Clearing up any confusion

Films cleared by Hong Kong’s official movie censors might be illegal anyway. If that sounds odd, just remember that under the NatSec regime, anything might be illegal anyway. Indeed, the NatSec Law could easily have been named the ‘It Might Be Illegal Anyway Law’ if the drafters hadn’t been in a rush. For example, there’s no law against holding a primary election or putting stickers on your door – but it might be illegal anyway. It might be terrorism! It’s good to have this sort of thing cleared up.

Your next question will probably be: Why do we still need the Film Censorship Authority? 

The best way of answering this is to look at how the government as a whole still actually requires some non-NatSec functions. So under the new system, the (ex-cop) Chief Secretary will focus on NatSec, but will delegate authority over non-NatSec trivia (the economy, housing, old folks, ethnic minorities, etc) to the Chief Executive and her policy secretaries in their spare time (‘perhaps I will continue to work on them’) when they’re not taking his NatSec orders. Similarly, the NatSec Police’s cinema-censorship officers will focus on ensuring that foreign, splittist, non-patriotic ideas – stickers, say – are eliminated from our screens, but will leave the FCA to stop kiddies from seeing women’s boobs.

It’s all very simple once you understand.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Clearing up any confusion

  1. Load Toad says:

    Hong Kong SAR is dead.

    So let us have some options:
    Hong Kong JAMC (Just Another Mainland City)
    Hong Kong JACMC (Just Another Corrupt Mainland City)
    Hong Kong ASS (Asia’s Stasi State)
    Hong Kong TFS (Totaly Failed State)
    Hong Kong IMBATL (It Might Be Against The Law)

  2. YTSL says:

    Kevin Yam said it best in a Tweet back on June 21st, 2020: “Don’t analyse the #HongKong National Security Law. There’s nothing to analyse. It’s just whatever they say it is. And if they cannot make it whatever they say it is when they want something, they will just change it in whatever way they like. End of story.”
    https://twitter.com/kevinkfyam/status/1274688351405137920

    Re the clamping down on films: Think back to “Ten Years” and then take a look at the picture in this Tweet: https://twitter.com/EagleNews_HK/status/1414250376887345152

    A reminder: “Ten Years” was made only six years ago.

  3. Gromit says:

    I wonder how many HK ‘classic’ movies will survive the ideological cleansing? Presumably anything with scenes depicting police corruption, which eliminates a fair portion of the back catalogue.

  4. Low Profile says:

    @Gromit – Andy Lau’s Lee Rock movies may survive, because the most corrupt cops in them are the British ones.

  5. Chinese Netizen says:

    @Load: Just “Hong Kong, China” will suffice.

  6. Joe Blow says:

    I am surprised that you are confused about approved films that may still breach the National Insecurity Law. This is Hong Kong, where wearing a face mask is illegal and not wearing a face mask is also illegal.

    Something else: Hong Kong is supposed to have “fabulous” fung shui. The Dragon sails down from the Peak into Victoria Harbor (or something) and this explains the city’s extraordinary luck. So is this still valid?

  7. Cross says:

    @Load Toad Hong Kong ASS would be perfect. Sums up how I feel about this place.

  8. where's my jet plane says:

    @ J Blow
    The Dragon’s problem is twofold. First, all thise highrise buildings obstruct his flightpath and, second, his landing point in the harbour is now not-harbour

  9. Mjrelje says:

    HONG KONG CUNT (City Under National Treat)

  10. Mary Melville says:

    So our officials are sacrificing themselves by chomping on abalone and slurping fine wines………………….. All in the cause of “have to know what the society is thinking,”
    When have they sat down with our young folk at a cha chaan teng to learn what they are thinking? When ordinary folk open their mouths these days to voice out their ‘thinking’ they are locked up.

  11. 向栗锋学习 says:

    @Mary Melville
    Of course the few times our officials do actually find out what the society is thinking/ posting/ watching/ reading/ singing/ painting/ sticking on their doors/ wearing/ carrying/ putting on the streets*, they are “extremely angry and ashamed” of the society and call for the police to “investigate and follow it up as a crime under the national security law”.

    *You know, when they’re not busy attending all those endless illegal gatherings with the informal rape and a vastly expensive hotpot to follow, hosted by mainland developers. You know, the ones that we just shouldn’t be too harsh on them about, because they each had to pay less than a day’s salary over it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *