Why We Need BL 23 Offences?
Why we need BL 23 offences by Bob Allcock, Solicitor General
All countries need laws to protect their sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and national security. In the case of China, the national laws on these subjects do not extend to Hong Kong. Instead, the Hong Kong SAR has been given the responsibility of enacting relevant laws to fill the gap that would otherwise arise. This is in full accord with the “one country, two systems” arrangement.
Why aren’t our existing laws on this subject adequate? According to many lawyers, those existing laws already cover most of the activities referred to in Article 23.
This is true. But those laws suffer from a number of defects. The law of treason, for example, is based on the antiquated British law of treason, which largely protects “Her Majesty” or the “Crown of the United Kingdom”. The offence therefore needs to be both modernised and adapted to reflect our new constitutional order.
The current law of sedition has been criticised for being too broad. An offence can be committed by a person who utters “seditious words” even though he has no intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance. Such an offence has been criticised for interfering with freedom of expression. We propose to restrict the offence accordingly.
Can’t we achieve these reforms through amendments to existing laws? Why do we need new offences of secession and subversion? According to the Bar Association, the existing laws are sufficient to deal with subversive activities and activities which advance a secessionist cause. Moreover, secession and subversion are not common law offences. Won’t additional laws on these subjects encroach upon our freedom of speech and other treasured liberties?
The answers to these questions are given in the Consultation Paper. Instead of duplicating existing offences, or creating wholly new types of offences, it is proposed to implement
All countries need laws to protect their sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and national security. In the case of China, the national laws on these subjects do not extend to Hong Kong. Instead, the Hong Kong SAR has been given the responsibility of enacting relevant laws to fill the gap that would otherwise arise. This is in full accord with the “one country, two systems” arrangement.
Why aren’t our existing laws on this subject adequate? According to many lawyers, those existing laws already cover most of the activities referred to in Article 23.
This is true. But those laws suffer from a number of defects. The law of treason, for example, is based on the antiquated British law of treason, which largely protects “Her Majesty” or the “Crown of the United Kingdom”. The offence therefore needs to be both modernised and adapted to reflect our new constitutional order.
The current law of sedition has been criticised for being too broad. An offence can be committed by a person who utters “seditious words” even though he has no intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance. Such an offence has been criticised for interfering with freedom of expression. We propose to restrict the offence accordingly.
Can’t we achieve these reforms through amendments to existing laws? Why do we need new offences of secession and subversion? According to the Bar Association, the existing laws are sufficient to deal with subversive activities and activities which advance a secessionist cause. Moreover, secession and subversion are not common law offences. Won’t additional laws on these subjects encroach upon our freedom of speech and other treasured liberties?
The answers to these questions are given in the Consultation Paper. Instead of duplicating existing offences, or creating wholly new types of offences, it is proposed to implement