Five speech therapists from Hong Kong were found guilty on Wednesday of publishing books that “incite children” and are considered anti-government, Reuters and News.ro reported.

Five speech therapists were accused of publishing three books with images of sheep and wolves, which prosecutors say spread separatism and incited hatred and opposition to the government.

Lori Lai, Melody Yeung, Sydney Ng, Samuel Chan and Marco Fong, aged 25 to 28, pleaded not guilty and chose not to testify or call witnesses. They will learn their verdict on Saturday.

All the defendants were members of the General Union of Speech Therapists of Hong Kong.

What did children’s books contain?

Authorities have charged that the picture books contain references to real events, including the massive 2019 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and 12 pro-democracy protesters who fled Hong Kong by speedboat in 2020 and were caught by the Chinese coast guard.

In one of the books, the wolves want to occupy the village and eat the sheep, which in turn start to fight back.

It is the first time a case of inflammatory publications has been heard since protests in 2019 and Beijing’s introduction of a national security law in Hong Kong in 2020.

In a written opinion, District Court Judge Kwok Wai Keen said all three books were inflammatory, not just in words, “but in words with a prohibited effect intended to reach the minds of children.”

“They will be told that they are actually sheep, and the wolves trying to harm them are the PRC government and the Hong Kong government,” wrote Kwok, who is part of the national security judges selected by the government.

The books were available for free in several local bookstores, and digital versions were distributed online. Government prosecutor Laura Ng said the posts contained anti-Chinese elements that could incite “hatred” against Beijing.

The impact of the “quake” on the freedoms of Hong Kong

Defense lawyers argued that the sheep and wolves in the books were fictional characters and that the charge of incitement was too broad and would “have a chilling effect” on liberties.

Anson Wong, Sidney Nga’s lawyer, cited a report by the UN Human Rights Committee which urged the authorities to scrap the security law and avoid using it in sedition cases because there was “over-interpretation” and “arbitrary application” of the law.

Another lawyer, Robert Pang, told the court that if people were barred from presenting different narratives of the event, the truth would be “obscured”.

In a statement, rights group Amnesty International called for the immediate release of the five, saying the use of “archaic” sedition laws was an “act of brazen repression”.

“Writing children’s books is not a crime, and trying to tell children about recent events in Hong Kong’s history is not an attempt to incite rebellion,” the statement said.

Five speech therapists were detained in July last year.