"Artikel 23" Honkong

Dieses Thema im Forum "Freimaurer, Illuminaten und andere Geheimbünde" wurde erstellt von Manuel, 8. Dezember 2002.

  1. Manuel

    Manuel Geselle

    Beiträge:
    16
    Registriert seit:
    8. Dezember 2002
    geht mal auf folgenden Link und ladet
    euch das erste PDF Dokument herunter.
    http://www.info.gov.hk/eindex.htm

    Dies ist die komplete englische Überstezung
    des "Artikels 23" welcher
    wahrscheinlich am 24 December in HongKong in Kraft tritt.

    Ich werde nichts weiter dazu sagen da ich meine eigene Meinung hier nicht mit reinbringen möchte...
    macht euch selber ein Bild darüber ihr braucht das Teil
    ja nicht ganz zu lessen,
    ich hab ihn selbst auch nur überflogen.

    Möchte nur noch Anmerken das mit dennen im Text
    als "Illegale Oranisationen" bezeichneten
    Gruppen unter anderen
    Falun Gong, Qi Gong und andere Meditationen, Christen,Musslime,Demokraten,
    Gewerkschaften usw.
    Gemeint sind.
     
  2. prof.dr.weiss nich

    prof.dr.weiss nich Geheimer Meister

    Beiträge:
    136
    Registriert seit:
    7. Mai 2002
    das iss ja Wahnsinn... :x
     
  3. M-G-K

    M-G-K Geheimer Meister

    Beiträge:
    100
    Registriert seit:
    3. Oktober 2002
    Kann mal einer die wichtigen sachen davon kopieren und hier reinschreiben oda erklären was da so steht?
     
  4. Prodromos

    Prodromos Geselle

    Beiträge:
    44
    Registriert seit:
    3. Dezember 2002
    Danke für den tip...
    Wahnsinn.
    Aber was solls, der big-bang lässt sicher nicht mehr lange auf sich warten.
    Mein alter Lehrer würde sagen:"Scheiss der Hund drauf!" :wink:
     
  5. Manuel

    Manuel Geselle

    Beiträge:
    16
    Registriert seit:
    8. Dezember 2002
    @ M-G-K: Ich hab jetz den Anfang davon hier reinkoppiert
    allerdings ist es mir ein bischen zu lang geraten...
    less halt nur die wichtigen stellen (-:


    Proposals to implement
    Article 23 of the Basic Law
    Consultation Document
    Security Bureau
    September 2002

    We welcome your views
    The Government has always attached great importance to comments from the public.
    We have now formulated the proposals to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, as
    detailed in this document, for public consultation.
    We sincerely invite your views on the proposals. Comments on the proposals are
    welcomed, by 24 December 2002, as follows
    _ by post : Security Bureau
    (Attn: AS(F)2, F Division)
    6th Floor, East Wing
    Central Government Of_ces
    Lower Albert Road
    Central
    Hong Kong
    _ by fax : 2521 2848
    _ by e-mail : bl23@sb.gov.hk
    Any person submitting views and comments should be aware that the Government
    may publish all or part of the views and comments received and disclose the identity
    of the source in such manner as the Government considers appropriate, unless he/she
    requests any part of the views and comments and/or his/her identity be treated in
    con_dence.
    Copies of the consultation document are available at all District Of_ces, and can
    be accessed at the Security Bureau website at http://www.info.gov.hk/sb or the
    Government Information Centre website at http://www.info.gov.hk/eindex.htm. In
    an effort to reduce paper consumption, we encourage you to access the consultation
    document through these websites as far as possible.
    For enquiries, please contact the Security Bureau at 2810 2593.

