so): it should have 'law' in the title since none of the bills have been called 'Hong Kong national security', and covers a wider scope than just a list of bills. In any case, it still seems more appropriate to use the common name of the general legislation that all the bills and proposals are about.

These moves also shouldn't have been made without discussion (WP:Requested moves), especially with a current article that is also controversial. So I'm going to move it back, and you should open a discussion if you think there's a better title. From the photos on your user page, you seem to be around the LegCo a lot, so perhaps you can provide sources and a good argument for moving the article. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Name and updates

With the law suspected to be shortly due, the article title seems fine. It's the topic name for the overview already, and the common name at the moment, so if the law is published with a different name it will be a good redirect. That asks the question of if the history of legislation proposals should stay. As of this version, it would probably only need that "Legislation attempts" becomes "Past legislation attempts"; that the introductory paragraph of "2020 Chinese government involvement" becomes named "Background of 2020 Chinese involvement"; for all of that section's sub-headings to become level 1 headings, and presumably "Chinese legislation plans" can be removed and replaced with the actual content; and for the political analyses to be appropriately dated and framed. The merge proposal on responses still stands, and moving some of this content out would probably be useful. Until points are decided on, I won't start an RfC. Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. “Past legislation attempts” is good. Note that the obligation on HKSAR under Article 23 of the Basic Law has not been discharged; see Article 7 of the law (第七條 香港特別行政區應當儘早完成香港特別行政區基本法規定的維護國家安全立法，完善相關法律。). English text of the law – Kaihsu (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Negative effect on the response to the proposals"

@Kingsif:

The lead currently ends with the above phrase. Although "negative effect" could mean anything, I understand from your edits that you are alluding to the possibility that there could have been more response internationally if not for the COVID-19 pandemic. Then the issues with wording are both POV (because of implying that the absence of response is negative) and verifiability (stronger sourcing seems to be needed), and I think the issue also needs to be given more weight in the article if you want that claim in the lead. At least in-text attribution is needed; however I am of the opinion that the claim is undue as it is very speculative. Notrium (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: I'm not actually, I'm referring to the text that has been in the article for much longer about the protests in 2003 being larger because people were also protesting against the mishandling of the SARS pandemic, and the current greater international response because tensions over China's mishandling of COVID-19 have frayed relationships. The lead is not supposed to be comprehensive, and these are things that cannot be explained succinctly - they are also not enough of a focus to take up more than a line in the lead.

The possibility that there could have been more response internationally if not for the COVID-19 pandemic that you erroneously suggest is something that has been said by one person (Tom Cheshire, a journalist specialising in the subject), on 30 June, and you will see it was only added then and appropriately attributed. Why would you think that such a long-standing lead statement related to something that appeared after? Something that, when added unsourced by a troll earlier in the month, I removed? But yes, the "negative response", since you adamantly refuse to read the article (or even ctrl+F 'SARS' or 'COVID'!), is 'caused bigger protests' and 'pulled at the already-present anger of the international community'. No issues with POV, there, I think, since it's exactly the opposite of what you rant about above. So, no. Bye. Kingsif (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The O.P. was not "ranting" - please change your tone.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a user with a history of calling POV on things they don't like, and whose initial tone and edit reasons in relation to this were accusatory in bad faith. So don't worry about it? Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: please change your tone and strike your absurd accusations and personal attacks in line with WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS. And please do not connect me (a sockpuppetry accusation, basically) to random IPs like you did on User talk:129.67.118.152. I try to operate under WP:FOC, but I have to defend myself in this situation. Notrium (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As you can see in the note at the IP talk page, I did not say that. I left quite a general warning with a positive tone - deliberately not using a template so that I could be friendly to the new IP. Notrium, I think you also know that guideline spamming isn't a good argument. There's been no bad faith on my part, and no bad tone. Stop throwing out victim cards when someone disagrees with you. Kingsif (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You refered to his comment as a "rant" - you are out of line. Cut it out, please.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspect arrested on airplane

• [1]

