vox--2020-07-02--Russia has paved the way for Putin to be president for life

Russian President Vladimir Putin just got what he ’ s wanted from a recent vote : the veneer of a popular mandate on a plan that allows him to stay in power far beyond his current term limit — and could essentially make him president for life .
On July 1 , Russia tallied the results of a week-long national vote on a slew of constitutional reforms , including a constitutional amendment that allows Putin to nix term limits and remain president until 2036 .
Such an outcome was expected , and largely predetermined , given Russia ’ s long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest vote also saw some , well , irregularities .
Putin , who ’ s been in power in Russia one way or another since 1999 , was scheduled to leave office in 2024 , though most observers figured he ’ d likely find a way to drag that out .
The Russian leader ’ s plans became clearer this March , when , in the early stages of the coronavirus crisis , Russia ’ s parliament unrolled a whole bunch of proposed constitutional changes .
They included a tweak that would reset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make Putin Russia ’ s president for the rest of his life , or at least most of it ( he ’ ll be 83 in 2036 ) .
At the time , Putin proposed holding a national vote in April to get popular backing for these changes , but the Kremlin postponed the vote because of the coronavirus .
They ultimately held it this week .
But here ’ s the fun part : Putin didn ’ t actually need the Russian people to back these changes in the vote ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Parliament , regional governments , and the courts .
In fact , not only had the constitutional amendments already been enacted , the newly amended constitution had actually been printed and sent to bookstores for sale — before the vote even happened .
That doesn ’ t mean the vote didn ’ t matter , though .
It did , just for a different reason .
Putin may not have needed peoples ’ votes , but he wanted them — lots of them — to try to legitimize the power grab , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s powerful elite , that Putin ’ s still the guy .
And , as was expected , he got the votes he wanted : According to Russia ’ s Central Election Commission , more than 77 percent of voters supported the changes to the Russian constitution .
Of course , Putin was always going to win , one way or another , thanks to all the electoral shenanigans he ’ d put in place ( more on that in a bit ) .
So Putin got approval for lifetime job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the Russian president is in a bit more precarious position than the vote tallies might suggest .
The country ’ s economy remains stagnant , and that was true before the pandemic hit .
It might be partly why Putin wanted this vote now .
“ It ’ s a very ironic situation , ” Timothy Frye , a professor of post-Soviet foreign policy at Columbia University , told me .
The constitutional amendments are a “ grab for power that ’ s being done in some ways from a position of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win a mostly fake election , according to Russia Voting began June 25 , giving voters about a week to cast their ballots in person .
Russia lifted all of its coronavirus restrictions the day before voting began , marked with a nice , big parade .
Voting stations were set up all over , including in places like the trunks of cars and also the trunks of actual trees .
Online voting was also rolled out , though at least one Russian journalist reported that the system allowed him to vote twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the Washington Post .
Observers have noted lots of other irregularities in the process , most notably widespread reports of employers pressuring their employees to back the amendments .
Experts told me this commonly happens in Russian elections , especially in the public sector , and reports suggest the campaign was deployed quite heavily during this upcoming vote .
Even more craftily , though , the amendment to change Putin ’ s term limit also appeared on the ballot with many other amendments , some of which were pretty popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman , and another that affirmed Russians ’ belief in God .
There were nearly 200 in total , according to the Wall Street Journal .
And these were all packaged together in a single up-or-down vote — which meant if you wanted a pension guarantee , or if you wanted to make it super clear you and your compatriots really do believe in God , then oh , by the way , that also meant you just voted to approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also campaigned on these more popular issues , making them the centerpiece of the vote and downplaying all that term limit stuff .
“ They were distractions , because obviously the intention was to get a positive vote for Putin to stay on , ” Sir Andrew Wood , associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House who served as Britain ’ s ambassador to Russia from 1995 to 2000 , told me .
Given this , it ’ s no surprise the Russian opposition called the vote a sham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this result , ” Alexei Navalny , one of Russia ’ s most prominent opposition leaders , said .
The coronavirus — and the social distancing restrictions that banned mass gatherings — had also made it challenging for Putin critics to voice their displeasure or protest before the vote , somewhat quieting possible opposition .
But , again , Putin didn ’ t technically need nearly 78 percent of Russians to vote for the amendment .
These changes were mostly a done deal .
But Putin wanted to say that all these people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big part of what this vote is about .
Putin ’ s job security might not be as strong as the vote makes it seem Putin ’ s victory in this “ referendum ” might seem at first glance to underscore Putin ’ s popularity — at least , Putin would like everyone to believe that .
But the Russian president has faced a lot of pressure recently , and that may continue to build in the aftermath of the pandemic and a deepening economic crisis .
This May , his popularity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 59 percent .
And while , sure , 59 percent is still pretty impressive ( Trump , for example , hasn ’ t ever cracked 49 percent ) , it ’ s down from about 70 percent earlier in the year .
Russia ’ s economy also continues to struggle .
Declining oil prices and Western sanctions for Russia ’ s international misdeeds , from Ukraine to election interference have squeezed the Russian economy .
Putin ’ s attempt to give it a boost have also floundered ; a $ 400 billion stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised growth .
And that crisis is may deepen now that the entire world is facing a prolonged recession .
Exactly how bad the coronavirus situation is in Russia is still a bit cloudy ; the country has reported more than 660,000 cases — the third-most cases in the world behind the US and Brazil — and fewer than 10,000 deaths .
It ’ s unlikely those statistics are entirely accurate , though .
But even if those counts are off by quite a bit , the toll in the near future likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has been in some other Western countries ( specifically , the US , which has more than 2.7 million confirmed cases and more than 128,000 deaths , as of July 2 . )
The fallout from all of this is still wildly unclear , which may be why Putin seized the moment to push through these constitutional changes at this time of uncertainty .
The referendum was a “ way for Putin to say , ‘ Look , I ’ m still in charge here .
I ’ m the one with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ as a way to demonstrate his power , ” Ora John Reuter , an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee , told me .
It was meant to send a message to the people — and especially the elites — of Russia that in such turbulent times , they need Putin ’ s leadership more than ever .
Putin himself basically said as much after the vote : “ We are still very vulnerable in many ways , we have done our best , we need internal stability and time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions , ” he said in a speech Thursday .
But orchestrating a national vote to prove this doesn ’ t exactly inspire that much confidence , either .
“ The more the Kremlin has try to get people to turn out to vote , and to engage in things like packaging together all these amendments , or not allowing rivals to run against him , the harder it is for them to make the case to the average Russian that Putin is really popular , ” Frye , the Columbia professor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of weakness , not strength , that is the true undercurrent of Putin ’ s acts .
And the referendum doesn ’ t tell Russia or the rest of the world all that much about his future plans .
Putin hasn ’ t officially announced that he ’ ll run again after 2024 , but he almost certainly will , and the constitutional amendment removes any political jockeying or worries over a successor that might have crept up .
“ In a weird way , I don ’ t think this actually gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentions are vis-à-vis 2024 , ” Reuter said .
“ It opens the door , legally , to him staying on — but no one ever thought that the main impediment to him staying on was that the pesky law was going to get in the way .
“ So I think the question is still about the future is still kind of open , ” he added .
“ Obviously , any of the betting odds will stay .
But , you know , a lot of things can happen between now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Russian President Vladimir Putin just got what he’s wanted from a recent vote: the veneer of a popular mandate on a plan that allows him to stay in power far beyond his current term limit — and could essentially make him president for life.
On July 1, Russia tallied the results of a week-long national vote on a slew of constitutional reforms, including a constitutional amendment that allows Putin to nix term limits and remain president until 2036. Such an outcome was expected, and largely predetermined, given Russia’s long track record of electoral fraud. This latest vote also saw some, well, irregularities.
Putin, who’s been in power in Russia one way or another since 1999, was scheduled to leave office in 2024, though most observers figured he’d likely find a way to drag that out. The Russian leader’s plans became clearer this March, when, in the early stages of the coronavirus crisis, Russia’s parliament unrolled a whole bunch of proposed constitutional changes. They included a tweak that would reset presidential term limits, which could effectively make Putin Russia’s president for the rest of his life, or at least most of it (he’ll be 83 in 2036).
At the time, Putin proposed holding a national vote in April to get popular backing for these changes, but the Kremlin postponed the vote because of the coronavirus. They ultimately held it this week.
