2013年10月26日星期六

香港獨立媒體: 最後的士魂

 
Manage your social media

Best social media tool for image publishing to Facebook and Twitter. Look amazing and delight your followers. Get 40% off when you sign up today.
From our sponsors
最後的士魂
Oct 26th 2013, 14:13, by 中文大學國是學會

原刊於2013年10月26日《成報》 

在十年之前,美國有一套電影發行,名為「最後武士」,向日本凋零多年的武士之魂發出呼喚。然而,可笑的是,這個呼喚由美國‐這個外國的國度發出。筆鋒一轉,回到今日之中國,我國之士魂又何嘗不花果飄零、不知所踪。故此,我向我們的士魂發出呼喚。

自古以來,舉凡一國一族,得以卓立於世界民族之林,不特以船堅炮利、國富民悍縱横於世,必亦有足以感召全國人民之精神丶宗旨。故法蘭西以「自由、平等、博愛」立國,美利堅亦以自由、共和為號召,方進行獨立戰爭,猝立共和。凡此種種,非刀劍所能屈、非利益所能誘,故國運雖多造,然人民遇難終團結如一,垂國祚於千齡。

而吾中華垂降五千年而不滅,歷經五胡亂華、蒙元入侵、滿清入主,近至列強欺淩、日本侵略,危難雖多,然因國魂支柱,總有仁人志士挺身而出,或抗入侵,如岳武穆、張自忠將軍等。或存國族文化於民間,如鄭思肖、顧亭林等。故中國多難,終危而後定,得以延綿,此士魂感召之功也。

然踏入近代、當代,歴經五四而文革,不特固有文化飽受摧殘,士魂也蕩然無幾。口中空談孔孟,而不知廉恥。遍地學院,而不知仁義。何解?皆因今人生存僅為逐利、尋求高收入的工作,不以國族之隆替、同胞之存亡為念,而以傳統人文價値如糞土,失卻士魂,是以今人心靈無所皈依,僅以往來逐利為能事。失卻傳統中國人「國家興亡,匹夫有責」、「路見不平,拔刀相助」的慷概行仁之風,不僅如此,連「乍見孺子入於井」的基本惻忍之心也失卻。路有不平事,也視而不見。眼見如此的人文風景,眼見士魂的失落,怎教人不痛心疾首。

而失落的士魂,這究竟是甚麼? 愚以為士魂其實不外乎「以天下為己任」、「民胞物與」之氣概以及推己及人之氣度。簡而言之,則是仁、義、禮、智,信五德。此雖微言,亦屬大義。於家國卻有支柱之用。

士魂何以如此重要?愚以為士魂即國魂,至少也佔國魂構成之一大部分。其一,中國士人之精神為中國人所獨有之産物,為列國所無。其二,士魂為中華文化承傳中歷久不衰之精神,乃中國立國的根本。

諸位可能以此為陳腐之見、不足取也。其實不然,蓋現代國家,不特有其現代性,也必然有傳統性,只是傳統性之體現,於各國不同。現代國家之傳統必隨風潜入夜,在日常生活中體現,只是難以一一發掘、細知而己。

今日之中國,士魂已餘無幾,若再丟失,只恐怕中國空餘形體,而失精神上之中國。若如此,則形同行屍走肉之大漢,雖有一身橫練肌肉,而精神呆滯,終無用武之地。

有見及此,在此士魂欲失未失之際,呼喚最後的士魂,使錢賓四、唐君毅諸先生不作最後的士人,使各位中國人莫作精神上的亡國人,莫使後人無花空折枝。

黃宇翔 中文大學國是學會會員

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 人權監察致聯合國普遍定期審議中國(包括香港)意見書(2013)

 
Interested in creating incredible beauty looks?

Enroll in this online course where you will learn to harness the power of color while mastering makeup techniques and application.
From our sponsors
人權監察致聯合國普遍定期審議中國(包括香港)意見書(2013)
Oct 26th 2013, 12:57, by 香港人權監察

人權監察致聯合國普遍定期審議中國(包括香港)意見書
審議日期:2013年10月22日

Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor: Submission for the United Nations Universal Periodic Review of the People's Republic of China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) scheduled to be held in Oct 2013

Introduction
After the Handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China in 1997, China has adopted a 'One Country, Two Systems' policy by which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR or HK) was promised a high degree of autonomy and institutions for preserving its way of life, including a legal system distinct from Mainland China. This report only highlights below six major areas of current human rights concerns in the HKSAR.

A). Democracy and universal suffrage
Article 45 of the HKSAR Basic Law stipulates, "The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (SCNPC) decided in 2007 that universal suffrage may be implemented for the Chief Executive in 2017, and for the Legislative Council in 2020.[1]

There remain serious concerns as to whether the "universal suffrage" to be implemented in Chief Executive Election in 2017 and Legislative Council Election in 2020 is to be genuine, or will be distorted. Recent speeches alluding to a different concept of what they regard as universal suffrage have been made by Mainland China officials.[2] The timing is not coincidental, but is seen as part of a carefully choreographed effort to obfuscate and re-define. The transparent aim is to build into the Chief Executive electoral system hurdles to exclude candidates considered not "loving the Country and loving Hong Kong" by the central authorities, and to perpetuate the gerrymandering in favour of pro-Government and pro-establishment parties by the maintenance of the functional constituency system in Legislative Council, which has been criticized for breaching human rights by various UN treaty bodies.[3] The achievement of a non-ersatz sytem depends on whether distorting elements will be totally abolished, as well as on how the future nomination committee be composed and returned, and on whether there will be high or unreasonable nomination threshold as well as pre-screening, etc., designed to exclude candidates from the opposition.

We request the Human Rights Council (HRC) to urge the HKSAR government to implement universal suffrage in a way consistent with all Covenant rights and Concluding Observations of the UN Human Rights Committee, especially the equal right to nominate and be nominated to run for elections, and to run for elections and be elected in the Chief Executive Elections. The HKSAR government should also be urged to abolish all forms of functional constituencies in the Legislative Council Elections. No distorting elements and pre-screening. nor unreasonable thresholds, should be adopted in the nomination process or mechanism in all the Chief Executive and Legislative Council Elections.