I stand by my removal of this statement from this section. This sentence has bad grammar, is not supported by the cited source, and has nothing to do with the UK's new immigration law which has not yet come into force. If you want to discuss this suspect, find a better source and write about this incident in Timeline of the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests (July 2020). Deryck C. 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Horse Eye Jack. Deryck C. 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a talk page discussion! The grammar issues aren’t too bad, its passable once the commas are eliminated (normally I’d bat an eye at describing the protests as violent but given that the person is charged with a stabbing I think this is one of the few situations where you could say that given that this individuals methods of protest appear to be violent). I take the BBC article as linking them although I can see an argument where the “meanwhile” explicitly de-links them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I take part of my rationale back (struck out from above) - you're right that the BBC article does mention this suspect (I was doing a text search with "airport" and "aeroplane"). But yes I'm glad you can see that the way this BBC article presented it shows that they are separate events. The alleged crime relates to protests in HK on 1 July against the new law, not the UK's response to it. Also ping User:Kingsif who wrote the removed sentence. Deryck C. 15:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I felt that as it was obvious the man was fleeing to the UK for asylum, it was related. One verb ('arresting', instead of 'arrested') was wrong - FIXIT, don't delete it comes into play. Of course, I don't mind either way as it is likely a minor event that will be removed later when the responses get longer. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: My perspective is that his apparently flying to the UK for asylum was unrelated to the UK's new immigration plans, whose details had not even been announced at the time of his arrest, and still has not come into force. The very fact that you characterised it as "seeking asylum" means it's unrelated to the UK's new plans, which is for general immigration. Deryck C. 17:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess it is OR to say what I am (and I guess the journalists were) thinking: that the new UK offer is making those at risk of arrest in HK feel they'll be accepted just by showing up in the UK. Though Priti Patel did announce they will allow HK residents to settle in the UK before the scheme is finalized, and Simon Cheng already got asylum, there hasn't been an official statement on refugees. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I've restored the relevant content to Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (July 2020) and linked from the "responses" section of this article. Deryck C. 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to note since there's extended discussion here, that a lot of this is guessing, but HK citizens born before the handover have BNO passports which allow them to go to the UK. Even if UK wasn't granting visas at that time the UK often supports BNO holders

Applicability to non-Hong-Kong / non-Chinese citizens not supported

I have been searching for an authoritative reference explaining if and how China considers "people from other countries" are subject to this new law. The existing citation, #68, does not clearly support the assertion that this article makes about people from other countries; it mentions in passing that "anyone" could be punished, but itself has no citations, reference, or explanations. I.E., it's hearsay.

This article should NOT state as fact something that is apparently yet unclear, at least in so far as the existing citations can address. Until a solid citation is found and added, the assertion should be weakened with "may" or removed.

Personally, I really want to find an authoritative explanation either way, but as of now I'm still searching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.49.204 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be failing to notice, if nothing else, that the text of the actual law is in the article. Most reliable sources don't cite things the way Wikipedia does, and you shouldn't be expecting that when searching. The legal and political experts mentioned in/writing the sources already used are 'authoritative' enough. Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You also seem to be failing to notice that its sourced to at least two reliable sources from what I can see. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Kingsif said. Here is the relevant text of the law: "This Law shall be applicable to persons who do not have permanent resident status in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and commit crimes under this Law against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region outside the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Deryck C. 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Michael306: perhaps you want to contribute to this discussion instead of edit warring? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Article 38 This Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.

This is self-explanatory.

Article 38's applicability when sources make apparently wrong claims

Article 38 criminalises anyone who commits a crime in this Law against the Hong Kong SAR. The text does not criminalise "any criticism of the CCP or Chinese government". For example, criticism over Tibet Autonomous Region is fine because it doesn't implicate Hong Kong, even though this may be a criticism of the CCP or Chinese government. Yet this page includes some claims by cited sources that the Law contradicts. What should we do regarding this? Rethliopuks (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't allow OR, and your example shows it well. Article 38 does say that, but the meaning of this is unclear. Article 22 and plenty of other articles provide the scope to criminalise things which may be perfectly fine in countries with stronger protections for free speech and human rights, even if against their own country. This would include criticism of the CCP or Chinese government. Since it is HK SAR law, any offences in the law could reasonably be construed as offences against the HK SAR which seems to be what concerns many commentators. Whether this will hold is unclear until interpretation of the law by the NPCSC [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly my concern. If the Law is not being clear and there is so far no legally authoritative writing or opinion on this matter, to claim one way or another would be without a sound legal basis, and for the purpose of an encyclopaedic article, ultimately without a proper source in a sense. Rethliopuks (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The more serious issue, @Rethliopuks: is almost all your edits to the article, which added swaths of unsourced information in the middle of existing paragraphs. Please don't do this. And I don't mean to cast aspersions, but your user page says you have Mandarin Chinese as a native language, and not Cantonese, so I would safely assume you hold loyalty to the Chinese government and may try to insert such in this controversial article. I'm sorry for the bluntness and the assumption, but political bias in controversial current politics is something I've been trying to keep out for years (I edit a lot of Venezuela articles) and open discussion can help at least clear the air so everyone can happily collaborative edit. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The only thing one can call "swaths" is my insertion of an article of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Surely you do not mean it should be unsourced information in the slightest.

