Controversial legislation warrants genuine consultation

    Updated: 2013-01-04 06:36

    By Andrew Mak(HK Edition)

      Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按鈕 0

    Controversial legislation warrants genuine consultation

    We saw no cataclysmic or transformative events around Dec 21, 2012. The date marked the end of a 5,125 year long cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar used by the Mayan culture. When superstitions that grew up around the calendar proved unfounded, the time came to look forward to the new year and the beginning of a new cycle for Hong Kong. It was time to reflect on what directions Hong Kong should take to further its prosperity, remove poverty and improve the quality of life through new legislation.

    The recent report published in the UK favoring a new Bill of Rights reminds us in Hong Kong of the need to consult the public on controversial legislation, whether it concerns civil liberties or the quality of life.

    It is worth mentioning that the UK Commission on a Bill of Rights, chaired by former permanent secretary Sir Leigh Lewis, spent 21 months and 700,000 pounds investigating the creation of a UK bill of rights. It has come out in favor of a bill that would "incorporate and build on all of the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)". But it recognized the controversy on the subject.

    In its first chapter, the Commission openly declared that few subjects generate more strongly-held views than human rights. The controversies apparently are no less than what took place in Hong Kong. Scarcely a week passes without the appearance of headlines supporting or condemning the latest human rights court judgment. Successive governments have been routinely accused by opponents of ignoring or reducing the rights of individuals. High profile court cases involving potential extradition or deportation turned increasingly on whether the human rights of those facing such action will be infringed. The media, politicians, commentators, academics and lawyers queue up to deliver their views, at times in highly colorful language, on the latest human rights controversy.

    There ought not to have been any controversy, at first sight on the matter. Britain prides itself as a country capable of protecting its citizens with civil liberty rights.

    However, the problem in this case, if one could crudely speak, is the result of the perceived or actual taking away of sovereignty of the courts in the UK by Strasbourg. In the first decade after the Convention came to life in 1953, only 36 cases were admitted for adjudication with just two cases concerning the UK. That position began to change, however, as more countries joined the Council of Europe and ratified the Convention and, as more of them agreed to the right of individual petition.

    In the early 1990s, when former Soviet bloc countries began joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention, the number of cases brought to the Court rose steeply and, unsurprisingly, a backlog of cases began to emerge. By the end of the 1990s, this had reached some 20,000. The situation cried out loud for a review of the relationship between the UK court and the European Court of Justice on Human Rights.

    Notwithstanding this apparent need, however, the Commission recognized there is always a need in every civil society to respect different intellectually coherent viewpoints in relation to human rights. Any debate needs to be well informed and not distorted by stereotypes or caricatures that have all too often characterized it in the media. Consultation, and genuine consultation, is part of the process so that divergent views can be full ventilated.

    Forming part of any consultation, the establishment of rights and the "concept of responsibilities" should be debated. This is simply because at least for certain rights, such as the right to privacy or the freedom to expression, the extent of the protection should be determined, at least in part, by the actions of the individual seeking to avail that protection.

    It remains for me to wish our readers a most Happy New Year.

    The author is a Hong Kong barrister and chairman of the Hong Kong Bar's Special Committee on Planning and Policy.

    (HK Edition 01/04/2013 page3)

    中文字幕亚洲综合久久2| 成人无码区免费A∨直播| 久久久久久国产精品免费无码 | 最好看的最新高清中文视频| 国产成人无码A区在线观看视频| 中文字幕一区二区免费| 亚洲gv天堂无码男同在线观看 | 免费人妻无码不卡中文字幕系| 日韩乱码人妻无码中文视频| 永久免费无码日韩视频| 久久久久亚洲av无码专区导航 | 日韩精品无码AV成人观看| 最好看的电影2019中文字幕| 美丽姑娘免费观看在线观看中文版| 99久久精品无码一区二区毛片| 亚洲国产综合无码一区 | 无码人妻AV免费一区二区三区 | 亚洲乱亚洲乱妇无码麻豆| 日韩AV片无码一区二区三区不卡| 中文字幕亚洲第一在线| 日韩精品一区二区三区中文| 午夜无码中文字幕在线播放| 久久久精品人妻无码专区不卡| 特级无码毛片免费视频尤物| 无码视频一区二区三区在线观看| 特级做A爰片毛片免费看无码| а√在线中文网新版地址在线| 亚洲中文字幕不卡无码| 中文字幕在线观看亚洲视频| 亚洲日韩VA无码中文字幕| 日韩视频无码日韩视频又2021| A级毛片无码久久精品免费| 国产成人精品无码免费看| 国产∨亚洲V天堂无码久久久| 国产亚洲AV无码AV男人的天堂 | 日韩AV无码中文无码不卡电影| 无码人妻黑人中文字幕| 国产AV无码专区亚洲精品| 国产免费久久久久久无码| 久久亚洲av无码精品浪潮 | 亚洲国产综合精品中文第一区|