日韩精品久久一区二区三区_亚洲色图p_亚洲综合在线最大成人_国产中出在线观看_日韩免费_亚洲综合在线一区

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
China
Home / China / Opinion

Banning masks a good way to restore law, order

By Grenville Cross | China Daily Global | Updated: 2019-10-09 09:19
Share
Share - WeChat
A rioter throws a gasoline bomb at police in Wan Chai. [PHOTO/CHINA DAILY]

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor's announcement on Friday that the Hong Kong government was banning facial coverings by those participating in public meetings, processions, unlawful assemblies or riots is a move in the right direction.

Violent protesters have been relying on anonymity to protect themselves from the consequences of their crimes. The prohibition may give some of them pause for thought.

Similar measures have been adopted around the world, and have proved effective. In the United States, for example, the state of New York adopted a face mask ban for participants in public protests as early as 1845, in order to promote public safety, with some other states following suit.

In 2013, Canada forbade the wearing of face masks by those involved in riots and unlawful assemblies, and introduced an associated offense of wearing a mask with the intent to commit an indictable offense.

The emergency regulations ordinance under which the prohibition has, as the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, taken effect in Hong Kong was enacted in 1922. It is a well-established tool for dealing with grave public order situations. The Basic Law stipulates that pre-1997 ordinances "shall be maintained", unless they "contravene this law". The emergency regulations ordinance clearly does not.

Although some people have claimed that the chief executive does not have powers under the Basic Law to declare a state of emergency, Lam said at her news conference that she was not in fact doing this. The emergency regulations ordinance empowers the chief executive to put in place an emergency regulation in the public interest because of a particular public danger.

On Sept 29 and Oct 1, radical protesters lobbed gasoline bombs, attacked police officers and vandalized subway stations and other public property. Therefore, in order to address an existential public danger, the regulation is legally justified.

The fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance are in no way affected by the prohibition.

Any human rights impact of the prohibition will have been carefully assessed by the Department of Justice's Legal Policy Division, which is aware that the rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and privacy are by no means absolute. They may be subject to restrictions that satisfy the "proportionality test".

As the secretary for justice indicated last week, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, in two landmark judgments, has decided that whenever government decisions are challenged on the basis that they contravene particular rights, a fourfold proportionality test should be applied by the courts.

First, the impugned decision must have a legitimate aim. Second, it must be rationally connected to that aim. Third, any restriction must be no more than is strictly necessary to achieve that aim. Fourth, the court must examine the overall impact of the impugned measure, and decide if a fair balance has been struck between the general (public) interest and the individual rights intruded upon.

Under the Basic Law, it is the function of the Legislative Council to scrutinize legislation, and it cannot be bypassed. That is why the regulation, as subsidiary legislation made by invoking existing legislation (the emergency regulations ordinance), will be presented for scrutiny at the Legislative Council at the first meeting of its new session, on Oct 16.

If the council so wishes, it can then, by resolution, and by virtue of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, amend the regulation. This includes the power to "repeal, add to or vary" the subsidiary legislation. Although any such "negative vetting" does not have a retrospective effect, it must be exercised within 49 days of introduction.

While it will not be possible to prosecute every offender under the regulation, particularly when the numbers are large, there is certainly no safety in numbers. In 1992, the Court of Appeal decided that it is not open to a defendant to resist prosecution on the basis that other suspects have not also been charged with the same offense. Anyone who deliberately breaks the prohibition law is, therefore, liable to prosecution.

Although some people have sought to sensationalize the prohibition, it is a recognized tool of law enforcement around the world. It is a mild response to a grave situation. If it does not do the trick, far tougher measures will be unavoidable.

The author is a former director of public prosecutions for Hong Kong. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

 

(China Daily Global 10/09/2019 page1)

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
 
主站蜘蛛池模板: 久久精品一区二区国产 | 欧美日韩国产精品 | 日韩免费毛片 | 亚洲偷图色综合色就色 | 精品欧美乱码久久久久久 | 日韩视频观看 | 久久久久久久久女黄 | 欧美另类性视频 | 日色视频 | 天堂成人A片永久免费网站 奇米影视四色7777 | 色视频免费版高清在线观看 | 欧美日韩在线视频观看 | 97国产精品最新 | 国产精品成人国产乱一区 | 欧美在线观看一区二区 | 成人欧美日韩视频一区 | 91资源在线观看 | 国产成人黄网在线免 | 亚洲精品国偷拍自产在线观看蜜桃 | 一区二区av在线 | 亚洲欧美中文在线观看4 | 久久精品.com| 色开心婷婷 | 久久亚洲高清 | 天天狠狠色噜噜 | 99久久精品日本一区二区免费 | 亚洲精品久久久久综合中文字幕 | 天天草天天干天天 | 婷婷综合影院 | 国产精品极品美女在线观看免费 | 精品久久久久久蜜臂a∨ | 国产免费av在线 | 99精品99| 国产精品视频免费播放 | 日韩欧美在线观看 | 性做爰片免费视频毛片中文ILO | 日韩高清一区二区 | 欧美久久天天综合香蕉伊 | 国产精品v欧美精品v日韩精品 | 久久秋霞理论电影 | 欧美日韩免费观看视频 |