(Clearwisdom.net)

[...]

Amnesty International is in the business of defending human rights everywhere--that is, the fundamental rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association.

So we are concerned when a legal instrument such as Article 23 of the Basic Law comes along, which threatens to curb Human Rights, ANYWHERE. Criminalization or restriction of fundamental Human Rights should set alarm bells ringing everywhere.

Much of the proposed legislation is vague and ill-defined, particularly in the areas of treason, secession and sedition. You may well be wondering "What is sedition?" Well, my dictionary says it is "speech or behaviour directed against peace of a state, offence that undermines the authority of a state." It also says it is archaic and in most countries where it remains on the statute books, the Principle has lapsed.

So rather than modernizing Hong Kong legislation, this is a step backwards.

Amnesty International calls for a much longer consultation period. We believe that many of the offences outlawed are already covered and there has been a huge rise in penalties in existing legislation, greatly increased prison sentences and unlimited fines, not conducive to encouraging debate.

As Amnesty International Australia China Rapid Action Network Coordinator, I have watched in recent years as the Strike Hard campaign continues. For 3 months in 2001. Amnesty International recorded 2,960 death sentences and confirmed 1,781 executions. This means that Chinese judicial authorities executed more people in three months than the rest of the world in 3 years. Many of these executed would have been tortured to confess to crimes. Few would have received a fair trial.

All these people are someone's son, brother, mother, sister, yet the families have, to my knowledge, no recorded success in bringing the perpetrators of torture and miscarriages of justice to face justice themselves.

Since China joined the World Trade Organization, it is meant to be trying to attain international standards in how it operates its judiciary. The proposed changes to Article 23 of Basic Law in Hong Kong do not seem to be a step in that direction.

http://www.falunau.org/indexArticle.jsp?itemID=245

Posting date: 1/8/2003
Original article date: 1/7/2003
Category: Worldwide Support

 Yearly Archive  Printer Version