MCL 6224
Issues in the Development of Liberal Studies
Lecture 3
Development of the Pedagogical Approach
to Liberal Studies in the HKSAR
The Official Version of Issue Enquiry
The Official Version of Issue Enquiry
Processes
Relationship with development of multiple
perspectives
(I)
Mastering the facts,
understanding the phenomena,
clarifying the concepts
Different sources of information
Different ways of data collection
Different interpretations and explanations
Different associations
…
( II )
Understanding the
differences and conflicts involved
Different values
Different interests
Different convictions
…
( III )
Reflection, evaluation,
judgment, solution, action
Considering all sides of the argument
Weighing the pros and cons
Putting forward reasons and justifications
Accepting consequences
Revising judgement
…
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The idea of “Issue”
 According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
 The noun “issue” means “a point or matter in contention
between two parties; …a choice between alternatives; a
dilemma”.
 The phrasal expression “at issue” means “in controversy;
taking opposite sides of a case or contrary views of a
matter.
 “To join issue” means “to accept or adopt a disputed
point as the basis of argument in a controversy; to
proceed to argument with a person on a particular point”.
 “To make an issue of” means to turn into a subject of
contention”.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Reasonable disagreement and issue worthy of inquiring
 Given that “issue” means matters in contention, dispute,
disagreement and controversy, however, as underlined by
John Rawls, in political and social daily life not all
disagreement or controversial issues are “reasonable”
and worthy of inquiring. (Rawls, 1993, p.58)
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Reasonable disagreement and issue worthy of inquiring
 We must make a distinction between reasonable and
unreasonable disagreements.
• By unreasonable disagreement, it refers to disagreement
grows out of “prejudice and bias, self and group interest,
blindness and willfulness” (Rawls, 1993, p. 58) or of “simple
ignorance or …mere undisciplined assertiveness.” (Dearden,
1984, p. 85)
• By reasonable disagreement, according to John Rawls it
refers to “disagreement between reasonable persons: that is,
between persons who have realized their two moral powers
to a degree sufficient to be free and equal citizens in a
constitutional regime, and who have an enduring desire to
honor fair terms of cooperation and to be fully cooperating
members of society.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 55).
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Sources of reasonable disagreements and controversial
issues: According to Rawles and others (Dearden, 1984;
Bridges, 1986; McLaughlin, 2003), reasonable disagreements
and controversial issues are commonly emerged in liberaldemocratic societies from numbers of sources. They can be
summarized as follows.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Sources of reasonable disagreements
 Availability, reliability and sufficiency of evidences: “The
evidence—empirical and scientific—bearing on the case is
conflicting and complex, and thus hard to assess and evaluate.”
(Rawls, 1993, p. 56) This source of controversies refers to
disagreement derives on the ground that the factual evidences
required for settling the dispute in point are not yet available or
are in conflict. For example, the effects of GM (genetic-modified)
food or cloning (both beneficial and harmful effects), the causes
of the damage of the ozone layer, or the effects on the
development of children growing up in queer families, etc. are
still in dispute among natural and social scientists. And there
are not sufficient and reliable evidences to make informed
decisions on the issues in point.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Sources of reasonable disagreements
 Relevance of evidences: In cases where evidences have been
scientifically and empirically proven to be reliable, controversies
may still emerge on the ground that the evidences in point are
irrelevant to the issues in dispute.
 Relative weights of evidences: “Even where we agree fully about
the kinds of considerations that are relevant, we may disagree
about their weight, and so arrive at different judgments.” (Rawls,
1993, p. 56) Parties in dispute may put forth relevant and reliable
scientific evidences in support of the stances in controversial
issues. As a result, disagreements will derived on the ground
that whether and how relative weights are assigned to different
evidences in settling the controversial issues in point.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Sources of reasonable disagreements
 Valuation and interpretation of issues: Issues do not only
involve judgments of factual evidences, but also invoke
desirable and preferable attributes, which individuals or social
groups attached to the issues in point. For example, legalization
of same-sex marriage may invoke value controversy between
personal liberty of choice and the stability of the institutional
orders of a given society. Furthermore, the normative concepts
attached to social and political issues are most likely to be
indeterminacy in nature and subject to different interpretations.
Hence, disagreements between values and their interpretations
are another reasonable ground from which controversial issues
are derived.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Sources of reasonable disagreements
 Prioritization of values: Even where there are general
agreements on the relevance and interpretations of the values
involved in an issue, disagreement can still derive from the
priorities ascribed to each of the preferences involved.
 Positional and experiential considerations: “In a modern society
with its numerous offices and positions, its various divisions of
labor, its many social groups and their ethnic variety, citizens’
total experiences are disparate enough for their judgment to
diverge.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) As a result, they will constitute
reasonable disagreements in modern liberal-democratic society.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 Sources of reasonable disagreements
 Normative and perspective considerations: Another source of
disagreements among reasonable citizens in liberal democratic
society is differences in comprehensive moral doctrines or
overall socio-political perspectives that different social
categories and/or fractions adhere. For examples, differences in
the socio-political orientations between unionists and employer
and business federations; or differences in public-policy
stances between liberals and communitarians; etc.
 Institutional imperatives: “Any system of social institutions is
limited in the values it can admit so that some selection must be
made from the full range of moral and political values that might
be realized. This is because any system of institutions has, as it
were, a limited social space.” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57) Public choices
are not made in social, economic, political and cultural vacuum;
they are bounded by different institutional constraints.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The conception of issue inquiry
 The burdens of judgment and necessities of issue inquiry: In
modern liberal-democratic societies, citizens are often
confronted by these reasonable disagreements or
controversial issues. As a result, they are burdened with these
hard decisions and judgments. And John Rawls has
characterized these burdens of judgment are the first prerequisites of citizens in liberal polities.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies
 In light of the precedent explication on reasonable
disagreement in liberal-democratic societies, we may identify
the issue to be inquired in the issue-inquiry approach in the
teaching of Liberal Studies should be confined to issues,
which constitute reasonable disagreement and not those
derived from prejudice, ignorance, and blindness.
What is At Issue?
