Human Rights and Freedom of Expression in Hong Kong and China - Essay Example

Human rights in Hong Kong and China Name Tutor Course Date True democracy and freedom of expression Robust democracy and free speech should be advocated across the globe. Just like democracy, free speech implies taking the bad with the good. Free speech which should be advocated means other people have the right to publically express their views or observations. Although these observations might sometimes be the things other people or the authorities do not want to hear, everyone should be allowed to speak out their minds. Free speech is a key support of true democracies, human rights and civil rights and economic opportunity. Free speech should be allowed in order to promote true democracy. Free speech should be allowed worldwide to avoid losing true democracy. In the recent past, true democracy and free speech are under the threat of the native governments and multi-national organizations which run within their territories (Graber, 2002). The topic of free speech is one of the most contentious matters in liberal societies. If the liberty to express someone is not highly valued, freedom of expression is simply shortened in favor of other values. Free speech becomes an impulsive issue when it is highly because only then do the restrictions placed upon it become contentious. Freedom of speech should however be limited to some point. Every society places some restrictions on the exercise of speech because speech normally occurs within a context of opposing values. Free speech is merely a useful term to lay attention on a specific form of human interaction. This does not mean that speech should never be restricted. A sane society should have free speech but should be limited at some point. The same case should apply to a free society. An intense analysis of freedom of speech shows that the threat of a sanction makes it challenging and potentially more expensive to exercise the freedom. Such sanctions may assume two main forms (Graber, 2002). The first form is legal punishment by the authorities, which normally entails a financial penalty and sometimes an imprisonment. The second threat arises from social disapprobation. People will often avoid making public statements because they fear the consequences they are bound to face. An individual will definitely face harsh treatment after making a racist comment publicly. Although one can actually say whatever he/she desires, the state or other people have an impact on the freedom. This leads to a conclusion that, though efforts can be made to regulate speech, it is not possible to prevent it especially where an individual is not afraid of the sanctions. In conclusion, a true democracy should allow free speech (Marjorie, 2000). Importance of freedom of speech Freedom of speech is a basic and valuable characteristic of a democratic society which China curtails. Freedom of speech is curtailed in various ways in a country. Some of the ways in which it is restricted include limitation of what can be said or published through defamation of laws and contempt of court. Freedom of speech serves several functions. One of the most important functions is that decision making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision arrived after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one because it will consider everyone’s’ opinion, interest and needs as compared to a decision taken with no consultation. This is not the case in China which makes it less democratic. A government that does not mind the feelings or opinions of people runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people (Marjorie, 2000). Freedom of speech is also important to the authorities because when a criticism of a government a freely aired, the government has the opportunity to respond to the unfair criticisms and comments. When freedom of expression is restricted, rumors, unfair criticisms, comments and absolute falsehoods are disseminated by word of mouth. These have the trend of spreading across the length and breadth of the nation through conversion and surreptitiously circulated writings. The authorities who limit freedom of speech have no position to answer the criticisms. It is the interest of the government to answer criticisms in the public arena where it can answer the criticisms and correct its mistakes. The government normally has access to electronic and printing communication far in excess of individual people and groups (Marjorie, 2000). Freedom of speech is a political right to the citizens of a country, although private property is necessary to make it operational. Without free speech no political action can be executed and resistance to injustice and oppression is not possible. Without freedom of expression elections are meaningless. Through the freedom of speech, policies of candidates are known to the public. The freedom assists in restraining oppressive rule. Without freedom of speech it is fruitless to expect political freedom or economic freedom. Freedom of expression thus makes a true democratic country (Marjorie, 2000). Difference of human rights between Hong Kong and China The differences between human rights in Hong Kong as a post-colony and China as a democracy can best be analyzed by describing the freedom of expression in the two countries. Freedom of expression in Hong Kong The freedom of expression is controlled by Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 16 of the Bill