But here’s the fun part: Putin didn’t actually need the Russian people to back these changes in the vote; he’d already gotten the necessary approval from Parliament, regional governments, and the courts.
In fact, not only had the constitutional amendments already been enacted, the newly amended constitution had actually been printed and sent to bookstores for sale — before the vote even happened.
That doesn’t mean the vote didn’t matter, though. It did, just for a different reason. Putin may not have needed peoples’ votes, but he wanted them — lots of them — to try to legitimize the power grab, and to help signal, especially to Russia’s powerful elite, that Putin’s still the guy.
And, as was expected, he got the votes he wanted: According to Russia’s Central Election Commission, more than 77 percent of voters supported the changes to the Russian constitution. Of course, Putin was always going to win, one way or another, thanks to all the electoral shenanigans he’d put in place (more on that in a bit).
So Putin got approval for lifetime job security, at least on paper.
But the Russian president is in a bit more precarious position than the vote tallies might suggest. The country’s economy remains stagnant, and that was true before the pandemic hit. It might be partly why Putin wanted this vote now.
“It’s a very ironic situation,” Timothy Frye, a professor of post-Soviet foreign policy at Columbia University, told me. The constitutional amendments are a “grab for power that’s being done in some ways from a position of weakness rather than strength.”
How to win a mostly fake election, according to Russia
Voting began June 25, giving voters about a week to cast their ballots in person. Russia lifted all of its coronavirus restrictions the day before voting began, marked with a nice, big parade.
Voting stations were set up all over, including in places like the trunks of cars and also the trunks of actual trees. Online voting was also rolled out, though at least one Russian journalist reported that the system allowed him to vote twice, once in person and once online, according to the Washington Post.
Observers have noted lots of other irregularities in the process, most notably widespread reports of employers pressuring their employees to back the amendments. Experts told me this commonly happens in Russian elections, especially in the public sector, and reports suggest the campaign was deployed quite heavily during this upcoming vote.
Even more craftily, though, the amendment to change Putin’s term limit also appeared on the ballot with many other amendments, some of which were pretty popular. They included a guarantee on pensions, an amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and another that affirmed Russians’ belief in God. There were nearly 200 in total, according to the Wall Street Journal.
And these were all packaged together in a single up-or-down vote — which meant if you wanted a pension guarantee, or if you wanted to make it super clear you and your compatriots really do believe in God, then oh, by the way, that also meant you just voted to approve a lifetime Putin presidency. The Kremlin also campaigned on these more popular issues, making them the centerpiece of the vote and downplaying all that term limit stuff.
“They were distractions, because obviously the intention was to get a positive vote for Putin to stay on,” Sir Andrew Wood, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House who served as Britain’s ambassador to Russia from 1995 to 2000, told me.
Given this, it’s no surprise the Russian opposition called the vote a sham.
“We’ll never recognize this result,” Alexei Navalny, one of Russia’s most prominent opposition leaders, said. The coronavirus — and the social distancing restrictions that banned mass gatherings — had also made it challenging for Putin critics to voice their displeasure or protest before the vote, somewhat quieting possible opposition.
But, again, Putin didn’t technically need nearly 78 percent of Russians to vote for the amendment. These changes were mostly a done deal. But Putin wanted to say that all these people backed this plan. That’s a big part of what this vote is about.
Putin’s job security might not be as strong as the vote makes it seem
Putin’s victory in this “referendum” might seem at first glance to underscore Putin’s popularity — at least, Putin would like everyone to believe that. But the Russian president has faced a lot of pressure recently, and that may continue to build in the aftermath of the pandemic and a deepening economic crisis.
This May, his popularity dipped to its lowest point ever: 59 percent. And while, sure, 59 percent is still pretty impressive (Trump, for example, hasn’t ever cracked 49 percent), it’s down from about 70 percent earlier in the year. Russia’s economy also continues to struggle. Declining oil prices and Western sanctions for Russia’s international misdeeds, from Ukraine to election interference have squeezed the Russian economy. Putin’s attempt to give it a boost have also floundered; a $400 billion stimulus plan hasn’t yet delivered the promised growth. And that crisis is may deepen now that the entire world is facing a prolonged recession.
Exactly how bad the coronavirus situation is in Russia is still a bit cloudy; the country has reported more than 660,000 cases — the third-most cases in the world behind the US and Brazil — and fewer than 10,000 deaths. It’s unlikely those statistics are entirely accurate, though. But even if those counts are off by quite a bit, the toll in the near future likely won’t be as bad as it has been in some other Western countries (specifically, the US, which has more than 2.7 million confirmed cases and more than 128,000 deaths, as of July 2.)
The fallout from all of this is still wildly unclear, which may be why Putin seized the moment to push through these constitutional changes at this time of uncertainty.
The referendum was a “way for Putin to say, ‘Look, I’m still in charge here. I’m the one with the popular mandate. Everyone quiet down,’ as a way to demonstrate his power,” Ora John Reuter, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, told me.
It was meant to send a message to the people — and especially the elites — of Russia that in such turbulent times, they need Putin’s leadership more than ever.
Putin himself basically said as much after the vote: “We are still very vulnerable in many ways, we have done our best, we need internal stability and time to strengthen the country, all its institutions,” he said in a speech Thursday.
But orchestrating a national vote to prove this doesn’t exactly inspire that much confidence, either.
“The more the Kremlin has try to get people to turn out to vote, and to engage in things like packaging together all these amendments, or not allowing rivals to run against him, the harder it is for them to make the case to the average Russian that Putin is really popular,” Frye, the Columbia professor, said.
It’s that position of weakness, not strength, that is the true undercurrent of Putin’s acts. And the referendum doesn’t tell Russia or the rest of the world all that much about his future plans.
Putin hasn’t officially announced that he’ll run again after 2024, but he almost certainly will, and the constitutional amendment removes any political jockeying or worries over a successor that might have crept up.
“In a weird way, I don’t think this actually gives us much new information about what his intentions are vis-à-vis 2024,” Reuter said. “It opens the door, legally, to him staying on — but no one ever thought that the main impediment to him staying on was that the pesky law was going to get in the way.
“So I think the question is still about the future is still kind of open,” he added. “Obviously, any of the betting odds will stay. But, you know, a lot of things can happen between now and then.”


vox--2020-07-02--Hong Kong’s future under China’s new security law, explained

July 1 in Hong Kong has always been a day of protest .
It marks the anniversary of the territory ’ s handover from Britain to China in 1997 .
This year , 23 years later , Hongkongers protested again — but this time , there was far more at stake than at perhaps any other time since .
That ’ s because July 1 , 2020 , was the first full day that China ’ s new national security law , which gives Beijing broad powers to crack down on political dissent against the Chinese Communist Party , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The full details of the legislation weren ’ t known until it went into effect .
The law specifically criminalizes “ secession , subversion , organization and perpetration of terrorist activities , and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.
” What falls under those categories is vague , according to experts .
That ’ s a recipe for broad application of the law , one that also carries steep penalties , including up to life imprisonment for the most serious of offenses .
When Britain handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was with the promise that Beijing would honor Hong Kong ’ s quasi-independence until at least 2047 , under the rule known as “ one country , two systems.
” The Chinese government has slowly eroded Hong Kong ’ s autonomy in the years since , while still rhetorically committing to the principle .
The imposition of the national security law rips away that facade completely , directly threatening Hong Kong ’ s civil society , independent press , and , most obviously , the territory ’ s sustained pro-democracy movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and total control of Hong Kong and total destruction of Hong Kong ’ s system , ” Victoria Tin-bor Hui , a political science professor at Notre Dame University , told me .
“ I guess we have all seen this coming , but it just feels very surreal to everyone that Hong Kong is truly under ‘ one country , one system , ’ ” Fung , a 27-year-old protester who asked to be identified by only her surname name out of concern for her safety , told me .
Fung said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awakened , bit by bit , to the totalitarianism of the Communist Party .
Yet she still held on to a little hope , a kind of dream , that the Chinese Communist Party could become more liberal , more free .
Until now .
“ Today , with this law passed , me and my friends think that we can never go back to what things were .
Now we ’ re just another city , like Guangzhou or Shanghai or Beijing , one of the cities under mainland China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new threat of being arrested or prosecuted for speaking out didn ’ t stop Fung and thousands of others from protesting on July 1 ( nor did the city ’ s ongoing ban on public gatherings due to the coronavirus ) .
According to the Hong Kong Free Press , some protesters scattered joss papers — a custom at Chinese funerals — on the streets to represent the death of “ one country , two systems.
