After Beijing’s decision to interpret the Basic Law and bar from the office two Hong Kong activists and lawmakers, protests began to arise. Thousands of people got out on the streets to show their solidarity with the democratic movement. Some of them held umbrellas in front of police as a symbol for China’s central government to stay away from Hong Kong’s political dispute.
2,000 lawyers and activists joined a silent march, the fourth of its kind since 1997 when Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule.
This time, the UK media outlets chose not to develop the story in Hong Kong’s case, apart from some notable exceptions:
- The Guardian made a summary of the last happenings in Hong Kong and pledged for a pro-independence attitude, easily to identify after the numerous quotes and vox pops with the pro-independence community;
- AlJazeera publishes an article (distributed by press agencies) in which states the current march, as well as basic information regarding the oath controversy.
However, the situation intensifies for Asian press:
- Hong Kong Free Press focuses on the implications of the constitution interpretation using harsh terms and expressions such as ‘world city no more‘ or ‘censure Beijing’s intervention‘;
- South China Morning Post describes how Beijing oath ruling comes ‘like a tank crashing into Hong Kong’s legal system‘;
- China Daily shows no tolerance for ‘Hong Kong independence‘, having the same approach when publishing an article about some legislators who support the Basic Law interpretation.