TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 252

+

CONFIDENTIAL

self-executing,

instead

20

機密

of being merely a directive

to

require the enactment of laws. On balance, we propose to leave the texts alone, especially if the recommendation in paragraph below is adopted.

43.

This

However,

Another problem is with Article

Article 17 which

which states

that propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred "shall be prohibited by law." Article corresponds to Article 20 of the ICCPR.

because of a reservation, the Government is under по obligation to introduce "further legislation" in respect of Article 20 of the ICCPR. The White Bill attempted to

a provision

reflect this reservation by incorporating

(Clause 13) to the effect that there is no obligation to legislate further in respect of Article 17. However, the Administration now believes that the Bill does not reflect

the international reservation, since Article 17 is itself

likely to be construed as being "further legislation" in

respect of Article 20 of the ICCPR. If this is so, the

Bill does more than implement the obligations of the Government under the ICCPR as applied in Hong Kong. If Article 17 is not construed as "further legislation" but as

merely creating an obligation to legislate in respect of propaganda for war (etc), that obligation contradicts Clause 13 which says there is no such obligation. Neither construction produces a desirable result. It can therefore

be argued that Article 17 and Clause 13 should be deleted

from the Bill.

44.

If Article 17 and Clause 13 are retained, this can be defended by the argument that the ICCPR reservation does

not necessarily preclude the enactment of further legislation. However, the Chinese could rightly claim that

the BOR does more than the Government is required to do

CONFIDENTIAL 機密

20