It is also indeed aspersion and baselessly ad hominem, if only an assumption and not a direct attack. A few points of consideration are in order.

1) No one chooses their birth. This should be a self-evident fact. No one is thus able to choose their native language either. Hence this amounts to a differential treatment based on one's birth -- or to use common parlance, discrimination of birth.

2) More places than Mainland PRC have populations that speak Mandarin Chinese natively. Taiwan is an example. Or Singapore, or Malaysia, or the many countless places where there's notable Chinese diaspora.

3) The assumption is by no means "safe". You essentially make the claim that one's political allegiance is safely determined from one's somewhat probable country of birth, which is a proposition that, I'm afraid, vanishingly few reasonable people on this planet hold.

4) Glaringly evidently, every country has a diversity of opinions, and political oppositions/dissenters, for that matter. It does beggar belief that I should need to state this point even.

Rethliopuks (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It just occurred to me to mention this, but most speakers of Cantonese in fact live in Mainland China. For that matter, Canton is a Mainland city. I suppose this only makes your supposition even more slightly amusing. Rethliopuks (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon seeing that you indeed removed an article of the Basic Law as "uncited spiel stuffed in", I'm afraid I must advise that you would perhaps consider refraining from making substantive editing changes without any form of consultation, whether with others or over the internet, in areas where you appear to possibly lack the most basic understanding of the situation. Rethliopuks (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The amount it's been unhelpfully 'suggested' I refrain from editing a topic just because I clean up other editors' opinion edits and they have no actual argument in response is so often that, frankly, it's the most amusing part of your straw-clutching. You know what you're trying to do, don't try to gaslight the people keeping you in check. (And yes, if people will add a long uncited spiel of their opinions on an Article within a paragraph of other information, it will be summarily removed with such an edit reason. At least read the context before trying your game.) Kingsif (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources say it does, you say it doesn't. Which do you think we’re gonna go with? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not a safe assumption. Kaihsu (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it may not be. But I was wondering if we could find more substantive legal analyses on this issue. The sources are sufficiently vague on this issue and effectively all only mention this part in passing, without in-depth treatments. Rethliopuks (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Article 57

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article 57 states that "The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and other related national laws shall apply to procedural matters, including those related to criminal investigation, examination and prosecution, trial, and execution of penalty, in respect of cases over which jurisdiction is exercised pursuant to Article 55 of this Law." Does this mean that if someone is transferred to Mainland China for violating the Hong Kong National Security Law, is that person liable to the death penalty there, seeing as this is a possible punishment under mainland laws? If so, does that mean that the death penalty has returned to Hong Kong as one can be liable for the death penalty for an offence solely committed in HK, even if they are put to death in Mainland China? This would be akin to someone being liable for the death penalty under federal law in the USA even if they commit an offence in a state that has abolished the death penalty. --Agent Win (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You'd have to ask a political or legal analyst. If the death penalty is a factor, there's probably some article written on it to read. Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead: support/criticism

There seems to be a dispute over these two versions of the last paragraph of the lead:

1. The text of the law has drawn both strong criticism and support from the international community, with some opposing countries implementing measures to accept more Hong Kong migrants, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Taiwan. The controversial law has also garnered particular attention for its Article 38, which states that the law is applicable to every individual, including those outside of and not from Hong Kong. - supported by me.

