Просмотр кода страницы Английская Википедия:Human rights in Hong Kong

{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}}
{{Short description|Rights enjoyed by citizens in China}}
{{Use Hong Kong English|date=February 2015}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2022}}
{{Politics of Hong Kong}}
[[File:Tsim Sha Tsui - 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay in Hong Kong - 2008-05-02 09h21m38s SN207002.jpg|thumb|2008 Summer Olympics Torch in Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong. Protest of Civil Human Rights Front.]]

[[File:20170820 March in support of jailed Hong Kong activists 2.jpg|thumb|March in support of [[2017 imprisonment of Hong Kong democracy activists|jailed Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders]], 20 August 2017]]

Human rights protection is enshrined in the [[Hong Kong Basic Law|Basic Law]] and its Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). By virtue of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Basic Law Article 39, the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR) is put into effect in Hong Kong. Any local legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law can be set aside by the courts.  This does not apply to national legislation that applies to Hong Kong, such as the [[Hong Kong national security law|National Security Law]], even if it is inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance, ICCPR, or the Basic Law.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chan|first=Johannes|title=Judicial Responses to the National Security Law: HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying|journal=51 HKLJ 1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=HKSAR v Lai Chi Ying [2021] HKCFA 3, §§30-37|url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=133491|access-date=2021-09-23|website=legalref.judiciary.hk}}</ref>

Hong Kong is generally perceived to enjoy a moderate level of [[civil liberties]]. Although the [[Government of Hong Kong|Hong Kong government]] claims that it respects the human rights of citizens, there are significant concerns surrounding human rights in practice, particularly in the political sphere and press.<ref name=free/> There are concerns over the freedoms to the people which is restricted by the Public Order Ordinance, as well as strong domestic and international criticism of the [[Hong Kong national security law|national security law]], perceived by many to have eroded certain rights.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Freedom in the World 2021|url=https://freedomhouse.org/country/hong-kong/freedom-world/2021|access-date=10 September 2021|publisher=Freedom House}}</ref> The United Nations and the UN human rights experts have repeatedly warned that offences under the NSL are vague and overly broad, facilitating abusive or arbitrary implementation.<ref>{{Cite web|date=7 January 2021|title=Hong Kong: UN human rights office urges immediate release of arrested activists|url=https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/01/1081552}}</ref>  The police has been occasionally accused of using heavy-handed tactics towards protestors<ref name=ps/> and questions are asked towards the extensive powers of the police.<ref name=jt/> As to the [[right of privacy]], [[covert surveillance]] remains the major concern.<ref name=hkp/> There is a lack of protection for homosexuals due to the absence of a sexual orientation discrimination law.<ref name=g/> There are also comments regarding a lack of protection for [[labour rights]].<ref name=con>{{cite web|url=http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/ushk_hr_2009022501.html |title=2008 Human Rights Report: China (Hong Kong) |work=U.S. Department of State |access-date=2 March 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123204017/http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/ushk_hr_2009022501.html |archive-date=23 January 2010 }}</ref>

'''Human rights in Hong Kong''' occasionally comes under the spotlight of the international community because of its [[world city]] status. This is occasionally used as a yardstick by commentators to judge whether the People's Republic of China has kept its end of the bargain of the "[[One country, two systems|One Country, Two Systems]]" principle granted to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by its current mini-constitution, the Basic Law, under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1224 |title=One Country, Two Systems |author=Denesha Brar |date=27 July 2009 |work=The Henry Jackson Society |access-date=13 August 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722143012/http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1224 |archive-date=22 July 2011 }}</ref>

==Protection Framework==

===Sino-British Joint Declaration===

Under the Annex I (Section XI) of the [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~pchksar/JD/jd-full3.htm |title=Sino-British Joint Declaration – Elaboration by the Government of the People's Republic of China of its Basic Policies Regarding Hong Kong |access-date=14 August 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051129013841/http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~pchksar/JD/jd-full3.htm |archive-date=29 November 2005 |url-status=dead }}</ref> it stated that:

<blockquote>The [[Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]] Government shall protect the rights and freedoms of inhabitants and other persons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region according to law. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government shall maintain the rights and freedoms as provided for by the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, including freedom of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, to form and join trade unions, of correspondence, of travel, of movement, of strike, of demonstration, of choice of occupation, of academic research, of belief, inviolability of the home, the freedom to marry and the right to raise a family freely.</blockquote>

===The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region===

Under the [[Hong Kong Basic Law|Basic Law]], the constitutional documents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, certain rights and freedoms of [[Hong Kong residents]] (including both permanent residents and non-permanent residents) are guaranteed and safeguarded in Chapter III of the law.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_3.html|title=Basic Law Full Text – chapter (3)|website=basiclaw.gov.hk|access-date=12 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200509131159/https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_3.html|archive-date=9 May 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> These rights and freedoms include:

*equality before the law;
*permanent residents' right to vote and to stand for election in accordance with law;
*freedom of speech, of the press and of publication;
*freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration;
*freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike;
*the right from arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention and imprisonment;
*the right from torture and unlawful deprivation of the life;
*the right from arbitrary or unlawful search of, or intrusion into resident's home or other premises;
*freedom and privacy of communication;
*freedom of movement within Hong Kong, of emigration to other countries or regions, and freedom to enter or leave Hong Kong;
*freedom of conscience;
*freedom of religious belief and to preach and to conduct and participate in religious activities in public;
*freedom of choice of occupation;
*freedom to engage academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities;
*the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts, choices of lawyers for timely protection of their lawful rights and interests or for representation in the courts, and to judicial remedies;
*the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel;
*the right to social welfare in accordance with law;
*freedom of marriage and the right to raise a family freely; and
*other rights and freedoms safeguarded by the laws of Hong Kong SAR.

Article 39 also expressly states that the provisions of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR), the [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]] (ICESCR), and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force in Hong Kong to the extent that they shall not contravene the provisions of the rights protected by the Basic Law.

Although these rights are explicitly vested in Hong Kong residents, non-residents in Hong Kong may also enjoy these rights and freedoms in accordance with law by Article 41.

In addition, Article 87 protects and preserves the rights previously enjoyed by parties to any criminal or civil proceedings, especially the right to fair trial by the courts without delay and the presumption of innocence until convicted by the courts. Article 105 protects the rights of property and the right to compensation for lawful deprivation of property of individuals and legal persons.

===Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance===
{{main|Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance}}
The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383)(the "Bill of Rights"), enacted in 1991,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hku.hk/law/conlawhk/sourcebook/10091.htm |title=CHAPTER 383 HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS ORDINANCE 1991 |access-date=2 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721092952/http://www0.hku.hk/law/conlawhk/sourcebook/10091.htm |archive-date=21 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> is the local adaptation of the provisions of the ICCPR as applied in Hong Kong. The Bill of Rights has largely been recognised by the courts as one of the constitutional documents alongside the Basic Law. However, the fact that the Bill of Rights was enacted in the form of an Ordinance (as a local primary legislation) means that the Legislature can amend or repeal the Bill of Rights by an ordinary enactment through ordinary legislative procedure, subject to judicial review. Furthermore, if any part of the Bill of Rights is held unconstitutional (i.e. any part contravenes the Basic Law), the courts are bound to strike down that part.

After the transfer of sovereignty, certain provisions of the Bill of Rights ceased to have effect, including sections 2(3) (duty to have regard to purpose of Ordinance in interpretation), 3(1) (duty to construe pre-existing legislation consistently with the Ordinance), 3(2) (pre-existing legislation that cannot be construed consistently is repealed) and 4 (all future to be construed so as to be consistent with the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong). However, due to the entrenchment of the ICCPR as applied in Hong Kong in Article 39 of the Basic Law, the significance of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, which was modelled after the ICCPR, has been reinstated.<ref name=sy>{{cite journal |last1=Young |first1=Simon N. M. |year=2004 |title=Restricting Basic Law Rights in Hong Kong |journal=Hong Kong Law Journal |volume=34 |issue=1 |page=110}}</ref>

Some Basic Law rights overlap with the rights protected by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance to certain extents while the provisions in the Bill of Rights and in the ICCPR are not identical.<ref name=sy/> As a result, a right can be protected by either the Basic Law, the Bill of Rights, or the ICCPR as applied in Hong Kong at the same time.

===Common Law===
Before the enactment of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the protection of human rights in Hong Kong has largely relied on the common law of England. [[Civil liberties in the United Kingdom|Civil liberties protection]] have a long history in English common law and are generally transcribed as human rights in modern time.

Under Articles 8 and 18 of the Basic Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong includes the common law rules which did not contravene the Basic Law and are part of the laws of HKSAR. Since colonial Hong Kong law defines "common law" as "the common law of England",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/1/all.html|title=CAP 1 INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE Download (All Versions)(HKLII)|access-date=14 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200102142305/https://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/1/all.html|archive-date=2 January 2020|url-status=live}} Section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, dated 30 June 1997</ref> civil rights principles found in the English law are now part of Hong Kong laws as "laws previously in force in Hong Kong" by operation of Articles 8 and 18 and as "common law in force in Hong Kong" pursuant to section 3 of the current Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1).

Those common law principles include those of statutory interpretation, such as the presumption that statutes do not operate retroactively (also codified in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance), the doctrine that criminal enactments are to be strictly interpreted, the presumption that [[mens rea]] is required in a criminal offence, and the presumptions against a derogation of vested rights, ousting the court's jurisdiction, deprivations of private property without compensation and the presumption that the Legislature does not intend to legislate contrary to the State's international obligation.<ref name=":1">Johannes Chan and C.L. Lim, "Interpreting Constitutional Rights and Permissible Restrictions", ''Law of the Hong Kong Constitution (2nd Edition)'', 2015, Chapter 14, p.567</ref>

By virtue of Article 81 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong SAR also inherits a common law jurisdiction which emphasises on due procedure, nature justice, fair trial without delay, the presumption of innocence, the right of silence, the right of bail, the right against double jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination, and the duty to exercise a statutory power fairly.<ref name=":1" /> These subjects matter often found in judicial review proceedings in Hong Kong, a significant and noticeable feature of human rights protection framework in Hong Kong.

===Judicial Review===
{{Main|Judicial review in Hong Kong}}

Article 11 of the Basic Law provides that "no law enacted by the Legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall contravene this Law." This Article has the effect that any Ordinance that contravenes the Basic Law shall be null and void. Hence, any legislation that contravenes Article 39 of the Basic Law, which entrenches the ICCPR, is also null and void.

