EU Parliament Resolution on New Security Law
At the end of April, the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the adoption of Article 23, an addition to the national security laws passed in 2020. The resolution urged the Hong Kong government to “immediately repeal the national security laws and to halt its aggressive assault on civil liberties and to release all those arbitrarily detained.”
Resolutions are not legally binding, but they can be used by the EU Parliament to influence other EU institutions’ decision-making.
International Bar Association’s Verdict on New Security Law
Anne Ramberg, co-chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute Council has criticized the new security law. “As well as [placing] pressure on the independence of the legal process and [having an] impact on fundamental human rights, the vague definitions of the crimes in the new NSL allow opportunity for arbitrary and politically motivated prosecutions of any form of dissent,” she said.
Protest Song Banned
After initially losing a High Court battle to have the protest song “Glory to Hong Kong” banned last year, Hong Kong’s government has won the right to ban it through the decisions of three Hong Kong Court of Appeals justices at the start of May. The song features lyrics such as “Liberate Hong Kong.”
Amnesty International’s China Director Sarah Brooks said: “The Hong Kong government’s campaign to ban a song is as ludicrous as it is dangerous. Banning ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ not only represent[s] a senseless attack on Hongkongers’ freedom of expression; it also violates international human rights law.”
Implications for Tech Companies
Hong Kong officials including Chief Executive John Lee have said they want tech firms such as Google to make it difficult to find results that include “Glory to Hong Kong.” Until this ruling, the tech firms had resisted this pressure. But the new ruling appears aimed toward forcing the backtrack.
“‘The Court’s ruling will force global tech companies to abandon their responsibilities under the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which, among other things, compel them to side with international human rights law when there is a conflict with local laws,” said Michael Caster, Asia Digital Programme Manager, calling it a “blatant example of Hong Kong’s embrace of digital repression.”
UK Parliament Report on Foreign Judges in Hong Kong
A report by the UK Parliament’s Committee for the Freedom of Hong Kong has suggested overseas judges used in Hong Kong courts no longer offer outside insight and guidance on court decisions, but rather rubber stamp and legitimise the decisions of the authoritarian regime.
The report notes that overseas non-permanent judges from the UK, Australia, and Canada have been involved in decisions against activists in Hong Kong and voted in ways they were unlikely to in their home jurisdictions. It also notes that non-permanent judges from the U.K. sit in the House of Lords have a conflict of interest in having allegiance to the Crown and to Hong Kong’s government, and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
Leave a Reply