編譯：台權會實習生 許雅昱
我們是來自世界各地的公民社會與人權組織，譴責香港政府根據《基本法》1第23條制定國家安全法之計畫。
香港政府於2024年1月30日正式啟動為期四週的「公眾諮詢」立法程序。該法律旨在禁止七種類型的罪行，包括叛國、間諜行為和竊取國家機密。許多提議的條文模糊不清，將人們和平行使人權的行為定為刑事犯罪，包括結社自由、集會、言論和新聞自由。例如，「煽動意圖」罪行建議懲罰「意圖引起對中國政府的憎恨或藐視，或對其離叛」」及「煽惑他人作出不遵守香港特區法律的作為」者，其中也包括對政府的和平批評。
所提議的法律包括一系列程序變更，而這將大幅降低正當程序保障以及香港人民受公平審判的權利。諮詢文件主張在無控訴的情況下得延長警方拘留期限、阻止被拘留者與其指定的律師聯繫，以及剝奪受國家安全罪定罪者因表現良好而獲得減刑的資格。此外，它亦主張「減省某些程序」以「加快」國家安全審判。
引入第23條將對香港人權造成更具破壞性的後果，甚至超越了北京政府2020年強行實施的《國家安全法》的影響。這些在香港長期受到保護的人權已被納入香港的實質憲法《基本法》中。
此外，《公民與政治權利國際公約》也載有這些權利，並且已經藉由《基本法》納入香港的法律架構，並在《香港人權法案條例》2、《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》和《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》中有所表述。
《國家安全法》受到廣泛批評，聯合國人權委員會極力主張香港政府應避免使用該法律並建議廢除之。聯合國經濟、社會和文化權利委員會、聯合國消除對婦女一切形式歧視委員會亦提出了類似建議。2024年1月23日聯合國人權理事會就中國人權狀況進行定期審查，有18個聯合國會員國表達了對香港人權的擔憂，其中許多人引用《國家安全法》，並且呼籲廢除該法律。為了履行其國際人權義務，香港應廢除《國家安全法》。
香港政府上一次嘗試引入「第23條」是2003年，當時有超過50萬名香港人走上街頭抗議，計劃也因此被擱置。然而，現在人們再也無法發聲抗議了。
迄今為止，各國政府的回應尚不明確。除了少數媒體引述外，大多數政府尚未對該法案進行正式公開的反對聲明。這使得香港政府得以宣稱「香港政府曾針對國家安全法諮詢過總領事與商會，他們對法案雖有擔憂之處但未反對立法。」
我們敦促相關政府、個人或志同道合的盟友一起公開反對引入第23條，並直接向中國和香港政府傳達這些擔憂。
各國政府應該對負責引入第23條的香港官員實施針對性制裁，以追究其侵犯人權的責任。在《國家安全法》實施後，美國政府是唯一一個對中國和香港官員實施制裁的政府；而美國和其他國家早就該對香港實施新的制裁。他們需要向中國政府發出明確且強烈的訊息：壓迫（人權）是要付出代價的。
各國政府也應該引入措施以保護香港人和在北京政府跨國鎮壓下流亡的社會運動人士，例如採取積極措施追究在海外恐嚇香港僑民者的責任。
此外，我們還呼籲外國商會和總部位於香港的國際企業向香港政府表達關切，並且重新評估其商業風險及藏於這些侵犯人權行為中的共謀行為。
註1：《香港特別行政區基本法》第二十三條指明約定特區政府應自行立法禁止七類危害國安的行為，包括任何有損中華人民共和國國家主權、領土完整、統一及國家安全的行為。
註2：《香港人權法案條例》，通稱《人權法》，條文內容將《公民與政治權利國際公約》中適用於香港特別行政區的規定收入香港特別行政區法律，並對附帶及的相關事項作出規定。
原文與連署組織如下：
Joint Statement from Civil Society Groups on the Hong Kong Government’s Consultation for Article 23 Legislation
We, the undersigned, representing civil society and human rights organizations across the world, condemn the Hong Kong government’s plans to introduce domestic security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law.