    Summary
    Background
    Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Hong Kong Special
    Administrative Region (HKSAR) iHshall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of
    treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government
    (CPG), or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or
    bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political
    organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political
    organizations or bodies.lg
    2. In line with the high degree of autonomy for the HKSAR as provided under
    Article 2 of the Basic Law, and the guarantee that the socialist system and policies shall
    not be practised in the HKSAR as set out in Article 5, national laws for the protection
    of essential interests of the state and national security have not been promulgated
    in Hong Kong. The HKSAR has both practical and legal obligations to implement
    Article 23.
    3. Every nation has laws to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and
    national security. It is universally accepted that a national owes allegiance to his state,
    in return for the protection afforded by the state against foreign aggression, and for
    the provision of a stable, peaceful and orderly society within which to carry out his
    pursuits. The intent of Article 23 is to prohibit by law acts that would undermine the
    sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and national security of our country.
    4. Some of the Article 23 offences are already dealt with under existing
    legislation. Parts I and II of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) deal with treason and
    sedition respectively. Where the protection of of_cial information is concerned, the
    Of_cial Secrets Ordinance (Cap. 521) deals with spying and unlawful disclosure of
    of_cial information. The Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) regulates, inter alia, the
    activities of and ties with foreign political organizations.
    - v -

    The Proposals
    Treason
    6. Treason means the betrayal of one's country. The interests to be protected
    against treason are the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the People's
    Republic of China (PRC) as a whole, and the PRC Government (PRCG). Treason
    offences under the Criminal Law of the PRC refer to those acts endangering the
    sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the PRC committed by a PRC citizen
    in collusion with a foreign state, or with an organization or individual outside the
    territory of the PRC. Treason offences are essentially crimes of endangering state
    security from without and the legal interest to be protected is the external status of
    the country.
    7. Having studied the existing offence of treason, the Criminal Law of the PRC
    and the relevant provisions in other jurisdictions, we propose to update and improve
    the treason provisions in Part I of the Crimes Ordinance by restricting the substantive
    offences to Š
    (a) levying war by joining forces with a foreigner to Š
    (i) overturn the PRCG; or
    (ii) compel the PRCG to change its policy or measures by force or
    constraint; or
    (iii) put any force or constraint upon the PRCG; or
    (iv) intimidate or overawe the PRCG; or
    (b) instigating a foreigner to invade the PRC; or
    (c) assisting by any means a public enemy at war with the PRC.
    We also propose to codify the common law inchoate and accomplice offences
    of attempting, aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring the commission of
    substantive offences, and conspiring to commit the substantive offences; and also the
    offence of misprision of treason (i.e. failure to report a known offence of treason).
    8. The current treasonable offences and offence of assaults on the sovereign are
    proposed to be repealed.
    Secession
    9. Preserving the territorial integrity and unity of a nation lies at the heart of the
    welfare of a nation. A breach of that integrity by force or other serious unlawful means
    will almost invariably lead to war. There is at present no offence termed iesecessionls in
    the HKSAR. To ensure the protection of territorial integrity and unity of our country,
    we propose to create a specific offence of secession, making it an offence to Š
    (a) withdraw a part of the PRC from its sovereignty; or
    (b) resist the CPG in its exercise of sovereignty over a part of the PRC
    by levying war, or by force, threat of force, or other serious unlawful means.
    The speci_c inchoate and accomplice offences of attempting, aiding and abetting,
    counselling and procuring the commission of the substantive secession offence, and
    conspiring to commit the substantive offence, are also proposed.
    Sedition
    10. While it is universally accepted that the freedom of expression, in particular
    the right to voice dissenting opinions, is a fundamental right in modern democratic
    societies, the ICCPR speci_cally provides that the freedom of expression is not
    absolute and carries special duties and responsibilities. It is also widely recognized
    that the fundamental national security interests and stability of the state may
    sometimes be seriously endangered by verbal or written communications, including
    those conveyed electronically. Examples would include a speech inciting others
    to commit an offence endangering national security. For this reason, the freedom
    of expression may under the ICCPR be restricted on certain speci_ed grounds,
    such as national security. Many jurisdictions, including the most liberal and
    democratic societies, retain sedition as a serious criminal offence. There is therefore
    a continued need for sedition offences to protect the state and key institutions from
    stability-threatening communications.
    11. We propose to narrow the existing offence of sedition so that it is an
    offence Š
    (a) to incite others to commit the substantive offences of treason,
    secession or subversion; or
    (b) to incite others to violence or public disorder that seriously endangers
    the stability of the state or the HKSAR.
    12. While the sedition offence should cover one aspect of communications
    threatening the security and stability of the state, there is also a need to deal
    with seditious publications. However, offences targetting publications are a direct
    restriction on the freedom of expression, and should therefore be narrowly denied in
    order to comply with the necessity and proportionality criteria as required under the
    ICCPR. If the act of dealing with seditious publications is part of an act of incitement, it
    may be covered by the offence proposed in paragraph 11 above. However, if someone
    deals with seditious publications for some other reasons such as profit, while at the
    same time being fully aware that the publications would incite offences that endanger
    national security, such dealings should also be suitably regarded as criminal acts.