” “ It ’ s really the first time that I had a genuine feeling that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking aloud a slogan or holding a poster on the street , ” a 22-year-old protester , who asked to remain anonymous for their safety , said via WhatsApp .
But the protester said that some friends decided not to join the demonstrations , considering it much more dangerous to speak out or take to the streets now because the power of the Chinese Communist Party “ is too strong to confront or even revolt against.
” And Hong Kong ’ s authorities wasted no time with enforcement .
At least 10 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation .
That included a man arrested for having a Hong Kong independence flag , a woman arrested for holding a sign calling for Hong Kong ’ s independence ( which also featured British and American flags ) , and a 15-year-old girl arrested for waving a Hong Kong independence flag , according to the Hong Kong Free Press .
An additional 370 people were also detained , according to Hong Kong police , who used tear gas , rubber bullets , and water cannons to try to break up the demonstrations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ galvanized Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy protesters last year .
But one 24-year-old protester , who also wished to remain anonymous , said they believe the new law gives police even more “ justification ” to carry out police brutality .
So while demonstrators have for years taken to the streets on July 1 to protest China ’ s interference , this July 1 felt like a turning point for the territory .
“ This time is different , ” Nathan Law , a pro-democracy activist , told US lawmakers during a House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So much is now lost in the city I love : the freedom to tell the truth.
” China has long dreamed of asserting more direct control over Hong Kong Last spring , Hong Kong ’ s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers .
That ignited massive protests , leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent .
The bill was withdrawn in September , but the demonstrations continued as the fight transformed into a larger battle to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The coronavirus pandemic and social distancing measures put some of that public activism on hold .
But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement , including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April .
Then , in May , China announced its plan to impose a new national security law intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state .
The specific details of the law weren ’ t known , but there was little doubt about its purpose .
That ’ s because such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Chinese government .
In 2003 , the Hong Kong legislature attempted to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong ’ s Basic Law ( the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution ) .
This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference , but the law got shelved after mass protests .
The difference then was that Hong Kong ’ s quasi-democratically elected legislature was taking up the proposed law , giving it the veneer of legitimacy .
Now China has decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law on its own , direct from Beijing , without bothering to even pretend to involve the local institutions .
“ The way this was done — not through the local authorities , but rather from Beijing — and with China having asserted authority that it had not previously asserted in that way , suggests that it ’ s very much the mainland basically saying , ‘ We have the bottom line on things we consider national security , and that includes political security for the [ Chinese Communist Party ] and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior policy analyst on China at the US Institute of Peace , told me .
Even Chief Executive Carrie Lam , the nominal leader of Hong Kong whose close ties with Beijing have led critics to portray her as little more than a puppet of the Chinese government , reportedly didn ’ t know the full details of the new national security law until it was unveiled to the public this week .
And the law is extensive .
It contains 66 articles , some of which are very detailed and specific and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which almost certainly means they ’ ll be subject to interpretation .
What the new law says — and what it purposely doesn ’ t say The law prohibits four broad activities : secessionism , subversion , terrorism , and colluding with foreign forces .
( Read the full text of the official English translation of the law here . )
Under each of these activities are some specific offenses .
For example , damaging government buildings could qualify as “ subversion , ” a serious-enough offense that could result in life imprisonment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hongkongers stormed and defaced the Hong Kong Legislative Council to protest the extradition bill , making this provision look very much like a response to previous protest tactics .
Another example : Under the “ colluding with foreign forces ” provision , the law says Hongkongers could be arrested and prosecuted if they lobby or work with foreign entities against the Chinese government , including “ enacting laws and policies that cause serious obstruction or serious consequences to Hong Kong or China , ” according to the Hong Kong Free Press .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even individuals who have called for sanctions or increased pressure on China to stop its intervention on Hong Kong .
The Chinese government has blamed outsiders , specifically those in the West , for fomenting opposition against its rule in Hong Kong , and this looks to be a way to silence its critics .
Of course , these expansive definitions are kind of the point .
“ If mainland practice to date is any guide — and it is — then the definitions don ’ t matter that much .
Anything can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done by the person being targeted , ” Donald Clarke , an expert on Chinese law and professor at the University of Washington School of Law , writes in an analysis of the legislation .
“ As the old cliché goes , 欲加之罪何患无辞.
” ( That translates roughly to , “ If you are determined to convict , you needn ’ t worry about the lack of grounds.
” ) Another remarkable feature of this law is its reach : Not only does it apply to Hongkongers , it could potentially also apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong or oppose China ’ s interventions there , regardless of where in the world they do so , should they ever set foot in Hong Kong .
This is beyond even the laws in mainland China , and as Clarke puts it , this asserts “ extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet.
” This is basically saying that speaking out against China or supporting pro-democracy protests — maybe in a column , or a video , or a tweet — could put that individual at risk in the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ offense.
” Finally , the law also gives China more power to interfere directly in Hong Kong ’ s legal system , fully undermining its rule of law .
As NPR notes , “ The law empowers China to set up a ‘ National Security Committee ’ to oversee the investigation and prosecution of any violations .
This committee is subject neither to judicial review nor Hong Kong law — meaning it operates without any local checks or balances.
” The law also allows for Chinese judges in mainland China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security cases , or an extradition bill by different means .
“ It ’ s the end ... a very formal , total end of Hong Kong ’ s system , ” Notre Dame ’ s Hui told me .
What happens to Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy movement ?
Those massive pro-democracy marches , where millions of Hongkongers demonstrated — those may never happen again , Fung told me .
There isn ’ t much space for freedom of speech in the city anymore , and she doesn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to her and her fellow citizens , she said , are limited .
“ We can continue to live in the city [ and ] choose to forget about the freedom and values and demands that we believe in , ” she said .
“ Or maybe we will have to just leave the city to continue this kind of spirit somewhere else.
” That is the dilemma facing many young Hongkongers I spoke to , who see themselves as democracy ’ s last gasp in the territory .
They aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place for them there .
As the generation born right around the time of the territory ’ s handover from Britain to China , they ’ ve grown up enjoying Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , even as they watched them slowly begin to slip away .
This generation fueled Hong Kong ’ s resistance to the extradition bill , demanded democracy , and did it powerfully enough that Beijing fought back .
“ In the long term , I anticipate the law would turn HK [ Hong Kong ] into China — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , HK people would live under fear , ” a 24-year-old protester who asked to remain anonymous , said via WhatsApp .
“ Our next generation might receive brainwashing education stating China [ is ] the best.
” Some Hongkongers are already deleting their old social media posts or changing their names online , just in case .
Betty Lau , the editor of InMedia HK , which posts pro-democracy articles , told the New York Times that writers had asked her to delete old posts .
The site has since removed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Demosisto , also disbanded in the wake of the law .
One of its leaders , Joshua Wong , said on Twitter that he was leaving the group .
“ If my voice will not be heard soon , I hope that the international community will continue to speak up for Hong Kong and step up concrete efforts to defend our last bit of freedom , ” he wrote .
Soon other prominent leaders of the group , including Nathan Law ( who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-democracy activist , said they were stepping down .
The group then dissolved .
Activists like Wong and Chow have been targeted before by Hong Kong authorities ; for example , they were arrested last year for allegedly participating in an “ unauthorized ” assembly during the summer protests .
Given their prominence , are likely are risk under this new law .
The chilling effect is the point .
Dean Cheng , a senior research fellow on China at the Heritage Foundation , told me that China ’ s most useful approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-censorship , where you learn not what to say.
” Activists disbanding their groups or taking down their pro-democracy social media posts because they fear repercussions — with good reason — is exactly what Beijing wants .
“ The [ Chinese Communist Party ] is very , very practiced at political control .
They have very developed theories of how to do that , ” Stokes , from the US Institute of Peace , said .
“ And they believe it works in the mainland.
” The way China ’ s leaders see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Hong Kong is simply that the government there hasn ’ t implemented Beijing ’ s “ successful ” system .
Protesters did come out into the streets in defiance of the new law on Wednesday .
But the ones I spoke to all expressed nervousness , fear , and confusion about whether they will keep doing so if it becomes dangerous .
Fung said she thinks she will continue to post online , and maybe support other protesters who do go out in the streets by serving as a driver , offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down .
But that is dangerous , too .
The pro-democracy movement goes beyond just protesters and activists , though .
