Protest song Glory to Hong Kong was mistaken as the city’s national anthem more than 800 times, a government lawyer has said in an appeal against a lower court’s rejection of an injunction to ban unlawful acts relating to the song.
The song, dubbed the anthem of the 2019 protests, amounted to a “weapon” for people to threaten the authorities, Senior Counsel Benjamin Yu said on Tuesday, citing an interview the composer gave. Yu urged the Court of Appeal to reconsider prohibiting the dissemination of the song.
Representing the Secretary for Justice, Yu told three appeal justices that High Court judge Anthony Chan had erred when he rejected the government’s application for an injunction to ban the protest song in July.
In June, Hong Kong authorities asked the court to grant an order to bar anyone from distributing Glory to Hong Kong with the intention to incite secession, sedition, or to violate the national anthem law, and anyone from assisting with those acts.
The legal bid 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.
The application was rejected by High Court judge Anthony Chan in July, who said such a move could have a “chilling” effect on freedom of speech. He could not agree that the chilling effects may be dismissed simply because the injunction was not aimed at lawful pursuits, Chan ruled at the time.
The government was later allowed to challenge Chan’s decision. The judge had failed to take into account the “overriding principle that national security is the highest importance,” the authorities argued, adding the Judiciary had an “express duty” to effectively prevent, suppress and impose punishment for any act or activity endangering national security, and to fully enforce the national security law and other relevant legislation to safeguard national security effectively.
In his verbal submission on Tuesday, Yu said the anonymous composer of Glory to Hong Kong had said in a media interview that the song was a “weapon” he contributed to the 2019 pro-democracy movement. The composer described music as “the most powerful weapon to unite people,” the lawyer said.
The song boosted people’s morale and encouraged them to “do things they were not prepared to do,” Yu argued.
“When you try to upset the government, you don’t necessary need to use conventional weapons… the song is regarded by the composer himself as a weapon,” Yu told the court.
Despite the implementation of the national security law, Glory to Hong Kong remained prevalent and continued to “arouse emotions.” It was mistaken as Hong Kong’s national anthem more than 800 times, Yu said citing an estimation by the police.
‘Unprecedented’
Acting 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 described the injunction pursued by the government as “unprecedented.”
Chan said the song itself was not illegal, and there was no evidence that an injunction would help internet service providers remove the song if the publisher’s intent was unclear.
Chan also asked the court to consider provisions in the security law which stipulate that human rights and freedom must be protected.
Yu informed the court that the Secretary for Justice would file an amended appeal order. The judges decided they would need more time to hear the government’s arguments and that the hearing would resume on February 24 next year.
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
latest national security stories
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
