were attempting to exercise these rights by presenting a petition
to the Governor.
As the defense counsel stated, under Common Law
(and under the Covenant), an assembly would be unlawful where
it can be shown that the participants possessed criminal intent
to endanger the public order. In Yaumatei case, there was no actual
breach of the peace. During the trial, the Crown even conceded
that there was no evidence of violence and that it was a credit to
the demonstratiors and the police that both hehaved in a civilized
manner. There was no intent to breach the peace since the boat people
only wanted to petition the Governor and not cause a public disturbance.
Finally, there was also no possibility of a breach of the peace occurring.
This could be ascertained from the past actions organized by the
boat people which had been peaceful and never bordered on a possible
disturbance and were all held without a license.
Another important point made by the defense was that
the confines of the Public Order Ordinance, there was reasonable
excuse to dispense with the requirement of a permit since the act
of petitioning the Governor, in and of itself, provides lawful
authority for such an assembly, It would seen that people who are
governed under a political system allegedly representing all citizens
should be able to voice their opinions and state their demands to
government officials and that this act be recognized as a right of
the people. Given these facts, the actions taken by the government
in the Yanmatei case violated Articles 19 and 21.
3. RAMIFICATIONS OF THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT
What are the ramifications of these actions by the
police and the judicial ayatem on the people of Hong Kong? The
right of the people to petition and voice their opinions has been
effectively stifled, if not completely, curtailed. Such drastic
action by the government has had a chilling effect upon the exercise
of fundamental rights. Following the trial, numerous social work
organizations engaged in community organizing, for example, sent letters to the editor (see Appendix 3 and 4) expressing concern
as to how they could function under the interpretation of the Public
Order Ordinance announced by the High Court. Contact with the
- 7
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.