Raymond Li exposes the hypocrisy of those hiding behind 'freedom of expression' in order to advocate dangerous and extreme ideas

Silence is golden, but silence over the perpetration of criminal acts which threaten our social harmony only permits such behavior to continue. Instead of expressing condemnation, the "pan-democrats" and some academics have been tight-lipped about recent seditious behavior. This worrying conduct has been carried out by people erecting "Hong Kong independence" banners and posters on "democracy walls" at university campuses. They have condoned the advocacy of independence in the name of "freedom of speech" with total disregard for the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The idea of "free speech" is frequently abused by members of the opposition camp, who sometimes like to use a quote, which is often misattributed to the French philosopher Voltaire, which says: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." They think this gives them a "blank check" to defend people saying anything. Such nonsense, without any qualification of what is actually being said, lacks real substance. The "Hong Kong independence" banners and posters plastered on the "democracy walls", not to mention the absurdity and impossibility of such ideas, are the antithesis of "free speech". Such advocacy of separatism also clearly breaches Hong Kong's constitutional and legal provisions.

Some opposition legal experts also like to defend the advocacy of separatism on our university campuses as a form of "freedom of expression" enshrined in the city's Bills of Rights modelled on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). But such fallacious interpretations are taken out of legal context. This is because Article 19(3)(b) of the ICCPR states that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is subject to certain restrictions such as "for the protection of national security or public order". It is obvious that distributing "Hong Kong independence" posters on university campuses threatens the national security and sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. Consequently, the use of the umbrella term "free speech" privilege does not apply here.

According to Article 1 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the PRC. Consequently, the advocacy of "Hong Kong independence" runs contrary to the Basic Law provision and the overall interests of Hong Kong. The argument that these people, in breaching the Basic Law provisions, somehow will not be accountable legally is also wishful thinking. With reference to the Crimes Ordinance, seditious intent is defined as motives to incite "disaffection against the government". Anyone who says, does, or prepares to do anything with a seditious intent may be guilty of an offense. Such a person is therefore liable to a fine of HK$5,000 and two years in jail. The fact there have not yet been any prosecutions against anyone does not mean those people who are tempting fate will not face legal consequences in the future.

With the central government's unswerving implementation of the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong, there is zero tolerance toward any seditious conduct against the PRC in Hong Kong, especially on campuses intended for serious academic pursuits. It is a welcome move to see the university authorities take immediate action and ensure "Hong Kong independence" posters are taken down. They have also issued statements condemning the advocacy of pro-independence ideas and the abuse of freedom of expression. To nip such separatism in the bud, the university authorities should thoroughly investigate the advocacy of pro-independence ideas. They should also impose disciplinary action on the students involved. Subject to the available evidence, the authorities should also arrest and prosecute those responsible in accordance with the law.

There has been widespread condemnation all over Hong Kong against the advocacy of separatism at university campuses. Therefore, there is one significant idea that should be reiterated: "Free speech" is not a privilege that legally entitles anyone to say anything at all times. The freedom of speech must always be confined to words and deeds which comply with the laws, civility and decency expected by our society. With the national interest in mind, any seditious attempts against the PRC, our motherland, in the name of "free speech" in Hong Kong is clearly very dangerous. Therefore, deterrent actions and sentences should be imposed to stop any behavior or unrest that threatens social harmony and the rule of law.

In a civil society like Hong Kong, everyone is in favor of free speech. However, we must also be vigilant about protecting society against the tyranny of those advocating separatism at university campuses under the guise of "free speech". This brings to mind some sage statements about "free speech" made by Britain's wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill, in 1943. He said: "some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."

(HK Edition 10/09/2017 page8)