N
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
CONFIDENTIAL
HICC 241/4
TO DESKBY 28010OZ HONG KONG
TELNO 706
OF 27130OZ APRIL 92
TOP COPY CM Q DIST?
INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
20
134152
MDHOAN 3467
De Bunten.
YOUR TELNOS 1148, 1001 AND 506: BILL OF RIGHTS: REVIEW OF LEGISLATION: SOCIETIES (AMENDMENTS) BILL
1. WE APOLOGISE FOR THE DELAY IN REPLYING TO SECOND TUR.
2.
WITH REFERENCE TO THIRD TUR WHICH RESPONDED TO OUR COMMENTS ON YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS. WE REMAIN CONCERNED BY THE ARGUMENTS SET OUT IN PARAS 7 TO 9. WE DO NOT THINK THAT
ARTICLE 18(2) OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (BOR) WOULD PERMIT THE BANNING OF A SOCIETY (WHETHER AFFILIATED OR CONNECTED TO AN OVERSEAS POLITICAL GROUP OR NOT) MERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS EXISTENCE WOULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE HONG KONG'S RELATION WITH CHINA, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT CHINA IS REGARDED AS A ''CRUCIAL TO HONG KONG'S SECURITY'' AND ''WELL BEING'' SHOULD IT NOT BE
1 1
M
BORNE IN MIND THAT FOR A BAN ON A SOCIETY TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 18(2), IT MUST NOT ONLY BE GENINUELY IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY'' BUT ALSO NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY'1? THE DISPLEASURE OF THE HOST GOVERNMENT OR OF A NEIGHBOURING GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE
'NATIONAL SECURITY'': IF IT WERE, ANY REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT COULD JUSTIFY THE BANNING OF ANY SOCIETY ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN
1
INTOLERANCE.
3. IT WOULD FOLLOW FROM YOUR ARGUMENTS THAT HKG COULD USE THE POWER IN THE AMENDED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT A SOCIETY ON GROUNDS OF SECURITY AGAINST A HONG KONG BRANCH OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL OR OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP, OR OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHINESE STUDENTS' ORGANISATION, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE BASIS THAT THE CHINESE ARE OR MIGHT BE ANNOYED BY THEM. WE DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE LAWFUL UNDER THE ORDINANCE, OR COMPATIBLE WITH BOR ARTICLE 18. IT IS TRUE THAT UK COURTS ARE USUALLY RELUCTANT TO QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT'S JUDGEMENTS AS TO THE NEEDS OF SECURITY. NEVERTHELESS, A MERE ASSERTION THAT SECURITY INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED IS SURELY NOT SUFFICIENT: THE COURT WOULD EXPECT TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT AT THE VERY LEAST THOSE INTERESTS EXISITED AND WERE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT
PAGE
1
CONFIDENTIAL