- 49 A B - the analysis and reasons given above, we are of the view that the Judge’s findings and reasoning on the utility of the injunction, its compatibility A B with the criminal law and its contra mundum effect, and accordingly his C D exercise of discretion cannot be supported. We do not consider it necessary to dwell on the complaints that Mr Yu has raised against the C D Judge’s reasoning, except this. Although we differ from the Judge, we do E F not accept the criticism that the Judge failed in his duty to safeguard national security merely because he did not adopt the test or approach that E F counsel advocated and, for the reasons that he gave, came to his own G G conclusion not to grant the injunction. H H 89. I In exercising our discretion afresh and adopting the proper approach, we are satisfied that an injunction should be granted. J K L M N O I J 90. The composer of the Song has intended it to be a “weapon” and so it had become. It had been used as an impetus to propel the violent protests plaguing Hong Kong since 2019. It is powerful in arousing emotions among certain fractions of the society. It has the effect of justifying and even romanticizing and glorifying the unlawful and violent acts inflicted on Hong Kong in the past few years, arousing and rekindling strong emotions and the desire to violent confrontations. Further, in the K L M N O hands of those with the intention to incite secession and sedition, the Song P Q R S can be deployed to arouse anti-establishment sentiments and belief in the separation of the HKSAR from the PRC. 91. Q Moreover, as is the case of any national anthem, the national anthem of the PRC is a symbol and sign of the State. P It represents the R S country with her sovereignty, dignity, unity and territorial integrity and is T U V the identity of the Chinese people. Misrepresenting the Song as the national anthem of the HKSAR in the manner proscribed is both an offence T U V