TNAG-1691-FCO40-2341-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 169

a matter of

of indifference by the public authorities of the People's Republic of China. Any film whose public showing in Hong

Kong might offend, shock, or disturb the public authorities of

the People's Republic would be at risk of censorship on the basis of the censor's belief that its public showing in Hong Kong would seriously prejudice good relations with the People's Republic. The situation is analogous to an applicant's standing to complain of the mere existence of criminal legislation and his liability

to prosecution for his homosexual conduct, as an interference

with his right to respect for his private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention : see Dudgeon Case, judgment of 22nd October 1981, Series A No.45, paragraph 41, where the

Court observed:

"either he respects the law and refrains from engaging

in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his homosexual tendencies, or he commits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution."

Similarly, either a person wishing to show a film which may

offend or may be regarded as likely to offend the

the public

authorities of

of the People's Republic respects the law (as reasonably foreseen) and refrains from making or purchasing such a film for public showing in Hong Kong, or that person makes or

purchases such a film and then becomes liable to censorship against which there is no effective legal remedy. The right to free expression of such a person, and of the film's audience, is

chilled, or indeed frozen, in breach of Article 19.

Significance of similar restraints elsewhere

19. I do not regard as significant the fact that a small number

of States Parties to the ICPR have, or used to have, laws or

measures which enable or used to enable censorship of films on

good relations grounds. In the first place, several States

Parties have abandoned these measures after having ratified the

ICPR. Secondly, the number of States Parties still retaining such

measures is only a tiny

tiny minority among the States Parties. Thirdly, the fact that these States still retain such measures is

not indicative of any general standard or practice. Fourthly, the

16