    13. We propose to narrow the existing de_nition of ifseditious publicationl.. A
    publication should be regarded as seditious only if it would incite persons to commit
    the substantive treason, secession and subversion offences, and that it would be an
    offence, with knowledge or reasonable suspicion that a publication is seditious,
    (a) to deal with that publication without reasonable excuse; or
    (b) to possess that publication without reasonable excuse.
    14. The mere expression of views, or mere reports or commentaries on views or
    acts, will not be criminalized, unless such expressions, reports or commentaries incite
    others to achieve a speci_ed purpose through levying war, force, threat of force, or
    serious unlawful means. This is in compliance with Article 39 of the Basic Law, which
    enshrines protection of the freedom of expression.


    Subversion
    15. In the context of the protection of state institutions, subversion is
    commonly understood to involve overthrowing or undermining the constitution, the
    constitutionally established government, or system of government by internal or
    domestic elements. There is no speci_c offence of ifsubversionll in the laws of the
    HKSAR, although the violent overthrow of the government is covered by the existing
    treason offence of iflevying war to depose the sovereignls.
    16. The targets of protection against subversion should be the basic system of the
    state and the PRCG. We propose to de_ne the offence of subversion as Š
    (a) to intimidate the PRCG; or
    (b) to overthrow the PRCG, or to disestablish the basic system of the state
    as established by the PRC constitution,
    by levying war, or by force, threat of force, or by other serious unlawful means.
    The related inchoate and accomplice offences of attempting, aiding and abetting,
    counselling and procuring the commission of substantive offences, and conspiring
    to commit the substantive offences, are also proposed to be codi_ed.

    Theft of State Secrets
    17. While open government and a high degree of transparency of government
    actions encourages participation in public affairs and enhances accountability, some
    information has of necessity to be kept con_dential to protect the security of the
    country and the people, and to ensure the smooth running of government. There
    should therefore be legal sanctions against unauthorized access or disclosure of
    such information. At the same time, in order to safeguard freedom of expression
    and information, protection should only be afforded to truly deserving categories of
    information, and the means of protection should be clearly de_ned. We propose to
    retain the stipulations of the existing Of_cial Secrets Ordinance, specifying that the
    targets of protection against the theft of state secrets should be Š
    (a) where spying is concerned, information which is likely to be useful
    to an enemy, and whose obtaining or disclosure is for a purpose
    prejudicial to the safety or interests of the PRC or the HKSAR;
    (b) where unlawful disclosure is involved, information belonging to the
    following categories Š
    (i) security and intelligence information;
    (ii) defence information;
    (iii) information relating to international relations;
    (iv) information relating to relations between the Central
    Authorities of the PRC and the HKSAR; and
    (v) information relating to commission of offences and criminal
    investigations.
    18. i8Spyingln, which generally refers to the procurement of information useful to
    a foreign power and prejudicial to state security, is regarded worldwide as a serious
    national security offence meriting heavy punishment. In contrast, in order to preserve
    the balance between protecting state security and promoting open government, it
    is considered that unauthorized disclosure of of_cial information should only be
    criminalised where the information is of a sensitive nature.
    19. The Of_cial Secrets Ordinance already provides a good foundation for
    protecting state secrets. Nonetheless, we propose to introduce a new offence
    of unauthorized and damaging disclosure of protected information obtained by
    unauthorized access.

