Advertisement

New arguments in fresh court bid to ban protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ revealed by government

  • Justice Department lawyers insist ban can be implemented without ‘chilling effect’ highlighted in original refusal of injunction against song by High Court
  • Government lawyers say ban will ‘amplify deterrent effect’ as prosecution difficult because fake names used to circulate song

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
An orchestra in helmets and gas masks performs “Glory to Hong Kong”, which became the anthem of the 2019 protests. Photo: YouTube
A Hong Kong ban on the promotion of a protest song may prevent unlawful attempts to incite secession or sedition without a “chilling effect”, the justice department has said, revealing further arguments in its appeal against a court’s refusal to grant an injunction.
Advertisement
The additional grounds provided by the justice secretary were released on Friday, almost two months after a court rejected a government request to ban the promotion of “Glory to Hong Kong”, which has frequently been mistaken overseas for China’s national anthem “March of the Volunteers”.

After the Court of First Instance last month gave the green light for the appeal, the department said that Mr Justice Anthony Chan Kin-keung of the High Court had erred in his finding that an injunction could bring about a “chilling effect”.

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam has launched a fresh bid to have “Glory to Hong Kong” banned. Photo: Yik Yeung-man
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam has launched a fresh bid to have “Glory to Hong Kong” banned. Photo: Yik Yeung-man

The government’s lawyers said the proposed ban was designed only to target unlawful acts that endangered national security.

“It is thus plainly wrong to take into account that perfectly innocent people would distance themselves from what may be lawful acts involving the song if the injunction is granted,” the amended notice of appeal said.

“The criminal law has already carried a deterrent effect. Those sailing close to the wind in case of doubt should not do it.”

Advertisement

Several additional arguments were submitted to the appeal court on September 6 and a hearing is expected to take place on December 19.

The government argued that the lower court failed to consider the importance of the preventive nature of the ban.

Advertisement