法政匯思就國歌條例草案(「該草案」)的發言摘要 (Progressive Lawyers Group’s Speaking Note on the National Anthem Bill)

法政匯思看不見將「不當使用」國歌或「侮辱」國歌的行為刑事化能夠為社會帶來多大的實際效益,以為政府對人民的憲制權利 ── 包括對言論自由的侵害 ── 提供充份的正當理由。即使我們假設將與國歌相關的行為刑事化而對憲制權利衍生的限制有其正當性,這種限制應該是狹窄而被清晰定義的。然而,現時該草案非常粗疏且模糊不清;尤其是該草案的第 6 和第 7 條更無法符合「依法規定」的原則。(As a starting point, we see no material societal benefit or need in criminalising conduct involving the “misuse” of the national anthem or the “insult” of the national anthem, which justifies such encroachment on the constitutional rights of the individual, including the freedom of expression. Even assuming the restriction of constitutional rights by criminalising conduct involving the national anthem is justified, the boundary of such restriction should be narrowly drawn and clearly defined. However, the Bill in its current form is poorly drafted and appallingly lacking in clarity. In particular, the offence creating sections (Clauses 6 and 7) regrettably fall foul of the “prescribed by law” requirement.)

【法政巴絲】審死官

可幸現實中——雖然不知還有多久——但我們仍然享有司法獨立,法官絕不可以偏頗。英國高等法院皇座法庭(King’s Bench)在1923年定下的著名案例R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256說明了一切。