    Foreign Political Organizations
    20. The existing provisions in the Societies Ordinance are suficient to prohibit
    foreign political organizations from unduly in_uencing the local political process, and
    should be retained. On the other hand, political activities that pose genuine threats to
    national security are likely to be organized. Prohibition of such threatening political
    activities can be achieved to a large extent under the existing Societies Ordinance,
    which enables the Secretary for Security to declare an organization within the HKSAR
    unlawful where this is necessary on national security grounds.
    21. To thwart organization of such activities that would genuinely endanger
    the state, it is proposed that an organization that endangers state security could be
    proscribed, but only where necessary under the standards of the ICCPR to protect
    national security, public safety and public order, and where one of the following
    circumstances exists Š
    (a) the objective, or one of the objectives, of the organization is to engage
    in any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion, or spying; or
    (b) the organization has committed or attempts to commit any act of
    treason, secession, sedition, subversion, or spying; or
    (c) the organization is af_liated with a Mainland organization which
    has been proscribed in the Mainland by the Central Authorities in
    accordance with national law on the ground that it endangers national
    security.
    22. We propose to make it an offence to organise or support the activities
    of proscribed organizations, or to manage or to act as an of_ce-bearer for
    these organizations. An organization which has a connection with a proscribed
    organization might also be declared as unlawful where necessary under the standards
    of the ICCPR.
    23. The decision to proscribe and to declare an organization unlawful would be
    subject to an appeal procedure. To ensure fairness, this procedure should involve two
    levels. First, points of fact may be appealed to an independent tribunal. Secondly,
    points of law may be appealed to the court.

    Others
    24. It is necessary to ensure that suficient account is taken of the possible
    implications of technological developments and the vastly increased ease of
    communications on extra-territorial acts. Very broadly, we propose to claim
    jurisdiction over an offence only where a suficient nexus with the HKSAR is present,
    i.e. either the act is committed by a HKSAR permanent resident overseas, or the act
    has a speci_ed iplinkld with the HKSAR. At present, under the Criminal Jurisdiction
    Ordinance (Cap. 461), HKSAR courts already have jurisdiction over various offences
    of fraud and dishonesty even if they do not take place in Hong Kong, provided there
    is a speci_ed link with the HKSAR. Also, at common law, an attempt, conspiracy or
    incitement to commit an offence in Hong Kong is an offence here. We propose to
    adopt these common law and statutory principles in de_ning what constitutes a i.linklo.
    25. Effective investigation powers are required to deal with threats to the security
    or interests of the State or the HKSAR. We propose to provide enhanced powers for
    dealing with the more serious of the Article 23 offences.

    Es geht noch ne Weile in dem Stil weiter,
    es wird auch im folgenden nochmal gesagt das all dies Demokratisch sei
    und kein Internationalen Menschenrechte verletzten würde.
    Ganz am Schluss folgt noch ne gut übersichtliche Liste
    mit den Strafftaten (zum beispiel "Flublätter verteilen") und den zu gebenden Bestraffungen
    (z.b. 7 Jahre Haft für den der das Flublatt verteilt hat und für den der's animmt)
     
  6. CrazyEddieFW

    CrazyEddieFW Geselle

    Beiträge:
    22
    Registriert seit:
    19. September 2002
    Deutsch?

    Gibt es dazu im Netz schon einen deutschsprachigen Artikel oder kann einer von euch, der das verstanden hat, dem Englischen also mächtiger ist als ich und wohl einige andere hier, mal eine kurze deutsche Zusammenfassung der wichtigsten Punkte hier posten?
     