B). The Rule of Law
The Sino-British Joint Declaration promises the continuation of a Common Law legal system in HK. One key feature of a Common Law system is that no one other than the Court has the power to interpret what the law means. No one, including the legislature or the executive, other than the judiciary itself can impose, other than by emending the law, a binding interpretation of the law on the judiciary whether before, during or after a court case. Contrary to this promise, the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of the HKSAR adopted by the national parliament purportedly to implement the Joint Declaration, requires the HK judiciary to be bound by the interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC. There are already several instances of interpretations since 1997, which the SCNPC interprets the law according to political needs and inevitably threatens judicial independence and autonomy in HK.

The HKSAR government has threatened to trigger interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC on important issues with serious human rights implications. For instance, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed the Respondents' cases in foreign domestic worker's rights of abode appeal in accordance with Court of Final Appeal on 12 Dec 2012.[4] The DoJ suggested the Court consider seeking the NPCSC's interpretation on Article 158(1) of the Basic Law in order to clarify the legal effect of NPCSC's interpretation in 1999, which may deny right of abode to babies born in HK to mainland couples. Naturally, it triggered lawyers, legal academics and civil society's strong criticisms for damaging judicial independence, pressurizing the Court to overturn its 2001 decision that the opinions of the Preparatory Committee (another body) for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the National People's Congress were not binding. This seeking of SCNPC's interpretation would set a very bad precedent as it implied the triggering of SCNPC's interpretation on provisions of the Basic Law on affairs totally internal to HK.[5]

Justice Kemal Bokhary, the former permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal warned that a "storm of unprecedented ferocity" was gathering over the rule of law in HK just before he retired in Oct 2012.[6] He has rightly highlighted the fact that the rule of law in HK has been under pressure from individuals with influential political backgrounds and from certain media favouring the Mainland authorities. But the HKSAR government has failed to discharge its duty to defend the judiciary against attacks.

For example, senior Chinese leaders, including current China president Xi Jin-ping, have said the judiciary should cooperate with the Chief Executive during his trip as vice president to HK in 2008.[7] Ms. Elsie Leung, the HKSAR's first Secretary for Justice who is also currently a Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Basic Law, alleged that the legal profession in HK, including judges, had a poor understanding of and misunderstood the Central-HKSAR relationship in Oct 2012,[8] which suggests that she may be more interested in supporting the Central China government than she is in supporting the HKSAR Judiciary and legal profession, which is what she is supposed to do as a former HKSAR Secretary of Justice and a current HK Member of the Committee for the Basic Law.

We ask the HRC to urge the HKSAR and Mainland authorities not to use interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee for any purposes, thereby weakening or undermining the rule of law and the Common Law system in HK.

C). Press Freedom and freedom of information
In the World Press Freedom index 2013 by Reporters without Borders, the rank of HK has dropped sharply from 34 in 2010-2011, 54 in 2011-2012 to 58 in 2012-2013. The World Press Freedom Index 2011-12 stated "Arrests, assaults and harassment worsened working conditions for journalists to an extent not seen previously, a sign of a worrying change in government policy."[9]

There are frequent arrests of journalists by the HK Police Force. For instance, a photo journalist was arrested and charged, despite inadequate evidence, with common assault when he was obstructed in his reporting duty in the new HKSAR government headquarters in 2012.[10] He was acquitted by the Court.

Unjustified restrictions on press freedom reached the peak during visits of Mainland China leaders. A reporter was detained for about 15 minutes, for shouting out question to the visiting China president Hu Jin-tao in June 2012 if Hu had heard about the HK People's wishes to vindicate 4 June Tiananmen crackdown, enough to prevent him from carrying out his legitimate journalistic duties. Another incident involved an attempt to prevent a photo journalist from filming during a visit by vice-premier Li Ke-qiang in August 2011.

We urge the HRC to urge the HKSAR government to ensure that the handling of press by the police officers should be in consistent with freedom of information enshrined by the ICCPR.

The HKSAR government has various attempts to restrict access to information by journalists, which will eventually undermine the freedom of information of public. For instance, the HK Police Force and the Fire Services Department have implemented a new system for releasing information about spot news incidents following the digitalization of their communication systems. Now journalists must rely on short announcements released through the Information Services Department that highlight the nature, place and time of a case, without giving any meaningful details. Another example is that the government intends to restrict public access to personal information of the managers in the company registry, which is an important way of collecting information for investigative reporting by journalists, researches on collusion between the government and tycoons by scholars and civil society, assessment of potential trade partners by companies and creditors, and meaningful tool for claiming unpaid salaries from absconding employers by workers.

There is no Freedom of Information Act in HK. The government maintains that its March 1995 administrative code on access to information introduced is effective. Even the government appointed Ombudsman severely criticized that Code in 2010.[11] Under the Code, people of HK are not provided reasonable information and documents.

There is no archive law. There are no legal framework and professional standards for managing public records and archives. Only non-binding administrative rules and guidelines are present which public officials frequently ignored without serious consequences. In recent years, repeated loss, unauthorized massive destruction and mishandling of public records have been widely reported, which undermines people's right to know and the court to hold the Government accountable, e.g. in HK Association of Falun Dafa v Director of Immigration (CACV 119/2007). The HKSAR government destroyed over 30,000 linear meters of documents last year, undermining HK's historical records last year.

We urge the HRC to urge the HKSAR government to adopt policies and measures on media in line with the ICCPR. The government should "enact the necessary procedures, whereby one may gain access to information, such as by means of freedom of information legislation" as stated in general comment no. 34 by the UN Human Rights Committee. The government should "proactively put in the public domain Government information of public interest" and enact an archive law.

