久久久无码人妻精品无码_6080YYY午夜理论片中无码_性无码专区_无码人妻品一区二区三区精99

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
China
Home / China / Focus on Hong Kong

Banning face masks: One step towards restoring law and order

By Grenville Cross | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2019-10-06 16:03
Share
Share - WeChat
Grenville Cross. [Photo/chinadaily.com.cn]

The Chief Executive's announcement on Friday, that the government plans a ban on facial coverings by those who participate in public meetings and processions, as well as on those involved in unlawful and unauthorized assembles and riots, is a move in the right direction.

Like the bank robbers and rapists who don balaclava helmets, the men and women of violence, who have become an integral part of every public protest, rely on anonymity to protect themselves from the consequences of their crimes. This prohibition may at least give some of them pause for thought, although probably not the hard core. The violence and wanton destruction of recent times have been designed to undermine the rule of law, and anything that might deter those responsible from further depredations is to be welcomed. Quite clearly, people who have to display their faces in public are less likely to commit serious offences.

Similar measures, moreover, have already been adopted around the world, including North America and Europe, and have proved effective. In the US, for example, New York State adopted a face mask ban for participants in public protests as early as 1845, in order to promote public safety, with many other states following suit. In 2013, Canada also proscribed the wearing of face masks by those involved in riots and unlawful assemblies, although it also went one step further, and introduced an associated offence of wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241), under which the prohibition has, as a regulation, been effected, was enacted in 1922. It is a well-established tool for dealing with grave public order situations. The Basic Law, moreover, stipulates that pre-1997 ordinances "shall be maintained", unless they "contravene this Law", which the ERO clearly does not.

A protester has a gasoline bomb ready in hand during an illegal rally in Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong, Oct 1, 2019. [Photo/China Daily]

Although some people have claimed that the Chief Executive in Council does not have the power under the Basic Law to declare a state of emergency, Lam was at pains at her press conference to explain that she was not in fact doing this. What the ERO empowers the Chief Executive in Council to do is to put in place an emergency regulation where this is in the public interest, because of a particular public danger, and this is exactly what has happened. On September 29 and October 1, masked thugs indulged in wanton violence, threw petrol bombs, attacked police officers, vandalised MTR stations and other public property, and the situation is ongoing. As an additional means, therefore, of addressing an existential public danger, the Regulation is legally justified.

Any suggestions, moreover, that that the Regulation infringes the basic rights of assembly and protest are irresponsible, and based on ignorance. The fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) are in no way affected by the prohibition, whatever the Civic Party's alarmists might claim. Any human rights impact of the prohibition will have been carefully assessed by the Department of Justice's highly experienced Legal Policy Division, which will have been keenly aware that the rights of, for example, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and privacy, are by no means absolute, and may be subject to restrictions which satisfy the proportionality test.

As the Secretary for Justice indicated last week, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, in two landmark judgments (FACV 8/2010, FACV 21/2015), has decided that, whenever government decisions are challenged on the basis that they contravene particular rights, a four-fold proportionality test should be applied by the courts. The impugned decision must, firstly, have a legitimate aim. Then, secondly, it must be rationally connected to that aim. Any restriction, thirdly, must be no more than is strictly necessary to achieve that aim. Then, finally, 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. Applying these criteria to the Regulation, and given the need to protect society from thugs who conceal their identities when committing the gravest types of crime in order to avoid detection, there can clearly be no doubt that it is constitutionally defensible.

Of course, under the Basic Law, it is the function of the Legislative Council to scrutinize legislation, and it cannot simply be by-passed. This is precisely why the Regulation, as subsidiary legislation made by invoking existing legislation (the ERO), will be tabled for scrutiny at the Legislative Council at the first meeting of its new session, on October 16. If the Council so wishes, it can then, by resolution, and by virtue of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap 1), 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 the tabling.

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, in its judgment in the Soo Fat Ho case, 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 offence. Anyone who deliberately breaks the prohibition law is, therefore, liable to prosecution, even if there are logistical problems in holding each and every offender to account. In other words, provided cases are brought in good faith, there is no basis for offenders to claim that, because not everyone has been charged, they have been "selectively prosecuted", In practice, where there are many suspects, prosecutors will generally prioritize the ringleaders.

Of more concern, however, are the maximum penalties provided for the two offences. Whereas 12 months imprisonment and a fine of HK$25,000 is the highest sentence for a person wearing a facial covering, 6 months' imprisonment and a fine of $10,000 is the maximum for someone who refuses to remove it when asked by a police officer. Such maxima may well be an insufficient deterrent for many of the thugs, and they may require review. By comparison, the maximum sentence in Canada for its parallel offence is 10 years' imprisonment, and, if the current penalties are not effective, a substantial enhancement will be unavoidable.

Although some people have sought to sensationalize the prohibition, it is a recognized tool of law enforcement around the world. In reality, it is a mild response to a grave situation, and no big deal. If, however, it does not do the trick, far tougher measures will be unavoidable.

The author is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of Hong Kong, China.

