CONFIDENTIAL
53734 1
-
ALTHOUGH PLAUSIBLE, THE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT AS STRONG AS ONES BASED
ON FORMULATIONS INCLUDING THE TERM 'SECURITY' OR 'PUBLIC ORDER'.
(C) THE ARGUMENTS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING. FIRST, THE ADMITTED
RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ARTICLE 19(2) WOULD BE
'PROVIDED BY LAW' AND COULD NOT BE CHARACTERISED AS JEOPARDISING
THE ENJOYMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE. SECONDLY,
THE RESTRICTIONS COULD BE SAID TO BE 'NECESSARY' IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN HONG KONG, INCLUDING ITS
PROXIMITY AND RELATIONS WITH CHINA. IN DECIDING WHAT IS
1 'NECESSARY', WE CONSIDER THAT A BODY SUCH AS THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTEE WOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH A
READY APPRECIATION OF THE WISH OF THE AUTHORITIES IN HONG KONG TO
AVOID INVOLVEMENT IN POLEMICS FROM TAIWAN DIRECTED AT CHINA. MORE
GENERALLY, WE CONSIDER THAT FOLLOWING THE APPROACH ADOPTED TO
SIMILAR WORDING BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, THE
AUTHORITIES ENJOY A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION OVER WHAT IS
'NECESSARY' IN A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. WE BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE
WOULD RECOGNISE THAT DIFFERENT STANDARDS WERE APPLICABLE IN HONG
KONG AS COMPARED WITH, SAY, COUNTRIES. IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA.
THIRDLY, WE CONSIDER THAT RESTRICTIONS MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN THE
CASE OF PARTICULAR FILMS ON THE BASIS OF AT LEAST THREE OF THE
CRITERIA IN ARTICLE 19(3). THESE ARE: (A) 'RIGHTS OR REPUTATIONS
OF OTHERS', WHCH MAY BE RELEVANT IN THE CASE OF FILMS ATTACKING
PUBLIC FIGURES IN CHINA: (B) 'THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL
SECURITY', WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS COVERING THE SECURITY
OF HONG KONG. (WE CONSIDER THAT IN A MATTER TO DO WITH SECURITY
FROM AN EXTERNAL OR EXTERNALLY-INSPIRED THREAT, THE 'MARGIN OF APPRECIATION' ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES IS PARTICULARLY
EXTENSIVE SINCE THEY ARE BETTER ABLE TO ASSESS THE RISKS THAN
OTHERS.) FINALLY, (C) 'THE PROTECTION OF... PUBLIC ORDER (ORDRE
PUBLIQUE)' WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE IF THERE WAS REASON TO SUSPECT
THAT A PARTICULAR FILM COULD LEAD TO PUBLIC DISTURBANCES OR
PUBLIC DISQUIET LEADING TO DISAFFECTION ON THE PART OF LOCAL
PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
2. TO SUM UP, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT
WITH THE COVENANT FOR HONG KONG TO LEGISLATE USING EITHER OF THE
2
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 105Page 106