Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged. It also stated that the freedom of speech will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong SAR
Such freedom is not confined to the mere expression of ideas, but extends also to their circulation by leaflets or through participation in demonstrations and processions. Therefore, in the exercise of their freedom of speech, the inhabitants of Hong Kong are entitled today to criticise not only their own colonial government, but also to agitate for a change of government in Britain or for the establishment of a democratic (or even capitalist) government in China."
To introduce the offence of 'subversion' into the law of the Hong Kong SAR is to secure the diminution of the political rights and the freedom of speech of its inhabitants to the same level as these now exist in China. A fundamental principle of contemporary Chinese law, which is totally alien and antagonistic to Hong Kong's present legal system, is nevertheless being introduced into the territory. The Chinese system is being imposed on Hong Kong.
I think that the point is valid. It seems to me that the problem lies in the use of the concept of "subversion". A common law concept should be found. Would that solve the problem?
I have to confess that until I considered the issues carefully, I was not overly concerned by article 23 of the Basic Law.
I have changed my mind, and I hope I may be permitted to spend a moment imagining that a prosecution for subversion has been brought in the Hong Kong courts, and the NPC has been asked to determine if certain facts found by the court constitute the offence (which has yet to be defined in Hong Kong law). I believe that when the issue of "counter-revolution" is at large a certain mind-set will become apparent in Beijing. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that if the points I seek to make in paragraph 4.7 are justifiable, I can foresee circumstances in which in Beijing eyes the "human rights" activist could become the "anti-state subversive", and the lawyer, the potential "co-conspirator", could get tainted too. In self-limiting principle, there is of course nothing inherently offensive in judicial rulings reflecting the dynamics of a political system, for any law is a creature of the society within which it operates. But in the absence of working procedural protections, where responsiveness to the prevailing notions of authority renders the judgment of those who determine the interests of state the determining factor of a defendant's guilt or innocence, this is the antithesis of law in any meaningful practical sense. And it is precisely what will happen in the NEC. And the Hong Kong judiciary will have to follow their rulings.
Is this accurate? I should like to ask others.
I would ask readers to note that the matters considered above should