Ein kurzer Einblick in den Gesetzestext für Demonstrationen in Hong Kong (Englisch mit den entsprechenden Links)

The Public Order Ordinance is listed in Chapter 245 of Hong Kong Laws, where you could look up at http://www.justice.gov.hk

The relevant part concerning permit from the police is section 7: Regulation of public meetings here.

Basic Law:   Article  27 of the Basic Law provides that:“ Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association and assembly, of procession and demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions and to strike”. 

Article 41 of the Basic Law provides that:-  “ Persons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region other than Hong Kong residents shall, in accordance with law, enjoy the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter.”

The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), referred to in Article 39 of the Basic Law, are applied in Hong Kong by the Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383.  Part II of this Ordinance contains the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BORO”), the Articles of which closely follow and are in many cases identical with the articles of the ICCPR which they implement.

The Hong Kong courts have considered Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 16 of the Bill of Rights in several cases. However the present case is the first which is directly concerned with the right of demonstration in Article 27. Hong Kong is one of the few jurisdictions which is subject to a constitution which explicitly includes a right of demonstration.

Any demonstration may potentially cause some obstruction to some-one, in the sense that another person may have to pause or to deviate from a direct route in order to go round it.  For a right to demonstrate to be a meaningful right it must imply some degree of permitted obstruction or potential obstruction.  Insofar as a peaceful and orderly demonstration is in this sense an obstruction, actual or potential, it must be regarded as a lawfully authorised obstruction, authorised by Articles 27, 39 and 41  of the Basic Law.

Compared with many demonstrations in Hong Kong  the impact of the Defendants’ demonstration was minimal. It was entirely peaceful. It did not constitute any threat to public order. It was very small. The prosecution has produced no direct evidence that anyone was obstructed, despite many hours of video evidence. The pavement at the location was extremely wide on the day in question (it has since been narrowed by roadworks). It would be difficult in the urban area of Hong Kong to find a public location where anyone would be less likely to be obstructed by a small group of demonstrators than this location.

If a small peaceful demonstration which has not actually obstructed anyone is not to be allowed at one of the most obvious locations for demonstrations in Hong Kong the rights of  free speech and freedom of assembly in Hong Kong have been not merely restricted, but dramatically curtailed. Such curtailment cannot be justified on any of the grounds listed in Articles 16 or 17 of the Bill of Rights.