TNAG-2004-FCO40-2852-Hong-Kong-political-parties-1990 — Page 86

The background to these cases is that last summer,

before and after the Tiananmen tragedy, some of the

normal controls on demonstrations provided for by Hong Kong law were, exceptionally, not rigorously enforced for obvious reasons. From last autumn, however, as the mood

in the territory returned to normal, the police began to

warn organisers of demonstrations of the need to comply with the law or face prosecution./ Most people complied. But a small minority have set out deliberately to flout

the law, with the aim of making political capital of the

charges against them.

Mr Ashdown makes a number of specific points in

relation to these cases We do not however accept his

version of events. While Hong Kong people have the

freedom under the law to participate in protest

demonstrations, no groups are above the law and all must abide by its provisions. It is true that there have not

2 by

that

been a great number of prosecutions for loudhailer

offences or for the unauthorised collection of money.

But as explained in the preceding paragraph, there has

been an increase in these activities in Hong Kong since last summer/and a growing number of examples of the law being abused. It is certainly not true, however

for protecha the individuals concerned were singled out by the Hong Kong authorities. In fact, they were repeatedly warned

that they were infringing the law before summons action

was taken. Nor is it true that the timing of the charges was designed to dampen events commemorating the incidents

of 4 June. The cases were listed for hearing in the

normal way.

Finally, we do not accept that Mr Ashdown is

correct in asserting that the relevant laws almost

certainly violate the Bill of Rights which is to be introduced in Hong Kong. The relevant provisions of the

NOBAEF