More than 30 online links related to Glory to Hong Kong should be ruled as illegal, government lawyers have argued in an appeal against a lower court’s refusal to pass an injunction banning the 2019 protest anthem.
Internet service providers would only remove versions of Glory to Hong Kong if the court declared them to be in breach of the national security law, Senior Counsel Benjamin Yu told the Court of Appeal on Saturday, according to local media reports. The injunction lists 32 versions of the popular protest song.
Representing the secretary for justice, Yu argued that the videos were seditious and secessionist in nature and carried the intent to distort China’s national anthem. If these videos continued to be disseminated, it would endanger national security, he said.
Glory to Hong Kong was mistaken as the city’s national anthem more than 800 times, government lawyers told the appeal court in December last year. The song, dubbed the anthem of the 2019 extradition bill protests, amounted to a “weapon” for people to threaten the authorities, they said.
Appearing as a “friend of the court” – someone who is not involved in a legal case, but who assists a court by offering information or insight – Senior Counsel Abraham Chan said the request to declare 32 video links as illegal was not mentioned in the original injunction application hearing. Appeal justices should not consider arguments that were not raised in the initial hearing, he said.
Legal row
In June last year, Hong Kong authorities sought a court order to bar anyone from distributing Glory to Hong Kong with the intention of inciting secession, sedition, or to violate the national anthem law, and to block anyone from assisting with those acts.
The legal row came after multiple blunders at international sports events, when the protest song was mistakenly played as the city’s national anthem, instead of China’s March of the Volunteers.
High Court judge Anthony Chan rejected the government bid in July, saying such a move could have a “chilling” effect on freedom of speech. He could not agree such an impact may be dismissed simply because the injunction was not aimed at lawful pursuits, Chan ruled at the time.
See also: Why, and how, the gov’t wants to ban protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’
The government was later allowed to challenge Chan’s decision, on the grounds that the judge did not consider the “overriding principle that national security is the highest importance” in his ruling.
Journalistic work
On Saturday, Yu told the court that an amended version of the injunction had been filed to exclude journalistic work and academic research from the ban, local media reported. When asked to name other lawful behaviour allowed under the injunction, Yu said there were no other examples.
Carlye Chu, vice-president of the appeal court, said journalistic work and academic research were inherently lawful behaviour. Exempting them from the ban would not “assist certainty but make confusion” in the injunction, she said, according to media reports.
The secretary for justice would need to file the amended injunction on or before March 11, the appeal court ordered. A ruling would be handed down before mid-July, the justices said.
Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