D). Freedom of expression, police abuses and complaints handling system
The HKSAR government has been taking hard line approach and threatening freedom of expression though prosecutions motivated by political reasons and abuses of law and procedures.

The UN Human Rights Committee expresses in its Concluding Observations that the Public Order Ordinance could be applied to restrict unduly enjoyment of the rights guaranteed in article 21 of the ICCPR. Indeed the number of protestors arrested has significantly increased in recent years.[12] The regulation of the same Ordinance on public assemblies and its offences like "unauthorized assembly", "unlawful assembly" and "disorder in public places" are too vaguely, broadly and subjectively defined, which may be conducive to arbitrary and selective prosecution of protestors. We urge the HRC echoed the Committee's concerns and recommendations to urge the HKSAR government "to review this Ordinance and bring its terms into compliance with article 21 of the Covenant."[13]

Furthermore, the police tightened its restriction on freedom of expression the most when Mainland China officials visited HK in 2011 and 2012. For instance, when the Appeal Board on Public Meetings and Processions has ruled in favour of a location for demonstration nearer to the demonstration target, the police defeated the Board's intention by engulfing the demonstration in 2-metre tall water barriers in order to stifle the petition to and demonstration against the visiting China President Hu Jin-tao in HK in late June 2012. Such abusive uses of water-filled barriers further provoked confrontation of the protestors with the police. We urge the HRC to urge the HKSAR government to ensure police handling of protests and assemblies should be in line with freedom of expression enshrined by the Article 19 and article 21 of the ICCPR.

The Independent Police Complaint Council (IPCC) cannot effectively monitor and check the police because of its limited mandate. It has no jurisdiction in investigation but basically in the review of complaints handled by the Complaint Against Police Office (CAPO), which is an internal unit of the police. IPCC gives non-binding advice the CAPO to reconsider complaint substantiation classifications and on measures against police officers found to be at fault. IPCC's limited access to the information of police forces further undermines its effectiveness.

Different UN Treaty bodies have called for establishing an independent police monitoring body with binding power. For instance, the Human Rights Committee's Concluding Observations in 2006 stated "The HKSAR should ensure that the investigation of complaints against the police is carried out by an independent body, the decisions of which are binding on relevant authorities." However there is no progress in empowering the IPCC to have power of investigation, verdict and punishment.

We urge the HRC to urge the HKSAR to expand the mandate and powers of the IPCC to conduct investigation into complaints against police officers.

E). National education, civic education and human rights education
The HKSAR government has marginalized civil education and devoted its efforts and resources to promoting dubious uncritical "national education". The government attempted to boost nationalism in schools by focusing on the positive sides of China, emphasizing responsibility but not rights, requiring the students to recognize national identity at the expense of critical thinking. Increasing resources have been deployed to support production of indoctrination materials and trips to see the positive sides of Mainland China. The HKSAR government released the amended Moral and National Education Curriculum guide in May 2012 and made the subject compulsory in primary and secondary schools. However, the curriculum guide was criticized as rollback as it displaced civic education which emphasized universal human rights. Facing strong oppositions from students, parents and civic society through continued public assemblies, protests, hunger strikes and strikes in universities, the HKSAR government shelved the curriculum guide in Oct 2012.

We urge the HRC to urge the HKSAR government to better include and implement Human Rights education in an improved civic education framework according to Plan of Action of World Programme for Human Rights Education.

F). Human Rights Institution
We urge the HRC to urge the HKSAR government to set up, in line with the Paris Principles, a statutory human rights commission for the protection and promotion of human rights in HK.

Footnotes;

[1] "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2012 and on Issues Relating to Universal Suffrage". 29 December 2007

[2] South China Morning Post, "Beijing offers definition of HK suffrage, 8 June 2010. Ming Pao, "Constitutional Reforms in HK and issues on universal suffrage in the future – the full text of Qiao Xiao-yang's speech", 8 June 20010.

[3] The electoral system of restricted franchise has been repeatedly by the UN Human Rights Committee to be inconsistent to several articles of the ICCPR in 1995, 1999, 2006 and 2013. For instance, it is criticized for violating the principle of university and equality, giving undue weight to the business community and discriminating between voters on the basis of property & functions.

[4] HKSAR Government press statement, "SJ on foreign domestic helper's case" 13 December 2012

[5] South China Morning Post, "Right of abode appeal to Beijing a bad precedent". The Standard, "'Ask Beijing' call dismays lawyers". 14 December 2012.

[6] South China Morning Post. "Retiring Court of Final Appeal judge Kemal Bokhary warns of legal turmoil". 25 October 2012

[7] South China Morning Post. "Xi tells Tsang to 'govern sensibly'". 8 July 2008.

[8] Hong Kong Bar Association, "HKBA Press Statement in Response to Recent Remarks Made by Ms Elsie Leung" http://hkba.org/whatsnew/press-release/HKBA%20Press%20Statement%20dated%2010%20Oct%20(Eng).pdf

[9] "At the top, the good boys turn bad". 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index. Reporters without borders. 25 Jan 2012 http://en.rsf.org/IMG/CLASSEMENT_2012/C_GENERAL_ANG.pdf

[10] The International Federation of Journalists "Journalists Protest in Hong Kong over Photographer's Assault Charge". 28 September 2012.

[11] Chapter 5, "Direct Investigation Report: Effectiveness of Administration of Code on Access to Information", Office of the Ombudsman Hong Kong, January 2010.

[12] The number of protestors arrested in demonstration is greatly increased from 57 in 2010 to 440 in 2011.

[13] See e.g. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (CCPR/C/79/Add.117), 15 November 1999, para. 19 and repetitions of calls in the subsequent Concluding Observations.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 東北村民痛陳利害 陳茂波一度哽咽

 
Want free Kindle ebooks?

