2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
しこ16
17
18
19
20
21
223
23
24
44 25
26
27
2223
Further, following well recognised legal principles, a judge. cannot substitute his own discretion, for that of the Censor. This illustration shows very clearly that, by merely requiring the censor to take Article 19 into account, without requiring him to comply with it, will result in a situation where
clause a film can legitimately be banned under Section 10(2)(c) even though it contravenes Article 19.
If Members of this Committee really want to ensure that Article 19 will be adhered to.- and that seems to be the avowed objective of the Members, including the Honourable how.
YEUNG Po-kwan - by the Censor in his exercising his
clays powers under Section 10(2)(c), then I urge Members to adopt my formula. For to adopt the Government's proposal now
contained in the Honourable Mr. YEUNG Po-kwan's amendment,
is but to pay lip service to Article 19.
Indeed, for reasons which I will develop later on when I
نهال
deal specifically with some of the objections to my proposal, I believe that it is better to introduce Section 10(2)(c)
The proposed clause
The
without Section 10(3)(d) than with it.
In any event, since the intention of my Honourable colleagues is to pass a law which makes it necessary for the Censor to comply with Article 19 rather than to infringe it; and since the Honourable Mr. YEUNG Po-kwan's proposal is open to uncertainty, whereas my proposal is clear beyond argument I will submit that on that ground alone, my proposal should be adopted.
28
29
www w
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Before I deal with the arguments which have so far been raised against my proposal, it is pertinent to note that the United Kingdom Government has not signed the option of protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Private citizens in Hong Kong have
no right to apply to the Human Rights Committee set up
Page 270Page 271
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.