This article lists some key provisions from the Chinese Communist Party's security law:
* Beijing will establish a new security office in Hong Kong, with its own law enforcement personnel - neither of which would come under the local authority's jurisdiction
* This office can send some cases to be tried in mainland China - but Beijing has said it will only have that power over a "tiny number" of cases
* Beijing will have power over how the law should be interpreted, not any Hong Kong judicial or policy body. If the law conflicts with any Hong Kong law, the Beijing law takes priority
"Crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces are punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison"
I'm not sure if criticizing Chairman Xi or the CCP would qualify as subversion.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/brooklyn-molotov-lawyers-p...
You are free to criticize the government all you want.
You can also advocate for independence without fear of imprisonment. Both California and Texas have supporters of succession.
You aren't free to blow up police cars though. For that you'll face consequences.
This stands in contrast to these "kickers" since they are already Chinese law – and let's not even start comparing Beijings supreme court with that of the US…
Both allow for everything that has happened, which suggests restraint by both Hong Kong and Chinese authories.
Hong Kong Basic Law (its constitution) allows for National Security to be controlled by Beijing.
I can see the symbolism of 50 year autonomy being undermined, but can someone explain why this topic never has a legal discussion attached, whereas other topics do?