TNAG-2176-FCO40-3113-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 98

BALVALE

(Arcicio 14),

should

Bound

freedom

of

information

richte 20

(Article 16) and the

prohibition of discrimination (Artiole 12).

oresen

believe

ICCPR provisions, could leza

dince there is at

ño specific legislation governing these areas, they

that chese rights. couched in the general terms of the

confusion in the business

sector with

regard

contemplated

the

legality of existing

and

obligations and

well-established

practices.

contractual

They fear this uncertainty could have a seriously

detrimental effect on Hong

Centre.

Kong as a business and financial

16.

rights

specific

We accept that the

02

concerns about Article 14 M

privacy are valid because, in the absence of any

legislation, it could be commercially disruptive,

Commission is studying the subject of

Since the Law Reform

privacy with

vicw

legislation. We

have

article to the

to making recommendations for detailed

concluded that the application of this

private sector should be deferred until such

legislation is enacted. Clause 7(3) and (4) reflect this.

17.

of

:

We do not, however, accept that the right to freedom

expression (including the freedom Co seek, receive and

impart information) in Article 16 and the anti-discrimination

provisions in Article 22

disruptive.

Claims

of the Bill would also be

under these articles against the private

sector are unlikely to be successful. An individual's freedom