In many former British colònies, the legal artefacts fashioned by the colonialists have been
pressed into service by the new regime to stifle debate, freedom of the press, the right of
association and competitive politics. The common law has been proved to be a fragile reed
in the face of these extensive statutory basis of arbitrariness. So it would be a very good,
sincere, and timely warning to Hong Kong that there should be "a thorough and careful
examination of the present legislation to eliminate broad and untrammelled discretion and to
ensure that amendments are made to bring them in line with the Basic Law"i
While the notion of human rights itself has been uncontroversial, there has been a great deal
of debates on the nature and contents of human rights and on the rivals in context. The
debate has arisen primarily because of the ideological differences on the priority of different
human rights standards and on the different attitudes towards human rights protection.
The question can be boiled down to this: Which one you would prefer, law or justice? Rights
or duties? Individuals or the State?
Justice or Law? My answer is that of Lord Denning's. He said, "You see, there are always
two ways of interpreting a statute. Words are never absolutely clear and when there's a
choice I always tend to the interpretation which will do justice. I'm not sure the House of
Lords always thinks that way....They think the great aim is certainly in the law. My aim is
justice. If I don't feel I have done justice in a case I can't sleep at nights.
m17
Lord Denning believed that the law should constantly change and develop, in order to cope
with the changing society. Hence he always rejected the "literary" approach of interpretation,
and tried to do justice in the case before him, sometimes in spite of contrary precedents. That
12
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.