A prominent female #MeToo activist in China has been handed a five-year jail sentence for “subversion against the state”.

Sophia Huang Xueqin was convicted and sentenced on Friday, nearly 10 months after she went on trial.

Labour activist Wang Jianbing, who stood trial with Ms Huang, was sentenced to three years and six months in prison.

Ms Huang, 36, had been one of the most prominent voices in China’s #MeToo space, reporting ground-breaking stories about sexual abuse victims.

She had also spoken out about the misogyny and sexism she faced in Chinese newsrooms.

Chinese authorities have not made it clear how the two stood accused of subversion. The trial was a closed-door hearing.

But their supporters say they were detained because they hosted regular meetings and forums for young people to discuss social issues.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Example #5,457 of authoritarian countries choosing to sweep their problems under the rug rather than having to admit to any shortcomings. Reminds me of the Chernobyl miniseries

  • Beaver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why put her in prison when she works harder than the average ccp member

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Another way to read this headline: Chinese MeToo activist jailed “for 5 years”.

    She’ll be in there for 5 years, and suddenly she disappears after nobody has been thinking of her for 5 years, and theres no press about it. Then she could be held in private jail forever.

  • intelshill
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ironically, if she had used a Chinese hashtag she would’ve been fine. The state’s case hinges on #MeToo being a US-backed movement, just like #Pride.

    LGBT and women’s rights activists in China are restricted from using foreign iconography and foreign slogans, but not from demonstrating. It’s absurd, but altogether a different issue than what the article makes it out to be.