Understanding the Nature of Issue Inquiry
 The nature of issue-inquiry approach to Liberal Studies
 Accordingly, the general outcome of issue-inquiry approach is
by definition informed, reasoned and reasonable judgments
and their entailed decisions. Hence, it is helpful to make the
distinction between the terms “issue”, “question” and
“problem” in the teaching of Liberal Studies. For a question,
one may search for an answer, while for a problem, one may
simply demand a solution; but as for an issue, especially a
controversial issue or “reasonable disagreement” as John
Rawls stipulated, what one would strive for will be judgment
and decision.
Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US
 Teaching controversial issues in the UK:
 Teaching Controversial Issues as a approach to
political education was initated in the 1970s in the
UK by Bernard Crick and the working party of the
Hansard Society (Crick, 1978; see also Stradling et
al., 1984)
Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US
 Teaching controversial issues in the UK:
 The approach has gained its retrieval in Section 10
of “Guidance on the Teaching of Controversial
Issues” in Education for Citizenship and the
Teaching of Democracy in Schools: The Final
Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (The
Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998)
Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US
 Teaching controversial issues in the UK:
 “A controversial issue is an issue about which
there is no one fixed or universally held point of
view. Such issues are those which commonly
divide society and for which significant groups
offer conflicting explanation and solution. There
may, for example, be conflicting views on such
matters as how a problem has arisen and who is to
blame; over how the problem may be resolved;
over what principles should guide the decisions
that can be taken, and so on.” (The Advisory
Group on Citizenship, 1998, P. 56)
Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US
 The Issue-Centered Decision Making
Curriculum in Social Studies in the US
 Issue inquiry approach has a long tradition in the
teaching of Social Studies in the US, for example
Oliver and Shaver’s jurisprudential approach (1966)
James Banks’ decision-making model (1973/1985)
Engle and Ochoa’s citizens’ decision-making approach
(1988)
Multicultural education (Banks, 2002, 2007)
Issue Inquiry Approach in the UK and US
 The Issue-Centered Decision Making
Curriculum in Social Studies in the US
 Most recently, Ochoa-Becker specifies the “IssueCentered Decision Making Curriculum as the
curriculum for education for democratic
citizenship in the US. She underlines that “The
overarching purpose of this Issue-Centered
Decision Making Curriculum is to improve the
quality of decision making by democracy’s citizens
as they respond to issues that require
resolution. …The decision making process
advanced here is applicable to virtually every
domain of our lives.” (Ochoa-Becker, 2007, p. 124)
Decision-Problem
Products of previous
inquiries by social
scientists
Social inquiry
Value inquiry
Social Knowledge
Value Clarification
Rational Decision
Intelligent social
action
A social studies curriculum focused on social inquiry, valuing, decision-making, and intelligent
social action
(Source: Banks, 1985)
Decision-Problem
What action should we take regarding race relations in our city?
Social Inquiry
Key Concepts
Conflict
Culture
Discrimination
Specialization
Power
Value Inquiry
1. Recognizing value problems
2. Describing value-relevant behavior
3. Naming values
4. Determining value conflicts
5. Hypothesizing about value sources
6. Naming value alternatives
7. Hypothesizing about consequences
8. Choosing
9 Stating reasons, sources, and consequences of
choice
Knowledge necessary for
naming alternatives and
making predictions
Value Clarification
Making a Decision
1. Identifying Alternatives
(Using generalizations related to key concepts to identify alternatives)
2. Predicting Consequences of each alternative
(Using generalizations related to key concepts to predict consequences)
3. Ordering Alternatives
Which is most consistent with value position identified above?
Action
Doubt-concern
Problem Formulation
Formulation of Hypotheses
Definition of Terms - Conceptualization
Collection of Data
Evaluation and Analysis of Data
Testing hypotheses: Deriving generalizations and
theories
Beginning inquiry new
A model of social inquiry
Theory-Values
Value Problem
Relevant
behavior
Conflicting values
Possible consequences
Related values
Sources
Alternative values
Possible consequences
Value preference
Sources
Possible consequences
Reasons
Operations of Value Inquiry Model, Graphically Illustrated
Policy Issue: Should Vere sentence Billy to hang?
Moral-Value Issue
Definitional Issue
Fact-Explanation Issue
Is killing wrong?
What does mutiny mean?
Would hanging Billy deter mutiny?
Newmann’s Approach to the Analysis of Policy Issues
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The teaching framework is made up of the following
constituents
 Issue analysis: It refers to first of all identifying the social
backgrounds from which the issue invokes. Second is to
identify the parties engaging in an issue. In public and social
issues, they may involve different political parties, interest
groups or stake-holders. However, in a controversial social
issue, the engaging parties may be numerous in number and
their opinions about the issue may vary diversely.
Nevertheless, as in most political issues, these diverse
stances will subsequently aggregate or even polarize into two
opposite camps. Thirdly, it is to how the parties involved
aggregate and aligned into opposite camps. Finally, it is to
collect the statements and arguments each parties put forth.
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
The factual inquiry: It refers to analyzing the factual
statements put forth by parties engaging in a disputing
issue. Usually these factual statements fall into one of the
following categories
 Descriptive, definitional and characterizational statements: They
provide factual descriptions of the phenomena relating to the
issue under study. Accordingly, they define the status quo of the
situation. For examples, the air of HK is highly populated; the
ozone layer of the earth has been damaged; global warming
exists; Queen Pier is part of Hong Kong’s collective memory;
Olympic Games is purely an athletic events; Olympic Games is an
international political event, etc. In connection to the analysis of
this kind of statements, one may reveal the definitional issue
involved in the dispute. For example, one may ask are the parties
involved share common definition of the situation or are they
simply talking across each other?
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The factual inquiry:
 Causal statements: They make claims of causal relationship
between phenomena relating to the issue in point. For
example, polluted air is hazardous to health; damaged ozone
layer is hazardous to health; global warming is hazardous to
the environment; genetic modified food is hazardous to health;
genetic modified food is hazardous to environment; etc. In
connection to the analysis of the causal statements invoked in
the dispute, one must not accept the causal statements in the
face-value and should further interrogate the validity and
reliability of the methodology through which the causal
statements are substantiated.