The citizenry of Hong Kong has largely been divided in two factions : the “ yellow ” camp — those who sympathize with the pro-democracy movement , and the “ blue ” camp — those seen as supporting the police and the Hong Kong government .
Many in the “ yellow ” camp , though they supported the protesters ’ aims , didn ’ t participate in the protests themselves .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take to the streets and speak out publicly despite the risks , the fear is that many others — young professionals , those with families , people who feel they have a lot to lose — may begin to rethink about whether they will continue to do so publicly .
Peter , a 28-year-old Hongkonger , never considered himself a hardcore protester .
He sympathized with the movement and attended some demonstrations , but he wouldn ’ t consider himself part of the frontlines .
He , and others like him , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of moderate protesters like myself are going to step back , because a lot of us still have a job here , we have families , ” he said .
“ One thing that ’ s really scary , ” he said , is that “ if you ’ re accused under this new law , they have all the authority to send you back to China.
” “ Be like water ” became a slogan and a strategy of the Hong Kong protests , a way to move fluidly and adapt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response .
When the Hong Kong government denied a permit for the annual vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre in June , for instance , organizers instructed people to instead light a candle , wherever they were , to show their support .
Hui told me she sees the protests taking on an even more decentralized form and finding new methods for Hongkongers to signal their solidarity .
An independence flag may be banned , but officials can ’ t outlaw a candle .
Maybe people just take a walk — all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taking even small acts of resistance , whatever they are , and making them part of daily life .
“ One country , two systems ” might be dead , but whether that means the end of Hong Kong is a different question , Hui said .
“ Hong Kong is not dead unless the people let it.
” Hongkongers are looking to the rest of the world .
But will help come ?
“ I know the whole world is watching us , ” Fung told me .
“ And one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole world see that Hong Kong people are still willing to go out and protest even under this kind of threat.
” China ’ s national security law has been broadly condemned internationally — including by the United States .
The Trump administration had already declared last month that because of the new national security law ( which was expected to pass soon ) , Hong Kong was no longer considered autonomous from China .
Shortly after , the United States also announced that it would be removing Hong Kong ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly different treatment from the rest of mainland China .
“ The United States will not stand idly by while China swallows Hong Kong into its authoritarian maw , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement Tuesday .
The US , he said , had taken other steps to pull back Hong Kong ’ s special status , including imposing visa restrictions on Chinese Communist Party officials involved in “ undermining Hong Kong ’ s autonomy ” and ending defense and some technology exports to the territory .
Pompeo added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instruction , ” the US would be eliminating most of the “ policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment , with few exceptions.
” How much further the Trump administration will go is an open question .
Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward China on a number of issues , particularly on trade , and , more recently , for failing to stop the coronavirus from spreading into a pandemic .
But when it comes to China ’ s human rights abuses , Trump has been far less critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong ’ s pro-democracy movement with strong bipartisan support , though .
Last year , Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act , which , in addition to evaluating Hong Kong ’ s autonomous status , calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong .
That support remains strong .
On Wednesday , the House unanimously passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act , which would impose mandatory sanctions on entities that violate either the Sino-British Joint Declaration , the treaty between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the handover and laid out the “ one country , two systems ” principle until 2047 , or Hong Kong ’ s Basic Law ( its de facto constitution . )
On Thursday , so did the Senate , sending the bill to Trump ’ s desk .
The White House has not said whether he will sign it .
A bipartisan group of senators has also introduced a bill that would grant refugee status to Hong Kong residents who face persecution under the new national security law , including those who might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill protests .
If passed and signed into law , it would be a powerful statement on human rights and democracy from the United States .
But it would also show a disconnect in the federal government , as the Trump administration has drastically cut the number of refugees coming from just about everywhere else .
Other countries are taking steps to help Hong Kong as well .
The United Kingdom will grant additional rights to Hongkongers who are are British Nationals Overseas passport holders .
Previously , they could stay in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK government extended to the five years , after which the possibility for residency and later citizenship is available .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it would allow the UK to “ uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong.
” It could apply to as many as 3 million people .
Taiwan — which has a particular stake in standing up to China — just on Wednesday unveiled a new office explicitly created to help Hong Kong asylum seekers .
Offering an escape route from Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an option that many Hongkongers said they would consider if life in the territory becomes untenable .
At the same time , though , it is still a fraught decision .
Hong Kong is home , and leaving feels a bit like a surrender , giving up on preserving Hong Kong ’ s democracy and letting China win .
And some worry that a failure to taking action against China to stop or punish it for its power grab in Hong Kong would encourage China to become even more aggressive , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as one protester put it : “ Today Hong Kong , tomorrow the world.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

July 1 in Hong Kong has long been a day of protest. It marks the anniversary of the territory’s handover from Britain to China in 1997. This year, 23 years later, Hongkongers protested again — but this time, there was far more at stake than at perhaps any other time since.
That’s because July 1, 2020, was the first full day that China’s new national security law, which gives Beijing broad powers to crack down on political dissent against the Chinese Communist Party, was in full effect in Hong Kong.
The full details of the legislation weren’t known until it went into effect. The law specifically criminalizes “secession, subversion, organization and perpetration of terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.”
What falls under those categories is vague, according to experts. That’s a recipe for broad application of the law, one that also carries steep penalties, including up to life imprisonment for the most serious of offenses.
When Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, it was with the promise that Beijing would honor Hong Kong’s quasi-independence until at least 2047, under the rule known as “one country, two systems.” The Chinese government has slowly eroded Hong Kong’s autonomy in the years since, while still rhetorically committing to the principle.
The imposition of the national security law rips away that facade completely, directly threatening Hong Kong’s civil society, independent press, and, most obviously, the territory’s sustained pro-democracy movement.
The law means the “complete and total control of Hong Kong and total destruction of Hong Kong’s system,” Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a political science professor at Notre Dame University, told me.
Pro-democracy protesters I spoke with expressed similar sentiments.
“I guess we have all seen this coming, but it just feels very surreal to everyone that Hong Kong is truly under ‘one country, one system,’” Fung, a 27-year-old protester who asked to be identified by only her surname out of concern for her safety, told me.
Fung said that she and many of her friends awakened, bit by bit, to the totalitarianism of the Communist Party. Yet she held on to a little hope, a kind of dream, that the Chinese Communist Party could become more liberal, more free. Until now.
“Today, with this law passed, me and my friends think that we can never go back to what things were. Now we’re just another city, like Guangzhou or Shanghai or Beijing, one of the cities under mainland China’s control,” Fung said.
But the new threat of being arrested or prosecuted for speaking out didn’t stop Fung and thousands of others from protesting on July 1 (nor did the city’s ongoing ban on public gatherings due to the coronavirus). According to the Hong Kong Free Press, some protesters scattered joss papers — a custom at Chinese funerals — on the streets to represent the death of “one country, two systems.”
“It’s really the first time that I had a genuine feeling that I would be arrested just because of speaking aloud a slogan or holding a poster on the street,” a 22-year-old protester, who asked to remain anonymous for their safety, said via WhatsApp.
But the protester said that some friends decided not to join the demonstrations, considering it much more dangerous to speak out or take to the streets now because the power of the Chinese Communist Party “is too strong to confront or even revolt against.”
And Hong Kong’s authorities wasted no time with enforcement. At least 10 people were arrested July 1 under the national security legislation. That included a man arrested for having a Hong Kong independence flag, a woman arrested for holding a sign calling for Hong Kong’s independence (which also featured British and American flags), and a 15-year-old girl arrested for waving a Hong Kong independence flag, according to the Hong Kong Free Press.
#NationalSecurityLaw in effect. #HKPolice further arrested a female for showing a material with #HKIndependence slogan in #CausewayBay, Hong Kong. #HKPolice will take resolute enforcement action in accordance with #NSL. pic.twitter.com/mTmJWt8Z8m — Hong Kong Police Force (@hkpoliceforce) July 1, 2020
An additional 370 people were also detained, according to Hong Kong police, who used tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons to try to break up the demonstrations, relying on the same heavy-handed tactics that galvanized Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters last year. But one 24-year-old protester, who also wished to remain anonymous, said they believe the new law gives police even more “justification” to carry out police brutality.
So while demonstrators have for years taken to the streets on July 1 to protest China’s interference, this July 1 felt like a turning point for the territory.
“This time is different,” Nathan Law, a pro-democracy activist, told US lawmakers during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on July 1. “So much is now lost in the city I love: the freedom to tell the truth.”