Sign up to receive the best freebie Kindle ebook deals in your email every day.
From our sponsors
東北村民痛陳利害 陳茂波一度哽咽
Oct 26th 2013, 11:28, by 吳卓恆

(獨媒特約報導)東北三區村民昨日(10月25日)與發展局局長陳茂波開會,要求發展局回應村民不遷不拆訴求,及按承諾落村會見三區村民。會上村民向陳茂波陳情,希望當局撒回東北發展計劃,使陳茂波更一度感觸。但他指拆村不能避免,難以達成村民要求,又未有交代落村確實時間。

今次會議於北區政府合署舉行,村民及支援學生於合署外集會。會議分為兩場,首場在五點半鐘開始,參與者以各村代表及村委為主;七點鐘的第二場會議,則有百多位三區村民扶老攜幼參與。古洞北發展關注組成員李肇華質疑,政府將會議分開兩場是有意分化村民,「點解唔可以同村長一齊開會?係唔係佢地想分化村民?」另外,民政署在早前稱由於會議是閉門進行,因此未有通知傳媒。

工黨議員張超雄會前表示,陳茂波曾答應他八月前一起到東北落村,但最終沒有兌現承諾。會上陳茂波多次指「同事會儘快安排我落區」,又聲稱曾經「堂堂正正」入到村落考察農田,但在場村民卻毫不知情,獨打鼓嶺坪輋保衛家園聯盟成員財哥質疑陳茂波「鬼祟入村」。

村民陳情 陳茂波一度哽咽

至於兩個多小時的會議上,廿多位村民不斷向陳茂波痛陳利害,多次斥責陳茂波不尊重民意;亦有村民向局上送上廚餘及親自種的鮮花,希望當局明白村民原地耕種的訴求。馬屎埔村民區晞旻認為發展不等於起樓,三區村民正在努力建造自己的社區。陳茂波指,政府會盡量安置村民在同一條邨,並與食衛局協調復耕安排。但此說法不被村民接受, 村民爭取的不是復耕而是繼續原地耕作,「政府你知唔知我地訴求係咩?」

有坪輋村民發言指:「住喺呢度鐵皮屋同木屋嘅都係貧苦大眾,你拆咗佢間屋迫佢瞓街公唔公道?」亦有村民要求陳茂波「犧牲小我、完成大我」清拆自己的官邸興建公屋,為香港的發展犧牲:「你既然要我哋犧牲,如果你(陳茂波)同家人肯搬入公屋住一世,我即刻離開呢個會議室,間屋畀你任拆!」

村民又質疑政府只徵收非原居民土地,不尊重非原居民對香港的貢獻,認為政府用不同政策對待原居民及非原居民十分不公平。其中古洞村民黃生發言時情緒激動:「我阿爸當年喺古洞耕田,好艱辛每日先賺到三十幾蚊;我哋古洞菜站供應好多菜畀香港人食,對香港都有貢獻。點解原居民就可以唔使收地,我哋非原居民唔被尊重!」

又有村民認為當局無考慮交通配套因素,高估鐵路可負擔量。村民賀華則要求在場官員在繁忙時間親自到上水站乘搭東鐵:「你張車飛我出錢!你哋身為父母官應該要去了解下民情,睇下上水站個情況係點!自己坐一次先好同我哋講嘢!」然而,村民鍾曉晴指摘有官員聽到這個要求後擺出不屑表情,極不尊重村民。

村民又認為社區價值不能用數字去量化,李肇華指:「我喺呢度住咗四代,你哋政府規劃師將我屋企四代人心血劃做一個花槽!」古洞村民李燕芳則引述家中九十多歲的奶奶,知道政府要拆村時的一番話:「呢間屋係我一磚一瓦起出嚟,點解要趕我走?我點都唔走架啦,你嚟抬我啦。」又指不少生活在鄉村的老人家都難以適應大廈生活,上落不便之餘失去了鄰里照顧,希望政府體諒村內老人家,讓他們能在村內終老。

陳茂波聽到多位村民申述後一度哽咽,特別當農戶黃生講出經歷時更似乎眼有淚光,他表示明白和了解各人的經歷,稱自己十分尊重非原居民。可是對於不遷不拆的訴求「恕難從命」,重申不能撤回發展計劃,只希望在未來的發展做得更好。

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 點解我地只係想轉台都要走上街

 
Interested in creating incredible beauty looks?

Enroll in this online course where you will learn to harness the power of color while mastering makeup techniques and application.
From our sponsors
點解我地只係想轉台都要走上街
Oct 26th 2013, 09:46, by 林若勤

閒話家常時我們最討厭一些人說話說一半,講秘密講一半。那種給你希望又要「吊你癮」的人真的非常「黑人憎」,我寧願你從一開始就什麼也不說或者給我編一個大話借口,好比現在人人都要你說出那不能說的秘密。什麼叫一籃子因素,答了等如沒答,不如不回答或者另找籍口,還是說連這些人都找不到一個合理的借口推搪,抑或行會認為政府作一個決定根本不需要理由。

經過六天圍堵政總,相信市民的訴求非常清晰及單一,我們不想再每晚被逼聽著「在世間遮風擋雨有一種愛」的陳腔濫調及無故事無劇情無意境無考究的律師樓,除了一名不出名的女配配配角挺漂亮外完全找不到賣點的電視劇,最悲哀是沒完沒了不知何時才會播完。我更不想在再夜一點聽到不知從何處突然爆出來,連廣東話都說不正卻對香港事無大小都指指點點的女人,用不盡不實偏頗至極的角度去評論的「個人意見節目」。我們想看有誠意迎合觀眾口味的節目。

有人說,我們不應該事無大小都走上街,香港應該少一些遊行,不應事事都罵政府。其實這些人是不是認為遊行集會很好玩,政總很好坐有沙發有飲品所以要搞看電視派對,我們是為了什麼在又累又餓的放工後,走上又擠又逼的街道,用又沙又啞的聲音叫口號?為什麼憑該幾個人說兩句定奪事情有多大有多小,而不是由遊行的十多二十萬人說這件事有多重要。

