香港高等法院於2019年11月18日裁定香港特區政府引用《緊急情況規例條例》（下稱《緊急法》）禁止市民於公眾地方蒙面的規例「不符合基本法」，並強調該於2019年10月5日起生效的規例過分地限制基本權利及自由。(On 18 November 2019, the High Court ruled that the Hong Kong SAR government’s ban on face coverings in public places under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (the “ERO”) was “incompatible with the Basic Law” and that the new law, which had gone into effect since 5 October, imposed excessive restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms.)
On Beijing's denunciation of the Hong Kong court judgment which ruled that the mask law was unconstitutional under the Basic Law, Progressive Lawyers Group's Wilson Leung told Financial Times that the statement is "shocking" and "takes it to a new low"
法政匯思就香港政府引用《緊急情況規例條例》之聲明 (Statement on the Hong Kong SAR Government Invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance)
該言論反映律政司背離了其長久以來的一貫政策，這是十分危險的。因為它破壞了律政司在公眾認知中不偏不倚的形象和誠信，同時亦削弱市民對香港法治的信心。毋庸置疑，大眾亦關注是次事件會否成為先例，為日後選擇性檢控政府官員提供藉口。(The Remarks show that there is a departure from the DOJ's longstanding policy, which is dangerous as it would undermine public perceptions of the impartiality and trustworthiness of the DOJ and reduce public confidence in the rule of law in Hong Kong. No doubt the public would also be concerned as to whether it would become a precedent for excusing the prosecution of government officials in the future on a selective basis.)
A fringe pro-independence party and a historic journalists’ club have been thrust into the forefront of the intensifying battle over free speech and the rule of law in Hong Kong, a semi- autonomous Chinese territory that has long prided itself on its civic freedoms.
Earlier this month, Hong Kong’s government threatened to ban Chan’s pro-independence National Party, a move unprecedented since the city’s return to Chinese rule in 1997. Andy Chan talked about China's plan to limit speech.
July 1 – the day which marks Hong Kong’s handover to China. July 1 – the day known for its celebratory fireworks display, but more importantly, for its symbolic annual march.
In the two decades since the establishment of the Special Administrative Region, the march has become synonymous with political discontent, serving as a platform for the public and pro-democracy activists to lobby for genuine democracy and universal suffrage. In 2003, 500,000 demonstrators joined the march, forcing the government into an embarrassing climb-down on its proposed national security law.
我們是一群對《國歌法》本地立法存有極大憂慮的團體。2017年內地《國歌法》在香港社會的爭議聲中列入《基本法》附件三後，政制事務局早前公布本地立法的《國歌條例草案》建議條文內容概要（下稱「條文概要」）及召開公聽會作所謂「收集意見」。雖然政制局局長聶德權多次表示市民無需過度擔心立法，但綜觀整份建議條文及政府近月的回應，均無法解答及釋除我們對《國歌法》本地立法的各種問題及疑慮。(Click for English version)
Thirty-eight civil society groups (including the Progressive Lawyers Group) and political parties have urged the Hong Kong government to withdraw a national anthem bill, arguing that it violates citizens’ rights to fundamental freedoms.
Progressive Lawyers’ Group has once again voiced its concern over the controversial joint checkpoint arrangement for the high speed rail link, saying that it remains unconvinced by the government’s legal justification.
我們維持我們的看法——即政府提出的一地兩檢安排，將無可避免地違反基本法。(We maintain our view that the co-location arrangement will inevitably violate the Basic Law.)
法政匯思對於政府任意妄為地利用選舉規例，並以某些參選人的政治聯繫及政治立場為由取消其資格感到非常擔憂。該決定踐踏了香港永久性居民參與選舉、投票和自由言論的基本權利。我們強烈呼籲政府確保任何有關參選人提名的決定，都能夠切實有效地保障這些基本權利。(PLG is gravely concerned by the capricious use of electoral regulations to disqualify certain candidates on the basis of their political affiliations and political stance. The Decision has trampled on the fundamental rights of Hong Kong permanent residents to stand for election, to vote, and to engage in free speech. We strongly call upon the Government to ensure that any decision regarding the nomination of candidates gives real and effective protection to such fundamental rights.)
On Wednesday, China’s top legislature – the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) – approved the plan following a unanimous vote and months of controversy. Hong Kong will effectively surrender its jurisdiction across a quarter of the new West Kowloon terminus, where immigration procedures will be performed by mainland law enforcement agents. Beijing’s “distortion” of the Basic Law in justifying the Express Rail Link’s joint checkpoint arrangement has greatly undermined Hong Kong’s rule of law, legal experts have warned.
政府最近宣佈其就内地-香港高速鐵路香港段的邊境管制安排及管轄權事宜的方案。簡單而言，政府建議於西九龍站設置邊境及海關管制設施的一地兩檢安排，及内地在西九龍站若干範圍內及所有運作列車上擁有刑事管轄權。法政匯思認為該建議明顯及直接違反《基本法》的多項條款，特別是第17、18、19及22條。就政府方案如何違反《基本法》的詳細分析，詳見中文版完整陳述書。(The Government has recently announced its proposal on the border control arrangements and jurisdictional matters in relation to the Mainland-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (“XRL”). In short, the Government proposes a co-location arrangement of border and customs control facilities at West Kowloon Station and the Mainland to have criminal jurisdiction to be exercised at some areas of West Kowloon Station and on all operating trains. The Progressive Lawyers Group (“PLG”) is of the view that such proposal is in clear and direct contravention of numerous provisions of the Basic Law, in particular, Articles 17, 18, 19 and 22. For the detailed analysis of how the Government's proposal violates the Basic Law, please read further.)
法政匯思就政府建議高鐵香港段實施一地兩檢為大家準備了常見問題解答，以供參考。(Progressive Lawyers Group has prepared a list of FAQs on the Government's proposal on co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Terminus. Please take a look!)
Progressive Lawyer Group member Jason Y. Ng talks about the free speech controversies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK and The Education University of Hong Kong, in an op-ed for the Hong Kong Free Press HKFP (views are his own).
"Activists fighting for marriage equality or access to medical marijuana should be free to wave rainbow flags or hand out leaflets explaining the health benefits of cannabis. Neither same-sex marriage nor marijuana use is legally permissible, but that’s precisely the point of free speech: to debate whether they should be."