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

Hong Kong (AP) — On Wednesday, an appeals court granted the government of Hong Kong’s request to outlaw a well-known protest song, overturning a previous decision and heightening worries about the deterioration of liberties in the formerly unrestrained international financial center.

Protesters frequently sang “Glory to Hong Kong” in 2019 during large-scale anti-government demonstrations. Later, the song was misheard at international athletic events as the city’s anthem rather than China’s “March of the Volunteers,” upsetting local leaders.

Since Britain returned control of the region to China in 1997, this was the first time a song has been outlawed in the city.

The song’s broadcast or distribution ban, according to critics, significantly curtails the right to free speech since Beijing began cracking down on Hong Kong after the 2019 protests. Additionally, they have issued a warning that the prohibition would impair the tech giants’ operations and reduce the city’s attractiveness as an economic hub.

The song’s creator, according to Judge Jeremy Poon, intended it to be a “weapon,” referring to the song’s ability to evoke strong feelings among certain city dwellers.

He said, “We accept the executive’s assessment that an injunction is clearly necessary in order to address the serious criminal issues, and that prosecutions alone are obviously insufficient to do so.”

He claimed that in order to get online platform owners to take down “problematic videos in connection with the song” from their services, an injunction was required. He also said that the operators have said they are prepared to comply with the government’s request in the event of a court order.

Anyone who broadcast or circulated the song in support of Hong Kong’s separation from China would be subject to the ban. Additionally, it would be illegal to portray the song as the national anthem with the intention of defaming it.

You can still hear the music if

If you disobey the court order, you could be found in contempt of court and face a fine or perhaps jail time.

According to local media, authorities have already detained a few residents for performing the song in public while breaking other laws, like not having a permit to play an instrument in public.

The song “Glory to Hong Kong,” which is ascribed to “Thomas and the Hong Kong people,” was still accessible in both Cantonese and English on Spotify and Apple Music as of Wednesday afternoon. A YouTube search for the song turned up a number of different versions and videos.

Google said it was “reviewing the court’s judgment” in an email to the AP. Apple and Spotify did not respond right away.

According to State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, the U.S. is still gravely concerned about how Hong Kong’s fundamental freedoms and protections for human rights are being undermined in the wake of the decision. “And the move to outlaw this song is the most recent setback to the global standing of a city that prioritised possessing an autonomous legal system safeguarding the unrestricted flow of knowledge, concepts, and commodities,” he said in Washington.

According to George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at The Asia Group, a business and policy consultant with headquarters in Washington, IT companies would find it most practical to abide by the order by limiting access to the relevant content in a specific area.

Chen expressed his hope that such prohibitions won’t set a precedent or become “the new normal.” He predicted that people would become quite concerned about how accessible internet will be in Hong Kong in the future.

In 2020, Beijing implemented a broad national security measure in an attempt to put an end to the months-long unrest. Numerous prominent pro-democracy activists in the city were arrested under the law. There were growing concerns that the city’s civil liberties, which are modeled after those in the West, would be further restricted when the city passed a security law in March. Usually, the two laws are intended to stop more serious crimes.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian stated following the ruling that the city must take steps to protect national security, including prohibiting the song’s use to stir up conflict and disparage the national anthem.

Paul Lam, the Secretary for Justice in Hong Kong, maintained that the injunction was not intended to impede internet service providers’ regular business operations. According to him, the government will request that the suppliers take down any relevant content in compliance with the order.

Lam contended that the injunction’s scope was “extremely narrow” and that the conduct encompassed by the restriction might have been considered crimes prior to the court ruling.

However, Eric Lai, a research scholar at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, stated that the court has not balanced the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights, including free speech, despite the fact that judicial deference to the administration on questions of national security is typical in other jurisdictions.

He expressed disappointment that the agreement to utilize civil proceedings to support the enforcement of national security law was made.

Amnesty International, a human rights organization, called the injunction a “senseless attack” on the right to free speech and a breach of international human rights law.

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

Brooks urged officials to stop attempting to restrict liberties under the pretext of national security.

When Google refused to show China’s national anthem as the top result in searches for the city’s anthem rather than the protest song, the government filed a lawsuit against the company last year. Its initial attempt was rejected by a lower court in July of last year, and the move was widely interpreted as a defeat for the authorities trying to suppress the dissidents after the rallies.

According to a legal document on the government website, the administration’s appeal stated that if the executive authority thought a measure necessary, the court should accept it unless it considered it will have no effect.

The protest song’s campus ban had already been requested by the government. It had earlier said that “freedom of speech is not absolute” but that it respected the rights guaranteed by the city’s constitution.