我們為了轉台而走到街上,但為什麼連這種最低的自由也要聲嘶力竭地吶喊才有機會擁有?幾晚集會,幾次聽到一種電視以外的不滿聲音,我們什麼也要爭:孕婦爭床位、嬰兒爭奶粉、幼童爭學位、小童爭中一、青年爭大學、成年爭房屋、小店爭鋪位、行人爭街道。由基本生活到消閒娛樂,香港不再屬於香港人,過度傾斜於自由行的本末倒置引起本土不滿。香港人都很累了,為什麼每件事都要爭,我們做錯了什麼做漏了什麼。

運動的主題是公開發牌審核的原則,這是公義的問題,能夠重申發牌予香港電視當然是好,但這並不是完結。假如只是草草交出免費電視牌而不考究固中原因及問題,下一個被政府欺壓的人不知道會是誰,也不知道有沒有誰會感到不公義而一起再次走到街上,更重要是我不希望每件事都要勞煩香港人走出來清晰表達才能夠保住香港最傳統的精神:公平、公正、公開。

我們會懶惰會麻林,但也許是時候想一想,我們對這個政府的監察盡了多少力,還是一如過往地回答小市民做多少也改變不了政府。

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 嘉咸街商戶「被澄清」沒遭出賣

 
Get the newest, latest, hottest

Find shoes, heels, flats, active, essentials and more in the latest styles. Save up to 40% on select items.
From our sponsors
嘉咸街商戶「被澄清」沒遭出賣
Oct 26th 2013, 06:30, by 劉軒

(獨媒特約報導)聲稱代表嘉咸街商戶的「中環市集商戶大聯盟」及立法會議員王國興,早前被傳媒揭發未得商戶同意,對外宣稱「一致通過」市建局提出的分階段搬遷方案,間接助市建局提前清拆,出賣商戶。昨日(10月25日)大聯盟舉行記招,展示商戶的聯署聲明,「澄清」有關報章的報導,「以正視聽」;不過有商戶向獨媒記者透露,簽名時根本不知道所簽的是一份聲明,更不清楚聲明內容,慘被大聯盟再次出賣。

IMG_1990

大聯盟騙商戶簽澄清聲明

王國興是日因要留在立法會充當建制派橡皮圖章,投票反對動用《權力及特權法》公開審批免費電視牌照的文件,未有出席嘉咸街的記招。記者會上,大聯盟召集人許偉堅憤憤不平地斥責《蘋果日報》和《信報》的報導指有商戶不知道大聯盟與市建局談判情況,乃抹黑大聯盟和王國興,強調沒有出賣商戶。他展示於10月23日大聯盟會議上收集所得,有20多名商戶聯署的聲明,聲明指所有商戶均直接參與並了解談判情況,並同意以市建局「方案二」為談判基礎。許續指,現時談判處關鍵階段,不希望有媒體興風作浪,影響與市建局談判。

不過,有商戶表示,根本不知道自已簽了聲明,直至記者展示大聯盟在記招上派發的聲明,才發現自已又「被代表」了。商戶表示,當日會議上,大聯盟花了一個多小時點名指責接受報章訪問的商戶。大聯盟又傳來一份表格,著商戶填上商號及姓名,如下圖所見,聲明共有兩頁,聲明內容在第一頁,大部份簽名在第二頁。不知簽了聯署的商戶的簽名在第二頁,商戶指簽的時候,不知道有第一頁,第二頁的標題又被蓋住了,根本不知道自已簽的是一份支持大聯盟的聲明,以為不過是一張簽到紙。到會議結束,大聯盟方派發聲明,叫商戶「返去睇下」。

IMG_2004
IMG_2005

記者就此在記招上要求大聯盟解釋,王國興議員助理表示,當日在商戶簽名前有讀出聲明,所以商戶都清楚聲明內容。然而,商戶表示,即使有讀出聲明,也難以立即消化內容,簽完才獲派聲明「返去睇下」,沒有機會仔細理解。

商戶未有共識 區議會將跟進

大聯盟一直強調商戶已取得共識,但10月24日商戶於中西區區議會轄下「關注中西區市區重建計劃工作小組」,與市建局代表進行會議,卻見商戶其實仍未達成共識。10間濕貨店可遷至將來的B區濕貨市集,但其餘乾貨、日用品、燒臘店等不獲安置的商戶,對現時迫遷方案依然不滿。

小組主席鄭麗琼議員表示,10月初得悉嘉咸街市集的問題,故安排是次會議,讓十多個商戶親身在會上發言表達訴求。鄭質疑市建局要商戶在新市集建成前搬走的理據,指若售賣肉類、魚類的濕貨店全搬走,區內居民只能「食齋」,或到超市買凍肉。她亦認同各商戶有不同訴求,要達成共識有難度,區議會將繼續跟進事件。

相關報導:
嘉咸街商戶拒市建局分期搬遷方案
市建局違承諾提早拆嘉咸街 商戶「被代表」妥協
只找王國興「幫忙」 大聯盟:工聯會較體貼
市建局嘉咸街重建又走數 使招迫走商戶 原區安置承諾「被消失」

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 給反同人士的法律101

 
You Can Make a Difference

By planting ten trees and ensuring that all our clothing is produced responsibly we allow each and every customer to make a difference. Join us today!
From our sponsors
給反同人士的法律101
Oct 26th 2013, 04:56, by Eddie Wong

編按:關於立法禁止性傾向歧視的爭論不斷,本文作者Edward Wong 及 Silver Wong 撰文回應另一作者遠山《回應《回應關啟文《性傾向歧視法不會以言入罪?論中傷與騷擾罪》一文》以及《性傾向歧視條例很可怕?》二文》

其實筆者沒想過有人會以挑戰Reasonable Man Standard作為反對立法的理據,因為這很明顯就是「法盲」才能說出來的道理;除此之外,各種自由的衝突及關於hate speech的誤解早已經屢見不鮮,惟仍作出少許補充吧。只是,如果遠山仍然在沒有詳細參考普通法體制或一些precedents就「期能拋磚引玉」(原文如此)的話,那我們只能搖頭嘆息。

(註:由於遠山所提及的法律論點存在相當謬誤,所以本文中會帶有不少法律詞彙,筆者已盡量簡化。)

批評就能以言入罪?