of Rights. It is considered as a fundamental right, but the Bill of rights referred to as ICCPR offers that limitation to it are justifiable provided that the limitations are in accordance to the law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of the public or of public health or morals (Mcleod, 2007). Freedom of expression is well illustrated in the case of two civil activists Ng Kung Siu and Lee Kin Yun which happened in 1 January 1998. The two extensively damaged the National and regional Flags. Some parts of the lag were cut out or torn while the rest were daubed using black ink. The word “shame” was scribbled all over the flag. They were charged under section 7 of the National Flag Ordinance and section 7 of the Regional Flag Ordinance, which stipulates that an individual who desecrates the national or regional flags is legible for prosecution. The constitutionality of section 7 of the National Flag Ordinance and section 7 of the Regional Flag Ordinance were questioned by the defendants. They were found guilty and were required to pay a fine of $2,000 for 12 months for every offence. The court of appeal reversed the ruling. The court ruled that the stipulations were justified and not unconstitutional, as they simply ban the mode of expression but do not restrict the person’s freedom to expression the same in other modes. The assurance and the binding over ordered by the Magistrate were restored (Mcleod, 2007). The Edison Chen photo scandal made people harbor suspicions about the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, which illegalizes the circulation of obscene articles and the circulation of indecent articles without appropriate warnings to persons under 18. On 2 February 2008, Commissioner of Police Tang King Shing cautioned that circulating such photos through email or even storing them on a personal computer could be illegal even if there were no signs of circulation. This incorrect statement of the law led to protestation of Leung Kwok-hung, who blamed the police of propagating confusion and creating a mood of white terror among the citizens (Young, 2004). Leung asked Commissioner Tang to clarify to the citizens whether the act of jus keeping the pictures violated the law. The police later corrected Mr. Tang's statement, by stating that looking at the pictures or emailing them to friends does not breach the law, although posting them to the internet is illegal. The police enthusiasm and inconsistency in napping naked pictures of celebrities triggered a public backlash from some citizens. The citizens felt that police were interfering with their freedom of expression in their efforts to satisfy the powerful. The public reaction made the government table an appraisal and public consultation of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Young, 2004). Another case that touched the issue of freedom of expression is Hong Kong is the Citizens' Radio case. In this case, several civil activists were charged for running a radio station without a license provided by the Chief Executive in Council contrary to section 8 and 20 of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Butler, 2004). According to section 4 of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance (Cap. 172), people are not allowed to keep or use any place of public entertainment without a license controlled by section 10 of the Ordinance. On 30 May 2010, the Hong Kong Alliance supporting Patriotic Democratic Movements of China showed a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue in Times Square in the dearth of a license in order to honor the June 4th incident. It was impounded by the police and after the ensuing scuffle two senior members of the Alliance were arrested for impeding of a police officer in the course of exercising their duty. Despite the above incidences, Hong Kong is generally regarded as upholding a high level of freedom of expression (Butler, 2004). In china, issues of freedom of speech and censorship are hotly contested thus creating a maelstrom of political debate all over the globe. Freedom of speech is supposed to be a universal right of mankind which China as a republic disagrees and persecutes people who point out tyranny in the country. Although censorship in China is rampant, not everyone is quiet over the matter (Magee, 2000). Many people in China are shacked and jailed as part of the tyrannical communist regime’s crackdown on Chinese dissidents. The government has been granted power to do this by the amendment of article 105 of the Chinese criminal law. Article 105 (2) states that anyone found guilty of inciting subversion of the ruling authorities through rumor mongering or defamation or any other way shall be jailed for a maximum of five years. Such a person can also be punished through imprisonment, criminal detention, control or withdrawal of political rights (Seymour, 2009). Criminal leaders or people whose crimes are specifically severe are supposed to be punished by a sentence of five years or more of imprisonment. This also applies to people found guilty of attempting to overthrow the ruling system. This has given the government a leeway to deny people of their basic human rights and to allow the arrest of several people under the crime of inciting rebellion of state power. This is an example of an oppressive government subverting globally recognized human rights to maintain a grip over the minds of people under their jurisdiction. Since the amendment of the