It is well established that the Hong Kong Courts can now conduct the ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' type of judicial review to review the legislative and executive acts of the [[Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chan |first1=Johannes M. M. |year=2007 |title=Basic Law and Constitutional Review: The First Decade |journal=Hong Kong Law Journal |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=404–447}}</ref> This power exists before the handover since Hong Kong was governed by the Letters Patent, as opposed to Britain which has an unwritten constitution and where Parliament is sovereign.

In the landmark case of [[Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration|''Ng Ka Ling and Others v. Director of Immigration'']],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=34052&QS=%28%7B%24ng+ka+ling%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018172332/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=34052&QS=%28%7B%24ng+ka+ling%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=18 October 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> Chief Justice [[Andrew Li]] declared in emphatic terms:
{{quotation|In exercising their judicial power conferred by the Basic Law, the courts of the Region have a duty to enforce and interpret that law. They undoubtedly have the jurisdiction to examine whether legislation enacted by the legislature of the Region or acts of the executive authorities of the Region are consistent with the Basic Law and, if found to be inconsistent, to hold them to be invalid.}}

The approach of the courts towards the review of the constitutionality of legislation was laid down in ''R v. Sin Yau Ming'',<ref name=sin>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=2675&QS=%28%7B%24sin+yau+ming%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083313/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=2675&QS=%28%7B%24sin+yau+ming%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> which adopted the Canadian approach in ''[[R. v. Oakes]]''. Once there is a prima facie violation of a protected right, the government bears the burden of justifying the breach by showing:
# The impugned provisions pursue a sufficiently important objective which is related to pressing and substantial concerns in a free and democratic society
# There is a rational connection between the objective and the means chosen
# The means adopted causes minimal impairment to the right of freedom in question
# The effects on the limitation of rights and freedoms are proportional to the objective

However, controversies exist over whether the courts have the power to conduct a constitutional review of a legislative act of the [[National People's Congress]] or its [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress|Standing Committee]]. The [[Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Final Appeal]] stated in [[Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration|''Ng Ka Ling'']] that the courts do have such a power. However, this declaration provoked heavy criticisms from the mainland authorities and developed into a constitutional crisis.<ref>{{cite book |title=Hong Kong's Constitutional Debate-Conflict Over Interpretation |last=Chan |first=Johannes |author-link=Johannes Chan |author2=H.L. Fu |author3=Yash Gai |publisher=Hong Kong University Press |isbn=978-962-209-509-0 |page=15|date=February 2000 }}</ref>

==Civil and political rights under domestic law==

===Right to life===
The [[right to life]] is protected under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.
In practice, the right to life is mainly protected by the [[criminal law]] (murder and [[manslaughter]]). No capital punishment has been carried out since 1966 and it has been formally abolished for all crimes in 1993.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries |title=Abolitionist & retentionist countries |work=Amnesty International |access-date=16 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150215102820/http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries |archive-date=15 February 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Freedom of expression===
{{Further|Censorship in Hong Kong |Internet censorship in Hong Kong}}

The [[freedom of expression]] is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 16 of the Bill of Rights. It is regarded as a fundamental right, but the Bill of Rights (and hence the ICCPR) provides that restrictions to it are justifiable provided that the restrictions are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or for the protection of national security or of public order (''ordre public''), or of public health or morals.

During a demonstration on 1 January 1998, civil activists Ng Kung Siu and Lee Kin Yun extensively defaced the [[Flag of the People's Republic of China|National]] and [[Flag of Hong Kong|Regional Flags]]. Certain portions were cut out or torn, black ink was daubed over the flags, black crosses were drawn, and the word "shame" was written on the flags. The two were charged under section 7 of the National Flag Ordinance and section 7 of the Regional Flag Ordinance, which provide that a person who desecrates the national or regional flags commits an offence. The constitutionality of section 7 of the National Flag Ordinance and section 7 of the Regional Flag Ordinance were challenged by the defendants.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hkhrc.org.hk/content/currentissues/1999andbefore/issue_99oct_dec/issue_9912_e.htm#judgement |title=Judgement of the Case of Desecration of National and SAR Flag by the Final Appeal Court (16 December 1999) (Article 19) |date=16 December 1999 |work=Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor |access-date=4 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709151531/http://www.hkhrc.org.hk/content/currentissues/1999andbefore/issue_99oct_dec/issue_9912_e.htm#judgement |archive-date=9 July 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> The defendants were convicted before the magistrate, and were [[bound over]] to keep the peace on his own recognisance of $2,000 for 12 months for each offence. The Court of Appeal quashed their convictions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=19719&QS=%28%7B%24ng+kung+siu%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083317/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=19719&QS=%28%7B%24ng+kung+siu%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> The Court of Final Appeal unanimously held that the provisions were justified and not unconstitutional, as they merely ban the mode of expressing one's message but do not interfere with the person's freedom to express the same message in other ways. The convictions and the binding over ordered by the Magistrate were restored.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=18937&QS=%28%7B%24ng+kung+siu%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083325/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=18937&QS=%28%7B%24ng+kung+siu%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> The decision was heavily criticised by [[Raymond Wacks]] in his article "Our Flagging Rights" in Hong Kong Law Journal.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www3.hku.hk/hklj/04view/04-view-hklj.php?2000_30 |title=Hong Kong Law Journal |access-date=26 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716080931/http://www3.hku.hk/hklj/04view/04-view-hklj.php?2000_30 |archive-date=16 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The [[Edison Chen photo scandal]] brought people to harbour doubts about the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, which criminalizes the distribution of obscene articles and the distribution of indecent articles without proper warnings to persons under 18. On 2 February 2008, Commissioner of Police [[Tang King Shing]] warned that sharing the photos via email, and even storing them on a personal computer, might be illegal, even if there was no record of distribution. This inaccurate statement of the law led to the objection of [[Leung Kwok-hung]], who accused the police of sowing confusion and creating an atmosphere of "white terror" among netizens. Leung urged Commissioner Tang to clarify whether merely keeping the pictures violated the law. The police later amended Tang's statement, saying that looking at the photos or emailing them between mutual friends is not against the law, although posting them to Web sites is. The police's exuberance and inconsistency in cracking down on naked photos of celebrities triggered a public backlash from some netizens, who feel the police was curbing their freedom of expression in order to serve the powerful.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120308887950171619 |title='Sexy Photo Gate' Mesmerizes Hong Kong, China and Sparks Police Crackdown, Backlash |author=Geoffrey A. Fowler and Jonathan Cheng |date=15 February 2008 |work=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=25 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150612032436/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120308887950171619 |archive-date=12 June 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200802b.brief.htm#005 |title=Translation of "The Biggest Lesson of 'Sex Photos Gate' is the Exposure of Hypocrisy" |author=Li Yi |date=12 February 2008 |work=Apple Daily |access-date=25 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121201113802/http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200802b.brief.htm#005 |archive-date=1 December 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> The public reaction caused the government to table a review and public consultation of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.coiao.gov.hk/en/home.htm|title=Review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance|website=coiao.gov.hk|access-date=2019-06-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122200710/https://www.coiao.gov.hk/en/home.htm|archive-date=22 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Another incident that concerned the freedom of expression in Hong Kong is the [[Hong Kong Citizen Radio|Citizens' Radio]] incident, in which several civil activists were charged for operating a radio station without a license granted by the Chief Executive in Council, contrary to section 8 and 20 of the Telecommunications Ordinance. Constitutional challenge of the licensing regime was unsuccessful.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=63651&QS=%28%7B%24ocean+technology%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083336/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=63651&QS=%28%7B%24ocean+technology%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to section 4 of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance (Cap. 172), no person shall keep or use any place of public entertainment without a licence granted under section 10 of the Ordinance. On 30 May 2010, the [[Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China]] exhibited a replica of the [[Goddess of Democracy]] statue in [[Times Square (Hong Kong)|Times Square]] in the absence of a license in order to commemorate the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]. It was confiscated by the police and after the ensuring scuffle two senior members of the Alliance were arrested for [[obstruction of a police officer]] in the due execution of his duty. Secretary for Food and Health York Chow Yat-ngok rebuffed claims of political oppression by saying the authority was merely enforcing the law after receiving complaints.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=98828&sid=28425501&con_type=3&d_str=20100531&sear_year=2010 |title=Alliance pair arrested over goddess statue |author=Beatrice Siu |date=31 May 2010 |work=The Standard |access-date=30 May 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629172011/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=98828&sid=28425501&con_type=3&d_str=20100531&sear_year=2010 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

Despite the incidents mentioned above, Hong Kong is generally considered to enjoy a high degree of freedom of expression, with [[Freedom House]] commenting that it is a right that is "generally respected in practice, and political debate is vigorous".<ref name=free>{{cite web |url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=7741 |title=Country Report 2009 |work=Freedom House |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111023161359/http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7741&year=2009 |archive-date=23 October 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 14 March 2022, [[Amnesty International]] reported that UK-based organization [[Hong Kong Watch]] has been threatened with criminal sanctions by the Hong Kong Police Force’s National Security Department. Hong Kong Watch’s website is blocked in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government increasingly criminalizes the work of civil society organizations, accusing groups who form international partnerships or do peaceful international activism.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/hong-kong-targeting-of-uk-human-rights-charity-signals-disturbing-expansion-of-repression/|title=Hong Kong: Targeting of UK human rights charity signals disturbing expansion of repression|accessdate=14 March 2022|website=Amnesty International|date=14 March 2022 }}</ref>

===Freedom of assembly===
The [[freedom of assembly]] is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 17 of the Bill of Rights.

Article 17 of the Bill of Rights provides:
{{quotation|The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are [[necessary in a democratic society]] in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.}}

[[File:HKmarch1 13 2008pic2.jpg|thumb|right|A protest in Hong Kong|alt=Police officers were maintaining order in a large-scale protest in Hong Kong]]

Although there are no official figures in the number of protests, an analysis of newspaper reports has shown that the reported number of protests increased from under 100 before 2000 to 210 in 2004, and stayed at aroundo 200 cases up to 2006, signalling the maturation of civil society.<ref name=civ>{{cite journal |last1=Chan |first1=Elaine |last2= Chan |first2=Joseph |year=2007 |title=The First Ten Years of the HKSAR: Civil Society |journal=The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=77–99|doi=10.1080/23276665.2007.10779329 |hdl=10722/81381 |s2cid=144976098 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> It has also been argued that the [[Hong Kong 1 July marches|1 July march in 2003]], in which half-a-million residents took to the streets to protest the [[National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill|proposed national security bill]] and express strong general dissatisfaction with the government, halted the legislation of the proposed bill and allowed civil society to recognise its strength and potential in the policy-making process.<ref name=civ/> The 1 July march is organised every year.

