The US government reacted with a symphony of a fuss when the Hong Kong Court of Appeal late ruled against publishing the music” Glory to Hong Kong.”  ,
The State Department described the choice as” the most recent blow to the worldwide popularity of a city that once prided itself on having an independent judiciary protecting the free exchange of information, ideas, and products.”
However, the US’s claim that the Hong Kong courts is independent is obviously incorrect and shows a worrying knowledge of both the legal process and the legal reasoning, as well as the integrity of the critic.
The fact that the situation was an attractiveness against a first-instance court’s refusal to give the Hong Kong government the injunction it sought demonstrates the mistake in the State Department’s declaration.
From a legal viewpoint, one may agree with the Court of Appeal’s selection. However, a thorough assessment of the legal justification behind it reveals that the decision was made based solely on a constitutional analysis of the issues and not a politically motivated decision intended to give the impression of a true judgment.
As it happens, quite aside from the songs, Brilliance to Hong Kong is beautiful to the neck. One may wonder if the less delicate Court of Appeal section or, possibly being more generous, a more artistically educated division might have prohibited the lyrics but not the melody.
National anthems vary considerably in their musical part, swinging between the inspiring song of France’s” La Marseillaise” to the hymn- like music anathema of Britain’s” God Keep the King”.
But any reasonable- thinking person, whether jurist or layman, do realize that the melody of Glory to Hong Kong is encouraging, carrying its silent message.  ,
The Hong Kong government’s claim that the order may apply to both words and music is a perfectly respectable legitimate submission is the basis for the argument.  ,
The Court of Appeal’s criticism of the music as a political weapon was never intended to be a political declaration. Instead, it attacked the People’s Republic of China’s plan to separate from Hong Kong.  ,  ,  ,
Three components from the songs leave no room to dispute the album’s message:” Let body rage afield”” Then to arms! For flexibility we struggle” and” Revolution of our days”.
Without any direct evidence of such an intention, the judge’s claim that the artist of the music intended it to be a tool is untrue. Hence, rather than asserting it as a fact, the court is entitled to conclude that it is one possible inference.  ,
When it comes to inciting protests against the incumbent government, the principle of free speech, which is incorporated into Hong Kong’s Basic Law, is no more or less restricted than that of any other jurisdiction.
As the , old , adage – attributed variously to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Abraham Lincoln , and , John Stuart Mill – expresses it,  , “your , freedom ends where my nose begins”. In other words, the individual’s freedom is constrained by the freedom of others. Consequently, the Court of Appeal’s judgment is founded on sound legal principles.  ,
Despite the fact that there are already criminal laws that would make it illegal to perform any of the crimes that the Court of Appeal’s decision establishes would violate the injunction, one can still take into account the merits of the Hong Kong government’s Secretary for Justice’s request for a civil injunction addressed to the world at large. The judge at First Instance came to this conclusion.
One might forgive those who read the judgment for having the impression that Hong Kong was in a political coma in July 2023, which could have set off a wave of violence at any time. Having a similar perception of the political climate then does n’t align with what I remember.
Hong Kong is still alive and well, with the majority of residents doing what they do without showing the least sign of political interest. I even go so far as to claim that it is and continues to be business as usual in a boring way.  ,
Is it not obvious that the civil injunction Pelion had to be imposed on the criminal Ossa? No valid basis comes to mind when one is left to speculate as to the motivation behind seeking an injunction in July 2023.
The Court of Appeal judgment states, somewhat ingenuously, that the song is not being banned. This legal distinction is more appropriate than the sharpest razor’s edge.  ,
What the Court meant was that the injunction only applied to , publication , of the song , with the intention to , incite people to secede from the PRC or hate the government.
Given the lyrics, it is rather more than difficult to envisage a circumstance that would permit , publication , of the song that did not transgress the injunction.
However, Humpty Dumpty once said,” When I use a word, it means just what I choose to mean.”
I’d venture to say that a more sober approach would have encouraged the Hong Kong government to be much less sensitive to the song. It’s best to ignore something that despises your dignity.
As a beneficiary of royalties from my father’s compositions, I am aware of how effective a marketing tool a song ban can be.
The BBC outlawed Leslie Sarony’s” Ain’t it Grand be Bloomin’ Well Dead,” which caused people to sell more than a million copies of the sheet music as a result. Everyone wants a copy of the book or song, which is a publishing fad in both literature and music.  ,
The Secretary for Justice might have considered the title of Irving Berlin’s song” The song has ended but the melody lingers on” if he had been a little more musically informed before taking what some might consider to have been precipitate action.