C
1
2
4
5
6
that is
deem it necessary to restrict an offensive publication in particular ways short of a total ban. So the fact that Hong Kong provides 3 this form of censorship for the exhibition of films only would not
undermine the case that the restriction was in comformity with Article 19, e. Hong Kong's appreciation of the special needs and the circumstances of this territory. Sir, I do not propose to 7 take up time pointing to other communities which have similar
powers of censorship to prevent damage to relations with other states or offence to their peoples. Examples have been given in our comments on Dr. Barend opinion. Some of these have been in
statutory form, sometimes in a voluntary code. Some are now in force and some have been repealed. It is sufficient to remark however that Hong Kong is not unique in seeking to use powers of censorship to prevent damage to its relations with other
8
9
де 10
11
12
13
14
15 territories and so far as our researches go, no one, no one has previously sought to make the case that Article 19 would be infringed by censorship for such a purpose.
16
17
Je 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
&e 25
26
2 2 2 2 2 2 288
27
29
30
31
32
8c33
34
35
36
Sir, to be fair to Dr. Barendt I do not think he takes up a dogmatic stand. He has recognised that Hong Kong's position at the moment is one that has to be treated with some sensitivity. He said in a broadcast interview on the 25th of June that it is possible that courts of human rights would take a sympathetic view of the position of the Hong Kong Government and has readily conceded that there is a lot to be said for the case that I have presented. I mention that not to suggest that Dr. Barendt's view
is to be discounted or that he is not himself convinced of his
point of view, but it shows that these are matters on which
even experts in the field are forced to acknowledge the difficulties
of cut and dried judgment, given the very few cases that have been the subject of detailed analysis and the need in each particular case to focus on the element of local necessity.
I would like members perhaps to reflect on the essence of the stance that the critics have taken up. Mr, Martin Lee would seem to take up the position that there should be no censorship of films on what he calls political grounds or putting it in the form appropriate to the present debate, the ground that the showing