The Hong Kong government formally launched the legislative process with a four-week “public consultation” on 30 January 2024. The law is set to prohibit seven types of offenses, including treason, espionage, and theft of state secrets. Many of these proposed provisions are vague and criminalize people’s peaceful exercises of human rights, including the rights to freedom of association, assembly, expression and the press. The crime of “seditious intention,” for example, proposes to punish those who “induce…disaffection against” against the Chinese government and “to incite any other person to do an act that does not comply with the law of the HKSAR,” which would include any peaceful criticism against the government.
The proposed law includes a number of procedural changes that will dramatically undermine the Hong Kong people’s due process and fair trial rights. The consultation paper advocates for extending police detention without charge, preventing contact between detainees and lawyers of their choice, and for denying those convicted under national security offenses their eligibility to up to a third reduction in their sentences for good behavior. It also advocates, without specifics, for “eliminating certain procedures” to “speed up” national security trials.
The introduction of Article 23 will bring further devastating consequences for human rights beyond those brought by the National Security Law when it was imposed by Beijing in 2020. These human rights guarantees–long protected in Hong Kong– are enshrined in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law.
They are also enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is incorporated into Hong Kong’s legal framework via the Basic Law and expressed in the Bill of Rights Ordinance, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The National Security Law has been widely criticized, including by the UN Human Rights Committee which urged the authorities to refrain from its use and recommended its repeal. The UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women made similar recommendations. At China’s Universal Periodic Review on 23 January 2024, 18 UN Member States raised concerns about human rights in Hong Kong, and many cited the National Security Law and echoed calls for its repeal. To comply with its international human rights obligations, Hong Kong should repeal the National Security Law.
The last time the authorities attempted to introduce Article 23 in 2003, over 500,000 Hong Kongers took to the streets in protests with the plans abandoned. But now they can no longer speak out against it.
Foreign governments’ responses so far have been muted: Except for a few media quotes, most governments have yet to make formal and public statements opposing the law. This has allowed the Hong Kong government to claim that “None of the consuls general or business chambers consulted by the Hong Kong government over the coming domestic national security law opposed the legislation despite having areas of concern.
We urge concerned governments to, individually or together with like-minded allies, publicly oppose the introduction of Article 23, and communicate these concerns directly to the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.
They should also hold Hong Kong officials accountable for the growing human rights violations in the city, by imposing targeted sanctions on officials responsible for introducing Article 23. The United States government was the only one that imposed sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials following the imposition of the National Security Law; new sanctions by the U.S. and other governments on Hong Kong are long-overdue. They need to send a clear and strong message to the Chinese government that repression has a cost.
They should also introduce measures to protect the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people and activists in exile from Beijing’s long-arm of transnational repression, including taking proactive measures to hold those responsible for intimidating the Hong Kong diaspora abroad.
We also urge foreign chambers of commerce, and international companies based in the city, to express concerns to the authorities and re-evaluate their business risks and complicity in these human rights violations.
Signatories (in alphabetical order)
ACTION Free Hong Kong Montreal
Blossom Community HK
Bonham Tree Aid
Britons in Hong Kong
Campaign For Uyghurs
Canada-Hong Kong Link
Canadian Friends of Hong Kong
Center For Uyghur Studies
China Action
China Against the Death Penalty
Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD)
Doublethink Lab
Finnish Hongkongers
Freiheit für Hongkong e.V.
Friends of Falun Gong
HKersUnited
Hong Kong Aid
Hong Kong Centre for Human Rights
Hong Kong Committee in Norway
Hong Kong Democracy Council
Hong Kong Watch
Hongkongers in Britain (HKB)
HongKongers in Leeds
Hongkongers in Deutschland e .V.
Human Rights Action Group
Human Rights Foundation
Human Rights Watch
IGFM, Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte
Index on Censorship
Institute For China’s Democratic Transition
International Campaign for Tibet
International Tibet Network
Japan Hong Kong Democracy Alliance
Lady Liberty HK
McMaster Stands With Hong Kong
NGO DEI
Northern California Hong Kong Club
Safeguard Defenders
Students for Falun Gong
Tibet Initiative Deutschland e.V.
Tibet Justice Center
The Hong Kong Scots
Scottish Hongkongers
The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
Toronto Hong Kongers Action Group (THKAG)
Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP)
Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project (URAP)
