The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government quoted the Emergency Regulations in October in October, but was challenged by the Judicial challenges of the Pan -democratic people. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal today ruled that the Hong Kong Government won the lawsuit and stated that the banning of the masked law aims to deal with violence and masters.Damage to the rule of law.
At the same time, this means that in the parade and rally in Hong Kong, the demonstrators will be illegal if they are masked.
Comprehensive Hong Kong media reports that the Court of Final Appeal made the government's victory over the emergency law and the ban on masses this morning, that is, the government cited the emergency law to formulate the constitution of the ban on the banning of the masses, and the ban on the mask itself was also constitutional.
The Court of Final Appeal pointed out that although the banning of masses restricting rally, freedom of speech, and privacy rights, related rights are not absolute, they must be legally restricted by public security, public order, and guaranteeing the rights of others;It is commensurate with the approval of assembly, public rally and public parade. It is to avoid peaceful public assembly into violence, which is fair and balanced between social interests and personal rights.
The Court of Final Appeal emphasized that in October last year, there has been a corruption of legal order in Hong Kong last year. The ban on masked law aims to deal with violence and illegal situations that last for many months.The situation became severe, and the citizens did not dare to go out, causing serious inconvenience to the general public.
In addition, the interests of people who want peaceful demonstrations but are prohibitive because of the continuous occurrence of violence, as well as those who have suffered harm and property due to violent demonstrations, and the overall interests of Hong Kong.Under the hidden identity of masked demonstrators, they thought that they did not need to be subject to legal sanctions to damage the rule of law. The ban on masked law was a commemorative response made by the government.
Liang Guoxiong (Chang Mao), vice chairman of the Social Ministry, said that the decision of the Court of Final Appeal and the Ban Masked Law was disappointed.Whether a speech of the Legislative Working Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China or the mainland government can overlook the judicial institutions of Hong Kong, and whether the judicial institutions cannot be the separation of the three powers.
He pointed out that the ban on citizens from participating in peaceful rally or approved rally is a very harsh approach, and unnecessary conditions for citizens' assembly and demonstration freedom.
After the outbreak of Hong Kong's anti -repair examples in June last year, some demonstrators were masked with helmets, masks and other items when they marched on the streets. During this period, physical conflicts with the police had a physical conflict.In October last year, the Hong Kong Government cited the Anti -Facial Law for the emergency law on the grounds of harm.
Subsequently, a number of democratic members of the Legislative Council applied for judicial review to the High Court, asking the court to issue an urgent law and the invalidity and unconstitutional law of the prohibition;The party can establish an emergency rules for "harmful public security". It is a provision that violates the power of the Chief Executive, the Executive Council and the Legislative Council in violation of the Basic Law. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.Reasonable, so it is also unconstitutional.
The Hong Kong Department of Justice did not accept the ruling and claimed an appeal in the same month, requiring the court to suspend the implementation of the suspicious ruling of the forbidden masses.
In April of this year, the Hong Kong Appeals Division ruled that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government quoted the Emergency Law Constitution in the case of "harmful public security".The provisions of removing masked items are unconstitutional.The Appeals Division also ordered the prohibition to be masked under illegal assemblies and unprecedented assembly, but legal rally and parade can be masked.
The Appeals Division believes that the prohibition of masses in illegal assemblies or unsatisfactory assemblies does not exceed its legitimate purposes. The laws need to stop people from wearing masked items to hinder the legitimate public security regulations that prevent the legitimate regulations on public security regulations.implement.
As for the legitimate rally and parade, the appeal court considers that the police have the power to regulate the legal assembly. When the behavior of gathered violence or disturbing order, the police also have the power to dissolve.Public assembly or public parade.
