KD.30/1
RECEIVE
3 CAPR 1987
REGISTRY
Action Take!!
mek
115
OCMIAN 1235
CONFIDENTIAL
OO HOKON
FM FCOLN TO HOKON
291300Z APR
GRS 493
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELNO 1195
OF 291300Z APRIL 87
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
CONFIDENTIAL
51235
YOUR TELNOS 1620 AND 1631: FILM CENSORSHIP
1.
WE SHARE YOUR VIEW IN FIRST SENTENCE OF PARA 1, AND PARA
2, OF SECOND TUR. WE HAVE DISCUSSED TURS BRIEFLY WITH FIFOOT BEFORE HIS DEPARTURE FOR HONG KONG TOMORROW, AND THE FOLLOWING
ARE OUR PRELIMINARY REACTIONS..
2.
THE FIRST POINT TO BEAR IN MIND IS OF COURSE THAT ARTICLE
19 IS NOT (NOT) DIRECTLY JUSTICIABLE IN THE COURTS OF HONG KONG.
IN THE FACE OF A CLEARLY WORDED AND UNAMBIGUOUS ORDINANCE, THE
COURTS SHOULD HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF YOUR
LEGISLATION IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 19. OUR OBJECTIVE MUST
THEREFORE BE TO MAKE THE BEST CASE WE CAN FOR CENSORSHIP WITHIN
THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 19 FOR USE IN AND OUT OF LEG CO IN DEFENCE OF A DECISION TO LEGISLATE, AND TO FRAME THE DRAFT BILL IN
SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TERMS.
3.
ON YOUR SPECIFIC QUERIES IN PARA 3 OF SECOND TUR OUR
INITIAL VIEWS ARE:
(A)
(B)
YES
EACH FILM WOULD OF COURSE NEED TO BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS, BUT IF AN ACCUMULATION OF SIMILAR FILMS INCREASED THE RISK OF DISORDER, THEN THIS FACT MAY BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT.
1
CONFIDENTIAL
<
1
Page 180Page 181