Page 366 of 498
410
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
activities that involve political issues, that are about different opinions, or that are controversial. That was entirely a stealthy replacement of concepts. Our first concept is that we, to manifest artistic freedom, will not use politics as an aim for censor, for we believe that giving all art forms the space to flourish and having various kinds of discussions are conducive to the development of art. However, that does not mean that we need to evade when cultural and artistic activities have political contents.
In fact, it is very apparent that this reflects a 'bird cage' mentality, that is although we agree to artistic freedom, such freedom is required to be within the confines of this 'bird cage'. This 'bird cage' is not the one I have just mentioned about the stipulation in the International Covenant pertaining to the limitations which are not in conflict with these rights but are for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. This 'bird cage' has many restrictions, including the stand of non-interference. According to this 'bird cage', it is best if one does not put one's finger in China's pie, and one is to ignore matters on which China holds different views. This precisely reflects a very strong message in China's policy on culture. For instance, films that are deemed to have contents that oppose the Chinese Government or the Chinese race are invariably denounced by the Chinese cultural authorities and considered unfriendly behaviour. This 'bird cage' policy, if applied to Hong Kong's future development, is our cause for concern, for we members of the Democratic Party deem such restrictions unnecessary. Furthermore, considering the principle on which we reached consensus as I have mentioned, it is impossible to put forward any arguments to support such restrictions.
Politics and art are indeed interrelated. We oppose the use of politics to lead art. Art is about all aspects of life and often touches on political issues. We believe that if we respect artistic freedom, then we must allow artists to deal with different topics, and that there should not be restrictions even when art involves political views with which we disagree. The only circumstance under which limitations can be applied is when the limitations are compatible with the nature of rights as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We should recognise that the right to enjoy freedom should be given priority and must not be exchanged for welfare or economic benefits. The only aspect that requires limitation is whether or not the exercising of such rights conflicts with other freedoms and rights, and we should not impose limitations until we have comprehensively contemplated whether there is conflict in the various areas. Of course, we are not advocating the idea of absolute wanton freedom for all art forms, for this is impossible, as any person with a sound mind would know. Also, we disagree to vandalism in the name of behavioral art, for it is very obvious that the freedom thus expressed conflicts with other people's freedom, and that restrictions should be imposed on such behaviour on the grounds of democratic and public welfare.
Actually, what I wish to express is that we must exercise great caution. We must never cause an organisation that promotes policies on culture and art
Page 366 of 498
Page 366 of 498
410
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
activities that involve political issues, that are about different opinions, or that are controversial. That was entirely a stealthy replacement of concepts. Ou first concept is that we, to manifest artistic freedom, will not use politics as ar. aim for censor, for we believe that giving all art forms the space to flourish and having various kinds of discussions are conducive to the development of art. However, that does not mean that we need to evade when cultural and artistic activities have political contents.
In fact, it is very apparent that this reflects a 'bird cage' mentality, that is although we agree to artistic freedom, such freedom is required to be withic the confines of this 'bird cage. This 'bird cage' is not the one I have jus! mentioned about the stipulation in the International Covenant pertaining tc the limitations which are not in conflict with these rights but are for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. This 'bird cage' has many restrictions, including the stand of non-interference. According to this 'bird cage', it is best if one does not put one's finger in China's pie, and one is to ignore matters on which China holds different views. This precisely reflects a very strong message in China's policy on culture. For instance, film: that are deemed to have contents that oppose the Chinese Government or the Chinese race are invariably denounced by the Chinese cultural authorities and considered unfriendly behaviour. This 'bird cage' policy, if applied to Hong Kong's future development, is our cause for concern, for we members of the Democratic Party deem such restrictions unnecessary. Furthermore. considering the principle on which we reached consensus as I have mentioned. it is impossible to put forward any arguments to support such restrictions.
Politics and art are indeed interrelated. We oppose the use of politics to lead art. Art is about all aspects of life and often touches on political issues. We believe that if we respect artistic freedom, then we must allow artists to dež with different topics, and that there should not be restrictions even when art involves political views with which we disagree. The only circumstance under which limitations can be applied is when the limitations are compatible wit the nature of rights as stipulated by the International Covenant on Economiz. Social and Cultural Rights. We should recognise that the right to enjo freedom should be given priority and must not be exchanged for welfare e economic benefits. The only aspect that requires limitation is whether or nee the exercising of such rights conflicts with other freedoms and rights, and we should not impose limitations until we have comprehensively contemplated ♫ there is conflict in the various areas. Of course, we are not advocating the idea of absolute wanton freedom for all art forms, for this is impossible, as an person with a sound mind would know. Also, we disagree to vandalism in the name of behavioral art, for it is very obvious that the freedom thus expressed conflicts with other people's freedom, and that restrictions should be impose on such behaviour on the grounds of democratic and public welfare.
Actually, what I wish to express is that we must exercise great caution. We must never cause an organisation that promotes policics on culture and art 12
Page 366 of 498
∞
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.