On 10 August 2020, the Hong Kong Police arrested billionaire businessman [[Jimmy Lai]] for allegedly collaborating with foreign forces. The police raided Jimmy's newspaper office. He is a prominent pro-government protestor. This is considered as the most high-profile arrest since the implementation of [[Hong Kong national security law|national security law]]. In February 2020, Jimmy was arrested on illegal assembly charges, but released on bail. Chinese state media, [[Global Times]], reported that Jimmy Lai's sons and two senior executives of [[Next Digital]] had also been arrested.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53717843|title=Jimmy Lai: Hong Kong media tycoon arrested under security law|date=10 August 2020 |access-date=10 August 2020|publisher=BBC News|archive-date=10 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200810090234/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53717843|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Statutory restriction framework====
{{see also|Public Order Ordinance}}
This fundamental right is mainly restricted by the '''[[Public Order Ordinance]]''' (Cap. 245).

*A public procession consisting of more than 30 persons can only take place if the Police Commissioner has been notified a week in advance and the Commissioner has notified the organiser that he has no objection.<ref>s.13(2), Public Order Ordinance (Cap.245)</ref>
*The Commissioner can object to the public procession, but only if he reasonably considers that the objection is necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.<ref>s. 14(1), Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*The Commissioner may, where he reasonably considers it necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, impose conditions in respect of any public procession notified under section 13A, and notice of any condition so imposed shall be given in writing to the organiser and shall state the reasons why such condition is considered necessary.<ref>s.15(2), Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*Further requirements include the presence of the organiser at the procession, maintenance of good order and public safety, the prohibition of unreasonable use of amplification devices, compliance with directions given by a police officer for ensuring compliance with the Commissioner's requirements and the Ordinance's requirements etc.<ref>s.15(1), s.15(4), Public Order Ordinance (Cap.245)</ref>

On the other hand, certain statutory safeguards are present in the Ordinance.
*The Commissioner can accept the notice that is given in less than a week. If he decides not to, he must inform the organizers in writing as soon as possible and give reasons.<ref>s.13A(2), Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*The Commissioner can only reject an application if he considers objection is necessary for the statutory legitimate purposes. It is to be noted the "protection of public health & morals" purpose in the Bill of Rights is absent in the Ordinance, hence restricting the Commissioner's discretion.<ref>s.14(1), Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*The objection must be given as soon as possible and within the statutory time limit.<ref>s.14(2), Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*The Commissioner is obliged not to object if he reasonably considers that the relevant statutory legitimate purposes could be met by imposing conditions.<ref>s.14(5), Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*The Commissioner's discretion may only be delegated to police officers of inspector or above.<ref>s.52, Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>
*A decision by the Commissioner can be appealed to an Appeal Board. The decision of the Appeal Board can be judicially reviewed (but not appealed).<ref>s.16, Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)</ref>

====Constitutionality of the statutory framework====
On 10 February 2002, a number of persons gathered at [[Chater Garden]] for a procession. Civil activist [[Leung Kwok-hung]] was the organizer of the procession but did not notify the Commissioner in advance. A police officer invited him to go through the statutory notification procedure, but Leung refused and was warned of the consequences. Initially, the procession consisted of 40 people, but it eventually grew to about 96 persons. They ignored police advice for several times, but the procession was at all times peaceful.

Leung and two others were later charged under section 17A(3)(b)(i) of the Public Order Ordinance for holding an unauthorized assembly. They were convicted before the magistrate and were bound over on their own recognizance for $500 for a period of three months; the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=43632&QS=%28%7B%24hksar%7D+%25parties%29%7C%28%7B%24leung+kwok+hung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result}}</ref>

At the [[Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Final Appeal]], the constitutionality of the entire statutory notification scheme was challenged.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=45653&QS=%28%7B%24leung+kwok+hung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083356/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=45653&QS=%28%7B%24leung+kwok+hung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Andrew Li|Chief Justice Li]], [[Patrick Chan (judge)|Justice Chan PJ]], [[Robert Ribeiro|Justice Ribeiro PJ]] and [[Anthony Mason (judge)|Sir Anthony Mason NPJ]], having considered all the statutory restrictions on the freedom of assembly and the statutory safeguards listed above, held that the notification system was constitutional. However, they held that the norm of "[[ordre public]]", which existed as a statutory legitimate purpose at that time, was too vague at a statutory level and hence could not be said to be prescribed by law. "Ordre public" was as a result severed, but the term "public order" was sufficiently precise to survive.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=2703&sid=4846807&con_type=1&d_str=20051004 |title=Public assembly convictions upheld |author=Albert Wong |date=4 October 2005 |work=The Standard |access-date=4 April 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629164351/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=2703&sid=4846807&con_type=1&d_str=20051004 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref> They also remarked in ''dicta'' that the norm of "protection of the rights and freedoms of others" was too wide and did not satisfy the legal certainty requirement. They affirmed the convictions as the severance did not affect the conviction. [[Kemal Bokhary|Justice Bokhary PJ]] dissented, noting in his judgment that the whole statutory scheme should be struck down except the entitlement to notification.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=4770&sid=5285149&con_type=1&d_str=20051102 |title=Top official faces flak over extent of police powers |author=Albert Wong |date=2 November 2005 |work=The Standard |access-date=4 April 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629164417/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=4770&sid=5285149&con_type=1&d_str=20051102 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

====Obstruction of a public place====
On 14 March 2002, a number of [[Falun Gong]] practitioners were engaged in a peaceful demonstration outside the main entrance to the [[Hong Kong Liaison Office|Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]]. Their number varied from 4 to 16 over time, hence rendering the statutory restriction scheme inapplicable. It was still possible to access the Liaison Office via a vehicular driveway. After warnings were ignored by the demonstrators, the [[superintendent (police)|superintendent]] in charge ordered his officers to arrest and remove them. The demonstrators resisted arrest but were eventually forcibly removed using heavy-handed tactics and loaded on board police vehicles. When they arrived at the police station, female demonstrators refused to leave the vehicles. Police officers took action to carry them off the vehicles but the demonstrators resisted and assaulted the officers.
[[File:Civil Human Rights Front LM8399 left side 20070701.jpg|thumb]]
The demonstrators were charged with obstruction of public place. The Court of Final Appeal, constituted by the same judges in ''Leung Kwok-hung and Others v. HKSAR'', allowed the appeal from the defendants and quashed all convictions.<ref name=ymw>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=45100&QS=%28%7B%24yeung+may+wan%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083405/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=45100&QS=%28%7B%24yeung+may+wan%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> The court stressed that any physical obstruction of a public place must be accompanied by the element of "without a lawful excuse" in order to constitute an offence. If a person is merely using public place reasonably, they cannot be said to be acting without lawful excuse. When obstruction results from a peaceful demonstration, the constitutionally protected right is introduced into the equation for reasonableness. The court concluded the demonstrators were acting with reasonable excuse and acquitted them with regard to the offense of obstruction of public place.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Front_Page/GE06Aa01.html |title=Falun Gong victory on right to protest |author=Albert Wong |date=6 May 2005 |work=The Standard |access-date=4 April 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629164450/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Front_Page/GE06Aa01.html |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

===Freedom of religion===
The freedom of religion is protected by Article 32 of the Basic Law and Article 15 of the Bill of Rights.

The practice of [[Falun Gong]] is legal and tolerated in Hong Kong.<ref>{{cite news |title=Hong Kong Bows to Beijing. Except When It Doesn't |author=Mark Landler |newspaper=New York Times |date=22 July 2001 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/22/weekinreview/22LAND.html |access-date=17 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150615155357/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/22/weekinreview/22LAND.html |archive-date=15 June 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref> However, in 2003 Falun Gong protestors were charged with obstruction of a public place after a peaceful demonstration outside the [[Hong Kong Liaison Office|Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]]. They were initially convicted before the magistrate, but were eventually acquitted of all charges by the Court of Final Appeal.<ref name=ymw/> Furthermore, the HKSAR government was repeatedly accused of refusing entry to [[Falun Gong]] practitioners for allegedly political reasons.<ref>{{cite news |title=Falun Gong cries foul over stricter entry regulations |author=Nishika Patel |newspaper=The Standard |date=28 March 2008 |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=63634&sid=18243751&con_type=1 |access-date=17 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604134642/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=63634&sid=18243751&con_type=1 |archive-date=4 June 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Falun Gong discrimination claim rejected |author=Nishika Patel |newspaper=The Standard |date=14 February 2008 |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61518&sid=17585528&con_type=1 |access-date=17 December 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080531010329/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=61518&sid=17585528&con_type=1 |archive-date=31 May 2008 }}</ref><ref name="The Standard">{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=2026&sid=4717405&con_type=1&d_str=20050924 |title=Falun Gong four denied entry as 'threat to public order' |work=The Standard|access-date=14 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629155212/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=2026&sid=4717405&con_type=1&d_str=20050924 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref> 

The Anglican and Roman Catholic churches in Hong Kong freely appoint their own bishops, unlike in mainland China.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2006/71338.htm|title=International Religious Freedom Report 2006 – Hong Kong|year=2006|work=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor|publisher=U.S. Department of State|access-date=10 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190710075050/https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2006/71338.htm|archive-date=10 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Cardinal (Catholic Church)|Cardinal]] [[Joseph Zen Ze-kiun|Joseph Zen]], the immediate past Bishop of Hong Kong, was outspoken about religious freedom and human rights in China.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/apr2008p6_2770.html |title=Cardinal Joseph Zen: conscience of China |author=Peter Westmore |date=April 2008 |work=AD2000 |access-date=17 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090922045419/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/apr2008p6_2770.html |archive-date=22 September 2009 }}</ref>

===Right to equality===
The right to [[Equality before the law|equality]] is protected by Article 25 of the Basic Law and Article 22 of the Bill of Rights.