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry: It refers to clarifying and prioritizing
the desirable or preferable attributes or standards of
worth imputed by engaging parties to the phenomena
pertaining to the issue in point.
 Concept of value: Values are desirable and preferable
attributes a person impute to objects in his environment.
“Conduct, performances, situations, occurrence, states of affairs,
production, all these is associated with the ways in which we
perceive them, appraise them, judge them, and the way we are
inclined towards or away from, attracted to or repelled by, such
objects, production, states of affairs, performances,
manifestations of conducts. We choose them. We prefer them
over other things in the same class of comparison. We want to
follow their model or to replicate them. We want to emulate them.”
(Aspin, 1999, p.125)
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry:
 Concept of value: Values are desirable and preferable
attributes a person impute to objects in his environment.
 價值：「大體上說來，一切具價值之事物，都是人所欲得的，
人所尋求的、喜悅的、愛護的、讚美的、或崇敬的。簡言之，
即都是人所欲或所好的。一切具負價值或反價值之事物，則都
是人所不欲得的，人所不尋求的、厭棄的、憎恨的、貶斥的、
鄙視的。簡言之，即都是人所不欲或所惡的」。（唐君毅，
2005，頁707）
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry:
 Constituents in the definition of value
 The valuator
 The valuation
 The object under valuation
 The result of the valuation
• Private pursuit and actualization of the result
• Public action of actualization of the result
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry:
 Typology of values: Values can be classified according to
many different criteria. The most two common classifications
are
Distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic (or instrumental)
values:
• “An intrinsic value can be defined as something that is valuable for
its own sake” (Ellis, p.12) or important in and of itself.
• “An extrinsic value is valuable not for its own sake, but because it
facilitates getting or accomplishing something that is valuable for its
own sake.” (Ellis, p.12) It means the worth or desirability of a thing or
person is derived from its instrumentality and efficiency in achieving
something more desirable.
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry:
 Typology of values:
Distinction between personal moral and social ethical
values （唐君毅，1957/2005）
• Personal moral values 個人道德價值refers to the desirable and
preferable standards a person imputes to his/her personal
actions, conducts and ways of life.
• Social ethical values社會倫理價值 refers to the desirable and
preferable standards a group of human beings impute to their
inter-personal relationships. With regards of the various
domains of inter-personal relationships, social ethical values
can further be categorized as familial-ethical values,
economic-ethical values, political-ethical values, aestheticalethical values, scholarly-ethical values, professional-ethical
values, etc.
Intrinsic Values
Personal-Moral
Values
Social-Ethical
Values
- familial values
- economic value
- political values
- aesthetic values
- scholarly values
- professional values
Extrinsic Values
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry:
 Bases intrinsic value: Debate between deontologicalist and
institutionalist
Deontological theory of valuation can usually be traced back to
Kant’s concept of categorical imperative. It is the universal
normative rule, which transcends all particular ontological
situations, i.e. the deontological principle of ethical conduct.
• It is called the categorical imperative because it is “'categorical' in a
sense that the principle is not based upon different goals and desires
people might happen to have, and ‘imperative’ since it tells people
what they ought to do.” (Rogerson, 1991, p. 108)
• Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative can simply be stated as that
in testing for the morality of actions, “an action is morally permissible
if you would be willing to have everyone act as you are proposing to
act (if you would be willing to have the ‘maxim’ of your action become
a universal law). An action is morally wrong if you are not willing to
have everyone act as you are proposing to act.” (Rogerson, 1991, p.
108)
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The value inquiry:
Bases intrinsic value: Debate between deontologicalist and
institutionalist
The institutional bases of valuation
• Alasdair McIntyre, in contrast to Neo-Kantian stance, proposes that
the social ground of intrinsic-value valuation “can never be grounded
by an appeal to some neo-Kantian ideal of a set of norms presupposed
by all speakers in a discussion. Rather, the concept of the better
argument must always be ground within social particular tradition of
philosophical enquiry.” (Doody, 1991, p. 61)
• More specifically, McIntyre contends that it is within a tradition of a
craft of inquiry that rationality and ethical principles can find their
authority or ground of justification. Hence, “for on McIntyre’s account,
moral rules are not embodiments of a pure practical reason whose
charge is to issue statements of oughts which necessarily bind
ahistorical beings. Rather moral rules which express claims of ought
are expressions or statements of …virtues and rules of practices that
which were …grounded in a community of practice which understood
itself through those practices.” (Doody, 1991, p.68)
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The institutional (or jurisprudential) inquiry: Apart from
analyzing the factual and value stances adopted by the
engaging parties in controversial issues, in issue
inquiry, one must analyze the institutional implications
of the actions and strategies waged by the engaging
parties. That is to put these social actions in the socialethical and political-legal context and examine whether
their actions and strategies have violated the socially
and legally endorsed standards. Furthermore, one may
even analyze whether the ends justify the means, which
violate legal and/or ethical principles.
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The comparative-multicultural inquiry: In order to
enlarge one’s perception and understanding of the
issue under study, one should extent the inquiry
beyond the institutional contexts in which one is
familiarized with, to avoid culturally ethnocentric
version. Accordingly, comparable issues invoked in
other spatial and temporal contexts should also be
studied.
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 Formulations of judgments
 Judgment refers to “the mental or intellectual process of
forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and
comparing.” (Connolly et al., 2000, p. 1)
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 Formulations of judgments
 According to the issue-inquiry approach explicated about,
judgments can be classified into four kinds.
 Comparison among factual judgments of empirical causes or
contributing factors.
 Comparison among Value judgments of intrinsic, extrinsic,
personal and/or social values and set up one value priority list.
 Comparison among institutional judgments of legal, political,
economical and/or cultural imperatives within a society
 Comparison among institutional judgments of legal, political,
economical and/or cultural imperatives among societies
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The decision making: Having formulated one’s matrix of
judgments on factual, value, institutional and
comparative bases, one can then try to formulate one’s
stance on the disputing issue and make one’s own
decision on the issue. One may formulate one’s
decision into a priori decomposition of a ‘decision tree,
which usually consists of: (Connolly, et al. 2000, p. 4)
 “What are my possible courses of action? (Alternatives)
 What are the events that might follow form those actions?
