Protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ now banned in city after appeals court overturns ruling

HONG KONG — An appeals courtroom on Wednesday granted the Hong Kong authorities’s request to forbid a customery protest track, overturning an previous ruling and deepening issues over the erosion of freedoms within the once-freewheeling international monetary hub.

“Glory to Hong Kong” was once frequently sung by means of demonstrators all over profusion anti-government protests in 2019. The track was once after mistakenly performed as the town’s anthem at world carrying occasions, rather of China’s “March of the Volunteers,” in mix-ups that upset city officials.

It was the first time a song has been banned in the city since Britain handed the territory back to Chinese rule in 1997.

Critics have said prohibiting broadcast or distribution of the song further reduces freedom of expression since Beijing launched a crackdown in Hong Kong following the 2019 protests. They have also warned the ban might disrupt the operation of tech giants and hurt the city’s appeal as a business center.

Judge Jeremy Poon wrote that the composer intended for the song to be a “weapon,” pointing to its power in arousing emotions among some residents of the city.

“We accept the assessment of the executive that prosecutions alone are clearly not adequate to tackle the acute criminal problems and that there is a compelling need for an injunction,” he mentioned.

He mentioned the injunction was once important to influence web platform operators to take away “problematic videos in connection with the song” from their platforms. The operators have indicated they’re able to accede to the federal government’s request if there’s a courtroom layout, he added.

The forbid would goal someone who broadcast or allotted the track to recommend for the break-up of Hong Kong from China. It will additionally cancel any movements that misrepresent the track because the nationwide anthem with the intent to insult the anthem.

The track can nonetheless be performed whether it is for lawful journalistic and educational actions.

Failure to conform to the courtroom layout could also be thought to be as contempt of courtroom and may well be chargeable for a fantastic or imprisonment.

Government have prior to now arrested some citizens who performed the track in people underneath alternative offenses, akin to taking part in a musical device in people with out a allow, native media reported.

As of mid-afternoon on Wednesday, “Glory to Hong Kong,” whose artist is credited as “Thomas and the Hong Kong people,” was still available on Spotify and Apple Music in both English and Cantonese. A search on YouTube for the song also displayed multiple videos and renditions.

Google said in an email to the AP that it was “reviewing the court’s judgment.” Spotify and Apple did not immediately comment.

George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at The Asia Group, a Washington-headquartered business and policy consultancy, said it would be most practical for tech companies to restrict access to the content in question in a certain region to comply with the order.

Chen called on the government to consider how to ease public concerns over the order’s chilling effect on free speech.

He mentioned he was hoping such bans won’t change into “the new normal” and establish a precedent. “This will get people really worried about how free Hong Kong’s internet will be like tomorrow,” he said.

Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in 2020 to quell the months-long unrest. That law was used to arrest many of the city’s leading pro-democracy activists. In March, the city enacted a home-grown security law, deepening fears that the city’s Western-style civil liberties would be further curtailed. The two laws typically target more serious criminal acts.

After the judgement was handed down, Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said stopping anyone from using the song to incite division and insult the national anthem is a necessary measure for the city to maintain national security.

Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam insisted the injunction was not aimed at restricting the normal operation of internet service providers. He said the government would ask the providers to remove related content in accordance with the injunction.

Lam argued that the acts covered by the ban could be constituted as criminal offenses even before the court order, and that the scope of the injunction was “extremely narrow.”

However Eric Lai, a analysis fellow at Georgetown Heart for Asian Regulation, mentioned that even supposing judicial deference to the chief on nationwide safety issues is familiar in alternative jurisdictions, the courtroom has did not stability the security of electorate’ elementary rights together with independent tonality.

“It disappointingly agreed to use civil proceedings to aid the implementation of national security law,” he mentioned.

Human rights crew Amnesty Global described the injunction as a “senseless attack” on independence of tonality and a contravention of world human rights regulation.

“Today’s appeal victory for the government – after a lower court ruled against it last year – is a worrying sign of the authorities’ growing unwillingness to respect human rights and uphold their obligations,” said Amnesty International’s China Director Sarah Brooks.

Brooks called on authorities to end attempts to stifle rights in the name of national security.

The government went to the court last year after Google resisted pressure to display China’s national anthem as the top result in searches for the city’s anthem instead of the protest song. A lower court rejected its initial bid last July, and the development was widely seen as a setback for officials seeking to crush dissidents following the protests.

The government’s appeal argued that if the executive authority considered a measure necessary, the court should allow it unless it considered it will have no effect, according to a legal document on the government’s website.

The government had already asked schools to ban the protest song on campuses. It previously said it respected freedoms protected by the city’s constitution, “but freedom of speech is not absolute.”

___

Related Press editor Zen Soo contributed to this record