- Bus companies and advertisers have lost their right to broadcast
on buses.
- Examples of their trampling on bus riders' Rights.
- Failure of Government to comply with its legal duties as lay
down in the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
1. Bus companies and advertisers have lost their right
to broadcast on buses.
By airing shows on public buses, bus companies and advertisers
are stealing our rights as lay down in Hong Kong's Bill of Rights
Ordinance (BR).
Their actions violate the fundamental principle of the
Bill of Rights Ordinance
The guiding principle for the exercise of one's rights deriving
from BR must be:
"Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted as implying
for the Government or any authority, group or person any right to
engage in any activity ... aimed at the destruction of any rights
and freedoms recognized..." Part I of Bill of Rights Ordinance
says (2(4))
We contend that the bus companies and advertisers, with their Roadshow
and M-channel, etc ... are just doing that.
Bus companies and advertisers have special duties
and responsibilities when they choose to exercise their
freedom of expression (i.e., when they air their programs on buses),
[and the Government has the duty to enact laws to ascertain]. Such
exercise of the bus companies' rights must also respect the rights
or reputation of others. (BR Article 16(3)(a) )
Thus, there is a legal duty in the bus companies and the advertisers
to respect the claim inherent in the Rights of the bus riders.
But, they have not respected the legal rights of bus riders.
Worse, they openly (from their response to complaints) challenge
riders' genuine concern.
Government may now take away
their right to broadcast.
2. Examples of their trampling on bus riders Rights.
Everyday, bus companies and advertisers infringe on passengers'
rights as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Some
examples:
Subject Bus riders to torture ...
By not allowing the bus riders to opt out of the bus shows, the
bus companies effectively subject the bus riders to "torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
(Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (BR) Article 3)
侵犯乘客的自由
Bus riders are robbed of their "Right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion" during their bus rides. (BR Article
15 (1));
搶奪家長的權利
Right of parents of minors "to ensure the religious and moral
education of their children in conformity with their own convictions
..." is also ripped apart. (BR Article 15(4))
Listen to Roadshow or M-Channel or no bus ride amounts
to coercion.
Right to be free from "coercion which would impair his freedom
to have or adopt a ...belief [of no intake of information from Roadshow,
M-channel, etc ...during bus rides] of his choice are no longer
available if one boards a public bus in Hong Kong. (BR Article 15(2))
3. Failure of Government to
comply with its legal duties as lay down in the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
Hong Kong residents are entitled to protection from:
"arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy (the
transmission of audio and visual signal into bodies of passengers
(see illustration)) ...
nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation (to coerce
passengers to watch and listen to shows that passengers find demeaning)
(BR Article 14(1) )
And Government has the duty to protect bus passengers from such
attacks (BR Article 14(2) )
But our Government has responded by suggesting ?? (not by legislation)
a quiet zone (not effective per our observation) to be set up (without
looking into the legality)
Government is the guardian
During the absence of their parents when children passengers are
on board of buses , the Government becomes their guardian at law
since "the family [a component of a family] ... is entitled
to protection by society and the State.(BR Article 19(1) )
The Government has a positive duty to protect children passengers
from harassment by bus companies and advertisers during their bus
trips. (BR Article 20(1) )
Bus riders have been forcibly downgraded to a lower
class of citizens by bus companies and the Government has been standing
by
No Equality before and No equal protection of law
Bus companies and advertisers are more equal than bus riders when
it comes to exercising their fundamental rights. (Article 22)
Moreover, bus riders do not enjoy equal protection of law since
the bus companies unilaterally change the terms & conditions
of the agreement between the company and the bus riders [by forcing
broadcasts on passengers] [note, before 1997, there appeared to
be no such shows on buses], the riders have no say in rejecting
the imposed terms. (Article 22)
Prolog
We do not purport to submit a comprehensive analysis of the whole
affair, which in our opinion should fall on the lap of the Hong
Kong SAR. We use the above paragraphs and the web site to point
out plausible grounds for the government to act and for the relevant
parties to stop trampling rights of people in Hong Kong.
See also -->
Infringement under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
>> 首頁 |