(Outcomes)
 What is the likelihood of each event?
 What is the value of each event to me?”
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The ideal typical model of decision making: A priori
decomposition of decision tree
A Teaching Frameworks of Issue Inquiry
Approach for Liberal Studies
 The ideal typical model of decision making: A priori
decomposition of decision tree
Controversial Issue
Value Bases
Factual Bases
Institutional Bases
Comparative
Multicultural Bases
Judgment
Decision
Issue Analysis
1. Studying the background of the issue
2. Identifying the disputing parties involved
3. Analyzing the alignment of parties into opposite camps
4. Identifying the statements and arguments from each camps
Factual Inquiry
1. Descriptive & definitional statements
analysis
2. Causal statements analysis
3. Weights and priorities assigned to
factual evidences
Institutional Inquiry
1. Identify the institutions in which the
issue invoked
2. Identify the institutional practice or
values being endorsed or violated
Value Inquiry
1. Identify the values attributed by parties in dispute
2. Clarify the conception and interpretation of the values
involved.
3. Analyze the foundations of the values
4. Priority analyze the conflicting values
Comparative Multicultural Inquiry
1. Identify comparable issues in other societies
2. Identify comparable issue in other points in
time
3. Analyze the commonalities and differences
among cases
Making a Decision
1. Identifying Alternatives
2. Assessing anticipated effects of each alternative
3. Predicting unanticipated consequences of each alternatives
4. Prioritizing alternatives
5. Making choice
Sample of Issue-Inquiry Design: 1
Publications of Paparazzi Photographs
should be Penalized
What is at issue?
Publications of Paparazzi Photographs
should be Penalized
Incidents:
Case 1: Publication of changing-room photos of
Gillian Chung (鍾欣桐) by Easy Finder (一本便利)
on 23 Aug., 2006
Publications of Paparazzi Photographs
should be Penalized
Incidents:
Case 1: Publication of changing-room photos of
Gillian Chung (鍾欣桐) by Easy Finder (一本便利)
on 23 Aug., 2006
Case 2: Douglas and Others v Hello! (English
High Court, 2001)
Case 3: Campbell v Mirror Group Newspaper (UK,
2004)
Case 4: Von Hannover v Germany (European
Court of Human Rights, 2004)
Case 2: Douglas and Others v Hello!
(English High Court, 2001)
 The Event：
 On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael
Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a
reception at the Plaza Hotel, New York.
 Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones decided to
release one official wedding photograph to all media outlets
on the day of the wedding and to sell the exclusive rights to
a selection of other official wedding photographs for later
publication.
 A bidding war to obtain this exclusive rights of publication
was wage between the publishers of the rival British
magazines Hello! and OK!. Subsequently, Douglas and ZetaJones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!.
Case 2: Douglas and Others v Hello!
(English High Court, 2001)
 The Event：(continued)
 However, a paparazzo had managed to penetrate the security
and took some photos of the wedding. These unauthorised
photographs were immediately bought by Hello! for £125,000.
 After a series of within-days lawsuits, both OK! and Hallo!
Had their editions of the wedding photos published on the
same date.
 The Lawsuit:
 Douglas and Zeta-Jones sue Hello! for liability citing stress,
loss of income, and damage to their professional careers
because of the poor quality of the images.
Case 2: Douglas and Others v Hello!
(English High Court, 2001)
 The Ruling:
 In 2003, Justice Lindsay of the English High Court ruled that
there have been a breach of a confidence and detriment of
all three parties, namely Michael Douglas, Catherine ZetaJones, and OK!
 By confidence, Justice Lindsay ruled that the information in
question, Douglases’wedding as “trade secret” and the
photos as “commodity” and “valuable trade asset”
 The ruling implies the distinction between the law of
confidentiality (data protection) and law of privacy
 The ruling also implies the distinction between civil right and
property right
Case 3: Campbell v Mirror Group
Newspaper (UK, 2004)
 The Event:
 Naomi Campbell is an internationally-known celebrity model.
Campbell had, in the past, publicly asserted that she did not
take drugs. The Mirror newspaper obtained information that
Campbell was attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous
to treat a drug addiction. The Mirror published an article
revealing that Campbell was a drug addict and praising her
for seeking treatment. The article was accompanied by
photographs of Campbell depicting her in a public street
leaving an Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The photographs
were taken by means a telephoto lens while the freelance
photographer was concealed in a parked car.
Case 3: Campbell v Mirror Group
Newspaper (UK, 2004)
 The Lawsuit:
 Naomi Campbell sue the Mirror Group Newspaper of of
violation of Campbell's right to privacy and breach of
confidence.
Case 3: Campbell v Mirror Group
Newspaper (UK, 2004)
 The Rulings:
 At first, the court ruled that Daily Mirror’s publication of the
article constitute breached of confidence and detriment to
Campbell
 In the Court of Appeal, the judge ruled that there is no breach
of confidence and “Mirror was entitled to the media
exemption.”
 In the House of Lords, in a 3/2 split decision, it is ruled in
favor of Campbell. Applying Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights to the case, the court ruled that
Campbell’s right of privacy trumped freedom of expression of
the press.
Case 3: Campbell v Mirror Group
Newspaper (UK, 2004)
 The Rulings:
 The case involves breach of confidence because Ms
Campbell’s undertaking drug rehabilitation was her
confidence.
 The case did not involve money as the Douglases’ case did.
However it did invoke the public’s right to know the truth,
especially since Ms Campbell had lied about her drug
addiction.
 The ruling made reference to Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights and weighted the essentiality of
right to privacy over that of freedom of expression.
Case 4: The case of Von Hannover vs. Germany
(2004 European Court of Human Rights)
 The Lawsuit:
 Princess Caroline von Hannover is the eldest daughter of Prince
Rainier III of Monaco and the late Hollywood star Grace Kelly.
 “Beginning in the early 1990s, Caroline initiated legal actions in the
Hamburg Regional Court over photos taken in France and published
in the German magazine Bunte, Freizeit Revue, and Neue Post. The
photos (published along with articles) showed her in ordinary
scenes of her everyday life….Most of photos had been taken
secretly…from a distance of several hundred meters.”
