As the government seeks to use the provisions of the Public Order Ordinance to control protests in Hong Kong more effectively, some thought needs to be given to the nature of protest activity, what needs to be stamped out and what needs to be treated with respect. Not all protests can be regarded in the same way. One of the most enduring features of Hong Kong's democratic development has been the growth of a constructive protest culture. Every Sunday, protest groups mobilise to highlight an issue seen to be of importance in the community. These may be small groups of individuals with a personal grievance or larger groups with political issues. The protests are peaceful, regulated and civically responsible. They show a civil society at work in Hong Kong. These protests do not need further regulation. The recent Occupy protest grew naturally out of Hong Kong's protest culture. It was a protest based on the pursuit not of personal ends but public good. Apart from some unfortunate interventions by radical groups, the Occupy protest was peaceful, conducted without major injuries and ended peacefully by respecting the rule of law. Of course, it will be argued that these protests did not respect "rule by law", meaning they did not have permission to hold the protests and they did not disperse when told to by police. From their perspective, the protesters were responding to a higher law related to the principle of more democratic processes in the election of the chief executive. This is the basic idea behind civil disobedience - there are higher principles that need to be defended and championed. Protests motivated by such principles need to be managed with sensitivity and care. There is no need for a more stringent application of the Public Order Ordinance to manage such protests. Any such application will reek of political persecution. While Hong Kong can rightly be proud of its protest culture, one issue that has become clear in the post-Occupy context is that groups have emerged who are motivated not by civic concern but by civic hate. Anti-mainlander sentiments are at the heart of hate-motivated protests that have witnessed personal attacks on individuals, whether they are tourists or parallel traders. Tourism and parallel trading are legitimate areas of concern for Hong Kong in terms of infrastructure needs, pricing policies and future development. But they should not be the subject of vigilante groups who take out their frustrations on individuals. Of great concern is that even some members of the Legislative Council seem to condone these antics and have participated in them. Often, the theme is proclaimed as "Hong Kong for Hongkongers", but this slogan reflects an anti-Chinese hatred, whether it is directed against tourists, parallel traders or the Chinese Communist Party. These kinds of protests need to be monitored closely and every strategy available in the Public Order Ordinance needs to be used to contain them. There is no room in Hong Kong for this kind of hatred directed against individuals and families. What is crucial in applying the Public Order Ordinance is to recognise that not all protest activity in the city is the same. Some groups hide behind a veneer of legality that provides for regulated and orderly protests. Yet there is nothing in the law that suggests hate should be supported as a motivation for protest or that personal attacks and injuries should be accepted as legitimate weapons for protesters. Human rights advocates will argue that protest as a tool should be available for all citizens. But political theory is not on their side. The public good should always be at the centre of politics of any kind - not personal advancement, personal spite or political opportunism. If protest actions do not satisfy the public good, they are unlikely to be supportable in a democratic society. Democracy brings many freedoms, but freedom to hate is not one of them. We do need better public order, but it needs to be directed at hate crime, not legitimate protest seeking to advance the public good. The authorities must learn how to tolerate dissent but extinguish hate. Professor Kerry Kennedy is director of the Centre for Governance and Citizenship at the Hong Kong Institute of Education
