Social News
Written by: Hou Cailin
2020-04-10 12:18
Last update date: 2020-04-10 12:18The turmoil caused by the amendments last year triggered many fierce conflicts. The government introduced the "Emergency Law" to establish the "Masking Prohibition Act". The Court of First Instance ruled in November last year that the "Emergency Regulations Ordinance" and the "Prohibition of Masking Regulations" were unconstitutional and issued an order. The "Masking Prohibition Act" was invalid, and the government party appealed against the ruling. The Appeals Tribunal yesterday ruled that part of the government ’s appeals were justified. Among them, the government cited the “Emergency Law” for appeals, and cited the “Embargoed Law” established by the “Emergency Law”, it considered that the prohibition of masked law in lawful assembly was unconstitutional. However, it is not unconstitutional to restrict illegal assembly, or to mask people without permission, in other words, the Court of Appeal believes that the new regulations apply to persons masked at illegal meetings.
Ye Hailang, a member of the "Legal Administration", said on the Hong Kong and Taiwan program "Millennium" that the Appeals Tribunal has a higher degree of trust in the government and the police, while the Court of First Instance prefers to control the rights of the government. As far as the current political situation is concerned, the decision of the Appeals Tribunal seems to be a bit off the ground, which is not in line with the views of the general public.
The Court of Appeal ruled that part of the government ’s appeal was justified, and it was unconstitutional to ban masking only during legal assembly.
Ye Hailang, a member of the "Legal Administration", said on the Hong Kong and Taiwan program "Millennium" that the Appeals Tribunal ’s ruling is more conservative and trusts the government and the police. The Court of First Instance prefers to control the government ’s rights.
The Appeals Tribunal ruled that the pre-reunification laws of Hong Kong had continuity after the reunification. It also implies that the chief executive can only use the emergency law to make subsidiary legislation when there is a danger to the public security. The Legislative Council can also repeal the relevant legislation by "making first and then deliberation".
Ye Hailang believes that the appeal court's statement is correct in a "normal" social system, but in terms of Hong Kong's political situation, it is "unwork". As far as the current situation is concerned, the police have abused their power and the public will not think that the Legislative Council is an effective body to check and balance the government when the electoral system is not perfect. Therefore, the decision of the Appeals Tribunal seems a bit off the ground and the public ’s views There is a drop.
In addition, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban masking during legal assembly. Ye Hailang said that if the police can enforce the law rationally, it will be easy to distinguish what constitutes legal assembly. However, as far as the situation is concerned, the law enforcement of the police is controversial. For example, "unprovoked" requests to suspend assembly with notice of non-objection will make the assembly illegal and cause the public to be at a loss.
Prohibition of Masking Act | The Appeals Tribunal has ruled that the government has to straighten Zhang Daming: there is room for appeal
Masking prohibited method. Interpretation of the Judgment ｜ The Appeals Tribunal: The Emergency Law gives chief executives emergency powers
Prohibition of masking method ｜ Zhang Zhujun: Public health can exempt people must wear masks when gathering
Anti-revision example demonstration ban masking law legal and political reflection