China has long dreamed of asserting more direct control over Hong Kong
Last spring, Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers. That ignited massive protests, leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent. The bill was withdrawn in September, but the demonstrations continued as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong’s democratic institutions.
The coronavirus pandemic and social distancing measures put some of that public activism on hold. But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement, including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April.
Then in May, China announced its plan to impose a new national security law intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state. The specific details of the law weren’t known, but there was little doubt about its purpose.
That’s because such a law has long been a dream of the Chinese government. In 2003, the Hong Kong legislature attempted to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law (the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution). This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference, but the law got shelved after mass protests.
The difference then was that Hong Kong’s quasi-democratically elected legislature was taking up the proposed law, giving it the veneer of legitimacy. Now China has decided to just go ahead and impose the law on its own, direct from Beijing, without bothering to even pretend to involve the local institutions.
“The way this was done — not through the local authorities, but rather from Beijing — and with China having asserted authority that it had not previously asserted in that way, suggests that it’s very much the mainland basically saying, ‘We have the bottom line on things we consider national security, and that includes political security for the [Chinese Communist Party] and the regime,” Jacob Stokes, a senior policy analyst on China at the US Institute of Peace, told me.
Even Chief Executive Carrie Lam, the nominal leader of Hong Kong whose close ties with Beijing have led critics to portray her as little more than a puppet of the Chinese government, reportedly didn’t know the full details of the new national security law until it was unveiled to the public this week.
And the law is extensive. It contains 66 articles, some of which are very detailed and specific and others that are much more vague — which almost certainly means they’ll be subject to interpretation.
What the new law says — and what it purposely doesn’t say
The law prohibits four broad activities: secessionism, subversion, terrorism, and colluding with foreign forces. (Read the full text of the official English translation of the law here.)
Under each of these activities are some specific offenses. For example, damaging government buildings could qualify as “subversion,” a serious offense that could result in life imprisonment. On July 1, 2019, Hongkongers stormed and defaced the Hong Kong Legislative Council to protest the extradition bill, making this provision look very much like a response to previous protest tactics.
Another example: Under the “colluding with foreign forces” provision, the law says Hongkongers could be arrested and prosecuted if they lobby or work with foreign entities against the Chinese government, including “enacting laws and policies that cause serious obstruction or serious consequences to Hong Kong or China,” according to the Hong Kong Free Press.
This could implicate human rights groups, or even individuals who have called for sanctions or increased pressure on China to stop its intervention in Hong Kong. The Chinese government has blamed outsiders, specifically those in the West, for fomenting opposition against its rule in Hong Kong, and this looks to be a way to silence its critics.
Of course, these expansive definitions are kind of the point.
“If mainland practice to date is any guide — and it is — then the definitions don’t matter that much. Anything can be stretched as necessary to cover something done by the person being targeted,” Donald Clarke, an expert on Chinese law and professor at the University of Washington School of Law, writes in an analysis of the legislation. “As the old cliché goes, 欲加之罪何患无辞.” (That translates roughly to, “If you are determined to convict, you needn’t worry about the lack of grounds.”)
Another remarkable feature of this law is its reach: Not only does it apply to Hongkongers, it could potentially also apply to foreigners who speak out for Hong Kong or oppose China’s interventions there, regardless of where in the world they do so, should they ever set foot in Hong Kong.
This is beyond even the laws in mainland China, and as Clarke puts it, this asserts “extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet.” This is basically saying that speaking out against China or supporting pro-democracy protests — maybe in a column, or a video, or a tweet — could put that individual at risk in the future, no matter their location at the time of the “offense.”
Finally, the law also gives China more power to interfere directly in Hong Kong’s legal system, fully undermining its rule of law. As NPR notes, “The law empowers China to set up a ‘National Security Committee’ to oversee the investigation and prosecution of any violations. This committee is subject neither to judicial review nor Hong Kong law — meaning it operates without any local checks or balances.”
The law also allows for Chinese judges in mainland China to try the most serious or complicated national security cases, or an extradition bill by different means.
“It’s the end ... a very formal, total end of Hong Kong’s system,” Notre Dame’s Hui told me.
What happens to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement?
Those massive pro-democracy marches, where millions of Hongkongers demonstrated — those may never happen again, Fung told me. There isn’t much space for freedom of speech in the city anymore, and she doesn’t feel that will change. The options left to her and her fellow citizens, she said, are limited.
“We can continue to live in the city [and] choose to forget about the freedom and values and demands that we believe in,” she said. “Or maybe we will have to just leave the city to continue this kind of spirit somewhere else.”
That is the dilemma facing many young Hongkongers I spoke to, who see themselves as democracy’s last gasp in the territory. They aren’t sure if there’s still a place for them there.
As the generation born right around the time of the territory’s handover from Britain to China, they’ve grown up enjoying Hong Kong’s freedoms, even as they watched them slowly begin to slip away. This generation fueled Hong Kong’s resistance to the extradition bill, demanded democracy, and did it powerfully enough that Beijing fought back.
“In the long term, I anticipate the law would turn HK [Hong Kong] into China — no democracy, no freedom, and, HK people would live under fear,” a 24-year-old protester, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said via WhatsApp. “Our next generation might receive brainwashing education stating China [is] the best.”
Some Hongkongers are already deleting their old social media posts or changing their names online, just in case. Betty Lau, the editor of InMedia HK, which posts pro-democracy articles, told the New York Times that writers had asked her to delete old posts. The site has since removed more than 100.
A prominent pro-democracy group, Demosisto, also disbanded in the wake of the law. One of its leaders, Joshua Wong, said on Twitter that he was leaving the group. “If my voice will not be heard soon, I hope that the international community will continue to speak up for Hong Kong and step up concrete efforts to defend our last bit of freedom,” he wrote.
Soon other prominent leaders of the group, including Nathan Law (who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 1) and Agnes Chow, another prominent pro-democracy activist, said they were stepping down. The group then dissolved. Activists like Wong and Chow have been targeted before by Hong Kong authorities; for example, they were arrested last year for allegedly participating in an “unauthorized” assembly during the summer protests. Given their prominence, they are likely to be at risk under this new law.
The chilling effect is the point.
Dean Cheng, a senior research fellow on China at the Heritage Foundation, told me that China’s most useful approach is “to impose a condition of self-censorship, where you learn not what to say.” Activists disbanding their groups or taking down their pro-democracy social media posts because they fear repercussions — with good reason — is exactly what Beijing wants.
“The [Chinese Communist Party] is very, very practiced at political control. They have very developed theories of how to do that,” Stokes, from the US Institute of Peace, said. “And they believe it works in the mainland.” The way China’s leaders see it, he added, the problem with Hong Kong is simply that the government there hasn’t implemented Beijing’s “successful” system.
Protesters did come out into the streets in defiance of the new law on July 1. But the ones I spoke to all expressed nervousness, fear, and confusion about whether they will keep doing so if it becomes dangerous. Fung said she thinks she will continue to post online, and maybe support other protesters who do go out in the streets by serving as a driver, offering to help people flee if police crack down. But that is dangerous, too.
The pro-democracy movement goes beyond just protesters and activists, though. The citizenry of Hong Kong has largely been divided in two factions: the “yellow” camp — those who sympathize with the pro-democracy movement — and the “blue” camp, those seen as supporting the police and the Hong Kong government.
Many in the yellow camp, though they supported the protesters’ aims, didn’t participate in the protests themselves. So while the hardcore protesters may continue to take to the streets and speak out publicly despite the risks, the fear is that many others — young professionals, those with families, people who feel they have a lot to lose — may begin to rethink about whether they will continue to do so publicly.
Peter, a 28-year-old Hongkonger, never considered himself a hardcore protester. He sympathized with the movement and attended some demonstrations, but he wouldn’t consider himself part of the front lines. He and others like him are at that crossroads.
“A lot of moderate protesters like myself are going to step back, because a lot of us still have a job here, we have families,” he said. “One thing that’s really scary,” he said, is that “if you’re accused under this new law, they have all the authority to send you back to China.”
“Be like water” became a slogan and a strategy of the Hong Kong protests, a way to move fluidly and adapt to police tactics and to the government’s response. When the Hong Kong government denied a permit for the annual vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre in June, for instance, organizers instructed people to instead light a candle, wherever they were, to show their support.