當然,有人會認為他們所作的只是單純的批評,而不是歧視。就好像遠山在總結時指「社會上有人基於其本身的價值、道德、倫理觀念(或宗教信仰)不認同同性戀,去客觀(或主觀)地批評同性戀。難道這個對同性戀作出批評的自由也沒有?難道這種言論(言論B)也要用公權力禁止?而這正正是歧視法其中一個值得商榷之處──影響言論自由。」

諸如此的理由,實在令人匪夷所思。(註一)

遠山在引述DCEO 1/2011 一案時很明顯忽略了His Honour Judge POON在第21段(見附錄一)對於歧視言論所訂下的標準,其中包括:「(2) 若只是傳達仇恨,或表達嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷,是不會違反條例第46條的。被投訴的行為應該不只是表達意見,而是要對激起仇恨、嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷起積極作用的...」(註二)。

單憑這一段法庭其實已經明確指出入罪的條件,但遠山不單無視有關的定義,反而斷章取義式地只擷取法庭分析案件的部份,既沒有考慮法庭根本相關法律所作出的定義與解釋,更沒有認真瞭解法庭在審訊中是如何處理所有證據從而得出有關分析的結論;這種做法其實就猶如「TVB裡的DOJ委任法官審案」等級的錯誤,既沒有認真瞭解法律,甚至連最基本的審訊程序皆沒有瞭解過。

言論自由的擋箭牌?

遠山(或很多反對的人士)亦經常指歧視條例將會影響言論自由,不單藉此作為歧視的擋箭牌,甚至反陷性傾向歧視條例。但筆者必須一再強調,受到影響(或有人會聲稱為「剝奪」)的行為、言論等並不在言論自由的保障範疇。

舉個很極端的例子,每個人都有其人身自由,但這種人身自由在面對「謀殺罪」的時候卻不能用作抗辯理由,原因很簡單,因為你的人身自由絕非無限大,並不足以保障或支持你去謀殺別人。同理,你的言論自由(或任何其他自由)皆不足以支持你去歧視他人;換句話說,那些涉及歧視的言論、行為根本不受言論、人身、良心等自由去保障,又談何剝奪?

小結

其實法庭為歧視條例關於言論方面所訂下的標準無疑是很清晰並此嚴格的,因為只有超出了言論自己保障範圍而涉及歧視的言論才會激起仇恨、嚴重的鄙夷或強烈的嘲諷,而單純批評的言論根本達不到這個效果。

更重要的是,法庭同時指出:「在考慮責任問題時,原告人和其他看到橫額的人的感受是沒有相關性的」(DCEO 1/2011 § 21),而是根據Reasonable Man Standard去作出審核。

Reasonable Man Standard

作為要挑戰整條反歧視條例為目標的遠山當然不會放過這機會,在文中質疑Reasonable Man Standard 可能因為法官的「主觀性」會影響了在引用Reasonable Man Standard時的公平及公正性。

誠然;關於Reasonable Man Standard的問題,筆者認為這已經不單單是談及性傾向歧視條例的層面,而是涉及整個的普通法體制。須知道,Reasonable Man Standard近乎為普通法體制中最重要的基石之一,而其應用範圍更是數不勝數,小至普通的賠償追討,大至謀殺罪皆有其影子,其中涉及層面比較廣闊及重要的包括:

(1) Negligence
Negligence(疏忽)為民事案件中其中一項最常見的理由,而其定義早在1856年就包含了Reasonable Man Standard(註三) ;並同時發展出Res ipsa loquitur,即要求被告舉證他已採取reasonable care 以證明非疏忽行為 (註四);可見Reasonable Man Standard不單被應用在「一個普通合理的人」,更引申出更多以Reasonable為考慮因素的原則。

(2) Murder
Murder(謀殺)可以算是其中一項最嚴重的刑事罪行,而這麼一項嚴重罪行的亦有Reasonable Man Standard;例如世界知名的徐步高案中,兇手徐步高最後被判為「合法被殺」,其中就是因為符合Self-Defence 的條件 - using reasonable force against an unjust threat(註五)。

如果真如遠山所說的「但如何確保法官的理解是正確的呢?假若「常人」當中有不同意見時(如當議題有爭議性時),法官又應按那一種「常人」去判決呢?到最後,法官的抉擇又如何能避免主觀的因素呢?」那麼,香港整個司法架構及司法制度應該早已蕩然無存。

小結

回到性傾向歧視條例的層面;在法庭考慮一段言論是否涉及歧視時,所引用的Reasonable Man Standard早已經發展成熟並且是有極多參考根據的,根本不可能會有主觀因素影響或脫離Reasonable Man Standard。

當然,不一定每個人皆會同意法院的裁決,但尊重法庭的裁決以及予以執行卻是每一個公民的責任,筆者相信這是無容置疑的。更遑論在沒有確切證據甚至在沒有清楚瞭解法律下就質疑法官的專業、獨立及公正性,以至質疑整個普通法體制中傳來已久的Reasonable Man Standard;很遺憾,這種想法其實已是在挑戰目前整個司法制度的架構,與性傾向歧視條例已然無關。

性傾向歧視條例只擁抱同性戀者?

