For three decades, Victoria Park in Hong Kong lit up every June fourth. Tens of thousands of people gathered in the dark, holding candles to mourn the victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. It was the only large-scale public commemoration of its kind on Chinese soil.
Now, the organizers behind those gatherings face up to ten years in prison.
A Hong Kong court convicted prominent activists Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung of inciting subversion under the national security law imposed by Beijing. Alongside them, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China was found guilty.
If you want to understand how quickly a vibrant civil society can be erased, look at this trial. It is not just about a verdict. It is about how a simple act of historical remembrance became classified as a direct threat to state power.
The Crime of Remembering June Fourth
The core argument from prosecutors targeted a specific slogan used by the alliance for years: "end one-party dictatorship."
Government-approved judges ruled that this phrase crossed a legal line. They argued that calling for an end to single-party rule constituted an attempt to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party's leadership, which is enshrined in China's constitution. According to the court, continuing to use that slogan after the 2020 national security law took effect meant the organizers were intentionally encouraging supporters to subvert state power through unlawful means.
The defendants pushed back hard during the trial. Lee told the court that their goal was never to violently overthrow anyone. Instead, they wanted to move toward a democratic system where citizens could freely choose their leaders. Chow, a barrister who defended herself, argued that "ending one-party dictatorship" simply meant dismantling a system where power goes completely unchecked.
It did not matter. The court dismissed the defense's arguments, ruling that the defendants refused to pull back from what the state deemed a constitutional breach.
Inside the Shift in Hong Kong
The path to these convictions has been swift and brutal. For years, the annual candlelight vigil was tolerated as a symbolic test of the "one country, two systems" framework promised when the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.
That tolerance vanished overnight. In 2020, authorities banned the vigil, initially pointing to COVID-19 safety restrictions. Weeks later, Beijing enacted the sweeping national security law. Since then, the alliance has dissolved, dozens of civil society groups have closed their doors, and major pro-democracy figures like media tycoon Jimmy Lai have been jailed.
Today, the space where thousands once stood in quiet solidarity looks entirely different. Pro-Beijing groups now occupy Victoria Park with carnivals and fairs. The candles are gone. The history is scrubbed from public view.
What the Verdict Means for Free Speech
Human rights organizations and international observers didn't mince words following the decision. Officials from the United States and the United Kingdom condemned the ruling, pointing out that peaceful acts of remembrance are now treated as national security threats. Amnesty International called the verdict another grim milestone in the campaign to silence anyone seeking accountability.
Meanwhile, local authorities defended the outcome. Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee stated that the organizers' conspiracy to plant seeds of hatred against the central government had to be brought to justice.
Yet, for the people who spent decades organizing the vigils, the legal outcome changes little about what they believe. In a message shared on social media ahead of the verdict, Chow described being shackled in heavy chains for her court appearances, walked by guards like an animal.
She wrote that justice lives in the hearts of the people, adding that a single courtroom verdict holds little weight against shared memory.
Lee and Chow are awaiting their sentencing hearings, where they face up to a decade behind bars. While the state has successfully dismantled the physical gatherings in Victoria Park, the question of whether a government can legislate away a historical memory remains entirely unanswered.
