Protest Song “Glory to Hong Kong” is Now Banned in the City After the Appeal Court Overturned the Ruling

Article content

HONG KONG (AP) — An appeals court on Wednesday granted the Hong Kong government’s request to ban a popular protest song. That overturned an earlier ruling and heightened concerns about the erosion of freedoms in the once permissive global financial center.

“Glory to Hong Kong” was often sung by demonstrators during major anti-government protests in 2019. The song was later mistakenly played as the city’s anthem at international sporting events, rather than China’s “March of the Volunteers,” causing confusion and angering city officials.

Article content

Article content

It was the first time a song had been banned in the city since Britain returned the territory to China in 1997.

Critics said banning the song’s broadcast or distribution further restricts freedom of expression since Beijing’s crackdown following the 2019 protests in Hong Kong. They have also warned that the ban could hurt the operations of tech giants and hurt the city’s attractiveness as a business hub.

Judge Jeremy Poon wrote that the composer intended to use the song as a “weapon,” citing its ability to stir emotions in some of the city’s residents.

“We accept the executive branch’s assessment that prosecutions alone are clearly not sufficient to address the acute criminal problems and that there is a compelling need for an injunction,” he said.

He said the injunction was necessary to persuade internet platform operators to remove “problematic videos related to the song” from their platforms. The operators have signaled that they are ready to comply with the government’s request if there is a court order, he added.

The ban would target anyone who broadcasts or distributes the song to advocate for Hong Kong’s separation from China. It would also prohibit any actions that misrepresent the song as the national anthem with the intent to insult the anthem.

Article content

Article content

The song can still be played if it serves legitimate journalistic and academic purposes.

Failure to comply with the court order may be considered contempt of court and may result in a fine or imprisonment.

Local media reported that authorities had previously arrested some residents who played the song in public for other crimes, such as playing a musical instrument in public without permission.

As of Wednesday afternoon, “Glory to Hong Kong,” whose artist is known as “Thomas and the Hong Kong people,” was still available on Spotify and Apple Music in both English and Cantonese. A search on YouTube for the song also revealed several videos and interpretations.

Google said in an email to the AP that it was “reviewing the court’s ruling.” Spotify and Apple did not immediately comment.

The United States remains seriously concerned about the erosion of protections for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong following the ruling, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said. “And the decision to ban this song is the latest blow to the international reputation of a city that previously prided itself on having an independent judiciary that protected the free exchange of information, ideas and goods,” he said in Washington.

Article content

George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at The Asia Group, a Washington-based business and policy consulting firm, said it would be most practical for tech companies to restrict access to the offending content in a specific region to comply with the order.

Chen said he hoped such bans would not become the “new normal” and set a precedent. “This will really worry people about how free the internet will be in Hong Kong tomorrow,” he said.

Beijing passed a sweeping national security law in 2020 to quell months of unrest. This law was used to arrest many of the city’s leading pro-democracy activists. In March, the city passed a homegrown security law, heightening fears that the city’s Western civil liberties would be further restricted. The two laws typically target more serious crimes.

After the verdict, Lin Jian, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, said preventing the song from being used to divide and insult the national anthem was a necessary measure by the city to maintain national security.

Article content

Hong Kong Attorney General Paul Lam stressed that the injunction was not aimed at restricting the normal operations of internet service providers. He said the government would ask providers to remove relevant content in accordance with the injunction.

Lam argued that the acts covered by the ban could be classified as criminal offenses before the court order and that the scope of the injunction was “extremely narrow.”

However, Eric Lai, a research fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said that while the court’s deference to the executive branch on issues has been limited, the court has failed to balance protecting citizens’ fundamental rights, including freedom of expression national security is common practice in other jurisdictions.

“It disappointingly agreed to use civil litigation to support the implementation of national security law,” he said.

Human rights group Amnesty International called the injunction a “senseless attack” on freedom of expression and a violation of international human rights law.

“The government’s appeal victory today – after a lower court ruled against it last year – is a worrying sign of the authorities’ growing unwillingness to respect human rights and fulfill their obligations,” said Sarah Brooks, China director at Amnesty International.

Article content

Brooks called on authorities to end attempts to suppress rights in the name of national security.

The government went to court last year after Google resisted pressure to display the Chinese national anthem as the top result in searches for the city’s anthem instead of the protest song. A lower court rejected his original request last July, and the development was widely seen as a setback for officials seeking to crush dissent in the wake of the protests.

The government’s appeal argued that if the executive authority deems an action necessary, the court should allow it unless it finds it will have no effect, according to a legal document on the government’s website emerges.

The government had already asked schools to ban the protest song on campus. It previously said it respects the freedoms protected by the city’s constitution, “but freedom of expression is not absolute.”

___

Associate Press writer Zen Soo contributed to this report

Article content