The EconomistOctober 12th 2019 China 472 her case, Ms Dong eventually got her di-
vorce in June, two years after the beating
that temporarily damaged her hearing.
“Whether or not to permit a divorce should
be based on whether feelings between hus-
band and wife have been ruptured,” the
court said. In this case, it ruled, they had
been. The court said each should have one
of the couple’s two houses, and compen-
sate the other for any difference in value.
But in another twist the judge refused
Ms Dong’s application for 50,000 yuan
($7,010) in damages from her ex-husband.
The court agreed she had suffered violence,
but not with “serious consequences”.
Such rulings are common, says Xin He
of the University of Hong Kong. Judges of-
ten allow a divorce while dismissing char-
ges of domestic violence, thus allowing the
husband to avoid any penalty. As a result,
says Kwai Ng of the University of California
San Diego, “the courts have become an un-
reliable guardian of the lawful rights and
interests of women.” Ms Dong still has
some faith in the system: she has filed an
appeal. She expects a ruling by January.
The passage of the domestic-violence
law was a breakthrough. Activists had been
campaigning for one for two decades. Even
so, Mr He points out flaws. The bill does not
treat domestic violence, including marital
rape, as a criminal offence. Getting a re-
straining order requires strong proof that a
threat is posed. The penalty for violators is
light: a fine of up to 1,000 yuan or 15 days in
jail. In the law’s first 33 months, courts
granted more than 60% of requests for
such orders. But only 5,860 women applied
for them, a tiny fraction of the number of
victims. The state-backed All-China Wom-
en’s Federation estimates that one in four
wives in China suffers domestic abuse—
probably an underestimate. Ms Dong, who
is a university lecturer, believes her finan-
cial independence helped her. “Those who
are weaker see no hope,” she says. Online
commentators on Ms Dong’s case often ar-
gue that “to stay safe, don’t marry and don’t
have children”, says her lawyer.
Since Mr Xi came to power in 2012 he
has stressed the importance of the rule of
law. But he has also emphasised the judi-
ciary’s subordination to the Communist
Party. So judges are inclined to interpret the
law in ways that please it. In 2016 the su-
preme court instructed courts how to han-
dle trials involving family matters. Its
words echoed the party line: “The settle-
ment of family disputes concerns not only
the happiness of individuals and families,
but also social harmony and stability and
the advancement of civilisation.”
Meanwhile Mr Xi has been waging a
ruthless campaign against human-rights
activists, including those campaigning for
better protection of women. Though he has
called for an end to “all forms of violence
against women”, he is not making it easy. 7
Correction:InourarticlelastweekonChina’s
nationaldayparade(“Openingthearsenal”),we
misidentifiedtheunmannedaerialvehicleinthe
picture.ItwasaGJ-2,notaWZ-8.Thepictureonline
nowshowsaWZ-8.“W
e are indeedin an occasion of se-
rious danger,” said Hong Kong’s
leader, Carrie Lam, when she announced
her decision on October 4th to invoke the
Emergency Regulations Ordinance, a colo-
nial-era bill—disused for more than 50
years—allowing the government to impose
sweeping curbs on civil liberties. Mrs Lam
only announced one new restriction: a ban
on the wearing of masks during protests.
But thousands of demonstrators defied the
edict. Widespread violence broke out,
paralysing transport. A new cycle of escala-
tion may have begun.
Mrs Lam’s belief that the mask ban will
have a “deterrent effect” may prove wrong.
But her description of the problem was
close to the mark. “Protesters’ violence has
been escalating and has reached a very
alarming level in the past few days,” she
said. Indeed it has. On June 12th, shortly
after the unrest began, young protesters
wept after the police fired rubber bullets at
them. They have since become battle-hard-
ened (see Chaguan). Once they limited
their targets to government buildings,
spraying them with slogans and throwing
stones and other projectiles at them. More
recently they have been attacking busi-
nesses and bystanders who oppose their
views. Once a café run by someone deemed
pro-Communist would have been covered
in Post-it notes. These days it might have
its windows smashed.
Just a few days before announcing themask ban, Mrs Lam had suggested she was
aware that invoking the emergency bill
might not work. She said she had to assess
“whether such laws would backfire on an
already chaotic society, or worsen our al-
ready damaged reputation in the interna-
tional community.” Her now-abandoned
caution was well-founded. Within hours of
her edict being issued, protesters (mostly
masked) vented their anger on the territo-
ry’s rail network, which they accuse of aid-
ing police by shutting down stations to
hinder demonstrators’ movements. The
protesters flooded some stations with wa-
ter and lit fires in others. That night, for the
first time in 40 years, the whole network
was suspended, leaving many people
stranded. Many stations stayed closed all
weekend. Some remained shut even after
Hong Kongers went back to work on Octo-
ber 8th after a long weekend.
It was not all mayhem. Tens of thou-
sands of people marched peacefully, also
wearing masks. Only a few dozen were ar-
rested for donning them, suggesting that
enforcement is a problem. Mrs Lam insists
that she has “no plans” to invoke the emer-
gency bill again, but many Hong Kongers
believe she may be tempted to use it to de-
clare a curfew or control the use of instant-
messaging apps that are often used to or-
ganise protests. Such measures would be
sure to provoke defiance.
But some residents wish protesters
would change their tactics. They would like
an end to the disruption of transport and
the violence that makes it difficult for some
people to leave home or go to work. The
movement’s extraordinary scale and per-
sistence has relied on the tolerance shown
by moderates towards radical action, in-
cluding the throwing of petrol bombs. Re-
cently, however, many moderates have
been saying that the “frontline fighters”
should back off. Some worry that more vio-
lence will give officials an excuse to post-
pone next month’s district-council elec-
tions, in which the pro-democracy camp
expects to do well. They also fear that it will
erode overseas support for the protesters
(such backing has infuriated many people
in China; see United States section).
But some radicals are itching for trou-
ble, including on October 16th when the
Legislative Council will meet for the first
time since July. There the government is
expected to withdraw the draft bill that
triggered the unrest, which would have al-
lowed criminal suspects to be extradited to
the Chinese mainland. But the legislature,
dominated by pro-government politicians,
is likely to endorse the face-mask ban. It
will be another day of tension. 7HONG KONG
The government’s use of a draconian
colonial-era law is riskyUnrest in Hong KongEmergency brake
Ready for battle