遠山在引述張達明教授一文時指「性傾向歧視法背後已假定了不同性傾向均沒有任何道德上的分別、兩者是完全等同的價值觀」,可見其根本不瞭解性傾向歧視條例,甚至是扭曲了張達明教授的文章。

首先,性傾向視條例並此同性戀歧視條例,意指任何性傾向人士皆受到保護,不論異性戀、同性戀、雙性戀。除此之外,遠山在引述張教授一文中,最後一句為「若有僱主堅持自己的思想或道德觀而不願意聘請受保護群組的人,反歧視法便要透過懲罰強制他改變觀念。」,可見我們要懲罰的根本不是單純的思想或道德觀,而是基於道德觀從而作出歧視的行為,例如不願意聘請或不合理解僱。任何人在任何情況下堅持其思想或道德觀根本不可能會觸犯任何歧視條例,只有他們根據其觀念作出不洽當的行為或言論才會受到規管。

結語

我們尊重任何人表達其思想、言論的權利,也很明白社會是多元的,總會有各種的聲音;但我們希望這些聲音與表達權利是建基於足夠的瞭解與依據,而不是在完全不瞭解普通法體制、法例甚至連其引述文章都未清楚瞭解的情況下就發表錯誤的言論。這不單無助於整個討論,甚至會造成不適當的影響,就有如很多師奶受無線影響,經常認為在法庭上可以胡亂審案、隨時可以主觀審案甚至由律師司委任法官。

*****************************************************************

註一:戴耀廷教授2005年的文章其實亦已反駁過有關說法。見附錄一。
註二:見附錄二。
註三:"…Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do" Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
註四:"…[the Defendant] offers an acceptable explanation consistent with his having taken reasonable care." SANFIELD BUILDING CONTRACTORS LTD v. LI KAI CHEONGFACV No. 16 of 2002§ 3
註五:"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable" Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130

*****************************************************
附錄一

這問題在「不認同同性戀的人提出同性戀是不道德的言論會受到懲罰」這論據上就更明顯了。若立論的事實根據出了錯的話,那整個論據就會崩潰。即使引用現在已有的反歧視法中的中傷條款,只有當一個人因另一人的性傾向而藉公開活動煽動對該人的仇恨、嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷,那才算是違法。若所作出的行為包括威脅對該人的身體或其處所或財產加以損害;或煽動其他人威脅對該人的身體或其處所或財產加以損害,那才會有刑責。單純只是提出「同性戀是不道德」的言論是不會觸犯反性傾向歧視法的。同樣地反性傾向歧視法在適用至學校時,也只會規定學校在收納學生、給予學生獲得或享用學校提供的利益、設施或服務和懲罰及開除學生時,不能因學生的性傾向而有較差的對待。

(參考此文。)

附錄二:DCEO 1/2011§21

21. 該些原則可以歸納如下:
煽動
(1) 「煽動」 一詞應取其一般意思,即「敦促,鼓勵,挑起,推動,促使,或激起」 一些行動;
(2) 若只是傳達仇恨,或表達嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷,是不會違反條例第46條的。被投訴的行為應該不只是表達意見,而是要對激起仇恨、嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷起積極作用的;
(3) 法庭會考慮一個「普通合理的人」 會否認為該行為煽動起他對殘疾人士的仇恨、嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷;
(4) 此「普通合理的人」的概念 ,是參考自誹謗案件中類似的概念—他可以代表社會中不少受尊重的人,他有著一般的智慧,既不是性格反常的,也不會是懷疑心強,或者熱衷於醜聞的。他不會對 批評他的種族、宗教或文化的說話過度敏感,也不會對有煽動傾向的行為視若無睹。他不是在象牙塔內,但會根據他的常識和經驗仔細理解有關行為;
(5) 法庭會以客觀的角度考慮一項行為是否構成「煽動」。因此被告人的意圖,或有沒有人實際上被煽動,是無關重要的;
(6) 如果被告人被投訴的公開活動是公開發佈一些陳述,法庭會考慮該些陳述的內容、風格及前文後理(包括社會及歷史背景),來決定有關的陳述會否構成煽動,而不是只考慮個別字眼;
(7) 在考慮責任問題時,原告人和其他看到橫額的人的感受是沒有相關性的。
仇恨、嚴重的鄙視或強烈的嘲諷
(8) 條例第46條的立法原意在於涵蓋一些比較嚴重的中傷行為;
(9) 「仇恨」、「鄙視」 和「嘲諷」 這些詞語應取其一般的字面意思;
(10)「仇恨」 是指強烈的反感,敵意或對某人或某事的強烈厭惡的感覺;
(11) 「嚴重的」 是指重要的、有分量的意思。「鄙視」 是指一個人覺得某人或某事毫無價值和無關重要,有卑鄙、藐視或看不起的意思;
(12) 「強烈的」 是有嚴厲、苛刻、或極端的意思。「嘲諷」 是指受到嘲笑或嘲弄、取笑,或以文字或行動旨在促使對一個人或一件事物作出輕蔑的嘲笑。"強烈的嘲笑" 是指苛刻或極端的嘲弄或嘲笑。

**********************************************************

筆者Silver Wong 為Legal Executive;Edward Wong 為香港大學博士生,主要研究比較人權法及比較公法。

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 網上遊記:家人來訪

 
2012 Intl Green Construction Code

Sign up for the most comprehensive introductory course available on the web for the 2012 International Green Construction Code (IgCC). Just $29.
From our sponsors
網上遊記:家人來訪
Oct 26th 2013, 04:46, by 馮文韜

這天斯特拉斯堡陰雲密佈,好像會下大雨,出門前帶上雨傘,以備不時之需。十二時四十五分到宿舍正門路口,等候阿姨一家。約的是一時,早到等待別人,比人家等你要好;,帶上雜誌便能輕易打發這十五分鐘。然而事實是根本沒心情閱讀,一來心情興奮,二來則是擔心:路上該不會有甚麼意外或塞車吧?會否找不到約定地點呢?一邊想,一邊東張西望留意有沒有「形跡可疑的車」。

十五分鐘過去,已是下午一點了,怎麼還沒到?想到這裏,忽然看見一輛小房車慢慢駛近,一眼就看見滿臉笑容的阿姨及神色凝重的姨丈(可能在苦惱找不到泊車的地方),後面則是兩位睡眼惺忪的表弟妹,他們還把家貓帶上呢!

