There may be a ray of hope in Hong Kong’s increasingly dark and dysfunctional judicial system.
In the wake of the passage of the 2020 National Security Law, Hong Kong judges have been falling all over themselves to rule that such-and-such exercise of free speech jeopardizes national security and such-and-such financial support for an exiled pro-democracy activist jeopardizes national security, etc. They contend that such rulings are aboveboard, constitutional, and righteous because backed by the provisions of the dictatorial National Security Law.
The government of Hong Kong has declared that it will appeal a judicial refusal to grant an injunction to prohibit all online and offline performance or even mention of “Glory to Hong Kong,” the anthem of the 2019 Hong Kong pro-democracy movement. Judge Anthony Chan didn’t see a “solid basis” for such an injunction. However, the judge’s explanation as reported by Radio Free Asia (“Hong Kong government reboots injunction bid over banned anthem ‘Glory to Hong Kong,’ ” August 7, 2023) is peculiar and dispiriting:
The Court of First Instance rejected the government application for an injunction on performances or references to the song on July 28, citing a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
Judge Anthony Chan said he couldn’t see how an injunction, which the government wanted to include online platforms visible from Hong Kong, would help.
“I am unable to see a solid basis for believing that the invocation of the civil jurisdiction can assist in the enforcement of the law in question,” Chan said in the ruling, adding that there is already plenty of criminal law that could be used instead.
Judge Chan rejected the government’s request for an injunction. Good. Judge Chan said such an injunction would have a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression. Good. But then—what’s this?—Judge Chan also helpfully pointed out that “there is already plenty of criminal law that could be used instead.”
Could be used to do what? Outlaw all mentions of “Glory to Hong Kong” and exert the government-demanded chilling effect on speech?
There may be more than one way to skin a cat. But if it is morally wrong to skin the cat, none of those ways should be used.
A few weeks earlier, another Hong Kong court was more obliging than Judge Chan’s, sending Cheng Wing-chun, a photographer, to jail for three months “for insulting China’s national anthem after he paired footage of a Hong Kong athlete winning a medal with audio of the banned protest song, ‘Glory to Hong Kong,’ and posted the clip to YouTube.” In order to insert “Glory to Hong Kong,” Cheng Wing-chun had removed China’s national anthem from the soundtrack.
