XN000022-1990-07-18 — Page 23

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1990

- 21

"THE DELETION IS MADE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT A TORT ACTION, WHICH IF SUCCESSFUL NORMALLY LEADS TO A REMEDY IN DAMAGES, WOULD NOT ALWAYS BE APPROPRIATE FOR A BREACH OF BOR, THE SPOKESMAN EXPLAINED.

11

"THE NEW CLAUSE WILL ENABLE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS TO GRANT AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY IN RESPECT OF BREACHES OF THE BOR, AND DAMAGES ARE TO BE AWARDED ONLY WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE AND JUST TO DO SO," HE SAID.

THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 14 (THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY) TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR SHOULD ENTER INTO FORCE AT A LATER DATE WHEN SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ON PROTECTION

IS OF PRIVACY ENACTED. AT PRESENT THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION IS ALREADY WORKING PRIVACY LEGISLATION WHICH ALSO COVERS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.

ON

THE COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL SECTORS FEEL THAT SOME of THE ARTICLES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS REGARDS OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS ARE TOO BROAD AND THEIR EFFECTS UNCERTAIN. THEY FEAR THAT SUCH RIGHTS AS COUCHED IN THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE ICCPR PROVISIONS, COULD LEAD TO CONFUSION WITHIN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WITH REGARD TO THE LEGALITY OF CERTAIN EXISTING OBLIGATIONS AND CURRENT PRACTICES.

"WE ACCEPT THAT SOME OF THESE CONCERNS ARE VALID. OUR VIEW IS THAT THE MAJOR PROBLEMATIC AREA LIES IN ARTICLE 14 RELATING TO PRIVACY, SINCE THERE IS AT PRESENT NO SPECIFIC LEGISLATION GOVERNING

AREA THIS

OF HUMAN RIGHTS. WE THEREFORE PROPOSE ΤΟ DEFER THE APPLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

"THE OTHER TWO ARTICLES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL SECTORS AS PROBLEMATIC, I.E. ARTICLE 16 RELATING TO RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ARTICLE 23 OF THE WHITE BILL RELATING то NON- DISCRIMINATION, SHOULD NOT LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THE SPOKESMAN EXPLAINED.

1

A

ARTICLE 17 AND CLAUSE 13 OF THE WHITE BILL HAVE BEEN DELETED.

ARTICLE 17 STATES THAT PROPAGANDA FOR WAR OR ADVOCACY OF NATIONAL, RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS HATRED "SHALL BE PROHIBITED BY LAW' THIS ARTICLE CORRESPONDS TO ARTICLE 20 OF THE ICCPR, BUT UNDER RESERVATION ENTERED BY THE UK, THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO INTRODUCE "FURTHER LEGISLATION". THE WHITE BILL ATTEMPTED TO REFLECT THIS RESERVATION BY INCORPORATING CLAUSE 13 TO THE EFFECT THAT 17. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO LEGISLATE FURTHER IN RESPECT OF ARTICLE HOWEVER, ARTICLE 17 MAY BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING AN OBLIGATION ΤΟ

IN RESPECT LEGISLATE

OF PROPAGANDA FOR WAR

AN SINCE SUCH OBLIGATION CONTRADICTS CLAUSE 13 WHICH SAYS THERE IS NO SUCH OBLIGATION, IT COULD LEAD TO CONFUSION.

ETC.

"DELETION OF BOTH ARTICLE 17 AND CLAUSE 13 WILL AVOID SUCH CONFUSION. THE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE ARTICLE WILL CONTINUE TO BE COVERED BY EXISTING LAWS, THE SPOKESMAN SAID.

11

INTRODUCED

TO

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER MINOR AND TEXTUAL CHANGES THE WHITE BILL. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ONE INVOLVES CHANGING THE CHINESE TITLE OF THE BILL FROM "RENQUAN XUANYAN" TO "RENQUAN FA'AN" IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED CHINESE TRANSLATION FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

0

/22