Hui told me she sees the protests taking on an even more decentralized form and finding new methods for Hongkongers to signal their solidarity. An independence flag may be banned, but officials can’t outlaw a candle. Maybe people just take a walk — all together, at the same time. Taking even small acts of resistance, whatever they are, and making them part of daily life.
“One country, two systems” might be dead, but whether that means the end of Hong Kong is a different question, Hui said. “Hong Kong is not dead unless the people let it.”
Hongkongers are looking to the rest of the world. But will help come?
“I know the whole world is watching us,” Fung told me. “And one of the key objectives today is to let the whole world see that Hong Kong people are still willing to go out and protest even under this kind of threat.”
China’s national security law has been broadly condemned internationally — including by the United States. The Trump administration had already declared last month that because of the new national security law (which was expected to pass soon), Hong Kong was no longer considered autonomous from China. Shortly after, the US also announced that it would be removing Hong Kong’s special trade status, which gives it slightly different treatment from mainland China. (Trump said at a July 14 press conference that he was issuing an executive order that would officially revoke Hong Kong’s special status.)
“The United States will not stand idly by while China swallows Hong Kong into its authoritarian maw,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement June 30.
The US, he said, had taken other steps to pull back Hong Kong’s special status, including imposing visa restrictions on Chinese Communist Party officials involved in “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy” and ending defense and some technology exports to the territory. Pompeo added that “per President Trump’s instruction,” the US would be eliminating most of the “policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment, with few exceptions.”
How much further the Trump administration will go is an open question. Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward China on a number of issues, particularly on trade, and, more recently, for failing to stop the coronavirus from spreading into a pandemic.
But when it comes to China’s human rights abuses, Trump has been far less critical.
The US Congress has backed Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement with strong bipartisan support, though. Last year, Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act, which, in addition to evaluating Hong Kong’s autonomous status, calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong.
That support remains strong. On July 1, the House unanimously passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which would impose mandatory sanctions on individuals or entities that violate either the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the treaty between the UK and China that allowed for the handover and laid out the “one country, two systems” principle until 2047; or Hong Kong’s Basic Law (its de facto constitution). The next day, so did the Senate, sending the bill to Trump’s desk. On July 14, Trump announced that he’s signing the legislation.
A bipartisan group of senators has also introduced a bill that would grant refugee status to Hong Kong residents who face persecution under the new national security law, including those who might have participated in the pro-democracy and anti-extradition bill protests.
If passed and signed into law, it would be a powerful statement on human rights and democracy from the United States. But it would also show a disconnect in the federal government, as the Trump administration has drastically cut the number of refugees coming from just about everywhere else.
Other countries are taking steps to help Hong Kong as well. The United Kingdom will grant additional rights to Hongkongers who are British Nationals Overseas passport holders. Previously, they could stay in the UK for six months, but the UK government extended that to five years, after which the possibility for residency and later citizenship is available.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it would allow the UK to “uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong.” It could apply to as many as 3 million people.
Taiwan — which has a particular stake in standing up to China — unveiled a new office explicitly created to help Hong Kong asylum seekers.
Offering an escape route from Hong Kong will protect many, and leaving is an option that many Hongkongers said they would consider if life in the territory becomes untenable.
At the same time, though, it is still a fraught decision. Hong Kong is home, and leaving feels a bit like a surrender, giving up on preserving Hong Kong’s democracy and letting China win.
And some worry that a failure to take action against China to stop or punish it for its power grab in Hong Kong would encourage China to become even more aggressive, both in Hong Kong and elsewhere. Or, as one protester put it: “Today Hong Kong, tomorrow the world.”


vox--2020-07-02--One of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors is exploring a new anti-Trump boycott

Amid the advertiser boycott of Facebook , one of the Democratic Party ’ s biggest megadonors , Reid Hoffman , is exploring ways to launch a similar boycott of President Trump and his White House .
Hoffman , the billionaire founder of LinkedIn , could spend as much as $ 100 million this election cycle and has elbowed his way into becoming one of the most powerful players in Democratic politics .
So what issues attract his attention — and , correspondingly , his money — matter because they can help explain where the progressive movement will focus over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his next political move this week when asked about the building protest movement against Facebook over its unwillingness to aggressively moderate Trump ’ s inflammatory posts .
Hoffman volunteered a revealing tidbit about his political thinking .
“ Frankly , on the political side , one of the things I ’ ve been thinking about trying to go stimulate for the next month is an anti-Trump boycott , ” Hoffman said in an interview on Tuesday with Anne-Marie Slaughter , the head of New America .
“ The various forms of enrichment with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be part of an American political system .
It should be protested in economic ways , as well as political ways.
” Hoffman didn ’ t offer much detail about the idea , which is said to be in its early stages .
But if companies are thinking about ways to stand up against racial hatred , Hoffman ’ s team thinks they shouldn ’ t just boycott Facebook , which broadcasts that hatred , but rather those who voice it , like Trump .
Based on some of his past conversations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort like Grab Your Wallet , a campaign that convinced some retailers , including Nordstrom and T.J. Maxx , to drop products associated with Trump and his family .
According to Shannon Coulter , the campaign ’ s leader , Hoffman ’ s team reached out to Grab Your Wallet and has had extensive talks about a donation since 2017 .
Hoffman ’ s team has declined to fund Grab Your Wallet because Coulter said they preferred to focus on electoral politics , and she hasn ’ t heard from Hoffman ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your Wallet has now broadened its work to focus on boycotting companies with board members or executives that have supported Trump politically .
There are signs that this type of organizing works — the attendance at SoulCycle fell after a boycott sprang up to protest that the fitness company ’ s majority investor , Stephen Ross , was hosting a fundraiser for Trump .
Another possibility is that Hoffman may try to organize some boycott of Trump properties , such as Mar-a-Lago , which he mentioned in the interview .
The problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , five years after Trump announced his run for president , the brands and people that are willing to be associated with Trump properties , including his hotel in Washington , DC , have already weathered much blowback and chosen to stick around .
“ Something focused on Mar-a-Lago is unlikely to work , in my opinion , for the same reason it doesn ’ t work to boycott Trump ’ s hotels , ” Coulter said .
“ The people who patronize those places are already very much on Team Trump.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps proven a model for boycotts of brands .
After Facebook repeatedly declined to moderate Trump ’ s inflammatory posts about racial justice protests , a group of civil rights organizations launched a campaign called Stop Hate for Profit that has convinced some of the country ’ s biggest brands to pause advertising on Facebook , even if it ’ s unclear whether that will make a serious dent in Facebook ’ s revenue .
Facebook recently announced new plans to regulate hate speech .
One of Facebook ’ s early investors was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greylock , and Hoffman and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg remain close .
What Hoffman chooses to fund is closely watched in the Democratic Party .
While he has had his share of stumbles and detractors in the world of politics , he and his team are the tip of the Silicon Valley spear as the tech community marshals its considerable resources to boost presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
But there are some signs that the tech community and Biden still don ’ t see totally eye to eye .
Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 , the landmark law that protects publishers like Facebook from liability over what third parties say or do on the platform .
Asked what Hoffman , who has advised Biden on digital campaigning , would say to Biden about Section 230 , Hoffman drew some distance from his chosen candidate , saying that there should be “ less-absolute-than-publisher liability , but more than no liability.
” A viewer of the session asked Hoffman about a recent Washington Post editorial saying that both Biden and Trump — who also wants to revoke Section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were wrong .
“ Both of those two positions seem to be badly put from an American values perspective , ” Hoffman said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Amid the advertiser boycott of Facebook, one of the Democratic Party’s biggest megadonors, Reid Hoffman, is exploring ways to launch a similar boycott of President Trump and his White House.
Hoffman, the billionaire founder of LinkedIn, could spend as much as $100 million this election cycle and has elbowed his way into becoming one of the most powerful players in Democratic politics. So what issues attract his attention — and, correspondingly, his money — matter because they can help explain where the progressive movement will focus over the summer.
Hoffman foreshadowed what may be his next political move this week when asked about the building protest movement against Facebook over its unwillingness to aggressively moderate Trump’s inflammatory posts. Hoffman volunteered a revealing tidbit about his political thinking.
“Frankly, on the political side, one of the things I’ve been thinking about trying to go stimulate for the next month is an anti-Trump boycott,” Hoffman said in an interview on Tuesday with Anne-Marie Slaughter, the head of New America. “The various forms of enrichment with Mar-a-Lago and all the rest should not be part of an American political system. It should be protested in economic ways, as well as political ways.”