 Caroline attempted several times through German courts to prevent
the publication of the photos but all in vain.
 Finally, In 2000 Caroline petitioned the European Court of Human
Rights, alleged that Germany had breached her right to respect for
her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human
Rights.
Case 4: The case of Von Hannover vs. Germany
(2004 European Court of Human Rights)
 The Ruling:
 The European Court of Human Rights ruled that German law
failed to provide proper privacy protection for the Princess
Caroline in respect of a variety of photos of her private life
published in the German press.
 The ruling made a clear demarcation between public figures’
public and private lives. Accordingly, the court ruled that
freedom of the press cannot intrude into public figures’
“private” life
 The ruling implied that Article 8 of the European Convention
of Human Rights (concerns the right of privacy) may have
overriding power over Article 10 (concerns freedom of
expression) in the Convention.
Case 4: The case of Von Hannover vs. Germany
(2004 European Court of Human Rights)
 The Ruling:
 The European Court of Human Rights stated that "increase
vigilance in protecting private life is necessary to contend
with new communication technologies which make it possible
to store and reproduce personal data. This also applies to the
systematic taking of specific photos and their dissemination
to a broad section of the public."
Definition of the Issue: Identifying the
opposing parties and their arguments
 Individuals, celebrities, public figures and public
officials, who are intruded by mass media, demand for
protections of their right to confidentiality and privacy.
 Mass media argue for freedom of the press and
expression, right to scrutinize public figures, and
enactment of public’s right to know
Social Inquiry (P=Pros, C=Cons)
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
Paparazzi photographing are intrusion of privacy.
Publications of paparazzi photos are intrusion of privacy.
Paparazzi photographing are infringement of confidentiality
Publications of paparazzi photos are infringement of
confidentiality.
Publications of paparazzi photos are act of dissemination of
indecent and/or obscene articles.
Paparazzi photographing are acts of revelation of facts to the
public and fulfillment of public’s right to know.
Publications of paparazzi photos are acts of revelation of facts
to the public and fulfillment of public’s right to know.
Paparazzi photographing are enactments of freedom of speech.
Publications of paparazzi photos are enactments of freedom of
speech.
Publications of paparazzi photos are commercial decisions
governed by market demand.
Value Inquiry
P1
C1
P2
C2
C3
P3
C4
P4
Public figures’ (including celebrities’) right of privacy should not be
infringed.
Exposures of private lives to the public are part of the publicity
strategies of public figures, especially celebrities.
Public figures’ right to confidentiality should be endorsed by the public
and especially the mass media.
Public figures' conducts and lives in general are part of the domain of
public interests. They are subjected to public accountability and
scrutiny.
Mass media have the right and obligation of revelation of facts and of
fulfillment of public's right to know.
Mass media's right to reveal facts are not unlimited and they should be
restrained outside the boundary of individual privacy.
Mass media have the right to free speech, which include publishing
confidential and objectionable information concerning public figures.
Public figures' right to confidentiality should be respected and
endorsed by the mass media and the public in general.
Institutional Inquiry
 Mandates of the Obscene Articles Tribunal (淫褻物品審裁處) and
the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (《淫褻
及不雅物品管制條例》)
 Mandates of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal
Data(個人資料私隱專員公署) and Personal Data (Privacy)
Ordinance(《個人資料(私隱)條例》)
 The reports of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong on:
 Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy《侵犯私隱的民事責任報
告書》(Dec., 2004)
 Privacy and Media Intrusion《傳播媒介的侵犯私隱行為報告書》
(Dec., 2004)
 Freedom of expression stipulated in The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and its conflict with individual
privacy.
Comparative Inquiry
 The case of Douglas and others vs. Hello!
 The ruling implies the distinction between the law of
confidentiality (data protection) and law of privacy: The ruling
implies that
The photographing and publishing of wedding photos did not
constitute intrusion of privacy because the wedding was held in
public facility and the couple had sold the exclusive right of
publishing the photos to a magazine.
These acts did constitute breach of confidence because the
wedding was considered to be a “trade secret” and the photos
were “commodities” and valuable trade asset”
 The ruling also implies the distinction between civil right and
property right: The case did not imply the violation of civil
right of privacy but did involve the violation of property right
of the Douglases and OK!
Comparative Inquiry
 The case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group
Newspaper
 The case involves breach of confidence because Ms
Campbell’s undertaking drug rehabilitation was her
confidence.
 The case did not involve money as the Douglases’ case did.
However it did invoke the public’s right to know the truth,
especially since Ms Campbell had lied about her drug
addiction.
 The ruling made reference to Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights and weighted the essentiality of
right to privacy over that of freedom of expression.
Comparative Inquiry
 The case of Von Hannover vs. Germany
 The ruling made a clear demarcation between public figures’
public and private lives. Accordingly, the court ruled that
freedom of the press cannot intrude into public figures’
“private” life
 The ruling implied that Article 8 of the European Convention
of Human Rights (concerns the right of privacy) may have
overriding power over Article 10 (concerns freedom of
expression) in the Convention.
 The European Court of Human Rights stated that "increase
vigilance in protecting private life is necessary to contend
with new communication technologies which make it possible
to store and reproduce personal data. This also applies to the
systematic taking of specific photos and their dissemination
to a broad section of the public."
Decision Making
Identifying alternative
Categorization of information/photos
Indecent or obscene information
Private information
Confidential information
Classification of act
Obtaining the information in public facilities
Obtaining the information I private facilities
Obtaining the information by means of covert surveillance
Obtaining the information in other illegal means
Disseminating to designated "private" sources
Disseminating to the public
Decision Making
Identifying alternative
Nature of the offence
Criminal offence
Civil offence
Unethical offence
Curriculum-Content Analysis
On the theme of Impact of Globalization
The advancement of information technology and
technology of scrutiny and control in general have
fundamental changed the boundary of private and
public sphere.
Private sphere is no long defined in terms of
physical spaces, such as one's home, bedroom,
changing room, etc. Private sphere has
transformed into sphere of information flows.
