The Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) adopted a nonbinding motion in its annual general meeting held on May 20, calling for the club to “prominently display its mission statement on its website and reaffirm its commitment to speaking out publicly and transparently against threats to Hong Kong press freedom.”
Given that the core of the FCC’s mission statement is to “promote and facilitate journalism of the highest standard”, there is no need for it to adopt a motion in order to display an impeccable statement. “Political gesturing” was the phrase that immediately popped up in one’s mind.
The motion reminded people of an unpalatable episode of the FCC. Back in 2018, the FCC provided a platform for a notorious Hong Kong separatist, Andy Chan Ho-tin, to propagate his pernicious ideas, including the notion that “independence” is the only way out for Hong Kong.
Equally impeccable is the commitment to “speaking out publicly and transparently against threats to Hong Kong press freedom”. But facilitating the advocacy of secession and subversion, which has never fallen under the purview of journalism or press freedom, shouldn’t be part of that commitment.
“In future cases when concerns are raised that acting on the club’s mission gives rise to legal risks, the club shall seek written legal advice to be shared with the board from practicing lawyers experienced in giving legal advice to international media,” the motion said. The fact is, journalists or media outlets pursuing professionalism have never got into trouble with the law in Hong Kong, not even the National Security Law for Hong Kong.
The ill luck of Apple Daily and Stand News has nothing to do with press freedom at all but is the result of equality before the law. These media organizations cemented their own doom by allegedly disseminating extremism and instigating violence in violation of the National Security Law, rather than reporting political news or criticizing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, which are rights protected by the Basic Law.
Separatism and subversion could not be justified anywhere in the world, not even under the guise of “press freedom”. The FCC must not conflate facilitating the advocacy of separatism with journalism when talking about its “commitment to speaking out publicly against threats to press freedom in Hong Kong”.
In February, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vehemently denounced the statements issued by the British government and some members of the “Media Freedom Coalition” that denigrated Hong Kong’s press freedom. The spokesman of the office rightly warned that no one should use freedom of the press as a smokescreen to engage in actions that disrupt China and its HKSAR, undermining national security and social stability.
Press freedom is safeguarded by Article 27 of the Basic Law. But make no mistake: Sedition and the promotion of violence do not fall under the boundaries of journalistic freedom. When critical reporting becomes incitement to criminal activities, the law has zero tolerance toward such acts. Keep in mind that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees journalistic freedom while US laws and court rulings prohibit and criminalize incitement to violence and hatred. Journalistic freedom does have boundaries everywhere in the world, and Hong Kong is no exception.
On a global scale, it’s worth noting that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that freedom of expression carries special obligations and responsibilities, and that it can be restricted and limited in accordance with the law to safeguard national security, public order, public health, or morals. The ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights are both implemented in Hong Kong by Article 39 of the Basic Law.
The national security and public health regulations of Hong Kong, which restrict social activities and impose different mandatory requirements, were enacted in a proportionate manner, in accordance with Article 19 of the ICCPR and common law jurisprudence on human rights restrictions. To determine whether legislation or other governmental acts infringe on fundamental rights, the courts have created a “proportionality test”.
The proportionality test consists of four components: Is the objective appropriate? Is the proposed measure rationally related to it? Is the action necessary and not disproportionate to the intended objective? Is there a way to strike a balance between individual rights and societal good?
In the current modern environment, where information is predominantly delivered via the internet and social media, the term “freedom of expression” is commonly misused. It’s critical to emphasize that the term does not imply a lack of liability or accountability. It does not generate a society in which everyone has the liberty to do and say whatever they want, encouraging bigotry and brutality with no repercussions. We all have the right to freely express ourselves, but no one is above the law.
In today’s world, media outlets bear considerably more responsibility than people think: They are obligated to deliver factual information and news, communicate crucial data, enlighten and educate the world, and, most significantly, promote and inspire good. If found broadcasting information that promotes hatred, antagonism or violence, they will be held accountable. While press freedom is essential for any healthy society, it is distressing to see the term being used to legitimize and condone unethical acts and behavior.
The law is what has prevented us from becoming barbarians. Freedom must always be accompanied by regulations, restrictions and boundaries; otherwise, the concept encourages people to engage in undesirable conduct and activities on the assumption that no ramifications or repercussions would ever arise, regardless of how heinous or malevolent the behavior or acts are. There should always be consequences if the law is broken, even in the name of liberty.
The author is founder of Save HK and a Central Committee member of the New People’s Party.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.