Hoffman didn’t offer much detail about the idea, which is said to be in its early stages. But if companies are thinking about ways to stand up against racial hatred, Hoffman’s team thinks they shouldn’t just boycott Facebook, which broadcasts that hatred, but rather those who voice it, like Trump.
Based on some of his past conversations, the move by Hoffman could resemble an effort like Grab Your Wallet, a campaign that convinced some retailers, including Nordstrom and T.J. Maxx, to drop products associated with Trump and his family. According to Shannon Coulter, the campaign’s leader, Hoffman’s team reached out to Grab Your Wallet and has had extensive talks about a donation since 2017. Hoffman’s team has declined to fund Grab Your Wallet because Coulter said they preferred to focus on electoral politics, and she hasn’t heard from Hoffman’s team in about a year.
Grab Your Wallet has now broadened its work to focus on boycotting companies with board members or executives that have supported Trump politically. There are signs that this type of organizing works — the attendance at SoulCycle fell after a boycott sprang up to protest that the fitness company’s majority investor, Stephen Ross, was hosting a fundraiser for Trump.
Another possibility is that Hoffman may try to organize some boycott of Trump properties, such as Mar-a-Lago, which he mentioned in the interview. The problem with that approach, though, is that now, five years after Trump announced his run for president, the brands and people that are willing to be associated with Trump properties, including his hotel in Washington, DC, have already weathered much blowback and chosen to stick around.
“Something focused on Mar-a-Lago is unlikely to work, in my opinion, for the same reason it doesn’t work to boycott Trump’s hotels,” Coulter said. “The people who patronize those places are already very much on Team Trump.”
The advertiser boycott of Facebook has perhaps proven a model for boycotts of brands. After Facebook repeatedly declined to moderate Trump’s inflammatory posts about racial justice protests, a group of civil rights organizations launched a campaign called Stop Hate for Profit that has convinced some of the country’s biggest brands to pause advertising on Facebook, even if it’s unclear whether that will make a serious dent in Facebook’s revenue. Facebook recently announced new plans to regulate hate speech.
One of Facebook’s early investors was Hoffman’s venture capital firm, Greylock, and Hoffman and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg remain close.
What Hoffman chooses to fund is closely watched in the Democratic Party. While he has had his share of stumbles and detractors in the world of politics, he and his team are the tip of the Silicon Valley spear as the tech community marshals its considerable resources to boost presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
But there are some signs that the tech community and Biden still don’t see totally eye to eye. Biden has called for the immediate revocation of Section 230, the landmark law that protects publishers like Facebook from liability over what third parties say or do on the platform.
Asked what Hoffman, who has advised Biden on digital campaigning, would say to Biden about Section 230, Hoffman drew some distance from his chosen candidate, saying that there should be “less-absolute-than-publisher liability, but more than no liability.” A viewer of the session asked Hoffman about a recent Washington Post editorial saying that both Biden and Trump — who also wants to revoke Section 230, albeit for different reasons — were wrong.
“Both of those two positions seem to be badly put from an American values perspective,” Hoffman said.


vox--2020-07-02--What Ghislaine Maxwell’s arrest could mean for the Epstein case

British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on Thursday for allegedly luring girls into situations where she knew they would be sexually abused by her billionaire ex-boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein .
Maxwell is accused of using predatory techniques to prime girls for sexual abuse , first befriending them and then using that trust to make it easier for Epstein to victimize them .
In the indictment , she is accused of doing this to three unnamed girls — some as young as 14 years old — from 1994 to 1997 , according to a federal indictment from the US Southern District of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say anything publicly , she has previously denied any wrongdoing .
Epstein was accused of sexually abusing dozens of girls and was awaiting trial when he apparently committed suicide in a New York City jail cell .
He ’ d previously pleaded guilty and been convicted in 2008 of soliciting an underage prostitute .
Maxwell ’ s arrest could signify a major turning point in the Epstein case .
Epstein ’ s victims and their attorneys have alleged that Epstein couldn ’ t have abused as many girls as he did without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a central figure in the trafficking scheme for years , according to sworn statements from Virginia Roberts Giuffre , Maria Farmer , and others .
“ Maxwell was among Epstein ’ s closest associates and helped him exploit girls that were as young as 14 , ” Audrey Strauss , the acting United States attorney for the Southern District of New York , said on Thursday .
Maxwell ’ s arrest is a new opportunity for many of Epstein ’ s victims to seek justice .
“ The trajectory of the Jeffrey Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This represents an opportunity for these women to see justice done , ” Deborah Tuerkheimer , a law professor at Northwestern University and former prosecutor in Manhattan , told Vox .
“ For the women who allege they were abused by both of them , this is the remaining outlet , this is the only possible way to see at least criminal justice.
” Maxwell was one of many women who allegedly helped Epstein abuse girls After months of speculation about her whereabouts , Maxwell was arrested in Bradford , New Hampshire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI .
She is scheduled to be arraigned in federal court in Concord , New Hampshire , on Thursday .
Speaking at a Thursday press conference , federal officials would not say exactly how long they had been tracking Maxwell or where else she may have traveled .
“ We had been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell ’ s whereabouts as we worked this investigation , ” said Bill Sweeney , assistant director-in-charge of the New York Office of the FBI .
Epstein allegedly had numerous female assistants who found girls for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they were coerced victims of abuse themselves , leaving prosecutors reportedly grappling with the complex question of whether to charge them .
Maxwell has not alleged Epstein abused her , and officials have documented a years-long pattern of behavior suggesting she was a close associate and co-conspirator .
Palm Beach investigators , for instance , focused in on Maxwell “ from the start , ” the Washington Post ’ s Marc Fisher reported last year : Maxwell is being charged on six counts : enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with intent to engage in sexual activity , two conspiracy counts related to the prior charges , and two counts of perjury for allegedly lying under oath in a 2016 deposition related to Epstein .
“ Maxwell lied because the truth as alleged was almost unspeakable , ” said Strauss .
“ Maxwell enticed minor girls , got them to trust her , then delivered them into the trap she and Epstein had set for them.
” In a statement , attorney for Epstein survivors Sigrid McCawley told Vox praised the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a powerful message to all of Epstein ’ s accomplices .
“ Today the victims of Ghislaine Maxwell breathe a sigh of relief knowing that this sexual predator who not only engaged in sexual abuse herself but also assisted Jeffrey Epstein for decades in running his sexual trafficking scheme is behind bars , ” McCawley said .
“ The pain she has caused will never go away but today is a step toward healing.
” The key thing about Maxwell ’ s indictment is that it covers an earlier period of time than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer .
The 2019 indictment against Epstein contained an array of charges that , from 2002 to 2005 , the former billionaire recruited girls to his Palm Beach residence and Manhattan house , where he sexually abused them .
Maxwell ’ s charges stem from incidents involving three minor victims that allegedly took place from 1994 to 1997 , when she was in an intimate and professional relationship with Epstein .
“ This case against Ghislaine Maxwell is the prequel to the earlier case that we brought against Jeffrey Epstein , ” Strauss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maxwell describes a pattern of behavior by Maxwell and Epstein in the mid-1990s .
Either together or separately , they allegedly groomed minor victims by befriending them and taking them shopping or to the movies , the indictment says .
Once a rapport was developed , “ Maxwell would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by , among other things , discussing sexual topics , undressing in front of the victim , being present when a minor victim was undressed , and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reads .
During this time period , Maxwell enticed minor victims to travel to Epstein ’ s residence in various states including New York , Florida , and New Mexico , as well as London , England , knowing full well what awaited the girls at his residences , the indictment alleges .
“ As far as I ’ m concerned , everyone who came to his house was an adult professional person , ” Maxwell said in a 2016 deposition .
Some of Epstein ’ s accusers dispute that characterization in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily involved in the illegal sex , ” said Virginia Roberts Giuffre in a January 2015 court filing .
“ She used Epstein ’ s money and he used her name and connections to gain power and prestige .
One way to describe Maxwell ’ s role was as the ‘ madame.
’ She assumed a position of trust for all the girls , including me.
” Maxwell “ facilitated Jeffrey Epstein ’ s access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Thursday ’ s indictment reads .
How the continuation of the Epstein case could impact victims At the end of the Thursday press conference , officials thanked Epstein ’ s victims for coming forward in difficult circumstances .
“ For the many victims of other adult perpetrators who may be listening , the example set by the women involved in this investigation has been a powerful one , ” Sweeney said .