2. The text of the law has drawn both strong criticism from the international community, prompting measures to accept more Hong Kong migrants in the United Kingdom as well as the United States, Australia and Taiwan. There has also been support for the law from other countries, mostly those with similar measures in place. The controversial law has also garnered particular attention for its Article 38, which states that the law is applicable to every individual, including those outside of and not from Hong Kong. - supported by Doanri.

@Doanri: I'm not sure how my version is "unnecessarily vague". It's more concise, and furthermore the point about 'free/unfree countries' is already addressed in the body text - your assertion that these countries have similar measures seems to be bordering on original research. The level of support for the bill amongst countries is in the majority supporting it. Following this, it absolutely makes sense to indicate the level of support in a balanced manner. Your version, in my judgement, gives undue weight to the amount of opposition - Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. My version, in my judgement, does not lend undue weight to either side (although the level of support is higher), instead it summarises the position of the international community in a balanced way. Would appreciate an explanation of my version's "vagueness" and a justification for this apparent undue weighting. Hopefully we can reach a consensus. Acalycine (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:'the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.' Even though the view that the NSL is a good law is supported by a larger number of countries, only three of them are democratic and a very small amount of academics and reputable sources agree with them. To present the two sides as if they hold equal weight without explaining why the 53 countries supported the freedom of speech restrictions is, I think, giving undue weight to a fringe opinion.

I do however agree that both sides of the argument merit equal explanation in the lede, and that that is not the case now. I'll try and improve it, let me know what you think? Doanri (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a good compromise. I edited to specify the context/attribution of 'free' and 'not free' (more NPOV), and specified majority. Acalycine (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Very good. One last thing, though: 53 countries out of 195 is not actually a majority. Would you be okay with changing that back to 'larger number'? Doanri (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I meant majority in the sense of a majority at the UNHRC/compared to opposing nations. I agree that it could be interpreted to mean "majority out of 195 countries" - I'll thus change it to "relative majority", is this okay? Acalycine (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I really think 'larger number', 'bigger number', 'more countries', etc, would better express the idea that n(opp)<n(supp), especially since this sentence is not about the UNHCR thing in particular. Doanri (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is about the UNHRC thing in particular, though. I don't see what's wrong with 'relative majority', but for clarity's sake would A plurality of countries be acceptable? Acalycine (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen nothing that describes support as “strong.” I think we have a false equivalency here, there has been strong opposition but only tepid support. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen nothing in the article that describes support as strong, so maybe try again. Acalycine (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure on putting this here, but word is out in the Philippine that they would not likely criticize the NSL, although the Foreign Secretary said that he may need a look. Source here. Ominae (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joint meeting held by 17 Hong Kong District Councils, 6 June 2020 (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