A number of Ordinances have been enacted in order to give [[horizontal effect]] to the equality provisions in the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights. Examples include the Sex Discrimination Ordinance,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?content=Sex%20Discrimination%20Ordinance%20and%20I |title=Sex Discrimination Ordinance and I |work=Equal Opportunities Commission |access-date=4 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100826112318/http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?content=Sex%20Discrimination%20Ordinance%20and%20I |archive-date=26 August 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref> the Disability Discrimination Ordinance,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?itemid=8702 |title=Disability Discrimination Ordinance & I |work=Equal Opportunities Commission |access-date=4 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717172705/http://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?itemid=8702 |archive-date=17 July 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?content=Family%20Status%20Discrimination%20Ordinance%20and%20I |title=Family Status Discrimination Ordinance & I |work=Equal Opportunities Commission |access-date=4 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100826112603/http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?content=Family%20Status%20Discrimination%20Ordinance%20and%20I |archive-date=26 August 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref> and the Race Discrimination Ordinance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?content=Race%20Discrimination%20Ordinance%20and%20I |title=Race Discrimination Ordinance and I |work=Equal Opportunities Commission |access-date=4 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100826112608/http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/GraphicsFolder/showcontent.aspx?content=Race%20Discrimination%20Ordinance%20And%20I |archive-date=26 August 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref> The Equal Opportunities Commission is a statutory body set up to implement these legislations and eliminate discrimination. The Race Discrimination Ordinance sparked fierce debates in Hong Kong<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/bc/bc52/papers/bc520110cb2-783-4-e.pdf |title=Position Paper on Race Discrimination Bill |date=10 January 2008 |work=Civic Party |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607071932/http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/bc/bc52/papers/bc520110cb2-783-4-e.pdf |archive-date=7 June 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/hk/Hong-Kong-Lawyer-/Will-the-Race-Discrimination-Ordinance-Eliminate-Race-Discrimination-in-Hong-Kong/ |title=Will the Race Discrimination Ordinance Eliminate Race Discrimination in Hong Kong? |author=Sunny CH Chiang |date=9 April 2008 |work=Lexis Nexis |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723181229/http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/hk/Hong-Kong-Lawyer-/Will-the-Race-Discrimination-Ordinance-Eliminate-Race-Discrimination-in-Hong-Kong/ |archive-date=23 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> because the definition of race as "race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of the person" left [[Mainland Chinese]] immigrants unprotected.

It was remarked by the Court that not all differential treatments constitute discrimination. If the differential treatment pursues a legitimate aim, is rationally connected to the legitimate aim and is no more than necessary to accomplish the aim, the differential treatment is justified and does not constitute discrimination. Only when the differential treatment is unjustified will it be deemed as discrimination.<ref name=zigo>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=57763&QS=%28%7B%24yau+yuk+lung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083412/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=57763&QS=%28%7B%24yau+yuk+lung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Sexual orientation====
{{Main|LGBT rights in Hong Kong}}

Gay sex was legalised in Hong Kong in 1991.<ref name=g>{{cite web |url=http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/PR/sexualorientationpaper.htm |title=Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in Hong Kong |work=Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor |access-date=2 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090526065222/http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/PR/sexualorientationpaper.htm |archive-date=26 May 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) shows a tendency to discriminate against the [[gay community]] by stipulating different [[ages of consent]] for homosexual and heterosexual relations, and has been challenged for a number of times.<ref name=g/>

In ''[[Secretary for Justice v. Yau Yuk Lung Zigo]]'',<ref name=zigo/> the constitutionality of section 118F(1) of the Crimes Ordinance was challenged. The section provides that it is an offence for a man to commit [[buggery]] with another man otherwise in private. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously held that the section was discriminatory as it constitute unnecessary differential treatment on the ground of [[sexual orientation]]. All persons, irrespective of sexual orientation, are subject to the [[common law]] offence of committing an act outraging public decency.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=49250&sid=14519266&con_type=1 |title=Top court strikes down law against homosexuals |author=Una So |date=18 July 2007 |work=The Standard |access-date=4 April 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629164514/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=49250&sid=14519266&con_type=1 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

In ''[[Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=54227&QS=%2B&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=14 December 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719030440/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=54227&QS=+&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=19 July 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> the constitutionality of section 118C of the Crimes Ordinance, which provides that a man who commits or suffers to commit buggery with a man under the age of 21 is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life, was challenged. The provision was held to be unconstitutional as while the age of consent for heterosexual couples is 16, male homosexual couples must reach 21 to have sex legally.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.amnesty.org.hk/html/print/node/5030 |title=Court's ruling a step to equal treatment for the gay community in Hong Kong |date=20 September 2006 |work=Amnesty International |access-date=4 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225095404/http://www.amnesty.org.hk/html/print/node/5030 |archive-date=25 February 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Despite fierce opposition from church groups,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://catholicexchange.com/2009/01/20/115197/ |title=Hong Kong Legal Amendment May Lead to Change in Traditional Meaning of Family |author=Thaddeus M. Baklinski |date=20 January 2009 |access-date=15 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090123110229/http://catholicexchange.com/2009/01/20/115197/ |archive-date=23 January 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref> on 16 December 2009, Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed a bill extending its Domestic Violence Ordinance to apply to same-sex couples.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/ord/ord018-09-e.pdf |title=Domestic Violence (Amendment) Ordinance 2009 |date=16 December 2009 |access-date=7 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607074641/http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/ord/ord018-09-e.pdf |archive-date=7 June 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Despite the above victories of the homosexual community, [[same-sex marriage]] is not recognised in Hong Kong. There is also an absence of anti-discrimination legislation to create [[horizontal effect]] for the protection of homosexuals in human rights instruments, leaving homosexuals with no legal redress if discriminated against for their sexuality by private individuals.<ref name=g/>

====Indigenous people====
Hong Kong, despite being highly westernised, still retains Chinese culture and traditions, especially in the Region's [[New Territories]]. Such traditions are expressly protected in Article 40 of the Basic Law, which provides that the lawful traditional rights and interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories shall be protected.

In ''Secretary for Justice and others v. Chan Wah and Others'',<ref name=cw>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=18950&QS=%28%7B%24chan+wah%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083427/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=18950&QS=%28%7B%24chan+wah%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> the second respondent complained of having been excluded by electoral arrangements from standing as a candidate in village elections on the ground he was not indigenous, although he had lived there all his life. It was held that as the village representative would represent the whole village, not just indigenous persons, the restriction was not reasonable and electoral arrangements were held unconstitutional accordingly.

The [[Government of Hong Kong|Hong Kong Government]] introduced the [[Small House Policy]] in 1972, which is an attempt to regularise village traditions. It allows indigenous male adult villagers, who is descended through the male line from a resident in 1898 of a recognised village, to be granted a plot of land at reduced premium in order to build a small house of specified dimensions within the 'V' zone and the environs or the village extension area of a recognised village.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/legco/house.htm |title=How to apply for a small house grant |work=Lands Department |access-date=21 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091227192205/http://www.landsd.gov.hk/en/legco/house.htm |archive-date=27 December 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref> There have been demands to abolish this policy due to its being perceived as discriminatory, although such attempts have been strongly refuted by the [[Heung Yee Kuk]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Dubious rights and plenty of wrongs behind small-house policy |author=Jake Van der Kamp |newspaper=South China Morning Post |date=23 September 2004 |url=http://www.jakevanderkamp.com/monitor/20040923.pdf |access-date=21 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110301083129/http://www.jakevanderkamp.com/monitor/20040923.pdf |archive-date=1 March 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Gender====
{{See|Women in Hong Kong}}

In ''Secretary for Justice and others v. Chan Wah and others'',<ref name=cw/> the first respondent, who was non-indigenous and male and married to an indigenous and female villager, was excluded from voting in village elections. However, the arrangements were such that a non-indigenous, female villager married to an indigenous, male villager would have qualified as an indigenous villager with a right to vote. It was held such arrangements constitute unlawful discrimination on the ground of sex.

In ''Equal Opportunities Commission v. Director of Education'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=32886&QS=%28%7B%24director+of+education%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083456/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=32886&QS=%28%7B%24director+of+education%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> the Secondary School Place Allocation System was challenged as being discriminatory towards girls. To help boys overcome the late bloom, a scaling system was introduced whereby boys and girls scores were scaled separately. The result was that the final score of boys were boosted and those of girls reduced. Further the band cutting scores were different for each sex, with girls requiring a higher score to get into the top band. There were also gender quotas. The system was held to be unconstitutional.

Protection against [[sexual harassment]] at the workplace was put in place in 1995 through the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance.

There is international jurisprudence that supports a reading of the word "sex" in the prohibition of sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender persons.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Emerton |first1=Robyn |year=2004 |title=Time for Change: A Call for the Legal Recognition of Transsexual and Other Transgender Persons in Hong Kong|journal=Hong Kong Law Journal |volume=34 |page=515}}</ref> The Hong Kong government has provided public funding for the treatment of [[transgender]] people covering counselling and, for those who proceed further, the provision of [[gender reassignment surgery]]. Post-operative transsexual persons can apply to change the gender on their identity cards and passports. However, a person's gender at law is determined by a birth certificate, which cannot be changed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Emerton |first1=Robyn |year=2004 |title=Neither Here nor There: The Current Status of Transsexual and Other Transgender Persons Under Hong Kong Law |journal=Hong Kong Law Journal |volume=34 |page=245}}</ref> In 2010, in ''[[W v Registrar of Marriages]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=73187&QS=%28{Registrar+of+marriages}+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result}}</ref> [[Andrew Cheung]] J held that the references in the Marriage Ordinance to "man" and "women", properly interpreted, do not cover post-operative transsexual persons. It was further held that the Marriage Ordinance, which deny marriage to transsexual persons, was not inconsistent with the right to marry under the Basic Law or the Bill of Rights. Until W's appeal was allowed at the Court of Final Appeal, it was not possible for a transsexual person to marry someone of the same biological sex under Hong Kong law.<ref>{{cite news |title='The ball's in your court' |author=Colleen Lee and Serinah Ho |newspaper=The Standard |date=6 October 2010 |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=103556&sid=29828680&con_type=1&d_str=20101006&sear_year=2010 |access-date=17 November 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629192534/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=103556&sid=29828680&con_type=1&d_str=20101006&sear_year=2010 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/cases/w_v_registrar.html |title=W v Registrar of Marriages |date=10 October 2010 |work=[[Blackstone Chambers]] |access-date=17 November 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110118031115/http://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/cases/w_v_registrar.html |archive-date=18 January 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 16 September 2013 [[Eliana Rubashkyn]] a transgender woman was discriminated and sexually abused for the airport's staff,<ref name="SCMP 2013">{{citation|url=http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1346238/transgender-woman-hong-kong-customs-officers-behaved-animals-during|periodical=South China Morning Post|date=1 November 2013|access-date=2 February 2014|title=Hong Kong customs officers behaved 'like animals' during body search|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140214030429/http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1346238/transgender-woman-hong-kong-customs-officers-behaved-animals-during|archive-date=14 February 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> forcing international organizations like [[United Nations]] and Hong Kong [[NGO]]s to provide assistance as a refugee becoming a [[statelessness|stateless]] person,<ref name="Apple Daily">{{citation|url=http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131103/18491211|date=1 November 2013|access-date=2 February 2014|title=為換護照慘失國籍失學位失尊嚴 被海關當畜牲跨性別博士來港三失不是人 – Tragic loss of a nationality|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140129181129/http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131103/18491211|archive-date=29 January 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> she suffered for more than 9 hours invasive body search.<ref name="Gay News Network">{{citation|url=http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/trans-woman-subjected-to-invasive-search-at-hong-kong-airport-12289.html|date=1 November 2013|access-date=2 February 2014|title=Trans woman subjected to invasive search at Hong Kong airport|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140220123632/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/trans-woman-subjected-to-invasive-search-at-hong-kong-airport-12289.html|archive-date=20 February 2014}}</ref>

