TNAG-1814-FCO40-2575-Hong-Kong-Film-Censorship-Ordinance-1988-(No.-25-of-1988)-1988 — Page 3

relations with other territories" (the "political censorship" provision) was incompatible with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). The Foreign and Commonwealth

Commonwealth Office was of the opinion that the provision was not incompatible with Article 19 of the Covenant. This view was to a certain extent confirmed by Professor Eric Barendt, an Oxford professor, invited by the Hon. Martin Lee to provide an opinion on the issue.

11

political In the

revised "white" Bill, the criterion of "political censorship" has been revised as follows

This

whether there is a likelihood that the exhibition of the film would seriously damage good

territories.

"I

relations

with

other

the

is the compromise wording which found favour

favour with majority of the Group at a meeting on 2 September 1987. It is a narrower version ("seriously damage" as opposed to "damage") of the provision in the present Film Censorship Regulations, viz.

damage good relations ..

Legal advice is that this formulation is also not incompatible with the Article 19 of the Covenant.

12

11

IT

Before arriving at the understanding on the present formulation, we were asked by the Group to re-justify the need for such powers. We were also asked to consider again

again the possibility of qualifying the principle with a proviso along the lines of Article 19 of the Covenant, as proposed by the Group in relation to the Film Censorship Regulations 1987. We were, however, able to convince the majority of the Group that the power was indeed necessary and that the proposed qualifications would effectively remove the ability of the censors to ban films under this criterion.

13

We were also asked to consider the possibility of devising alternative formulations. Numerous variations of and derivations from the wording of the relevant qualifications in Article 19 have been attempted and discarded. Various similar provisions currently applied in other territories have also been considered. However, every single

single one was unacceptable for one reason or another.

14

In the end, we succeeded in identifying the bottom line position held by the majority of the Group and secured their tacit acceptance of the compromise formulation in paragraph 11 above. We believe that this formulation should be broadly acceptable to the Group.