British Overseas Territory category

@Kingsif: Hong Kong has never been a British Overseas Territory, a category established in law in 2002, and you'll note that there is nothing else relating to Hong Kong in Category:British Overseas Territories law or its subcategories. I assume this is the result of confusion with British National (Overseas), an unrelated legal concept. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nizolan: What? 1. you also removed the categories relating to "British Hong Kong", effectively washing out that history and part of the article. 2. tell your theory to British Overseas Territories citizen (which lists HK) and all related articles. Category may have been created in 2002 but it's pretty clearly stated as backdated. So, I think you're the confused (or just missing facts) one, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I am not confused, no. I am only raising the BOT category because I'm not contesting your restoration of the other two, although I think they are dubious. British Overseas Territories citizen (and its related articles) does not in fact list Hong Kong as an Overseas Territory; it exclusively mentions Hong Kong in the context of BDTCs or Dependent Territory citizenship, a category that was replaced by British National (Overseas) in Hong Kong and is irrelevant to this specific article. As I said, Overseas Territory is a legal concept created in 2002 and inapplicable to Hong Kong. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you illiterate then because it literally says Any person who was a BDTC before 21 May 2002[28] automatically became a British citizen on that date. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hong Kong citizens were, plainly, not BDTCs in 2002, given that Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997. I would recommend having a look at the info on British National (Overseas) if you're confused (note "The status was granted by voluntary registration to Hong Kong residents who had been British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs) before the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997"). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop calling me confused, I'm trying to make it simple. But since you quoted something which points out that, even though it may need to be choice, it applies, perhaps you need it even simpler. Seriously, you say if I'm confused to read something that supports me and disproves you? Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) They were BDTCs before 2002, is that untrue? If you're confused, note I've been researching BN(O) to expand the article with information on the new British visa, so I have a hoard of information ready for whatever unfounded assertions you want to make, but in the morning. Kingsif (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Sorry, I don't understand your point here. I'll open a request for comment and hopefully other editors can chime in. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You ec'd me in the middle of clarifying. Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks. The problem seems to be that you've misinterpreted "before"—the reference given in the article is to the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002 which activates sections 3–7 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which clarifies that the meaning is "immediately before", i.e. at the time of the legislation's commencement. This is clear enough in any case, I'd think, since the citizens of Hong Kong did not, of course, automatically become British citizens in 2002. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nizolan: You clearly wanted to go around me without listening, not willing to consider your view may not be 100% correct (from looking at how you've framed the RfC and the comments there), and I don't appreciate it. People need to remember that the article is also about legislation all the way back to the 1960s, and British involvement post-1997, too. The sources I was going to bring, which I request you to read at your leisure: UK Government "A guide to registration as a British citizen under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997" and Hong Kong British Overseas citizens (BOCs): A continuing route to British nationality for Stateless Persons, which give different pieces of information and views. Sure, one category may not be massively important, and I didn't even add it in the first place, but your attitude that only you could be right and to talk down at anyone disagreeing, sucks. Though I doubt you'll even bother to read, please don't bother to respond. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kingsif:—British Overseas citizen is not the same thing as British Overseas Territories citizen, as explained at the relevant articles, hence those points have no relevance to this discussion over whether this article is related to British Overseas Territories law. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 12:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to include this article in the category "British Overseas Territories law". (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Does it make sense for this article to be categorised under Category:British Overseas Territories law? (See discussion above.) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 03:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that an RFC is necessary at this point, but here are my thoughts: If any reasonably large number of people is a British Overseas Territory Citizen from their relationship with Hong Kong, it should be included. Otherwise, it shouldn't. Whether there is any number of people in that category seems to be a factual matter with a clear answer, but it's not clear to me what that answer is. If it's under reasonable dispute among editors, we should seek a reliable source that clarifies it explicitly or leave out the category. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• No - Would indicate Hong Kong is today an Overseas Territory of the UK, which it's not. The "Overseas Citizens in Hong Kong" rationale is perverse and confusing. If there are a large number of French people in Belgium, should laws in Belgium be categorized under "Category:French law"?? No. Of course not. Laws apply chiefly to their jurisdictions/territories. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, because Hong Kong is not a British Overseas Territory, and as far as I know the national security law does not concern British Overseas Territories. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• No Hong Kong is not part of British Overseas Territory. Sea Ane (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) The question is a bit pointy, which is why I'm going to answer the question that should have been asked: Should this article be categorised under... My answer would be no, because that's not a defining characteristic. Politrukki (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several recently added pro-NSL passages

There have recently been a number of fairly invasive edits to this previously relatively stable article by user 223.16.153.31 which were reverted or modified by myself, and mostly (it seems) reinstated. I am opening this discussion by explaining my now largely nullified reverts and modifications; it may take a different course later depending on other editors' preferences. The contentious issues that I edited on recently are in different parts of the article. The points I wish to make are as follows (not completely exhausting all relevant matters, but hopefully a start):

