THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1986
6
PORNOGRAPHY BILL PROPOSALS REVISED
*****
REVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF AN OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PUBLIC CONCERN OVER SEVERAL AREAS IN THE DRAFT CONTROL OF OBSCENE AND INDECENT ARTICLES BILL PUBLISHED IN MID-AUGUST.
AMONG THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS WAS THE MOVE TO INCLUDE PERSONS WITH PROFICIENCY IN EITHER WRITTEN CHINESE OR WRITTEN ENGLISH ALONG WITH THOSE PROFICIENT IN BOTH LANGUAGES ON THE PANEL OF LAY ADJUDICATORS TO BE FORMED TO ASSIST THE MAGISTRATE IN THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS.
EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED BILL AT A PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY (THURSDAY), SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND INFORMATION, MR JAMES SO, SAID THE CHANGES FOLLOWED EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION WITH VARIOUS BODIES INCLUDING DISTRICT BOARDS, SCHOOL COUNCILS AND OTHER INTERESTED ORGANISATIONS.
+ THE STIPULATION OF PROFICIENCY IN BOTH ENGLISH AND CHINESE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR APPOINTMENT TO AN OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN RISE TO CONSIDERABLE ADVERSE COMMENT,+ HE POINTED OUT.
+ THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT FOR BILINGUAL PROFICIENCY WAS BASED ON THE CURRENT PRACTICE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT IS ENGLISH AND LAY PERSONS SERVING AS ADJUDICATORS MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE A REASONABLE COMMAND OF THE LANGUAGE TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS AT A FULL HEARING.
+HOWEVER, FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED, THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL ACCEPTED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE TO EXCLUDE A LARGE SECTOR OF THE PUBLIC FROM ADJUDICATING ON THE RECOGNISED STANDARDS OF PROPRIETY PURELY ON LINGUISTIC GROUNDS.+
+ IT IS THEREFORE FELT THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATORS TO OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNALS SHOULD NOT BE CONFINED TO ENGLISH- SPEAKERS ONLY, MR SO SAID.
ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL, MR SO NOTED THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WAS THAT IT SHOULD COMPRISE BOTH MEN AND WOMEN FROM A WIDE CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WOULD BE DRAWN FROM A RANGE OF SOCIAL, EDUCATIONAL AND WORK BACKGROUNDS.
TURNING TO ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE DRAFT BILL ON WHICH DIVERSE VIEWS HAD BEEN AIRED, MR SO SAID THERE HAD BEEN QUERIES AS TO WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBSCENITY AND INDECENCY AND A SUGGESTION HAD BEEN PUT FORWARD THAT THE GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFYING ARTICLES SHOULD BE MADE CLEARER IN THE LAW.
/+AFTER CAREFUL