TNAG-2556-FCO40-3731-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-Societies-(Amendment)-Bill-1992-1992 — Page 77

CONFIDENTIAL

HKC 241/4

CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG

TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELNO 1170

OF 291047Z APRIL 92

INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG

20

141244

MDHIAN 1997

см

Q DD

TOP COPY

?

R3

YRTELNO 706: BILL OF RIGHTS: REVIEW OF LEGISLATION: SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

1. OUR LEGAL ADVISERS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PERSONALLY REMAIN OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONCEPT OF SECURITY AS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 18 OF THE BOR IS WIDE ENOUGH TO INCLUDE AVOIDING SERIOUS DAMAGE TO RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES, AT LEAST WHERE THOSE RELATIONS (AS IN THE CASE OF CHINA) ARE CRUCIAL TO HONG KONG'S WELL-BEING. THE KEY HERE IS SERIOUS DAMAGE TO RELATIONS, NOT MERE ANNOYANCE ON THE PART OF A NEIGHBOURING COUNTRY. FOR THIS REASON, IT IS MOST UNLIKELY THAT THE POWER TO PROHIBIT WOULD BE USED AGAINST, FOR EXAMPLE, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, A HONG KONG BRANCH OF WHICH ALREADY EXISTS. ITS MOST LIKELY USE WOULD BE AGAINST OVERSEAS CHINESE DISSIDENT ORGANISATIONS, E.G. THE NEW YORK-BASED CHINESE ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY OR THE PARIS-BASED FEDERATION FOR DEMOCRACY IN CHINA. WERE THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH AN ORGANISATION LIKELY TO CREATE DISCORD IN HONG KONG, RELIANCE COULD ALSO BE PLACE ON THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC ORDER CORDRE PUBLIC) IN ARTICLE 18.

2. YOU MAY RECALL THAT THIS ISSUE AROSE IN 1987/88 IN CONNECTION

WITH AN AMENDMENT OF THE FILM CENSORSHIP ORDINANCE TO PERMIT CENSORSHIP WHERE THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD THAT EXHIBITION OF A FILM WOULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE GOOD RELATIONS WITH ANOTHER TERRITORY. YOU AGREED THEN THAT SUCH A PROVISION WAS NOT/NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 19.2 OF THE ICCPR BUT THAT IT COULD ONLY BE EXERCISED FOR

ONE OR MORE OF THE RELEVANT PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 19.3 NAMELY PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY OF OF PUBLIC ORDER CORDRE PUBLIC).

3. AS YOU HAVE NOTED, OUR AMENDED POWERS DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SOCIETIES WITH OR WITHOUT OVERSEAS AFFILIATIONS. SUCH A DISTINCTION WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS ORDINANCE. ALL SOCIETIES WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME GROUNDS FOR PROHIBITION. BUT IN BRIEFING THE CHINESE, WE BELIEVE THAT WE MUST REFER TO OUR LONG-STANDING POLICY OF NOT INTENDING TO ALLOW

1

PAGE CONFIDENTIAL

شرام