Curriculum-Content Analysis
 On the theme of Interpersonal Relationship
 A new form of pure relation emerges, i.e. spectator and
celebrity relation. It is one of the purest forms of the pure
relation in IT age. There is no "institutional bondage" or even
any other kind of bondages on the part of the spectators. The
spectators can turn on and off the relation any time they want
without any social and/or emotional responsibility entailed.
 On the part of the celebrities, they instrumentally use this
relation and the industry of public relation and publicity to
build up their fame.
 On the part of the mass media, they are but the magnifying
and accelerating machine in the virtual stadium, where
spectator and celebrities meet.
Curriculum-Content Analysis
On the theme of Quality of Life
Redefining quality of life in virtual world to include
right to privacy and confidentiality.
Protection of right to privacy and confidentiality as
part of the governmental responsibilities of modern
state especially in the IT age.
On the theme of Rule of Law
Rule of law as means of protection of right to
privacy and confidentiality
Rule of law as means of protection of freedom of
the press and speech.
Sample of Issue-Inquiry Design: 2
Desecration of National Flag
is a Criminal Offense
Incidents:
 Case 1: HKSAR Government vs. Ng Kung-siu and Lee
Kin-yun
Mr. Ng and Mr Lee displayed the national flag of the
PRC and regional flag of the HKSAR, which had been
desecrated, during the rally organized by the Hong
Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic
Movements in China (支聯會) on January 1 1998.
 Case 2: Texas vs. Johnson
Gregory L. Johnson burnt the American Flag on
August 22, 1984, during the Republic Party’s
convention in Dallas
香港特區政府 訴 吳恭劭 利建潤
事件：
 1998年1月1日，吳恭劭（25歲）及利建潤（19歲），
參與支聯會舉辦的元旦民主遊行期間﹐公開展示被毀壞
的國旗和區旗﹐並在兩面旗上寫上「恥」字。被展示的
國旗上的五星被塗污﹐區旗的洋紫荊圖案則畫上了一個
大交叉。
 警方當時並沒有即時阻止有關行為﹐亦沒有即時拘控涉
案人士﹐待一個月後才向二人發出傳票﹐正式予以起訴。
 1998年5月，在裁判署審訊後﹐法庭裁定二人違反上述
兩條法例罪名成立﹐各被判以四千元保釋﹐守行為一
年﹐如果他在守行為期間再干犯任何罪行﹐即需沒有四
千元保釋金。
香港特區政府 訴 吳恭劭 利建潤
事件：
 1989年3月23日，上訴庭裁定國旗和區旗法限制公眾的
言論及發表自由﹐違反《基本法》及國際人權公約﹐法
例屬無效﹐因而撤銷兩名在元旦日遊行中損毀國旗區旗
的示威者之罪名。
 司徒冕指出﹐兩名示威者當日和平請願﹐並無使用暴
力﹔塗污國旗和區旗﹐不足以對社會造成嚴重滋擾動亂。
英國憲制也把損毀國旗肯定為自由發表權利之一﹐而大
部分主要行使普通法的地區﹐也沒有把損毀國旗例作刑
事罪行。
 律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員布思義聞悉判決後﹐即時
以案件涉及重大法律爭拗為由﹐向上訴庭要求上訴終審
法院﹐並獲批准。
香港特區政府 訴 吳恭劭 利建潤
事件：
 1989年12月15日，終審法院一致裁定塗污國旗區旗屬
刑事罪行﹐並強調國旗和區旗象徵‘一國兩制’﹐在確
保公眾秩序的前提下﹐有必要有限度地限制言論自由﹐
因此恢復示威常客吳恭劭和利建潤的定罪﹐維持自簽二
千元守行為一年的判罰。
 終審法院首席法官李國能在書面判詞首數段﹐便開宗明
義地表明‘國旗代表中華人民共和國﹐代表她的尊嚴﹑
統一及領土的完整’﹔區旗是‘一國兩制方針下﹐中華
人民共和國不可分離部分的獨有象徵’。
 他續說﹕‘制定國旗條例第七條及區旗條例第七條﹐是
為保障公共秩序所必要﹐這兩條條文對發表自由的權利
施加限制﹐具有充分理據支持﹐亦符合憲法。’
Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense
(Case 1: Texas vs. Johnson)
Gregory L. Johnson burnt the American Flag on August 22, 1984, during the
Republic Party’s convention in Dallas
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
Gregory L. Johnson set fire on the American flag
during the protest against the Republication
National Convention. No one was physically injured.
He was arrested and charged with the crime of flag
burning and found guilty in a Texas court.
Johnson appealed his conviction to the Texas of
Appeal. Arguing that Johnson’s burning of the flag
was his way of expressing his opposition to the
Republication Party. His lawyer maintained that flag
burning is an act of free speech protected by the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
The Texas Court of Appeal agreed that Johnson’s
act of flag burning as a form of expression was
protected by the 1st Amendment and therefore
reversed Johnson’s conviction.
The State of Texas took the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court. In June 21 1989, the US Supreme
Court ruled that the act of flag burning is protected
by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and
criminalizing flag burning is unconstitutional by a
5-4 vote.
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
Right after the Supreme Court’s rule, the US
Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989
criminalizing any act of desecration of the US flags
including burning.
Shortly after the pass of the Flag Protection Act,
another group of protesters set fire to several US
flags on the step of the US Capitol Building and
creating the case of U.S. vs. Eichman.
The US Supreme Court upheld its previous ruling
by stipulating that flag burning is constitutionally
protected.
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
Since then the US Congress has tried to amend the
constitution eight times but all of them have been
in vain.
What is At Issue? Definition of the
Issue
 Case 1:
 Mr. Ng and Mr. Lee's acts are criminal offences in
contrary to the National Flag and Nation Emblem
Ordinance and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem
Ordinance.
 Their acts are acts of public protests and the enactment
of the right of freedom of expression. And freedom of
expression is endorsed by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which is in turn endorsed by the Basic
Law of HKSAR.
What is At Issue? Definition of the
Issue
 Case 2
 National flag is the venerated symbol of a nation and
should be respected and protected. Any act of
desecration of the national flag may disturb public
orders, trigger public anger and disturbance. US
Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989
criminalized flag burning in the US.
