My Take | Protest song ban is an extreme step with far-reaching implications
- If the national security law is not a sufficient deterrent, it is doubtful the threat of civil contempt proceedings will have offenders quivering
During Hong Kong’s civil unrest in September 2019, anti-government demonstrators gathered at shopping malls and sang a new song which became the movement’s anthem. The “singing protest” was peaceful, in contrast to the violent clashes with police which had become familiar.
Order has long since been restored, with the protests fizzling out in 2020 amid the pandemic and the passing of a new national security law. But the protest song “Glory to Hong Kong” remains widely available on digital platforms. It has often been wrongly described as the city’s “national anthem” and even inadvertently played at international sports events.
It is easy to understand the government’s frustration. But the securing of a sweeping court injunction banning illegal use of “Glory to Hong Kong” is an extreme step with far-reaching implications.
The government failed to persuade a court to impose the injunction last year, when Court of First Instance judge, Anthony Chan Kin-keung, expressed concerns about its potential impact.
He doubted the civil law injunction would achieve its aim and said it would conflict with criminal legislation. The judge feared innocent people would be deterred from lawful use of the song and that legal safeguards would be sidestepped. These are important issues.
The Court of Appeal overturned that decision last week and granted the injunction. New legal ground has been broken. The appeal judges found the ban necessary to help the criminal legal system safeguard national security by prohibiting use of the song in certain circumstances.
It is not easy to follow the logic of the ruling. The decision hinges on a belief that existing criminal laws are not a sufficient deterrent. The court said “prosecutions alone are clearly not adequate”.
