WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
BE
5
"THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 22 WHICH COVERS DISCRIMINATION WILL LIMITED
IS INTENDED TO BIND THE MAKING TO THE
OF LAWS; IT
STATES, LEGISLATURE, NOT INDIVIDUALS, AS IS CLEAR FROM ITS TEXT WHICH INTER ALIA, THAT THE LAW SHALL PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS SUCH AS RACE, COLOUR, SEX, LANGUAGE ETC, SIR DAVID POINTED OUT.
CLEAR,
"THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HAS MADE IT IN TWO CASES, THAT THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT SAY WHAT LAWS MUST BE MADE. THEY DO HOWEVER PROVIDE THAT IF AND WHEN LEGISLATION IS MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION.
IN THE
THE VIEW OF
ENACTED IT
THESE TWO "THEREFORE,
ADMINISTRATION,
SECTOR PRIVATE
TO DISCLOSE ARTICLES DO NOT CREATE A DUTY INTHE INFORMATION OR GUARANTEE PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION," HE SAID.
HAD CONCLUDED THAT
THE CHIEF SECRETARY SAID THE GOVERNMENT THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN A DEFERMENT IN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 16 AND 22 AS THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO INTRODUCE FURTHER AND THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION UNDER THE ICCPR TO LEGISLATE THESE MATTERS.
LEGISLATION FURTHER ON
ON PART II OF THE BILL WHICH INCORPORATED THE RELEVANT ARTICLES ADHERED CLOSELY TO THE OF THE ICCPR AS APPLIED TO HONG KONG AND WORDING OF THE ICCPR, SIR DAVID SAID ONLY TWO CHANGES OF SUBSTANCE HAD BEEN MADE.
"ARTICLE 17 OF THE WHITE BILL STATES THAT PROPAGANDA FOR WAR OR PROHIBITED ADVOCACY OF NATIONAL, RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS HATRED SHALL BE BY LAW.
THE ICCPR, BUT "THIS ARTICLE CORRESPONDS TO A PROVISION OF
UNDER UNDER A RESERVATION ENTERED BY HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT, WE ARE
RESPECT OF THIS NO OBLIGATION TO INTRODUCE FURTHER LEGISLATION IN ARTICLE, THE CHIEF SECRETARY SAID.
11
"HOWEVER, ARTICLE 17 ITSELF CREATES AN OBLIGATION TO
13 WHICH REPEATS CLAUSE MATTERS WHILE IN RESPECT OF THESE RESERVATION SAYS THERE IS NO SUCH OBLIGATION.
LEGISLATE
THE
PROVISIONS WOULD BE 13
"THE INCLUSION OF THESE CONTRADICTORY MEANINGLESS AND WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT BOTH ARTICLE 17 AND CLAUSE
SIR DAVID SAID. OF THE WHITE BILL SHOULD BE DELETED,
H
ON ARTICLE 22 OF THE WHITE BILL WHICH REFERRED TO CITIZENS' RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC LIFE, SIR DAVID SAID THE USE OF THE TERM "CITIZEN" WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR HONG KONG BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF A HONG KONG CITIZEN WAS UNKNOWN TO OUR LAW.
WIDE WHO NOW
"WHAT WE NEED IS A GENERIC TERM WHICH HAS A SUFFICIENTLY MEANING TO EMBRACE THE WHOLE RANGE OF PERSONS IN HONG KONG HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO STAND FOR ELECTION.
"WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT "PERMANENT RESIDENT" IS SUCH A TERM AND
IN THE BASIC LAW. IT ALSO MIRRORS THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS
/"WE HAVE