• Section "Business community": The formulation that businesses saw a positive impact of the NSL as "a result" of previous damages or loss during the protests is WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or both, as it stands – the SCMP article cited to support that point does not draw such a connection. In fact, the cited percentage is in relation to the survey – not the arts industry, Jackie Chan, or Li Ka-shing. Also, my modification of the text that mentioned the percentage of "controversial" assessment as per the same survey, was deleted by 223.16.153.31, though that part of the survey also features prominently in the article. As a last point: while I acknowledge that the word "riot" has been used in other SCMP articles (albeit not the one at hand) to describe the protests, its use should be, at the very least, subject to great caution in protest-related matters. (With the Hong Kong judiciary incorporating the NSL and under generally very problematic political conditions for it delivering its judgements, possibly affecting judicial independence as per reputable media, convictions for riots do not necessarily make protest actions riots. But getting into this would perhaps lead too far away from the points made here.)
• Section "Hong Kong" (surveys): The selectiveness that 223.16.153.31 seems to suspect as per their edit summary is not there. The edits I made are based on observations which I stand to be corrected in: that the Hong Kong Research Association and The One Country, Two Systems Research Center seem to be more credible organizations. The Hong Kong United Front for Supporting National Security Legislation (its name is unfortunately not given in the Wikipedia article, unlike for the other organizations) by its very name had an explicit purpose for what it did; and sampling considerations did not seem to play a role in the methodology, the result just being an accumulation of "supporting NSL" votes. The SCMP article also writes of the methods of gathering the data, which seems essential to include here.
• Section "Prelude to legislation": The statements: "The [2019-2020 Hong Kong protests] led to extremely violent riots"; that the protests were US funded (with a long list); and that "In view of this, a National Security Law was necessary" are non-encyclopedic as they stand, with a reference on Belarus being highly problematic as well.--CRau080 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, the user said "A survey gathered almost the majority of the Hong Kong population (more than 2.9 million signatures) supporting the legislation." However, the survey was not conducted by a neutral party, and there is no way to verify the results. MowerBreeze (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with everything CRau080 said. There was a consensus to not use the term "riot" in the main protest article, and that should apply here. The user's also only attempted to describe the violent actions of the protests without addressing the other sides is also WP:UNDUE. OceanHok (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I have turned on WP:Pending changes for 3 months. Out of a few dozen IP edits since July, only one cosmetic edit persisted unreverted by others, so it seems that a try at PC is in order. I think the discussion that's being had here is reasonable but as I've taken sysop action I shall refrain from biting into the editorial details here. Deryck C. 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Is "national security law" in reference to the law a common noun?

I believe it is. The law has an official name and a common name. The common name is to simply refer to it as "the national security law" as a common (not proper) noun. Here I have an [article](https://hongkongfp.com/2021/11/07/hong-kong-govt-is-blind-to-the-real-national-security-threat-the-climate-crisis/) from the Hong Kong Free Press that shows the term being used this way. NateNate60 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

1. common noun and WP:COMMONNAME are very different things. 2. the term "National Security Law" is far too common to refer to this law specifically. As in, most countries have one. A news article published in the US will use the phrase to refer to theirs, not Hong Kong's. Within Hong Kong, of course they will only refer to their own law, but we cannot bold that in the lead because this is not the article about general national security law, it is about the Hong Kong national security law, which is the actual common name, especially since Wikipedia is global. Bold names in lead are also searchable terms, which is tantamount to saying that every instance of the phrase refers to this specifically. Since we already have a disambiguation article, that is patently untrue. (As another note, just one source doesn't establish common name anyway.) Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Chinese National People’s Congress Standing Committee interpretation

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2023/01/01/2003791775 Kaihsu (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Who drafted the law?

The drafting process in June 2020 was shrouded in secrecy. Is there any reporting on who held the pen and how the law was drafted? Judging from some of the provisions like Article 64, it must have been someone who is familiar with both legal systems. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against the proposed title, but there may be a consensus for a different, shorter title; any interested editor may open an RM for such a proposal at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Hong Kong national security law → Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region – There are two national security law in Hong Kong after 19 March 2024. In order to ensure reader understands dual national security law exists in Hong Kong, we need move existing page which is enforced in 30 June 2020 to the correct law title. And add a new disambiguation page on current title Cloud29371 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Cloud29371 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Object for now: "Hong Kong national security law" remains the official short name and the common name of the Chinese-imposed law, at least for now. The new title would be too long and not concise, and the hatnote already indicated there are two security legislations in the city. May hold for now and see if other names would be derived for the national security ordinance, the national security law, and the two combined in the future.