article, thousands of Chinese have been imprisoned and silenced for any criticism of the ruling authorities or the abysmal of the human rights record (Magee, 2000). Lack of freedom of speech in China China normally sets free a prisoner or two just before it holds a high profile meeting with any powerful western diplomat. The international community regards this as progress. However several Chinese citizens have been jailed for speaking about their democratic rights. Western firms such as Google and Yahoo even fear to the Chinese government’s restriction laws for fear of loosing access to such a big market and unpleasant words like democracy return no results in Chinese Google searches. In China, even discussing the nations prehistoric past can be regarded as a crime (Magee, 2000). Professor Yang Siquan of East China University was charged for blogging about ancient Chinese culture. Hu Jia, a Chinese human rights activist was jailed in 2007 for defending Chinese peasants whose land was grabbed by the government for urban development (Macartney, 2009). Hu is one of the key advocates for the implementation of free expressive in China. He was arrested after several peasant leaders gave a proposal requesting more land rights. He was arrested and sentenced to 3.5 years after pleading not guilty of rebelling state power. Huang Qi who operates a website created to provide information on individuals missing in China, was charged fro illegal possession of national secrets. He is at the moment serving a 3 year prison term after he assisted victims of the famous Great Sichuan earthquake which claimed over 69,000 lives and injured over 300000. Another case of restriction of human rights is the case of LIU Xiaobo who was detained for the part he played in Charter 08 (Macartney, 2009). Charter 08 is a proposal with more than 300 Chinese intellectuals to uphold democratization and political transformation in China. He was accused of rebelling against the state power six months after he was arrested by the government. These are some of the cases that that reveal the disregard for freedom of speech in China. Several other freedom fighters have been arrested or gone missing over the years of the tyrannical Chinese communist regime. For all the economic progress China has undertaken in the recent past, it still lags behind other nations in basic human rights. Suppression by the Chinese Communist Party continues to be widespread today with the state strictly regulating all forms of media and the Internet (Macartney, 2009). Conclusion A true democracy should allow free speech. Free speech implies that other people have the right to publically express their views or observations. People should be allowed to express their views or opinions regardless of whether others want to hear them or not. Free speech is a major support of true democracies and should thus be upheld (Francos, 1997). If free speech is suppressed, then true democracy cannot be achieved. In the past years true democracy and free speech are under the threat of the native governments and multi-national organizations which run within their territories. Every society or government should however place limits on the exercise of speech because speech normally occurs within a context of opposing values (Dews, 1987). There exists a huge discrepancy between the human rights in Hong Kong as a post-colony and China as a democracy. While Hong Kong exercises freedom of expression in its top leadership, this is not the case in China. Various cases illustrate that freedom of expression is different in the two countries. The two civil activities after damaging the regional flag in their efforts to express their opinions were acquitted of the charge they faced. The court of appeal ruled that citizens are free to express their opinions in any form. This is different from China where several citizens have been jailed for speaking about their democratic rights. Several cases in China describe the extent to which human rights are violated in the country (Foucault, 2003). Bibliography Butler, J 2004, What is critique? An essay in Foucault’s virtue, in The Judith Butler reader, ed S Salih & J Butler, Blackwell, Oxford Dews, P 1987, Logistic of disintegration: post-structuralist thought and the claims of critical theory, Verso, London Francos, D 1997, History of structurarism, volume 2: the sign sets, 1967-present, trans. D. Glassman, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Foucault, M. 2003, Society must be defended: lectures at the college de France 1975-76, trans. D. Macey, Allen Lane, London Graber, M.A. 2002. Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press Marjorie, G 2000. The World Trade Organizattion and post-secondary education: implications for the public system in Australia Magee, J. 2002. Freedom of Expression. Greenwood Press. Mcleod, K. 2007. Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Macartney, J. 2009. "Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo begins second year of detention without charge". The Times (London). Seymour, K. 2009 Problematisations: Violence intervention and the construction of expertise. Paper presented at Foucault 25 Years On Conference, 25 June 2009. Centre for Post-colonial and Globalisation Studies, University of S.A. Magill, S.A "2008 Human Rights Report: China (Hong Kong)". U.S. Department of State. Young, Simon N. M. 2004. "Restricting Basic Law Rights in Hong Kong". Hong Kong Law Journal 34 (1): 110 Read More