Under Sections 26 and 27, it is an offence to utter provocative, threatening, insulting or abusive word. To insult is to 'hit by words'. Moreover, if speeches are made with an intention to :
a) bring into hatred or contempt or to excite dissatisfaction against the Queen or
the Government or the administration of justice;
b) persuade others to use violence or to disobey the law or to seek an alteration
of the law by unlawful means; or
c) arouse discontent and ill feelings among the populations, then the speakers will
be liable for sedition under the Sedition Ordinance and the Public Order Ordinance.
A person, on discovering that the assembly has become an unlawful one, may wish to leave the scene, but is unable to do so because of the crowds. Will he be liable? Regretably, on several occasions, demonstrators were unable to disperse, though warned by the Police, as they were surrounded by the Police and bystanders who outnumbered them. Student participants may also be expelled from school for having participated in disorderly assembly or procession by his principal at the request of the Director of Education. This power seems unjustified.
The power
of the Police are wide in the control and dispersal of assemblies. Any Police officer on duty shall have free admission to all meetings where a breach of peace is likely and may remain there. A police inspector may prohibit the display of flags, banners or emblems at a public gathering if he reasonably believes that such a display is likely to cause a breach of peace. The Commissioner of Police has power to control and direct the conduct of all public gatherings and specify the route of a procession. There seems to be no judicial review on the exercise of his discretion. A police officer can require any person to give his name and address. Any police officer can prevent, stop or disperse an unlawful assembly, or a lawful one at which there is a breach of the conditions attached to the licence.
Moreover, a police inspector can order the closure of a place and its vicinity to prevent a meeting from taking place if he reasonably believes that an unlicensed meeting is to be held there. He can also enter into any premises to remove any seditious publications. These sweeping powers are unjustified restrictions on the freedom of person.
People obey the law because they know it is a thing they ought to do They obey the law because they know that the law will protect them and that if they behave them- selves they will not be punished. If the law is so uncertain or is so framed that people may be liable one way or the other, will they respect the law? If they are punished for doing something which people in other countries consider as their funda- mental human right, will they obey the law ?
The formulation of the law is one thing; the administration of it is another. "The more typical denial of individual freedom by Parliament does not, however, result from a dramatic constitutional crisis, but from the careless delegation to the Executive of absolute and arbitrary powers". (7)
In a modern state, it is essential that some powers should be given to the Executive for the smooth running of Government and the welfare of the Community. But there must be some control either judicially or by the Legislature. The law of public assembly, as it now stands, leaves the Courts helpless in many cases. Thus the citizens will be left to the mercy of the powerful Executive. This is a denial of the Rule of Law. It is no longer a law of public assembly, but more like a set of rules formulated by the Police. "The result is that there is now no assurance, unless police permission is secured in advance, that a meeting can be held anywhere in a public place. (8) A pro- test against the authorities requires Police permission and "supervision". But does a protest against the Police require the same permission and "supervision" ? Will the Police allow a protest against themselves ? That the law will not be strictly enforced and that the Police will not abuse their powers are no guarantees.
*
Even if we have a loyal and efficient Police Force (most people have doubts about this) and the law is seldom strictly enforced, the threat of a rule by the Executive is still there. Civil liberties are secured by the law and removable only by the law and not the Executive. It is better to have an Ordinance prohibiting all public gatherings than to impliedly recognise a right of assembly and then punish those who exercise this right.
YMT
20
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.