asked, in such case, 'where then is the right to liberty?'
In fact, the British Government admitted that it did not even tell the people of Hong Kong
anything about their rights under the ICCPR which had been ratified in 1976 until the middle
of last year. One cannot help asking, why, after fifteen years, the British Government has
suddenly decided to propose such a Bill? Presumably, there are good arguments for
protecting human rights in the territory now, for these people must never be forgotten. The
maintenance of such a system is a compelling reason to support the passage of the Bill.
༢=ཏུཝ{སྐྱུན ན? **r5-v72®€99b%€hHP¢73}}!
To serve this aim much remain to be done, such as developing a human rights culture in
Hong Kong, creating human rights consciousness within the next six years, and amending,
to the extent of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights, those six ordinances which are subject.
to a "freeze period" of one year after the Bill comes into operation, and so on. The Bill is
neither a device to oppose China nor just ‘a fake Rolex Watch', on the contrary, its proper
role should be to strengthen the foundation of the existing legal system and thereby to reassure
ordinary people that their rights will be protected. So much so good, and so we hope. It is
right to hold that only if the Bill and the value it stands for are brought into contact with the
lives of ordinary people, and are supported by them, will the system survive." There is
nothing to be offended at these admirable remarks. If the Bill is a real thing--not looks so
much like the real thing--it will obviously distinguish the two systems in the country.
Then, the issue to be examined becomes how to distinguish the two systems, so far as rights
are concerned, how different notions of human rights would affect the interpretation of the
Bill of Rights and the relevant provisions in the Basic law, and how this conflict could be
resolved under the notion of "one country, two systems".
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.