TNAG-1814-FCO40-2575-Hong-Kong-Film-Censorship-Ordinance-1988-(No.-25-of-1988)-1988 — Page 262

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO 1177

OF 220945Z MARCH 88

HUD 301/1

ний

CONFIDENTIAL

006254

MDLIAN 4228

TO?.

COPY ST 7

FILM CENSORSHIP BILL

ΜΙΡΤ

1.

WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SUGGEST LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT COULD BE ADVANCED IF IT WERE PROPOSED THAT THE REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 19 BE INSERTED INTO CLAUSE 10(2) RATHER THAN 1U(3). THE MOST DIFFICULT CASE TO ANSWER IS ONE WHICH PROPOSES DUAL CRITERIA FOR CLAUSE 10(2) (C) OF LIKELIHOOD OF SERIOUSLY DAMAGING GOOD RELATIONS AND CAND) PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY OR PUBLIC ORDER, ORDRE PUBLIC.

2. THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH SO FAR ARE-

(A)

NEITHER INTERNATIONAL LAW NOR THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT REQUIRE ANY RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TO BE ONLY (ONLY) IN THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 19(3).

(B)

ARTICLE 19(3) DESCRIBES IN GENERAL TERMS THE BOUNDARY OF PERMITTED RESTRICTIONS, A STATE PARTY MUST BE FREE TO SPECIFY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY.

(C) THE PRESENT WORDING IS MORE CERTAIN THAN THAT IN ARTICLE 19 AND IS HONG KONG'S ASSESSMENT OF THE TYPE OF RESTRICTION NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION SET OUT IN ARTICLE 19(3).

3. YOUR LEGAL ADVISERS MAY BE ABLE TO SUGGEST FURTHER ARGUMENTS. APPRECIATE REPLY BEFORE END OF THIS WEEK.

FORD

YYYY

PAGE 1 CONFIDENTIAL

الله