“IT IS not like he is getting executed,” wrote a columnist for Ta Kung Pao, a leading newspaper in Hong Kong with close links to the Chinese Communist Party. The writer was referring to Victor Mallet, a Hong Kong-based editor of the Financial Times whose application to renew his work visa, which expired earlier this month, was rejected by the territory’s immigration department. China has a long history of showing the door to adventurous foreign correspondents. But this is the first time that Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous territory, has forced a resident foreign journalist to leave. Mr Mallet has until October 14th to do so.

The pro-Communist press aside, many in Hong Kong as well as elsewhere are worried by what the territory’s treatment of Mr Mallet portends. The European Union, Britain and Canada have weighed in on his behalf. America’s chamber of commerce in Hong Kong said any effort to curtail press freedom in the territory could damage its business competitiveness. On October 10th, as Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, was about to deliver her annual policy address to the Legislative Council, several pro-democracy lawmakers walked out in protest, holding placards saying “Free press” and “No persecution”.

Mr Mallet’s sin, it is assumed, was to host a talk in August at the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC), of which he is a vice-president and was then its acting leader. The speaker was Andy Chan, the leader of the Hong Kong National Party, a pro-independence group which the government has since banned for threatening “national security”, among other vague accusations. China’s foreign ministry, which has a branch in Hong Kong, had made it clear that it saw any public gathering involving a separatist speaker as a provocation. It had asked the club to cancel the event. The club had refused, arguing that to do so would violate the principle of free speech. Local laws do not explicitly ban public discussion of independence.

Ms Lam has dismissed as “pure speculation” any attempt to draw a link between Mr Mallet’s ejection and his hosting of Mr Chan at the FCC. But the government refuses to explain its decision (the Financial Times is appealing against it). Mr Chan says he is in no doubt. Mr Mallet was “guilty by association”, he says (stressing that he can only speak in “a personal capacity”, given that his party has been outlawed). Mr Chan worries that journalists in Hong Kong may increasingly censor themselves by avoiding sensitive topics.

The “one country, two systems” arrangement that China promised Hong Kong when it took over the territory in 1997 does not cover foreign affairs and defence. It is likely that the government in Beijing put pressure on Ms Lam’s government in Mr Mallet’s case. Almost certainly at the central government’s request, Hong Kong’s immigration officers sometimes deny entry to people disliked by the Communist Party—among them a British human-rights activist, Benedict Rogers, who was turned away last year.

Instead of a new work visa, Mr Mallet has been given a visitor’s permit valid for just seven days. After his departure, however, the journalist still has unfinished business in Hong Kong. On October 23rd Mr Mallet is due to moderate panels at a conference organised by his newspaper. It is unclear whether he will be allowed back into the territory to appear at the event. Ms Lam may regret having promised to attend as a keynote speaker.