~~ J. Dann 14:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Object With two different titles, there is no need for a disambiguation page and a page move. The hatnote is clear enough. The Banner talk 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Both law official name includes safeguarding national security, i.e. both law are officially named as national security law. Cloud29371 (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The hatnotes does not provide a direct and intitutive way to let user know both national law are officially enforced. Besides, the 2024 national security law contains more regulatory information than 2020 one. Cloud29371 (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

More importantly, the 2024 national security law are actually more regulative than 2020 national security law, and current practice may mislead the user to think 2020 is the main national security law while 2024 is the sub national security law or 2024 version is less important.Cloud29371 (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Could this page be moved to Hong Kong national security law (2020) or some variant to provide disambiguation? The 2024 law has also been called a "national security law" in Western media [3][4][5]. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose the comment. This is to add additional, unnecessary disambiguation parameter, which needs to be avoided. Cfls (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  However, current hatnotes does not provide a direct and intitutive way to let user know both national law are officially enforced. Besides, the 2024 national security law are actually more regulative than 2020 national security law, and this is very important. Cloud29371 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am not opposing the original move proposal nor supporting it. However, I oppose any act that may add additional disambiguation parameters. My opinion is that the two laws inherently have different titles, which can distinguish them simply by their names. This is also the case on the Chinese Wikipedia. Adding any additional disambiguation parameters to the original titles is unnecessary, and the new titles can be arbitrary as they are literally invented on Wikipedia. I hold strong opposition against inventing or adding anything to original names of laws on Wikipedia. Cfls (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is both two official law includes the word "national security law". If we don't "invent" anything, then the original name is "Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" which some wikipedian think it is too long. Cloud29371 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Probably Law on Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong? Cfls (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal, support alternative move to 2020 Hong Kong national security law or Hong Kong national security law (2020) per Natg19's suggestion and to clarify the topic immediately. And the 2024 article probably needs to be moved as well, though it may be too early to determine the common name. We use common names, not the full spelled out name - we don't have Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 for example, which is just a redirect. SnowFire (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @SnowFire actually yes, 2020 Hong Kong national security law is better than my original idea. Natg 19 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note Linking must be correct. If it is in a "direct and intuitive way" that is a bonus but being correct is by far the most important. The Banner talk 23:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Another issue is that, 2024 national security law are actually more restrictive than 2020. Besides the 2024 authorized the HK government make national security by-laws, which 2020 one do not. Current practice sound mislead the reader than 2020 is the main security law while 2024 is the sub-law. Cloud29371 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  A move is about the title, not the content of an article. The Banner talk 00:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I know, the title "Hong Kong national security law" refer to 2020 version of HK national security law instead of a disambiguation page may make reader think 2020 national security law are the main law or more important than 2024 HK national security law, while is obviously not. Cloud29371 (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support some move, although perhaps not to the very very long title. The 2020 disambiguation makes sense to me. The new law is also referred to as a "national security law" in media as noted above. The CNN link even calls it the "second national security law", Aljazeera similarly says "Article 23 is the second such security law since 2020", BBC says "the legislation, which expands on the National Security Law imposed by Beijing in 2020". A disambiguation page makes sense here. CMD (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• More information : The Legislative Council of Hong Kong passed the law and effective on 23 March 2024. The detail of the law for final version are here. A local newspaper also summarised all point but in traditional chinese language. Please review the need whether we need to move the page or not again. Cloud29371 (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note: we are not a news site. The Banner talk 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note: But the HK 2024 national security law is new one. Cloud29371 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  And? The Banner talk 01:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Hong Kong national security law → 2020 Hong Kong national security law – As stated in the previous MR, there is another "Hong Kong national security law" passed in 2024, Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which has also been reported in sources as a "Hong Kong national security law". Move for disambiguation between the two. Natg 19 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the 2024 law could also be moved to 2024 Hong Kong national security law, but not sure if that is necessary. I created a redirect for it. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support, sources use this descriptive title for both laws [6][7][8]. CMD (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral The two laws have different names, albeit long and not too clear. It would be sufficient to put in new redirects from a short name to the long name. With a dab-page for improved navigation. The Banner talk 07:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that require some move? What do you want the dab page to be named? Natg 19 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current article title is sound and clear. There are also hatnotes sufficient for distinguishing the two articles. Oppose having a new name for the law. Cfls (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Actually both laws are Hong Kong National Security Law and both effective. Two article with one disambiguation page seems more accurate to point out this truth. Cloud29371 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't a new name, this is just prepending the relevant year. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Title was not ambiguous before, but now it is, so add the date. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and also we put the year in front of a lot of other events and laws Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 19:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. NasssaNser 09:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Might be better if we put the year at the end in parentheses. Andro611 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.