The HK Journalist Association's Critical Views on the Article 23 Draft Bill

(Clearwisdom.net) The HK Journalist Association (HKJA) submitted its opinions on the Article 23 draft bill to the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 7 April 2003. It stated that "The administration clearly needs to go much further in protecting freedom of expression than it has done in the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill. It should in particular incorporate the Johannesburg Principles in the legislation and add public interest and prior publication defenses to the Official Secrets Ordinance."

According to HKJA's submission to the Legislative Council of the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill, HKJA has expressed the view on previous occasions that it is totally opposed to the enactment of national security laws, given that there is no pressing social need for such laws. However, the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill has now been published, and the HKJA wishes to set out its position on the specific provisions, in particular as they affect journalists and other practitioners of freedom of expression.

The HKJA focuses in particular on the offences of sedition and theft of state secrets, as they pose the greatest threat to freedom of expression. However, other provisions are of serious concern to the Association, including those relating to proscription, search and seizure and the abolition of time limits for prosecutions.

HKJA further states that many of the provisions put forward in the bill are highly contentious, and therefore need thorough debate. The HKJA would therefore urge the Legislative Council bills committee to allow sufficient time for this process, to ensure that the bill gives maximum protection to the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people. Any attempt to rush the bill through the legislature would reflect badly on the government and its stated desire to protect individual rights.

HKJA also listed other issues of concern. For example, the revised provisions on the proscription of local organizations (clause 15) fail to reduce the danger that Hong Kong will simply follow mainland legal concepts in banning groups on national security grounds. Beijing may easily issue an "open decree" relating to a mainland organisation, and the stipulation that a local organisation must be "subordinate" to a mainland group may not provide sufficient protection to a local group that is not in breach of any existing Hong Kong law.

Excerpt from: http://clearharmony.net/articles/200305/12187.html