5.32.
5.33.
government. If they were to do so, this would not be the legal system I believe it is meant to be. I hope such views are not old-fashioned. They bring me to another central concern.
Even if the Attorney-General never acts on political grounds as such, it is clear that the Hong Kong government has tried, and has tried for diplomatic reasons very hard indeed, to ensure that his actions have a political effect on the PRC. Personally, I do not for one minute believe that this will be a successful strategy to stop the PRC believing that Hong Kong is subversive, for the actions of the Hong Kong Legal Department are not the determining points in Beijing's mind. However, where the underlying facts of a case in Hong Kong involve political speech, the effect of overt politicisation of the discretion to prosecute (albeit retrospectively, albeit in relation to diplomatic action) is bound to have an effect, let us call it a "sobering" effect, on the exercise of free speech. People will differ on whether that is a good thing: the major point for me is that it may amount by accretion to a cumulative selling down the river of an important part of Hong Kong's lifestyle. I know it is not meant to be this, but if government continues to act in that vein in that way, it can only exacerbate the tendency in Hong Kong towards self-censorship in areas where the PRC might take offence. Today, PRC representatives in Hong Kong disapprove of non-violent demonstrations outside their building. With all the power at their disposal, they get offended by placards. In due course, I should like to ask them why. Does the British and Hong Kong government mean to encourage the trend towards self-censorship? I ask as I am worried by the concerns I wrote about in paragraph 4.4. I accept that the government has to have a line on this; the issue is how it pursues its aims, and how it holds that line. It is a very difficult issue: and it is a very important principle.
It
This brings me to the importance of the Bill of Rights as a communicator of government attitude. The Bill of Rights will enshrine an existing part of Hong Kong's way of life in a clear legal text. could make a difference to the method of administrators, although to Hong Kong people, it will be a largely unseen safety net, I would imagine. One of my prejudices is that the purpose of law is made manifest in its practice. I am attracted, therefore, by the following propositions:-
"The rights and liberties guaranteed in the proposed Bill of Rights
which is, after all, just a piece of paper - are illusory unless:
(1) the moral and legal values implicit in the bill have been inculcated in the consciousness and culture of the community,