1
mention of Article 19,
kinds of problems as
which when mentioned, creates all
witaces now, we experience
le.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
now, but that in spite of this, Mr, Martin Lee's versiot proposen imendment is the more preferable or the less ungreferable amendment.
I will not venture into very elaborate discussion of the
intricacies.
To do so in any case might be beyond my abilities as I am no lawyer, and even if I were a lawyer, no expert in human rights law. I simply wish to make two simple points:
tapas
(1) If the argument was that Mr. Lee's amendment pips the balance in favour of the film makers and the film distributors, and that this were true, then surely in the interests of freedom (here I do not mean license), Mr, Lee's amendment ought to be the preferred amendment.
A
(2) If the argument was that the two amendments are really identical, do not really differ in effect, given that Governments do have a margin of appreciation and that if this were true, then surely Mr. Martin Lee's amendment 21 ought to be preferred, as it gives people the added psychological 22 satisfaction of being free, or the reduced psychological
20
23 feeling of being repressed.
2 223
24
25
26
27
28
29
and MC V6
?
Sir, some of Mr. Lee's arguments may well be irrelevant, for example, the illegality of the previous Film Censorship Note of Guidance ete the insistence of the phrase 'take into account' instead of 'comply with' indicating Administration's intention to pay lip service etc However, on the whole, he 30 has put up a very strong case and I am sure all Members share 31 his conviction that Hong Kong survives and thrives because of 32 our free institutions and that liberties should not be eroded, 33 lest we chip away the single most important pillar we stand on.
34
35
SC 36
Sir, on balance I support Mr. Martin Lee's amendment
rather than Mr P.K. Yeung's amendment.