1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SC 10
11
12
13
14
15
cap 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
&c 25
26
27
28
29
S 30
31
32
33
34
35
36
for example
of ways that are freely accepted, to protect the interests of others, as in the law of libel or copyright, or to protect the
interests of the community as a whole as in the law of sedition
or in the case of obscenity and such restrictions are clearly contemplated by Article 19. Next, Article 19 lays down three criteria for the restrictions which it permits. The first of these is that they must be provided by law and that is clearly satisfied; we are debating a restriction which will have effect under regulations that will have the force of law if this Council
rejects the motion proposed by Mr. Martin Lee.
The second of these is that the restrictions imposed must serve the purposes mentioned in Article 19. These include
respect of the rights or the reputations of others and protection of national security or of public order, otherwise interpreted as ordre publique. So it is the considered view of the
administration based on the advice we have received that if the
censor were to ban a film the censor thought likely to damage good relations with other territories and therefore warranted restriction, his decision would fall within the scope of those purposes. Their ambit is quite wide, in particular the concept of ordre publique. I think Mr. Martin Lee perhaps failed to take account of this point. Ordre publique is not a concept with which
lawyers in the common law tradition are familiar, it is much wider
than the English term, public order, which he has used.
Dr. Barendt suggests that it is perhaps synonomous with public policy or the national interest and one couldn't dispute his view that it has a wide meaning, Somewhat elusive to capture in the English or indeed in the Chinese language. So I would stress the point made in the document circulated to members, particularly because of the way in which Mr. Martin Lee has held the regulations up against the requirements of the covenants, but it is these
regulations or the prospective Bill that can be called into
question as breaches of international law. A breach could only
arise if someone is denied the right to express his views or the right to receive views and whether at that point the censor's decision would violate the United Kingdom's obligation under