(Clearwisdom.net) Regarding the Article 23 draft published on Xianbao on February 14, Ms. Audrey Eu, SC., member of the Hong Kong Article 23 Concern Group, Legislative Council and senior lawyer, expressed her extreme disappointment, and was "even angry." She believed that the core of the Article 23 draft, the mechanism of banning organizations, is now more rigorous than it was in the consultation paper issued in the past. Looking at the government's eagerness in legislation and China's harsh stance on Falun Gong, Ms. Eu believed that Falun Gong would become a (banned) high-risk organization.

According to the New Tang Dynasty TV's interview with Ms. Audrey Eu, she pointed out that although the jurisdiction of some aspects have shrunk, some other aspects have become more severe than the consultation document, especially the "banned organizations" that she has been paying close attention to.

She said that the draft has added a lot of new content. The most worrisome part is that as long as the central government can issue a written document to prove that an organization inside China has been banned for national security reasons, and then that piece of paper is enough "proof" for banning the subsidiary organization in Hong Kong. "And it cannot be challenged. You cannot even challenge which chapter or section in the law that they (Beijing government) have used to make their decision, which this Blue Bill did not clarify."

She pointed out that for a citizen's appeal, the government's new item of closed-door hearings is extremely dangerous. "Even if you appeal, you could have a partial or complete closed-door hearing, which is a major issue for lawyers. China also uses closed-door hearings on some dissidents. For example, Wang Bingzhang had half a day of closed-door hearings and it was all over. The outside world has no clue what proof there was, and what he had done to violate the law. The closed-door hearing is a very major and vital offense."