===Legal certainty===
[[File:190616 HK Protest Incendo 12.jpg|thumb|[[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]]]
Article 39 of the Basic Law stipulates that the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted "unless as prescribed by law". [[Anthony Mason (judge)|Sir Anthony Mason NPJ]], in his judgment in the landmark case ''Shum Kwok Sher v. HKSAR'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=22601&QS=%28%7B%24shum+kwok+sher%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083501/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=22601&QS=%28%7B%24shum+kwok+sher%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> said, "International human rights jurisprudence has developed to the point that it is now widely recognised that the expression "prescribed by law", when used in a context such as art. 39 of the Basic Law, mandates the principle of legal certainty." In that case, the [[Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Final Appeal]] laid down two requirements for legal certainty:
# The relevant law must be sufficiently certain and precise to enable citizens to regulate his conduct
# The relevant law must be adequately accessible

The Court remarked that a balance has to be struck between requiring the law to be formulated with sufficient precision and the desirability of avoiding rigidity in the law. The precision required will vary according to the context of the law; if it is impossible to formulate the law with absolute certainty, a description of the nature of the activity will provide sufficient notice. On the facts of that case, the Court held that the [[common law]] offence of [[misconduct in a public office]] was sufficiently certain.

===Presumption of innocence===
{{Further|Criminal Procedure (Hong Kong)}}
Article 87 of the Basic Law and Article 11 of the Bill of Rights provides that anyone charged with a [[criminal offence]] shall have the right to be [[presumption of innocence|presumed innocent]] until proven guilty according to law. This presumption is well established under the [[common law]]; the much-celebrated case of ''[[Woolmington v DPP]]''<ref>[1935] AC 462</ref> laid down the basic [[criminal law]] principle that it is the duty of the [[prosecution]] to prove the defendant's guilt subject to the defence of [[insanity]] and statutory exceptions. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant committed the criminal offence in question, the prosecution has not made out the case and the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

However, as mentioned above, statutes may place the [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] on the defendant or make presumptions of facts which require the defendant to prove otherwise. In such circumstances, the reverse burden must be justifiable to avoid being struck down as unconstitutional. According to ''R v. Sin Yau Ming'', a statutory provision is prima facie unconstitutional if the defendant has to prove the essential elements of the offence. Moreover, the reverse burden must be justified under the [[Oakes test]].<ref name=sin/>

This principle was partly affirmed by the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council|Privy Council]] decision in ''AG v. Lee Kwong Kut''<ref>[1993] 2 HKCLR 186</ref> when [[Lord Woolf]] said:

{{quotation|Some exceptions will be justifiable, others will not. Whether they are justifiable will in the end depend upon whether it remains primarily the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused to the required standard and whether the exception is reasonably imposed, notwithstanding the importance of maintaining the principle which Art 11(1) enshrines. The less significant the departure from the normal principle, the simpler it will be to justify an exception. If the prosecution retains the responsibility for proving the essential ingredients of the offence, the less likely it is that an exception will be regarded as unacceptable.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://law.hku.hk/criminal99/crimweb6.htm |title=The Search for General Principles |access-date=2 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807041938/http://law.hku.hk/criminal99/crimweb6.htm |archive-date=7 August 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>}}

===Right to property===
The [[right to property]] is protected by Article 6 of the Basic Law. Furthermore, Article 105 confers upon individuals the right to compensation for lawful deprivation of their property. Statutory protection of the right to property is found in the criminal offence of theft and in the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) and the Prevention of Copyright Privacy Ordinance (Cap. 544) etc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/communication/infosec/intproperty.htm |title=Intellectual Property Protection |date=March 2010 |work=Hong Kong Government |access-date=6 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110310081618/http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/communication/infosec/intproperty.htm |archive-date=10 March 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The [[town planning]] regime had been questioned as to its compatibility with this right. Whether zoning restrictions effected by the Outline Zoning Plans constitute a deprivation of property was considered by the Court of Appeal in ''Fine Tower Associates Ltd v Town Planning Board''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=57925&QS=%28%7B%24Fine+Tower+Associates%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083507/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=57925&QS=%28%7B%24Fine+Tower+Associates%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> The Conditions of Exchange limited the applicant's land use to industrial and/or [[godown]], but the Draft Outline Zoning Plan designated 44% of the land as "Open Space" and 56% as "Other Specified Uses". The Court noted that a deprivation of land could occur not only by a formal expropriation of the land but also by an act which nullified any meaningful economic benefit in the land. It was held that the applicant had not lost all meaningful or economically viable use of the land, as it could still sell the land. The Court stressed that Article 105 had to be read in conjunction with Article 7, which authorises the government to manage the land in Hong Kong.<ref>per Stock JA para 4–8, 25–27, 33</ref>

===No arbitrary arrest, detention, imprisonment, search or seizure===
[[Arbitrary arrest and detention|Arbitrary arrest]], detention, imprisonment, search or seizure are prohibited under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 5 of the Bill of Rights. No one shall be deprived of his personal liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure established by law. In practice, this area is governed by a mixture of [[common law]] and statutes.

At common law, [[false imprisonment]] is recognised as both a [[tort]] and a crime.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=2068&QS=%28%7B%24chan+wing+kuen%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083510/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=2068&QS=%28%7B%24chan+wing+kuen%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Kidnapping]] is a crime at [[common law]] and is codified in section 42 of the Offence Against the Person Ordinance (Cap.212).

====Power of arrest====
It was confirmed in the case ''R v. To Kwan Hang & Another''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=16398&QS=%28%7B%24To+Kwan+Hang%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083515/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=16398&QS=%28%7B%24To+Kwan+Hang%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> that the [[common law]] power of arrest is applicable to Hong Kong. Any person has the right to take reasonable steps to stop someone from "breaking or threatening to break the peace", and that "reasonable steps in appropriate cases will include detaining him against his will".<ref>R (on the application of Laporte) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55</ref>
[[Kemal Bokhary|Bokhary JA]], as he then was, explained that a [[breach of peace]] occurs when a person "unlawfully resorts to violence which injures someone or damages property, or which puts someone in immediate danger of injury or property in immediate danger of damage".

The general power of all persons to arrest can also be derived from statutory sources. Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap.221) stipulates that any person may arrest without [[arrest warrant|warrant]] any person whom he may reasonably suspect of being guilty of an [[arrestable offence]]. An arrestable offence in Hong Kong refers to an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months.<ref>s.3, Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap.1)</ref> Section 101A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance also allows any person to use reasonable force when effecting or assisting a lawful arrest.

The power of the police to arrest is much more extensive than that for citizens. They have the unqualified power to arrest pursuant to a warrant,<ref name="Police Force Ordinance p.232">s.53, Police Force Ordinance (Cap.232)</ref> and the police officer effecting the arrest is not responsible for any irregularities in the warrant as long as he is acting pursuant to it.<ref>s.60, Police Force Ordinance (Cap.232)</ref> A police officer can execute a warrant notwithstanding the warrant is not in his possession at the time, but the warrant shall, on the demand of the person affected, be shown to him as soon as practicable after the arrest.<ref name="Police Force Ordinance p.232"/> If no warrant is obtained, the police can only effect an arrest pursuant to section 50 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap.232).

Section 50 allows a police officer to apprehend any person who (i) he reasonably believes will be charged with or who (ii) he reasonably suspects of being guilty of any offence for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person may be sentenced to imprisonment or if the service of a [[summons]] is impracticable. The constitutionality of this provision was reviewed in ''Yeung May-wan and Others v. HKSAR''.<ref name=ymw/> The Court held that, in order to be compatible with Article 28 of the Basic Law, the first limb must be read as encompassing the second and did not eliminate the requirement for reasonable suspicion of guilt. The suspicion of guilt must be objectively reasonable, and the facts known by the police officer must be such that, if true, they would constitute all the elements of the offence in question. On the facts of that case, it was held that the arrests were not lawful and constituted [[false imprisonment]] as the police officers did not have in mind the element of "without lawful excuse" when arresting the [[Falun Gong]] protestors for obstruction of public place.

If a person is unlawfully arrested, he is entitled to use reasonable force to free himself.<ref name=ymw/>
In the ''Yeung May-wan'' case, the defendants were therefore acquitted of wilfully obstructing a police officer and assaulting a police officer, even though there was actually a scuffle.