 National-flag burning is a symbolic expression of
protest and discontent about political and/or social
incidents. It is an enactment of the freedom of
expression/speech, which is protected by the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And the Supreme
Court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally
protected.
Factual-Social Inquiry (P=Pros; C=Cons)
P1 Desecrating the national flag is an act of insulting the
symbol of nationhood and national unity / a
venerated object of the nation
P2 Desecrating the national flag is an act of breaching
the peace of the community
Factual-Social Inquiry (P=Pros; C=Cons)
C1 Desecrating of the national flag is a symbolic speech
and therefore is protected by the First Amendment of
the Constitution of the US, which states
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
C2 Freedom of speech protected minority views, which
may be objectionable to the majority of the society
Value Inquiry
P1 National flag is a venerated object representing the
nationhood and national unity of the nation, hence
any act of desecrating it is a criminal offense.
C1 Act of burning the national flag is an endorsement of
the venerated status of the flag, but an act of
expressing disrespect or protest of some political
stance it stand for
Value Inquiry
P2 Desecrating the national flag is an inflammatory act,
which may ignite public anger and/or disturbances.
C2 Any desecration of public symbols, such as crosses,
Stars of David, sign of the Nazi will also ignite anger
and/or violent responses from the respective
supporters. It is for this reason that minority political
views should be guard against tyranny of the mass.
Institutional inquiry
 Is freedom of expression protected by the HKSAR
Basic Law?
 Is nation and SAR and national flags protected the
Basic Law?
 Does Flag desecration violate Criminal Laws and is it
protected by HKSAR Basic Law?
Comparative-multicultural inquiry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
 Australia
 Canada
 Denmark
 The US
 The UK
Decision-making
 Identifying alternatives: Criminalizing acts of
 Hurting or even assassinating public officials
 Damaging public property
 Burning publicly displayed national flag in public
 Burning privately owned national flag in public
 Burning privately owned national flag of other countries in
public
 Burning privately owned national flag in private
 Burning a copy of the Constitution, e.g. the Basic Law
 Burning the puppets indicating public officials
 Refusing to salute the national flag
 Refusing to stand up as the nation emblem are played
Decision-making
 Predicting consequences
 Causing international criticism of violating human right of
freedom of expression
 Causing chaos to the newly established “One-Country-TwoSystem”
 Igniting public angers and disturbances
 (Burning other national flags of other countries) Causing
international disputes and diplomatic turmoil
Curriculum-Form Analysis
 Hong Kong Today
 Modern China
 Globalization
 Post-traditional society
Other Examples
Stones from other Mountains: IssueInquiry Approaches in the UK and US
 General Studies in UK
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/websites/16/site/gene
ral_studies.shtml
 http://www.edexcel.org.uk/quals/gce/general/as/820
6/
 Issue inquiry approach in the U.S.
 http://www.dushkin.com/usingts/
 http://www.criticalthinking.org/index.cfm
Example Issue 1: Passive Euthanasia
 Should euthanasia be legalized? (Edexcel Advanced
Subsidiary GCE in General Studies: Coursework Guide)
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/48417/GCE_G
eneral_Studies_Coursework_Guide.pdf
 Should doctors ever help terminally ill patients to
committed suicide? (Issue 6 in Daniel, E (Ed.) (2004)
Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in
health and society, 6th edition, Guilford: McGrawHill/Dushkin.)
Example Issue 1: Passive Euthanasia
 Should physicians be allowed to assist in
patient suicide? (Issue 5 in Levine, C. (Ed.)
(1997) Taking Sides: Clashing views on
controversial bioethical issues, 7th edition,
Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)
 「癱瘓者(斌仔)用嘴打信, 函立會求安樂死」《明報》
2004年4月20日
斌仔去函立法會要求安樂死
 事件探究
 《明報》2004年4月20日
「癱瘓者(斌仔)用嘴打信, 函立會求安樂死」
Example Issue 2: GM Food
 Is biotechnology an environmentally sound way to
increase food production? (Issue 6 in Goldfarb, T.D.
(Ed.) (1999) Taking Sides: Clashing views on
controversial environmental issues, 8th edition,
Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)
 http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genom
e/elsi/gmfood.shtml
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview
.php
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/gmfood/
Example Issue 2: GM Food
 Campbell, J. 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically
Modified Foods in
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm
Example Issue 3: Human Coning
 Should human cloning ever be permitted? (Issue 9 in
Daniel, E. (Ed.) Taking Sides: Clashing views on
controversial issues in health and society, 6th edition,
Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)
 http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/
elsi/cloning.shtml
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
 http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlinebrochures/c
loning/index.cfm?ID=282
Example Issue 4: Same-Sex Marriage
 Should same-sex couple be able to marry? (Issue 11 in Schroedor,
E. (Ed.) (2005) Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial
issues in family and personal relationship, 6th edition, Guilford:
McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)
 Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to protect the “sanctity
of marriage”? (Issue 12 in Schroedor, E. (Ed.) (2005) Taking Sides:
Clashing views on controversial issues in family and personal
relationship, 6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)
 Can Lesbian and gay couples be appropriate parents for children?
(Issue 13 in Schroedor, E. (Ed.) (2005) Taking Sides: Clashing
views on controversial issues in family and personal relationship,
6th edition, Guilford: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.)
Example Issue 5:
Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense
Desecration of National Flag is a Criminal Offense
(Case 1: Texas vs. Johnson)
Gregory L. Johnson burnt the American Flag on August 22, 1984, during the
Republic Party’s convention in Dallas
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
Gregory L. Johnson set fire on the American flag
during the protest against the Republication
National Convention. No one was physically injured.
He was arrested and charged with the crime of flag
burning and found guilty in a Texas court.
Johnson appealed his conviction to the Texas of
Appeal. Arguing that Johnson’s burning of the flag
was his way of expressing his opposition to the
Republication Party. His lawyer maintained that flag
burning is an act of free speech protected by the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
The Texas Court of Appeal agreed that Johnson’s
act of flag burning as a form of expression was
protected by the 1st Amendment and therefore
reversed Johnson’s conviction.
