892
edits
Mainland China 1989 (Documentary): Difference between revisions
Mainland China 1989 (Documentary) (view source)
Revision as of 19:01, 10 August 2011
, 10 August 2011no edit summary
RachelShuman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
RachelShuman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
'''The Incident:''' In December (1989), Hong Kong audiences were promised the documentary as part of a film program organized by the government sponsored Arts Center covering the work of Chang Chao-tang, a Taiwan photographer and filmmaker whose films revolve around the idea of a divided homeland. When the censors saw the first segment"They are Writing History,"they called it propaganda and demanded that it be excised. Invoking the Film Censorship Ordinance, the censors decided, and members of the review board concurred, that this section was likely 'to seriously damage good relations with other territories.'" The Arts Center appealed the cut. Their plea was that Article 19, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, had been ignored. | '''The Incident:''' In December (1989), Hong Kong audiences were promised the documentary as part of a film program organized by the government sponsored Arts Center covering the work of Chang Chao-tang, a Taiwan photographer and filmmaker whose films revolve around the idea of a divided homeland. When the censors saw the first segment"They are Writing History,"they called it propaganda and demanded that it be excised. Invoking the Film Censorship Ordinance, the censors decided, and members of the review board concurred, that this section was likely 'to seriously damage good relations with other territories.'" The Arts Center appealed the cut. Their plea was that Article 19, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, had been ignored. | ||
'''Results of Incident:'''On 29 December, the review board sided with the censors and the cut was upheld. The chairman of the review board, Hong Kong University professor Poon Chung-kwong, again described the segment as propaganda. He said the decision to ban it was "a matter of timing." Furthermore, this decision comes at a time when Hong Kong is preparing for their 1997 union with China. | '''Results of Incident:''' On 29 December, the review board sided with the censors and the cut was upheld. The chairman of the review board, Hong Kong University professor Poon Chung-kwong, again described the segment as propaganda. He said the decision to ban it was "a matter of timing." Furthermore, this decision comes at a time when Hong Kong is preparing for their 1997 union with China. | ||
'''Source:''' Margret Scott, "Fear Thy Neighbour", Far Eastern Economic Review, February 1, 1990, Pg. 28-29 | '''Source:''' Margret Scott, "Fear Thy Neighbour", Far Eastern Economic Review, February 1, 1990, Pg. 28-29 | ||