The person arrested must be delivered immediately to a police station.<ref>s.51, Police Force Ordinance (Cap.232)</ref>

The reasons for the arrest must be given to the arrested person before or at the time of the arrest.<ref>Abbassy v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1990] 1 WLR 385</ref>

====Power to stop, detain and search====
Section 54(1) allows a police officer to stop, detain and search any person as long as he "acts in a suspicious manner". This requirement of suspicion was said to be subjective in a 1980 case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=2378&QS=%28%7B%24kong+chung+shing%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083523/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=2378&QS=%28%7B%24kong+chung+shing%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> Whether this remains good law is unclear as it was decided before the coming into effect of the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights and the judgment in ''Yeung May-wan''. On the other hand, section 54(2) requires an objective reasonable suspicion.<ref>{{cite book |title=Tort Law in Hong Kong |last=Glofcheski |first=Rick |publisher=Sweet & Maxwell Asia |isbn=978-962-661-312-2 |page=537|year=2007 }}</ref>

====Proof of identity====
[[File:Police dictatorship in hk.jpg|thumb|Police officers inspect the Identity Card of a citizen.|alt=Refer to caption]]
Any person aged 15 or above and is a holder of a [[Hong Kong identity card]] is required to have it with him at all times.<ref>s.17C(1), Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115)</ref> There is no requirement that reasonable suspicion is needed if a police officer decides to demand the production of one's Identity Card,<ref>s.17C(2), Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115)</ref> as long as the officer is in uniform or produces his appointment documentation. A police officer may arrest without warrant anyone who fails to produce his Identity Card.<ref>s.17D, Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115)</ref> Failure to produce one's Identity Card is an offence punishable by a level 2 fine.<ref>s.17C(3), Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115)</ref>

During the 2019 anti-extradition law amendment protests, police officers who failed to produce identification (by removing or refusing to produce identifying documents) yet still proceeded to arrest protesters – often violently – have resulted in a large number of individuals (including many innocent bystanders) who were arrested to be left with no recourse for the injuries and alleged torture they sustained during and after the arrest. As of September 2019, there are court cases attempting to rectify this.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3027510/trio-launch-court-action-against-hong-kong-police-over|title=Trio target elite Hong Kong police in new court action over protest injuries|date=16 September 2019|website=South China Morning Post|access-date=19 September 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190919231629/https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3027510/trio-launch-court-action-against-hong-kong-police-over|archive-date=19 September 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor]] has expressed its reservations as to the compatibility of this power with the Bill of Rights.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/police/police_leaflet_a.jpg |title=Archived copy |access-date=19 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155118/http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/police/police_leaflet_a.jpg |archive-date=26 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Right to privacy===
The [[right to privacy]] is protected by Article 30 of the Basic Law and Article 14 of the Bill of Rights. At statutory level, protection is mainly offered by the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, which has quite a limited scope.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20091110/HK-gov1.htm |title=明報新聞網海外版 - 加東版(多倫多) - Canada Toronto Chinese Newspaper - 港聞 |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091126072515/http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20091110/HK-gov1.htm |archive-date=26 November 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> It stipulates six data protection principles which must be adhered to when dealing with personal data.<ref>Schedule 1, Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486)</ref> Non-compliance with the principles is not a criminal offence but the party concerned may be served with an enforcement notice by the Privacy Commissioner. Non-compliance with an enforcement notice is punishable by a penalty of a fine at Level 5 and imprisonment for two years.<ref>s.64(7), Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486)</ref> The statute also creates a civil [[cause of action]]: an individual who suffers damage, including injured feeling, by reason of a contravention of the Ordinance in relation to his or her personal data may seek compensation from the data user concerned.<ref>s.66, Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486)</ref>

However, the powers of [[law enforcement officer]]s to conduct [[covert surveillance]] had been largely unchecked before 2005. The legal basis for covert surveillance first came under scrutiny in two criminal cases in the District Court in 2005.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chen | first=Albert H. Y. |editor-first=Yue-Man| editor-last=Yeung |title=The First Decade: The Hong Kong SAR in Retrospective and Introspective Perspectives |publisher=CUHK |pages=161–188 |chapter=Chapter 8: One Country Two Systems from a Legal Perspective |isbn=978-962-996-357-6| year=2007 }}</ref> To plug the loophole, the Chief Executive promulgated the Law Enforcement (Covert Surveillance Procedure) Order in August 2005.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/archive/pdf/lo20050811e.pdf |title=The Regulation of Covert Surveillance Ian Wingfield, Law Officer, Department of Justice |date=10 August 2005 |website=doj.gov.hk |access-date=2020-05-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720032357/http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/archive/pdf/lo20050811e.pdf |archive-date=20 July 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Leung Kwok-hung]] and Koo Sze Yiu, two political activists who claimed they had probably been targets of covert surveillance, brought an action to challenge the constitutionality of the practice of covert surveillance. They succeeded at the Court of First Instance, which held that section 33 of the Telecommunication Ordinance and the Order were both unconstitutional.<ref>''Leung Kwok-hung and Another v. Chief Executive of the HKSAR'' HCAL No.107 of 2005</ref> The former created the power to intercept communications without adequate safeguards against abuse. The later failed to comply with the procedural requirement in the Basic Law. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=52500&QS=%28%7B%24chief+executive%7D+%25parties%29%7C%28%7B%24leung+kwok+hung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result}}</ref> and the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Final Appeal suspended for six months the declaration of invalidity of the unconstitutional provisions, so that new legislation can be introduced to regulate covert surveillance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=53215&QS=%28%7B%24koo+sze+yiu%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083530/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=53215&QS=%28%7B%24koo+sze+yiu%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> The Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance (Cap. 589) was passed by the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] on 6 August 2006 after a 58-hour debate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.margaretng.com/newsletter_details.php?id=4 |title=Newsletter Aug 2006 |author=Margaret Ng |date=9 August 2006 |access-date=14 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022235553/http://www.margaretng.com/newsletter_details.php?id=4 |archive-date=22 October 2008 }}</ref>

The [[law enforcement agency|law enforcement agencies]] have since been heavily criticised by the Honourable Mr Justice Woo V-P, the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www3.news.gov.hk/ISD/ebulletin/en/category/administration/060809/html/060809en01002.htm |title=Covert surveillance panel formed |work=HKSAR Government |date=9 August 2006 |access-date=6 April 2010 }}{{dead link|date=November 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> He remarked that some law enforcement officers were dishonest and unwilling to cooperate,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=78309&sid=22737421 |title=Lawmakers slam ICAC for placing itself above law |work=The Standard |date=17 February 2009 |access-date=16 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629155258/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=78309&sid=22737421 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref> behaved in an arrogant and presumptuous manner that was bordering on recalcitrance,<ref name=ICAC>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=91374&sid=26274223&con_type=1 |title=ICAC blasted over phone-tapping blunder |date=2 December 2009 |work=The Standard |access-date=16 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629155314/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=91374&sid=26274223&con_type=1 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref> and disobeyed orders by deleting relevant recordings of covert surveillance.<ref>[http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20091208/HK-gaa3.htm]{{dead link|date=May 2020}}</ref> It was also revealed that the government relied on a Canadian precedent to question the Commissioner's power to access covert surveillance recordings, and that a legislative amendment may be required to clarify the situation.<ref>[http://www.mingpaotor.com/htm/News/20091208/HK-gaa1.htm]{{dead link|date=May 2020}}</ref> An outrage was caused when it was revealed ICAC officers spent four days tapping a man's phone line although their target was a supposed to be female.<ref name=ICAC/> Also revealed were four cases of unauthorised ICAC tapping of phone conversations between lawyers and their clients in 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20090216/news_20090216_56_560094.htm |title='ICAC officers less than frank' – judge |author=Janice Wong |date=16 February 2009 |work=RTHK |access-date=16 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605024836/http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20090216/news_20090216_56_560094.htm |archive-date=5 June 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2010, it was reported that the police might have conducted covert surveillance over the phone conversations of participants of the [[Anti-Hong Kong Express Rail Link movement|anti-express rail]] demonstrations. When a district councillor questioned Police Commissioner [[Tang King Shing]] regarding the incident, Tang did not respond to the question directly, choosing to reply that the police acts according to law and adopts a stringent management of all covert surveillance operations.<ref name=hkp>{{cite web|url=http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100225/4/gqsm.html |title=鄧竟成拒回應 反高鐵成員質疑警竊聽 - Yahoo! 新聞 |access-date=2011-04-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604225928/http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100225/4/gqsm.html |archive-date=4 June 2011 }}</ref>

===Right to vote===
The [[right to vote]] is protected under Article 26 of the Basic Law.

Previously, there was a general automatic and indiscriminate restrictions on prisoners' right to vote. A case was brought by two men, Chan Kin-sum and Choi Chuen-sun, who were in jail during the challenge, and [[Leung Kwok-hung]], to challenge the restrictions. Justice [[Andrew Cheung]] ruled that inmates have the constitutional right to register as voters and cast their ballots while serving sentences, which was unjustificably infringed by the indiscriminate ban.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.topnews.in/hong-kong-judge-gives-convicts-right-vote-296532|title=Hong Kong judge gives convicts the right to vote {{!}} TopNews|website=topnews.in|access-date=2019-06-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181105012357/https://www.topnews.in/hong-kong-judge-gives-convicts-right-vote-296532|archive-date=5 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Two [[League of Social Democrats]] activists also applied for a [[judicial review]] to challenge the legality of corporate voting on the grounds that it contravened Article 26 or was discriminatory in nature.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.association-france-hongkong.org/?article931&lang=fr|title=Association France Hong Kong {{!}} A bridge between France & Hong Kong. A gateway to China.|website=association-france-hongkong.org|access-date=2019-06-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229034312/http://www.association-france-hongkong.org/?article931&lang=fr|archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> Justice Andrew Cheung dismissed the applications, emphasising that his judgment was solely concerned with the constitutionality of corporate voting rather than the political wisdom of corporate voting or [[Functional constituency (Hong Kong)|functional constituencies]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?DIS=68842|title=HCAL32/2009 CHAN YU NAM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE|access-date=7 June 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083552/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?DIS=68842|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Right of abode===
{{Main|Right of abode in Hong Kong}}

The definition of Hong Kong permanent residents is listed in Article 24 of the Basic Law, under which this class of persons enjoy the right of abode. However, the conflict between this Article and Article 22 led to extensive controversies and litigations.