The State of Texas took the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court. In June 21 1989, the US Supreme
Court ruled that the act of flag burning is protected
by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and
criminalizing flag burning is unconstitutional by a
5-4 vote.
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
Right after the Supreme Court’s rule, the US
Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989
criminalizing any act of desecration of the US flags
including burning.
Shortly after the pass of the Flag Protection Act,
another group of protesters set fire to several US
flags on the step of the US Capitol Building and
creating the case of U.S. vs. Eichman.
The US Supreme Court upheld its previous ruling
by stipulating that flag burning is constitutionally
protected.
Texas vs. Gregory Lee Johnson
The incidents
Since then the US Congress has tried to amend the
constitution eight times but all of them have been
in vain.
香港特區政府 起訴 吳恭劭 利建潤
事件：
 1998年1月1日，吳恭劭（25歲）及利建潤（19歲），
參與支聯會舉辦的元旦民主遊行期間﹐公開展示被毀壞
的國旗和區旗﹐並在兩面旗上寫上「恥」字。被展示的
國旗上的五星被塗污﹐區旗的洋紫荊圖案則畫上了一個
大交叉。
 警方當時並沒有即時阻止有關行為﹐亦沒有即時拘控涉
案人士﹐待一個月後才向二人發出傳票﹐正式予以起訴。
 1998年5月，在裁判署審訊後﹐法庭裁定二人違反上述
兩條法例罪名成立﹐各被判以四千元保釋﹐守行為一
年﹐如果他在守行為期間再干犯任何罪行﹐即需沒有四
千元保釋金。
香港特區政府 訴 吳恭劭 利建潤
事件：
 1999年3月23日，上訴庭裁定國旗和區旗法限制公眾的
言論及發表自由﹐違反《基本法》及國際人權公約﹐法
例屬無效﹐因而撤銷兩名在元旦日遊行中損毀國旗區旗
的示威者之罪名。
 司徒冕指出﹐兩名示威者當日和平請願﹐並無使用暴
力﹔塗污國旗和區旗﹐不足以對社會造成嚴重滋擾動亂。
英國憲制也把損毀國旗肯定為自由發表權利之一﹐而大
部分主要行使普通法的地區﹐也沒有把損毀國旗例作刑
事罪行。
 律政司高級助理刑事檢控專員布思義聞悉判決後﹐即時
以案件涉及重大法律爭拗為由﹐向上訴庭要求上訴終審
法院﹐並獲批准。
香港特區政府 訴 吳恭劭 利建潤
事件：
 1999年12月15日，終審法院一致裁定塗污國旗區旗屬
刑事罪行﹐並強調國旗和區旗象徵‘一國兩制’﹐在確
保公眾秩序的前提下﹐有必要有限度地限制言論自由﹐
因此恢復示威常客吳恭劭和利建潤的定罪﹐維持自簽二
千元守行為一年的判罰。
 終審法院首席法官李國能在書面判詞首數段﹐便開宗明
義地表明‘國旗代表中華人民共和國﹐代表她的尊嚴﹑
統一及領土的完整’﹔區旗是‘一國兩制方針下﹐中華
人民共和國不可分離部分的獨有象徵’。
 他續說﹕‘制定國旗條例第七條及區旗條例第七條﹐是
為保障公共秩序所必要﹐這兩條條文對發表自由的權利
施加限制﹐具有充分理據支持﹐亦符合憲法。’
Definition of the Issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
 National-flag burning is a symbolic expression of
protest and discontent about political and/or social
incidents. It is an enactment of the freedom of
expression/speech, which is protected by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Basic Law
of HKSAR, and the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution
 National flag is the venerated symbol of a nation and
should be respected and protected. Any act of
desecration of the national flag may disturb public
orders, trigger public anger and disturbance.
Curriculum-Content Analysis
 The flag burning issues can be related to the following
curriculum content areas of Liberal Studies
 Post-traditional society theory: National flag as part of the
national tradition, which has to be undergone interrogation
and to justify itself in its own right in post-traditional society
 Individual identity: In connection to freedom of speech,
individual is identified as free agent endowed with human
right of free speech and expression even the expression is
socially objectionable . In connection to protection of nation
flag and dignity, individual is identified as national citizen or
even patriot. In connection to public order
Curriculum-Form Analysis
 Definitional inquiry
 What is freedom of speech?
 What is desecration of national flag?
 Factual inquiry
 Is national-flag burning enactment of freedom of expression?
 Is national-flag burning act of desecrating nationally
venerated symbol and national pride and dignity and itself?
 Will national-flag burning cause public disturbances and
violations of public orders?
Curriculum-Form Analysis
 Value inquiry
 Value of freedom of speech?
 Value of national flag, symbols, pride and dignity
 Value of public orders
 Value conflict between freedom of expression and national
flag
 Value conflict between freedom of expression and igniting
public angers and disturbances.
 Institutional inquiry
 Is freedom of expression protected by the HKSAR Basic Law?
 Is nation and SAR and national flags protected the Basic Law?
 Does Flag desecration violate Criminal Laws and is it
protected by HKSAR Basic Law?
Curriculum-Form Analysis
 Comparative-multicultural inquiry
 Australia
 Canada
 Denmark
 The UK
 The US
Decision-making
 Identifying alternatives: Criminalizing acts of
 Hurting or even assassinating public officials
 Damaging public property
 Burning publicly displayed national flag in public
 Burning privately owned national flag in public
 Burning privately owned national flag of other countries in
public
 Burning privately owned national flag in private
 Burning a copy of the Constitution, e.g. the Basic Law
 Burning the puppets indicating public officials
 Refusing to salute the national flag
 Refusing to stand up as the nation emblem are played
Decision-making
 Predicting consequences
 Causing international criticism of violating human right of
freedom of expression
 Causing chaos to the newly established “One-Country-TwoSystem”
 Igniting public angers and disturbances
 (Burning other national flags of other countries) Causing
international disputes and diplomatic turmoil
Lecture 7
Understanding the Curriculum Form of Liberal Studies:
Conception of Issue Inquiry Approach
End