| 回應 : 0 | |||||||
美國會關注朱凱廸事件 港府：不應干預港內務 【明報專訊】今屆立會選舉接連出現不同爭議，繼倡議港獨候選人被取消參選資格，候任議員朱凱廸又疑因質疑官商鄉黑勾結而遭恐嚇，事件惹起國際關注。 批港府「似乎隨意取消參選人資格」 美國國會及行政當局中國委員會（簡稱CECC）當地時間周五向傳媒發聲明，對朱凱廸受死亡恐嚇表達關注，又批評港府在立法會選舉前「似乎隨意取消參選人資格」，指今次選舉結果被視為港人以公投方式，顯示對北京粗暴監督（rough oversight）的不滿。 港府昨日發出新聞稿強調，外國議會不應干預香港的內部事務，又指港府一直嚴格依法舉行各項公共選舉，確保選舉在公開、公平和誠實的情况下進行。 美方聲明提及，中國委員會主席Christopher Smith相信明年的特首選舉是北京會否以新方針管治香港的試金石，又提到銅鑼灣書店股東桂民海仍被內地扣查事件。聲明指出美國關注香港的自治、自由，國會將繼續監察香港的民主進程。 (11/9/2016)
我在Congressional-Executive Commission on China的網頁還未見到上文所講的新聞發布, 所以不知道原文所用的字眼。這委員會一向都給我一種美國佬大晒的感覺。這個由美國參眾兩院議員組成的委員會, 是個官方組織, 目的是監察中國人權法治狀況等問題, 不管這組織的其他政治目的為何, 對冒起的泱泱大國不符合現代國際人權法治基本要求作出的批評也十分合理, 事實上中國大陸在這方面的發展過份滯後, 比諸經濟發展的速度構成不合比例的落後, 以致政治性質的寃案頻生, 授人口實, 責在自己, 與人無尤, 不能下下反駁人家干預內政。中國大陸在各方面與國際接軌, 就要在某程度上也要遵從國際對人權法治的要求。香港嘛, 像朱凱迪受恐嚇事件, 引起國際關注是一樁好事, 感到羞家的只是那些大言不慚的新界土佬及他們勾結的黑社會。不過, 這種評論到甚麼程度才構成干預內部事務呢? 先看下面本年7月雙學3子在2014年闖入政府總部的非法集會被定罪後這委員會的新聞發布: July 22, 2016 Washington, DC—"The Hong Kong government will say the court's decision was a triumph for the rule of law, but the appearance is that this was a political prosecution, further tarnishing Hong Kong's reputation as a city built on guaranteed freedoms and rights," said Representative Chris Smith. "These student activists should never have been prosecuted in the first place, Hong Kong's Basic Law clearly protects the freedom of expression and assembly. Whether the Hong Kong government likes it or not, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow, and all those involved with the "Umbrella Movement" have become important symbols of Hong Kong's vitality, its freedoms, and the fight to remain an autonomous and prosperous bridge between China and the West. They have become part of Hong Kong's unique brand and the guilty verdicts damage that brand.” "Joshua Wong and his fellow pro-democracy activists Nathan Law and Alex Chow represent the future of Hong Kong," said Senator Marco Rubio. "The court's verdict regarding their protest activities in connection with the Umbrella Movement is troubling especially in light of the fact that Hong Kong's Public Order Ordinance fails to meet international standards on the right of peaceful assembly. Just as important, the Hong Kong government should never have arrested and brought charges against the three to begin with. The Commission will be closely monitoring their sentencing in the coming weeks, especially given the impact it could have on Nathan's ability to stand for election as a LegCo candidate. The democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong can not be indefinitely suppressed. I stand with Joshua and thousands of other Hong Kong residents who refuse to abide by Beijing's denial of basic human rights." 這種評論未免有點過份, 這不是美國的民間團體的言論, 而是某程度代表美國政府立場的言論。假如香港的立法會對美國近年多次黑人被警察槍殺事件作批評, 美國政府又會有甚麼反應呢? 況且這3子的審訊是公開的, 他們也獲得有經驗和資深的大律師代表抗辯, 對裁決不滿也有上訴渠道, 作為外交的禮儀, 這種政治性的評論完全不切合身分。這是否意味美國政府要跟香港的上訴法院分庭抗禮, 抑或是為這3子的審訊投放了資源, 協助他們抗辯和上訴呢? 立法會候選人被拒入閘, 將會是選舉呈請對選舉主任權力作出審視的法律問題, 法庭未聽申請, 美國佬就爭先判案, 講到是「似乎隨意取消參選人資格」, 美國政府是否想委派律師加入訴訟呢? 在案件的審理還在進行中(sub judice)作出評論, 還講到《公安條例》不合乎國際對和平示威寬鬆處理的要求(香港終審法院不只一宗案例審理過這方面的法律, 還有英澳知名的非常設法官同席聽審的), 屬於a brutal intervention of the Hong Kong internal affairs and a blatant disregard of international protocol. 美國佬大晒咩! |
Copyright © Easy Property Co., Limited. All Rights Reserved.
