Source: Sing Tao Daily
Sing Tao Editorial
The High Court earlier refused to grant an interim injunction on the "Hong Kong Independence" song "Glory to Hong Kong". The Secretary for Justice, Lam Ting-kwok, decided to appeal the relevant judgment yesterday. The official appeal is not surprising, because the incident involves the maintenance of national security and the dignity of the national anthem. It is necessary to clarify the point of view and allow the Court of Appeal to make a judgment on the judgment of the Court of First Instance. Independence" zero tolerance message, to fulfill the constitutional responsibility to maintain national security.
Freedom of speech has a bottom line that cannot be crossed
Considering the effectiveness of the injunction, the lack of a specific defendant, and the difficulty in enforcing the law; the enforcement of the injunction will conflict with relevant criminal laws, and the possible "chilling effect" of the injunction, and other factors, the High Court judge rejected the legal order. An application for an interim restraining order by the Secretary of State. After the judgment was issued, it caused a social uproar, saying that the court's judgment only focused on the technical issues of law enforcement, but ignored the overriding requirements of maintaining national security.
Since Hong Kong follows the common law, the courts will only hear the cases based on the evidence presented and legal opinions, and will not consider any political factors. Therefore, even if the judiciary has the obligation to maintain national security, it can only be maintained through the legal level. . In order to maintain the spirit of the rule of law and the common law system in Hong Kong, Lin Tingguo had to follow the legal procedures and go through the appeal process to refute some of the legal opinions that he disagreed with in the High Court judgment one by one, and seek the court's own correction.
In the past few days, people in the society have continued to speak out and put forward some different opinions on the judgment of the High Court. First of all, the court believes that the behavior targeted by the injunction is a criminal offense, which can be covered by the "Hong Kong National Security Law", and the punishment of the "Hong Kong National Security Law" is far heavier than that of the injunction. Why is it still necessary to apply for an injunction? ? The court is even more worried that the enforcement procedure of the injunction may conflict with the prosecution procedure for crimes endangering national security under the Hong Kong National Security Law, resulting in "two trials of one crime".
Since the enactment of the "Hong Kong National Security Law", it has played a role in stabilizing the sea. The National Security Law only targets the four most serious crimes of secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activities, and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security. As for other relatively minor crimes , can be dealt with through other laws or legal tools, and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to choose which law to use for prosecution, and there is no need for judges to worry about "two crimes". Therefore, the more comprehensive the legal tools for safeguarding national security, the more stable the social security and order in Hong Kong. The national security law and the injunction should not conflict with each other, but can complement each other.
As for the difficulty of enforcing the law, it is also untenable as a reason for refusing to issue an injunction. Because of the difficulty of law enforcement, it is even more necessary to seek the cooperation of the court and carry out in the form of an injunction, which will be more effective. Just as the Department of Justice filed an application for an injunction in court that day, various online platforms immediately removed "Glory to Hong Kong" from their shelves in order to avoid exposure to Hong Kong's legal risks, reflecting that the difficulty of enforcing the law may be taken for granted.
In addition, the court is worried that the injunction may have a "chilling effect", so that people with innocent motives may choose not to participate in normal activities involving the song out of fear of the serious consequences of violating the injunction, which will affect the freedom of speech. Humans are incomprehensible. The judge agreed that "Glory to Hong Kong" was effectively used to incite others to split the country or had an inciting intent. The song advocated "Hong Kong independence" and touched the red line of the National Security Law. normal activities", it is easy for people to misunderstand, thinking that it is a normal song, downloading and reposting it on the Internet, and finally falling into the law by mistake. The song appeared on the YouTube platform under the title "Hong Kong National Anthem", which caused foreigners to mistakenly regard the song as the national anthem when they searched online, and it was frequently played in international sports events.
Clarifying Views Court Self-Correcting Ruling
In fact, freedom of speech is not unlimited. Take Germany as an example. There is a law prohibiting songs praising the Nazi Party and displaying Nazi symbols. Germany’s move did not attract criticism against freedom of speech. Why did the Hong Kong court link the ban on "Hong Kong independence" songs with freedom of speech, and "innocent people?" A third party has an impact" and so on.
Since "Glory to Hong Kong" is a solo song, which is related to national security interests, it is necessary for the Department of Justice to appeal to affirm its point of view, request the court to correct itself, and send a clear message to the society that banning the song is reasonable, reasonable and legal. Let the public understand that downloading, disseminating, distributing and performing all constitute criminal offenses with serious consequences, and do not try the law by yourself.
