اللامية نت
CCPR/C/SR.857 page 10
"
43.
Mr. WENNERGREN referring to the concept of false news, said it was important to know whether such news had been published intentionally or negligently. If the legal provision concerned extended to negligence, that seemed to endanger the very foundations of the freedom of expression. His understanding was that according to the new law a defendant could escape conviction only if he could provide evidence that he had had reasonable grounds to believe that the information was true. That put the burden of proof on the accused. Moreover, it could lead to journalists being asked in court to reveal their sources. That was contrary to the ethics of journalism and a danger to the freedom of expression. He would like the United Kingdom delegation to comment on those points.
44.
45.
Mr. Prado Vallejo resumed the Chair.
Mr. LALLAH said that, with the indulgence of the Committee and the United Kingdom delegation, his questions would also touch on other sections of the list of issues, particularly sections XI and XIII, which concerned matters that were especially important for Hong Kong at its present stage of political development
46. The Committee had already heard that steps were being taken to introduce direct elections to the legislature in Hong Kong. In that connection, he asked whether any steps were being taken to regulate the formation of political parties in Hong Kong: would there be a law and, if so, of what type? He also inquired how the leaders of such parties would be able to impart their ideas if large meetings were not allowed and if, in particular, as he understood from paragraph 81 of the section of the report on Hong Kong
(CCPR/C/32/Add.14, annex F), no loudspeakers were authorized. Would the political leaders have access to the mass media and what restrictions was it intended to place on the right of peaceful assembly and association? Further, would political parties have to be registered?
47.
He had asked all those questions, not merely to gain information, but to find out how much progress had been made in the light of article 40 (1) of the Covenant. He hoped that they would help the United Kingdom delegation to discuss those matters with their authorities.
48.
Mr. WAKO said that his main concerns had already been dealt with by the questions asked by the previous speakers. There were, however, two further points on which he would welcome comments from the United Kingdom delegation.
49.
Firstly, he noted that the definition of blasphemous matter (CCPR/C/32/Add.4, annex F, para. 152) included denial of the truth of the Christian religion or the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer or the existence of God. It seemed to him that to apply that definition in Hong Kong, where there were many Chinese people who were not Anglican or even Christian, would be contrary to article 18 of the Covenant.
50.
Secondly, he noted that the Official Secrets Act of 1911 still applied to all the dependent territories, including Hong Kong. Section 2 of that Act had been much criticized and seemed to conflict with article 19 of the Covenant, especially with the right not only to the freedom of expression, but to the freedom to seek, receive and impart information.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.