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . 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
 
久久久无码人妻精品无码_6080YYY午夜理论片中无码_性无码专区_无码人妻品一区二区三区精99

    国产又黄又大又粗视频| 99999精品视频| www黄色av| 亚洲一区精品视频在线观看| 欧美人与动牲交xxxxbbbb| 欧美日韩在线中文| 男女视频在线观看网站| 欧美亚洲黄色片| 污污网站在线观看视频| 日韩网站在线免费观看| 青青草久久伊人| 亚洲国产精品久久久久婷蜜芽| 一区二区三区视频网| 日韩精品在线观看av| 久久久久久久久久一区| 国产在线青青草| 成人在线观看毛片| 亚洲欧美视频二区| 日日碰狠狠添天天爽超碰97| 日本黄色播放器| 88av.com| 青青青国产在线观看| 青少年xxxxx性开放hg| 成年人网站大全| 日本福利视频一区| 亚洲第一精品区| 天天操天天爱天天爽| 欧美 国产 综合| 97超碰在线视| 麻豆中文字幕在线观看| 免费一级特黄录像| 91视频最新入口| 日韩精品综合在线| 三上悠亚免费在线观看| 国产传媒免费观看| 男女男精品视频站| 久草精品在线播放| 又粗又黑又大的吊av| 国产精品无码免费专区午夜| 91蝌蚪视频在线| 欧美精品成人网| 无码精品a∨在线观看中文| 无颜之月在线看| 日韩人妻一区二区三区蜜桃视频| 一级黄色录像在线观看| 婷婷激情四射五月天| 亚洲色精品三区二区一区| 男人的天堂99| 黄色国产精品视频| 日韩网址在线观看| 黄色片久久久久| 免费av网址在线| 热久久精品国产| 欧美视频第三页| 动漫av免费观看| 国产手机视频在线观看| 中文字幕日韩综合| 日本一二三四区视频| 国产成人在线综合| 午夜激情影院在线观看| 毛片毛片毛片毛| 亚洲一区二区中文字幕在线观看| 1314成人网| 国产免费xxx| 日韩激情视频一区二区| 97视频久久久| 女性女同性aⅴ免费观女性恋| 99精品在线免费视频| 麻豆av免费在线| 在线观看亚洲色图| 国产高潮呻吟久久久| 蜜臀av性久久久久蜜臀av| www.国产在线视频| 成人免费观看视频在线观看| 青青在线视频免费| 亚洲一区二区在线视频观看| 日本a级片在线观看| 久久久久久久9| 欧美视频在线播放一区| 国产视频一区二区视频| 天堂在线中文在线| 成年人视频大全| 日本www在线视频| 中文字幕一区二区三区四区在线视频| 五月天av在线播放| 路边理发店露脸熟妇泻火| 99在线免费视频观看| 青青青在线播放| 伊人免费视频二| 国产aaa免费视频| 日本黄网站免费| 污污的视频免费观看| 男人添女人荫蒂免费视频| 久久精品99国产| 加勒比av中文字幕| 国产精品一色哟哟| 五月婷婷丁香综合网| 免费成人进口网站| 那种视频在线观看| 国产又粗又猛大又黄又爽| 久久久久久久久久网| 污视频免费在线观看网站| 97超碰人人看| 欧美色图另类小说| 亚洲精品国产久| 无码人妻精品一区二区三区在线| 一级黄色录像在线观看| 国产日本在线播放| 超碰人人草人人| 91丨porny丨探花| 99九九99九九九99九他书对| www.av片| 91插插插影院| 欧美 日韩 国产一区| 亚洲 国产 图片| 成人在线免费观看av| 熟女熟妇伦久久影院毛片一区二区| 久久亚洲中文字幕无码| 亚洲日本黄色片| 超碰网在线观看| 给我免费播放片在线观看| 欧美成人乱码一二三四区免费| 成熟丰满熟妇高潮xxxxx视频| 五月天国产视频| 爱情岛论坛成人| 欧美人成在线观看| 青娱乐国产精品视频| 免费涩涩18网站入口| 阿v天堂2017| 国产日韩欧美大片| 激情五月俺来也| 无码人妻丰满熟妇区毛片18| www日韩视频| 91免费黄视频| 国产精品99久久久久久大便| 高清av免费看| 无码精品a∨在线观看中文| 红桃一区二区三区| 五月六月丁香婷婷| 亚洲综合欧美激情| 激情五月亚洲色图| 日本欧美黄色片| 久久国产午夜精品理论片最新版本| 先锋影音男人资源| 加勒比av中文字幕| 中文字幕视频三区| www.日本一区| 91插插插插插插插插| 亚洲一区二区三区四区五区xx| 日韩a在线播放| av黄色在线网站| 噜噜噜久久亚洲精品国产品麻豆| 久久99久久久久久| 精品国产av无码一区二区三区| 老汉色影院首页| 99热这里只有精品7| 亚洲一区二区图片| 青青草原播放器| 日韩成人av免费| 91丝袜超薄交口足| 亚洲av毛片在线观看| 日韩av影视大全| 青青在线免费视频| 国产 国语对白 露脸| 第九区2中文字幕| 久久精品xxx| 浮妇高潮喷白浆视频| 18禁免费无码无遮挡不卡网站| 日韩免费一级视频| 国产麻花豆剧传媒精品mv在线| 亚洲自偷自拍熟女另类| 91av在线免费播放| 欧美成人黄色网址| 成人不卡免费视频| 天堂网成人在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久久| 久久人人爽人人爽人人av| 日韩国产一级片| 人妻精品无码一区二区三区| 日韩国产欧美亚洲| 成年人视频观看| 成年网站在线播放| 涩多多在线观看| 欧美久久在线观看| 成人在线看视频| 婷婷激情5月天| 欧美另类videosbestsex日本| 777av视频| 激情婷婷综合网| 欧美一级视频在线| 欧美视频在线第一页| 尤物av无码色av无码| 美女喷白浆视频| 91香蕉视频在线观看视频| 日韩精品在线观看av| 99视频在线免费| 亚洲欧美日韩网站| 阿v天堂2017| 中文字幕国产高清| 黄色www网站|