Intentions matter in Article 23 security offences: SJ

Secretary for Justice Paul Lam stressed that intentions matter when judging the innocence or guilt of people involved in possible national security crimes under the newly-enacted Article 23 legislation. Asked on a TVB programme on Sunday whether people who repost online criticism of the legislation may be in breach of the law, Lam said factors such as whether they intend to incite hatred against the government, or if they only wanted to start a discussion, would be taken into account. Lam added that whether someone had violated the law by keeping a seditious publication would depend on the actual circumstances. "If the reason [for keeping it] won't create risks to national security, and you don't intend to do so, it will relatively be more likely to constitute a reasonable excuse," he said. "But if, for example, we have an objective reason to believe that you want to distribute them on the streets - maybe you have 100 copies - then you probably aren't keeping them for commemorative purposes." Security chief Chris Tang, meanwhile, said authorities would consider a range of factors before declaring wanted persons as absconders and taking action against them, like cancelling their passports or banning others from renting their properties. "We have to see if those sanctions are applicable on those people, for example, we have to see if they have passports or properties... things that we can affect. Secondly, we have to look at the degree to which they are continuing to undermine national security," Tang said. The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance took effect on Saturday.