  7. Manuel

    Manuel Geselle

    Beiträge:
    16
    Registriert seit:
    8. Dezember 2002
    Folgender Text ist nicht von mir:

    1. Worum handelt es sich bei dem Anti-Subversionsgesetz (Artikel 23) in Hongkong?

    Nach dem Artikel 23 seines Grundgesetzes (Hongkonger basic law), der Post-1997 Mini-Verfassung der Sonderverwaltungszone SAR, ist Hongkong dazu verpflichtet, Gesetze zu erlassen, die Landesverrat, Volksverhetzung, Umsturz und Diebstahl von Staatsgeheimnissen betreffen. Das Anti-Subversionsgesetz ist das Ausführungsgesetz zum Artikel 23.

    Am 30.06.2002 forderte der chinesische stellvertretende Premierminister Qian Qichen die Hongkonger Regierung auf, das Anti-Subversionsgesetz so schnell wie möglich zu verabschieden.

    Inzwischen wurde ein Gesetzesentwurf erstellt. Für die Zeit vom 24.09.02 bis 24.12.02 kann dieser Entwurf in der Öffentlichkeit diskutiert werden. Danach will das Hongkonger Parlament über die Verabschiedung entscheiden.

    2. Zusammenfassung wichtiger Punkte betr. Anti-Subversionsgesetzes-entwurf

    - Ausdehnung des Verbots sogenannter "illegaler Organisationen" (z.B. Falun Gong,
    romtreue Christen, Demokratiebewegungen, Gewerkschaften, NGOs...) vom Festland China auf Hongkong

    - Der Leiter der Sicherheitsbehörde Hongkongs erhält die Befugnis, nach eigenem Ermessen eine Organisation als „illegal“ zu erklären und verbieten zu können.

    - Das Verbreiten von Informationen, die nicht offiziell veröffentlicht wurden, kann als „Verrat von Staatsgeheimnissen“ eingestuft und bestraft werden.

    - Auch dritte Personen könnten belangt werden. (Ein Beispiel: übergibt ein Praktizierender einem Passanten einen Flyer über die Verfolgung von Falun Gong in China und der Passant nimmt ihn an, können beide zu einer Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt werden.)

    - Nimmt ein Hongkonger Bürger im Ausland mit Mitgliedern „illegaler Organisationen“ offiziell oder privat Kontakt auf, so droht ihm in Hongkong Verhaftung und Verurteilung.

    - Reist ein Mitglied einer „illegalen Organisation“ mit chinesischem Pass in Hongkong ein, droht ihm Verhaftung, mit ausländischem Pass die sofortige Abschiebung.

    - Medien und Journalisten können wegen Weitergabe von nicht offiziell veröffentlichten Informationen, z. B. über die Verfolgung von Falun Gong durch die chinesische Führung, belangt werden.

    3. Negative Auswirkungen des Gesetzes

    - Hongkongs Bürgerrechte werden weiterhin abgebaut, indem z.B. die Medienfreiheit, Meinungsfreiheit, Glaubensfreiheit, usw. nicht mehr gewährleistet sind.
    - Dies bedeutet ein Ende von „Ein Land - zwei Systeme“, das die chinesische und die englische Regierung vor fünf Jahren gemeinsam vertraglich festgelegt haben. Diese Erklärung war eine Voraussetzung für die Rückgabe Hongkongs an die VR China. Das Demokratiesystem Hongkongs sollte für die nächsten 50 Jahre erhalten bleiben, aber die chinesische Regierung hat bereits jetzt, nach nur fünf Jahren, ihr Wort gebrochen.

    - Eine in ihren Ausmaßen groteske Verschlechterung der Menschenrechtssituation in Hongkong ist zu erwarten.
     
  8. Yoda

    Yoda Vorsteher und Richter

    Beiträge:
    782
    Registriert seit:
    10. April 2002
    faszinierend... 8O
     
  9. Manuel

    Manuel Geselle

    Beiträge:
    16
    Registriert seit:
    8. Dezember 2002

Diese Seite empfehlen