“ They persevered against the rich and connected , and they did so without a badge , a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together.
” But as Tuerkheimer told Vox , the process of seeing justice fully served for these women could be long and arduous .
Maxwell ’ s arrest , while certainly significant , is an early step .
“ If [ Maxwell ] fights the charges and she wants to go to trial and wants the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt , these women are going to have to testify , they ’ re going to have to be cross-examined , and that ’ s not easy , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here to the end of the road for the alleged victims in the case is likely very difficult.
” For many of these women , the prospect of testifying against someone who not only allegedly facilitated their abuse but abused them herself could be very difficult .
The fact that Maxwell initially served as a friendly figure to them before the abuse started could make it even more fraught .
“ They groomed people they knew they could take advantage of because they were already vulnerable , ” Sheela Raja , a clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trauma and PTSD , told Vox .
“ That level of betrayal is even more because she was this mother figure for some of them.
” The legal system is often not easy for victims of sexual assault and trauma , in large part because it places a high priority on victims remembering things exactly as they happened .
“ The lack of education about traumatic events , about sexual trauma in particular , really pervades the legal system and judges and juries , ” said Raja .
“ The legal system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trauma .
On the one hand , they want justice .
On the other hand , the process may be re-traumatizing for survivors.
” But just as the horror of the Epstein case lies in the large number of victims who were abused , those victims now have strength in numbers .
“ The number of victims and alleged victims is something that matters when you think about the criminal justice system to get called into action , ” Tuerkheimer said .
“ When you have this credibility in numbers , that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on Thursday for allegedly luring girls into situations where she knew they would be sexually abused by her billionaire ex-boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein.
Maxwell is accused of using predatory techniques to prime girls for sexual abuse, first befriending them and then using that trust to make it easier for Epstein to victimize them. In the indictment, she is accused of doing this to three unnamed girls — some as young as 14 years old — from 1994 to 1997, according to a federal indictment from the US Southern District of New York.
Though Maxwell has yet to say anything publicly, she has previously denied any wrongdoing. Epstein was accused of sexually abusing dozens of girls and was awaiting trial when he apparently committed suicide in a New York City jail cell. He’d previously pleaded guilty and been convicted in 2008 of soliciting an underage prostitute.
Maxwell’s arrest could signify a major turning point in the Epstein case. Epstein’s victims and their attorneys have alleged that Epstein couldn’t have abused as many girls as he did without the help of collaborators. Maxwell was a central figure in the trafficking scheme for years, according to sworn statements from Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Maria Farmer, and others.
“Maxwell was among Epstein’s closest associates and helped him exploit girls that were as young as 14,” Audrey Strauss, the acting United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said on Thursday.
Maxwell’s arrest is a new opportunity for many of Epstein’s victims to seek justice.
“The trajectory of the Jeffrey Epstein part of this case ended prematurely. This represents an opportunity for these women to see justice done,” Deborah Tuerkheimer, a law professor at Northwestern University and former prosecutor in Manhattan, told Vox. “For the women who allege they were abused by both of them, this is the remaining outlet, this is the only possible way to see at least criminal justice.”
Maxwell was one of many women who allegedly helped Epstein abuse girls
After months of speculation about her whereabouts, Maxwell was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire, on Thursday morning, according to the FBI. She is scheduled to be arraigned in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire, on Thursday. Speaking at a Thursday press conference, federal officials would not say exactly how long they had been tracking Maxwell or where else she may have traveled.
“We had been discreetly keeping tabs on Maxwell’s whereabouts as we worked this investigation,” said Bill Sweeney, assistant director-in-charge of the New York Office of the FBI.
Epstein allegedly had numerous female assistants who found girls for him to abuse. Some of these women say they were coerced victims of abuse themselves, leaving prosecutors reportedly grappling with the complex question of whether to charge them. Maxwell has not alleged Epstein abused her, and officials have documented a years-long pattern of behavior suggesting she was a close associate and co-conspirator.
Palm Beach investigators, for instance, focused in on Maxwell “from the start,” the Washington Post’s Marc Fisher reported last year:
The girls they interviewed repeatedly described Maxwell as the coordinator of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. But detectives were never able to interview Maxwell.
Maxwell is being charged on six counts: enticing minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity, two conspiracy counts related to the prior charges, and two counts of perjury for allegedly lying under oath in a 2016 deposition related to Epstein.
“Maxwell lied because the truth as alleged was almost unspeakable,” said Strauss. “Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, then delivered them into the trap she and Epstein had set for them.”
In a statement, attorney for Epstein survivors Sigrid McCawley told Vox praised the work of New York prosecutors and said it sent a powerful message to all of Epstein’s accomplices.
“Today the victims of Ghislaine Maxwell breathe a sigh of relief knowing that this sexual predator who not only engaged in sexual abuse herself but also assisted Jeffrey Epstein for decades in running his sexual trafficking scheme is behind bars,” McCawley said. “The pain she has caused will never go away but today is a step toward healing.”
Maxwell’s indictment paints a picture of earlier decades of abuse
The key thing about Maxwell’s indictment is that it covers an earlier period of time than a previous indictment filed against Epstein last summer.
The 2019 indictment against Epstein contained an array of charges that, from 2002 to 2005, the former billionaire recruited girls to his Palm Beach residence and Manhattan house, where he sexually abused them. Maxwell’s charges stem from incidents involving three minor victims that allegedly took place from 1994 to 1997, when she was in an intimate and professional relationship with Epstein.
“This case against Ghislaine Maxwell is the prequel to the earlier case that we brought against Jeffrey Epstein,” Strauss told reporters.
The federal indictment against Maxwell describes a pattern of behavior by Maxwell and Epstein in the mid-1990s. Either together or separately, they allegedly groomed minor victims by befriending them and taking them shopping or to the movies, the indictment says. Once a rapport was developed, “Maxwell would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein,” the indictment reads.
During this time period, Maxwell enticed minor victims to travel to Epstein’s residence in various states including New York, Florida, and New Mexico, as well as London, England, knowing full well what awaited the girls at his residences, the indictment alleges.
“As far as I’m concerned, everyone who came to his house was an adult professional person,” Maxwell said in a 2016 deposition.
Some of Epstein’s accusers dispute that characterization in their own depositions.
“Ghislaine Maxwell was heavily involved in the illegal sex,” said Virginia Roberts Giuffre in a January 2015 court filing. “She used Epstein’s money and he used her name and connections to gain power and prestige. One way to describe Maxwell’s role was as the ‘madame.’ She assumed a position of trust for all the girls, including me.”
Maxwell “facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims,” Thursday’s indictment reads.
How the continuation of the Epstein case could impact victims
At the end of the Thursday press conference, officials thanked Epstein’s victims for coming forward in difficult circumstances.
“For the many victims of other adult perpetrators who may be listening, the example set by the women involved in this investigation has been a powerful one,” Sweeney said. “They persevered against the rich and connected, and they did so without a badge, a gun, or subpoena, and they stood together.”
But as Tuerkheimer told Vox, the process of seeing justice fully served for these women could be long and arduous. Maxwell’s arrest, while certainly significant, is an early step.
“If [Maxwell] fights the charges and she wants to go to trial and wants the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, these women are going to have to testify, they’re going to have to be cross-examined, and that’s not easy,” Tuerkheimer said. “To get from here to the end of the road for the alleged victims in the case is likely very difficult.”
For many of these women, the prospect of testifying against someone who not only allegedly facilitated their abuse but abused them herself could be very difficult. The fact that Maxwell initially served as a friendly figure to them before the abuse started could make it even more fraught.
“They groomed people they knew they could take advantage of because they were already vulnerable,” Sheela Raja, a clinical psychologist and author of the book Overcoming Trauma and PTSD, told Vox. “That level of betrayal is even more because she was this mother figure for some of them.”
The legal system is often not easy for victims of sexual assault and trauma, in large part because it places a high priority on victims remembering things exactly as they happened.
“The lack of education about traumatic events, about sexual trauma in particular, really pervades the legal system and judges and juries,” said Raja. “The legal system is a double-edged sword for many survivors of trauma. On the one hand, they want justice. On the other hand, the process may be re-traumatizing for survivors.”
But just as the horror of the Epstein case lies in the large number of victims who were abused, those victims now have strength in numbers.
“The number of victims and alleged victims is something that matters when you think about the criminal justice system to get called into action,” Tuerkheimer said. “When you have this credibility in numbers, that can make a difference.”