Due to Hong Kong's proximity to mainland China, controversy has arisen in the right of abode of children born within the city by a mainland mother. Under current law, both the mother and the child is automatically granted right of abode.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.immd.gov.hk/eng/services/roa/eligible.html|title=Eligibility for the Right of Abode in the HKSAR {{!}} Immigration Department|website=immd.gov.hk|language=en|access-date=2017-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170815062838/http://www.immd.gov.hk/eng/services/roa/eligible.html|archive-date=15 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> This has drawn criticism from Hong Kong citizens who argue that instead of wanting to give birth to their children in a better hospital, mainland mothers are exploiting the law in order to receive right of abode.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1177267/zero-quota-mainland-mums-hk-hospitals-bad-economy|title=Zero quota on mainland mums in hospitals 'bad for economy'|work=South China Morning Post|access-date=2017-08-07|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810124948/http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1177267/zero-quota-mainland-mums-hk-hospitals-bad-economy|archive-date=10 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> Proponents for the law, including private doctors, claim that the law encourages medical tourism in Hong Kong thus providing long-term benefit for the city.<ref name=":0" />

===Right to travel and enter or leave the Region===
The freedom of emigration, along with the freedom to travel and to enter or leave the Region, is guaranteed to Hong Kong residents under Article 31 of the Basic Law and Article 8(2) of the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance provides that any permission given to a person to land or remain in Hong Kong shall, if in force on the day that person departs from Hong Kong, expire immediately after his departure.

The case of ''Gurung Kesh Bahadur v. Director of Immigration''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=22741&QS=%28%7B%24bahadur%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083538/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=22741&QS=%28%7B%24bahadur%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> illustrated the problem of the provision. Mr. Bahadur, a [[Nepal]]ese citizen, was a non-permanent resident of Hong Kong since 1995. Extensions of stay were made a few times, and the last one was to expire in January 1999. In October 1997, he flew to [[Nepal]], returning to Hong Kong 7 days later. The Custom refused Bahadur's application for permission to land by virtue of section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance. His challenge of the provision succeeded in the Court of Final Appeal, which held that the provision was on itself constitutional but was unconstitutional when applied to non-permanent residents whose permission to stay had yet to expire. Hence the provision is no longer applicable to the above class of persons.

Since the right to enter the Region is a right guaranteed to Hong Kong residents only, the government has been accused of denying entry to politically sensitive persons who are not Hong Kong residents, including US-based activists in the [[1989 Tiananmen Square protests]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/05/26/2003444519 |title=Hong Kong denies entry to Tiananmen dissidents |work=Taipei Times |date=26 May 2009 |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090529231917/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/05/26/2003444519 |archive-date=29 May 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref> Falun Gong practitioners,<ref name="The Standard"/> and Tibetian independence supporters.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=20983&article=Tibetan+and+supporters+denied+entry+in+Hong+Kong |title=Tibetan and supporters denied entry in Hong Kong |work=phayul.com |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080924060941/http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=20983&article=Tibetan+and+supporters+denied+entry+in+Hong+Kong |archive-date=24 September 2008 |url-status=live }}</ref> High-profile persons denied entry include [[Taiwan President]] [[Ma Ying-jeou]]<ref>{{in lang|zh-hk}}{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_4140000/newsid_4147800/4147829.stm | publisher=BBC News | title=香港拒馬英九入境台方指關係倒退 (Hong Kong refuses Ma Ying-jeou entry, Taiwan claims deterioration of relationship | date=5 January 2005 | access-date=4 May 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080327124742/http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_4140000/newsid_4147800/4147829.stm | archive-date=27 March 2008 | url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Jens Galschiot]], the sculptor of the [[Pillar of Shame]] that commemorates the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ifex.org/china/hong_kong/2008/04/30/freedom_of_expression_activists/ |title=Freedom of expression activists denied entry to international conference |work=IFEX |date=30 April 2008 |access-date=14 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100729113957/http://ifex.org/china/hong_kong/2008/04/30/freedom_of_expression_activists/ |archive-date=29 July 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 21 June 2010, the Court of First Instance held that the requirement that, subject to a grace period of 56 days, an adult applicant for [[Comprehensive Social Security Assistance]] ("CSSA") must have resided in Hong Kong continuously for at least one year immediately before the date of application is unconstitutional since it unjustifiably infringes the freedom to travel and the right to equality.<ref>{{cite Hong Kong case |id=71579 |litigants=Yao Man Fai George v The Director of Social Welfare |date=21 June 2010 |list=HCAL |number=69 |year=2009}}</ref> The case was brought by Hong Kong permanent resident George Yao Man-fai, who had been previously employed on the mainland. He was refused CSSA after he returned to Hong Kong following the termination of his employment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cdeclips.com/en/hongkong/fullstory.html?id=46488 |title=Court rejects CSSA residency requirement |author=Timothy Chui |date=22 June 2010 |work=China Daily |access-date=24 June 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131217121515/http://www.cdeclips.com/en/hongkong/fullstory.html?id=46488 |archive-date=17 December 2013 }}</ref> As a result, the Social Welfare Department announced it is shelving the one-year continuous residence requirement for new and repeat applications for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hk-imail.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=99628&sid=28657211&con_type=1 |title=Residence rule to no longer bar dole bids |author=Serinah Ho |date=22 June 2010 |work=The Standard |access-date=24 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120304022753/http://www.hk-imail.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=99628&sid=28657211&con_type=1 |archive-date=2012-03-04}}</ref>

==Economic, social and cultural rights under domestic law==

===Right to form trade unions and to strike===
The right to form trade unions and to strike is provided by Article 27 of the Basic Law. The British government ratified the International Labour Conventions in 1949 but it was not until 1979 that the Conventions were partially enforced in Hong Kong.

There is a system of compulsory registration under the Trade Union Ordinance (Cap. 332). Under section 5(5) of the Ordinance, the officers of any trade union which fails to register are liable to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for six months. The Registrar has the power to monitor trade union activities through the supervision of union rule books, accounts and related documents. Trade unions are obliged by law to report to the Registrar where there are changes to the rule book, or the offices and branches operated by the trade unions. Such legal limits on the right to form trade unions were criticised by the Hong Kong Human Rights Commission.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hkhrc.org.hk/content/publications/un_reports/1993hrreport/re93_09.htm |title=Hong Kong Human Rights Report 1993 Chapter 9 |work=Hong Kong Human Rights Commission |access-date=25 February 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090910071625/http://www.hkhrc.org.hk/content/publications/UN_reports/1993hrreport/re93_09.htm |archive-date=10 September 2009 }}</ref>

Section 9 of the Employment Ordinance makes it clear that the fact that an employee takes part in a strike does not entitle his employer to terminate the employee's contract of employment. If a worker is dismissed for strike action, he or she would have the right to sue the employer for compensation. However, there is no legal entitlement to reinstatement.

The Hong Kong Liaison Office of the International Trade Union Confederation commented that although there is some protection in labour law, workers and unions have little opportunity for defending their rights in practice.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ihlo.org/IS/000909a.html |title=ITUC Annual Survey of Trade Union Rights Violations 2009 |work=ITUC |publisher=IHLO |access-date=25 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726172336/http://ihlo.org/IS/000909a.html |archive-date=26 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Right to social welfare===
The right to social welfare is protected under Article 36 of the Basic Law, which further provides that the welfare benefits and retirement security of the labour force shall be protected by law. The Comprehensive Social Security Assistance is a form of social security provided by the Hong Kong government. The [[Mandatory Provident Fund]] is a compulsory saving scheme (pension fund) for the retirement of residents in Hong Kong: both employees and employers have to contribute, as long as the salary of the employee exceeds a statutorily stipulated level. However, there is no [[social insurance]] in Hong Kong.

The CSSA is only provided to residents of Hong Kong for at least seven years. A new mainland migrant whose Hong Kong husband died a day after her arrival challenged the seven years requirement. On 23 June 2009, the Court of First Instance held that the requirement was a justified restriction of the right to equality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=66341&QS=%28CSSA%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=29 June 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083613/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=66341&QS=(CSSA)&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=83890&sid=24327057&con_type=1 |title=Seven-year rule stands as widow loses benefit battle |author=Nickkita Lau |date=24 June 2009 |work=The Standard |access-date=24 June 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629174457/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=83890&sid=24327057&con_type=1 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

==Human rights under international law==
The [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]](ICESCR) and [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR) are in effect in Hong Kong by virtue of Article 39 of the Basic Law.

The ICESCR requires the government to take steps by all appropriate means and to the maximum of its available resources to achieve the rights in the covenants.<ref>Article 2, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights</ref> The Court has repeatedly expressed the judicial opinion that such rights are positive in nature and are not enforceable unless domestic legislation has been enacted providing for the rights stipulated therein.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.viperfusion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/2007-labour-law-working-hours-report.pdf |title=Fulfilling Hong Kong's International Obligations through Labour Law-Working Hours Report |author=Cliff Lui |access-date=18 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717210212/http://www.viperfusion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/2007-labour-law-working-hours-report.pdf |archive-date=17 July 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref> Unlike the ICCPR, the ICESCR was not incorporated into domestic Hong Kong law and is only binding under international law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=20073&QS=%28%7B%24mok+chi+hung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result|access-date=9 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225083544/http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=20073&QS=%28%7B%24mok+chi+hung%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> Hartmann J's description of the ICESCR as "aspirational" and "promotional" sums up the approach of the Hong Kong courts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=20650&QS=%28%24aspirational%29%7C%28%24promotional%29&TP=JU&currpage=T|title=Result}}</ref>

A number of ICESCR rights are incorporated in the Basic Law, such as the right to form trade unions and to strike (Article 27), right to social welfare (Article 36) and the right to benefit from the production of moral and material interest resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author (Article 140).

Although the [[right to housing]] (Article 11 of the ICESCR) is not incorporated in any domestic law<ref name=yash>{{cite book |title=Hong Kong's New Constitutional order |last=Ghai |first=Yash P. |year=1998 |publisher=Hong Kong University Press |isbn=962-209-463-5 |pages=438–439}}</ref> and is hence not an "entitlement", the Hong Kong Government has been providing public housing in the nature of "grace". In 1973, the government announced a 10-year plan to provide self-contained public housing to 1.8 million people. In 1995, public housing accommodated 2 million people, accounting for 45% of all housing. Public housing rental units are provided at subsidised rates (typically 20% of that in the private market), although their allocation is mean tested. The government introduced the [[Home Ownership Scheme]] in 1978 and the [[Sandwich Class Housing Scheme]] in the 1990s to allow families to own their own homes.

