Frances D'Souza, a drafter of the Johannesburg Principles on human rights, said the proposed law seriously violated international rights standards and needed radical modifications.
"It's akin to putting people in a police state," D'Souza said of the legislation, which is required by Article 23 of Hong Kong's constitution.
"There is no question that Article 23 is an extraordinarily backward step...
If we allow this bill to pass, we are allowing a major body blow to democracy," she told a news conference.
[…]
There has been a wave of criticism of the proposed law from human rights and legal groups that say the legislation is being adopted at Beijing's behest to prevent acts of subversion against, or secession from, mainland China.
Critics, including members of the financial community, fear the law could be used arbitrarily against just about anyone.
The United States has called for the "fullest possible consultation" on the law and former colonial power Britain said it would closely follow developments and monitor how the legislation is applied.
Under an agreement between Britain and China on the 1997 return of the territory to Chinese rule, Hong Kong was promised a high degree of autonomy for 50 years under a 'one country, two systems' formula.
D'Souza, who will meet security chief Ip on Wednesday, recommended that the crime of subversion be abandoned, and that terms such as "national security" be narrowly defined.
The government has declined to reveal the full content of the planned law for public consultation before proposing it to the legislature, a compliant body that is not likely to raise any serious objections.
The Johannesburg Principles were laid down in 1995 to protect individual rights and freedom of expression in the context of national security laws.
Since then, the principles have increasingly been used as a yardstick in democratic nations.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-136496.html
* * *
You are welcome to print and circulate all articles published on Clearharmony and their content, but please quote the source.
more ...