Although the [[right to health]] is contained in Article 12 of the ICESCR, there is again no entitlement as such in domestic Hong Kong law.<ref name=yash/> However, Article 138 of the Basic Law requires the HKSAR to improve medical and health services by formulating policies to develop Western and [[Chinese medicine]]. Healthcare is provided by the government in the nature of "grace": the Accident & Emergency service and the in-patient (general acute beds) service provided by the [[Hospital Authority]] charges HKD180 per visit and HKD120 per day (plus HKD75 admission fee) respectively.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ha.org.hk/visitor/ha_visitor_index.asp?Content_ID=10045&Lang=ENG |title=List of Fees & Charges |work=Hospital Authority |access-date=1 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421190154/http://www.ha.org.hk/visitor/ha_visitor_index.asp%3FContent_ID%3D10045%26Lang%3DENG |archive-date=21 April 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> 95% of Hong Kong people depend on the in-patient service provided by the public sector and 30% on the out-patient service provided by the public sector.

== Criticism of the police ==

=== Allegations of police brutality ===
Human rights groups have accused the [[Hong Kong Police]] of using heavy-handed tactics on non-violent protesters.

In 2002, [[Amnesty International]] cited the use of excessive force in an incident at [[Chater Garden]] where more than 350 police and immigrations officers stormed a group of 200 protesters. According to them, the protesters had been peacefully staging rallies against the Court of Final Appeal ruling that the majority of 5,114 people seeking residence in the territory did not have right to stay in Hong Kong and should return to [[mainland China]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA19/001/2002|title=Amnesty International Press Release Hong Kong: Police must exercise restraint in handling protesters|access-date=4 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120930031814/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA19/001/2002|archive-date=30 September 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2002, a group of [[Falun Gong]] practitioners who were protesting outside the [[Hong Kong Liaison Office|Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]] were being forcibly removed from the street by Hong Kong Police with heavy-handed tactics. All were later charged with the offence of ''Public Place Obstruction''. The Falun Gong defendants contested and appealed to the [[Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Final Appeal]]. All defendants in this case (''Yeung May-Wan & others v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'') were acquitted.

In 2008, police sergeant Thom Wing-hong punched a man in custody, Lik Sin-wan, in the head after the two argued over the way to conduct Lik's search. Lik, who had recently received a head operation, suffered serious injury as the strikes ruptured his reconstructed head bone. Thom then accused Lik of assaulting a police officer. Lik was later charged and appeared in court in August 2008 but was acquitted. The assault only came to light after the [[magistrate]] became suspicious of the circumstances of Lik's injury and ordered an investigation. Thom was charged with causing [[grievous bodily harm]] and sentenced to 10 months in prison.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=92183&sid=26499800&con_type=1&d_str=20091222&sear_year=2009 |title=Assault cop jailed |author=Nickkita Lau |date=22 December 2009 |work=The Standard |access-date=26 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629155424/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=92183&sid=26499800&con_type=1&d_str=20091222&sear_year=2009 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

In 2010, the [[Hong Kong Police]] came under heavy criticism for using [[pepper spray]] on anti-[[Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link]] protestors who were demonstrating outside the Legislative Council. Shortly after the Legislative Council's approval of the project, a group of demonstrators tried to break through a security cordon and were met with pepper spray.<ref name=ps>{{cite web |url=http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_478501.html |title=Protest against HK rail link |date=17 January 2010 |work=The Straits Times |access-date=6 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130724024537/http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_478501.html |archive-date=24 July 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref> Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee subsequently condemned demonstrators who clashed with the police, saying that they "violated stability and law and order" and would not be tolerated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/article266214.ece |title=Hong Kong warns anti-government protestors |date=18 January 2010 |access-date=13 February 2010}}</ref> When the police was questioned by the Legislative Council for their use of pepper spray, assistant police commissioner Austin Kerrigan claimed the force used was not excessive. He accepted many protestors were peaceful, but said some had crossed the line.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://app2.rthk.org.hk/pda/news/content.php?id=644968 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721093931/http://app2.rthk.org.hk/pda/news/content.php?id=644968 |url-status=dead |archive-date=21 July 2011 |title=Police defend use of pepper spray |date=3 February 2010 |work=RTHK |access-date=13 February 2010 }}</ref> He did not directly answer the legislators' question as to whether ample warning was given before using pepper spray. It was revealed 7 police officers suffered injuries in the clash.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=94015&sid=26928507&con_type=1&d_str=20100203&fc=8 |title=Cops grilled over rail siege rumpus |author=Colleen Lee |date=3 February 2010 |work=The Standard |access-date=13 February 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629155522/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=94015&sid=26928507&con_type=1&d_str=20100203&fc=8 |archive-date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

During the [[2014 Hong Kong protests|Umbrella Revolution]] in 2014, the Hong Kong Police faced allegations of police brutality in their handling of protesters.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lai|first=Albert|date=2015|title=2014-2015 Report on Police Violence in the Umbrella Movement|url=http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/HKG/INT_CAT_CSS_HKG_22159_E.pdf|journal=The Professional Commons and Hong Kong In-Media|access-date=7 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170807112818/http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/HKG/INT_CAT_CSS_HKG_22159_E.pdf|archive-date=7 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> A report released in 2015 claimed that there were over 1,900 complaints filed against the police but only 21 were chosen to be investigated by the police.<ref name=":0" /> [[Ken Tsang#Beating incident|One incident]] where a protester was led by seven police officers to a remote location and subsequently beaten received significant media coverage and public outcry. The Hong Kong Police Union was criticized for holding a rally in support of the seven officers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/02/24/reactions-in-hong-kong-and-beijing-to-the-police-assault-case-show-scant-respect-for-rule-of-law/|title=Reactions in Hong Kong and Beijing to the police assault case show scant respect for rule of law|last=Contributor|first=Guest|date=2017-02-24|website=Hong Kong Free Press HKFP|access-date=2017-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170807151908/https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/02/24/reactions-in-hong-kong-and-beijing-to-the-police-assault-case-show-scant-respect-for-rule-of-law/|archive-date=7 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/chinese/reports/press/pr310599c.html |title=Press release from Hong Kong Human Right Monitor: Response to the submission of the Implementation Report on United Nations Convention Against Torture by HKSAR Government |access-date=14 August 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060922150058/http://hkhrm.org.hk/chinese/reports/press/pr310599c.html |archive-date=22 September 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Political neutrality of the police===

Political activist [[Christina Chan]] claimed that policemen visited her parents' home the day before the [[Anti-Hong Kong Express Rail Link movement|anti-high-speed rail demonstration]] and asked irrelevant questions. After being arrested for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequently bailed, she claimed the police did not ask any relevant questions to the incident, but harassed her instead.<ref>{{citation|periodical=South China Morning Post|date=10 January 2010|access-date=2010-01-24|page=1|title=Christina Chan arrested for assaulting police|first1=Daniel|last1=Sin|first2=Ambrose|last2=Leung|url=http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020474&docId=l:1105178150&isRss=true|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120224065632/http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020474&docId=l:1105178150&isRss=true|archive-date=24 February 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 2010, immediately after [[Andrew To]] became the Chairman of the [[League of Social Democrats]], he was charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty for his conduct during a demonstration on 1 October 2009.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://hk.appledaily.com/|title=Apple Daily|website=Apple Daily 蘋果日報|access-date=12 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190909054634/https://hk.appledaily.com/|archive-date=9 September 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> To claimed that certain video records showed that it was the police officers who punched him, and that he did not assault the police. He expressed his belief that the charge was based solely on political ground.

===Independence of the police and accountability on policing===
Regional police forces are not governed by a [[police authority]] consisting of elected officials and local members of public, but solely reports to the [[Security Bureau (Hong Kong)|Security Bureau]] of HKSAR government, headed by appointed civil servants from the executive branch of government.

Complaints about the police are handled by [[Complaints against Police Office]] (CAPO), which is not independent but part of the Hong Kong Police Force. The [[Independent Police Complaints Council]] (IPCC) is set up to independently review every case handled by CAPO, though the IPCC has no investigative powers, and is not involved in hearing appeals to CAPO rulings.

Calls for reform, from both local [[non-governmental organization|non-government organisations]], political parties as well as the UNCHR, have been largely ignored by the government.<ref name=jt>{{cite web |url=http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr03-04/english/counmtg/hansard/cm0428ti-translate-e.pdf |title=Data |publisher=legco.gov.hk |access-date=2020-05-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160715024741/http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr03-04/english/counmtg/hansard/cm0428ti-translate-e.pdf |archive-date=15 July 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/english/reports/police_powers.html |title=HK People Paying the Price for Government Obstruction of Legal Reforms of Police Powers |year=1998 |work=Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor |access-date=1 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155104/http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/english/reports/police_powers.html |archive-date=26 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

== National security and Article 23 of Basic Law ==
{{Main|Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23|National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003}}
Hong Kong SAR has the constitutional duty of safeguarding [[national security]] by virtue of Article 23 of the Basic Law. In 2002, in order to fulfil their constitutional duty, the government tabled an anti-subversion bill. However, as with national security legislation in many countries, civil libertarians feared powers in the proposed law would erode the fundamental freedoms of the people. With the backdrop of an authoritarian sovereign state, there were fears that the proposed law would be used to suppress organisations which disagreed with the policies of either the Special Administrative Region or the Central Government.

==See also==
{{Portal|Hong Kong}}
* [[Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests]]
*[http://www.law.hku.hk/hrportal/ CCPL Human Rights Portal]
*[[Democratic development in Hong Kong]]
*[[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]
*[[Transnational repression by China]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
{{Library resources box}}
'''Official Web Pages'''
*[http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/index/ The Basic Law of Hong Kong]
*[http://www.ipcc.gov.hk/ Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), Hong Kong SAR]

'''Non-Government Organisations'''
*[https://www.amnesty.org.hk/ Amnesty International Hong Kong] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180529025602/https://www.amnesty.org.hk/ |date=29 May 2018 }}
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20061019064547/http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/ Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20100327212700/http://www.hkja.org.hk/site/portal/Site.aspx Hong Kong Journalists Association]

'''Information Sources'''
*[http://www.ifex.org/china/hong_kong/ Freedom of expression in Hong Kong]
*[http://www.uhrsn.org/2014/10/hong-kongs-human-rights-violations/ Hong Kong's Darkest Hours – five human rights violations in ten days]

{{Asia in topic|Human rights in}}
{{China national security}}
{{China prisons}}{{2019–2020 Hong Kong protests}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Human Rights in Hong Kong}}
[[Category:Human rights in Hong Kong| ]]
[[Category:Politics of Hong Kong]]
[[Category:Law of Hong Kong]]
{{Навигационная таблица/Портал/Английская Википедия}}
[[Категория:Английская Википедия]]
[[Категория:Википедия]]
[[Категория:Статья из Википедии]]
[[Категория:Статья из Английской Википедии]]