居於瑞士的阿姨,今次是北上到德國遊玩,順道來探望的。七月時,他們回香港探親,也有來送機,其實大家不是很久沒見,但離家也快將三個月了,能在異地見到這些熟悉的臉孔,能不開心嗎?他們把車子停在路邊後,大伙兒便一同步行至巿中心一家餐廳午餐。幸好天公造美,未有「天降甘霖」。沿途到餐廳,我們都在滔滔不絕的交談,談生活近況,討論一下煮飯買餸的問題。畢竟已有個多月無見過一個香港人了,自然要多聊一下。
飯後在市中心閒逛一下,他們便要啟程出發了。回去的路上我們雖仍在交談,但心情明顯較沉重,禁不住嘆氣。阿姨便笑說:「等一下你可不要哭泣啊!」唉!哭是斷然不會,只是有些許不捨而已。

路走完了,跟表弟妹擁抱道別後,阿姨在車廂裏拿出一個膠袋,內裏有兩個食物盒,並說:「做了兩道菜給你,該能抒解一下你的「鄉愁」吧!不管有多難吃,也要給我把它們全吃掉...好啦要走了,你自己保重吧!」接過膠袋,內心感動不已。家人千里迢迢來看望,還要送上親手烹調的食物,實在很窩心。父親當年在海外留學,收到朋友帶來的梅菜扣肉時,所感受的那股暖意,現在總算體會到了。

小房車慢慢駛開,大家仍然在揮手道別。站在路邊看著阿姨的車子消失在轉角後,方才轉身步回宿舍。低頭看著那兩盒食物,不能不承認…真的有點想家了!

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 極度懷疑香港人懂不懂什麽是民主

 
Interested in creating incredible beauty looks?

Enroll in this online course where you will learn to harness the power of color while mastering makeup techniques and application.
From our sponsors
極度懷疑香港人懂不懂什麽是民主
Oct 26th 2013, 02:51, by 山中

不懂得什麽是法治,開口閉口說民主就只會產生暴民,以大多數人的權力去侵害少數人的權利。中國大陸有中共政權,所以人權和法治難以在公共空間中討論,也不為大多公衆所認識,但香港這樣的開放社會都不明白法治,坦白說這就真的有點丟臉。

獨立媒體轉載我的文章,看到裏面的留言,我確認香港人不懂民主與法治外,更懷疑香港人是否連簡單的閲讀理解都不懂。道理與論述都在文章中,如覺得有錯或者不認同可以提出反論,指出錯在什麽地方,但留言中各人只是在自說自話,全沒有回應文章論點。又看到這篇《如何根治單程證問題》,文章提出「制訂香港最適度人口,例如是六百萬,超過這個數目,就暫停一切入境審批」,看到這句我不禁搖頭嘆息,作者連最基本的法律原則都不懂就跑來談法律,就真的是不害羞。

首先,用單程證進入香港的都是由資格申請香港居留權的人,是香港人的家屬和子女,不是移民海外的「移民」;香港入境處不可能拒絕有香港居留權的人入境,這屬於違反香港法律。第二,我的文章已經說過,如果中國不再使用戶籍制度管理人口,它大可以任由香港人的家屬和子女自由到香港行使他們作爲香港人的權利;如果中國政府真要向香港「殖民」,它大可以取消配額或擴大配額到兩千或一萬,它是否向香港「殖民」麻煩自行用腦想想。第三,中國政府審批的是中國公民的出境證件,單程證更涉及中國公民的戶籍,香港沒有權改動中國公民的戶籍,除非香港政府變成了中國政府。第四,「六百萬」?香港人口已經有七百多萬,剩下來的一百萬怎麽辦?送去火星?第五,香港法律不容許這樣關閉邊境,因爲這個地方跟海外很多人發生各種各樣關係,合約與交易只是其中之一。第六,根據法律,用單程證進入香港是「香港人」,你拒絕他們入境就是剝奪香港人應有的權利,除了要打官司之外,更會嚴重損害香港的人權和法治。

香港人,麻煩學會什麽是人權和法治才跟我們提解決什麽什麽的方法。學不會的話,就請不要跟我說民主;給你民主你只會讓你進行多數人的暴政。

原文刊於此

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 講真足球場上如沒有法明尼

 
Want free Kindle ebooks?

Sign up to receive the best freebie Kindle ebook deals in your email every day.
From our sponsors
講真足球場上如沒有法明尼
Oct 26th 2013, 02:56, by 足球說故事

一句「講真足球場上如沒有法明尼 打碌撚」道破這些年來阿仙奴一直面對的詬病。阿仙奴敗於多蒙特一役,更是完美地演繹出歌詞中的「打碌撚」精髓。腦海裡即時浮現兩個問題,為什麼沒有法明尼就會打碌撚?沒有奧斯爾又會否嗎?那麼華美倫、迪佐奴、路斯基、阿迪達等人又會否嗎?而「打碌撚」當中的「撚」又究竟是指哪個人的「撚」?

這一刻,什麼也看不透。

過往阿仙奴過著沒有法明尼的日子,為了慳憸,吃也沒怎麼吃,還堅持用二十元買一星期的飯餸,晚晚限米煮限飯,但總算關關難過關關過。你厭倦了這種驚喜的生活,打算離開之際,沒想到今季竟一改風格大手筆收購奧燒,球隊立刻升了一個等級,作為阿迷也不禁嘆道:這才是真正的「最已陣」!然而得罪講句,知道阿仙奴最需要增兵的位置是防中的才是真正的阿迷。

過往阿仙奴曾多少次為防中這個位置而費煞思量?究竟要買誰來頂替法明尼?有心的球迷向雲加交出一籃子收購名單,一向淡定的雲加只搬出三個字:「循序漸進」! 結果要買的人沒買,不應用的人卻在陣中。以為這粒是活命神丹,到頭來原來是粒殺自己於無形的「一日含包散」。另外一位還好,助攻又助守,彷如上演法明尼成材一幕,但他卻愈打愈前,甚至忘記了防守才是他的職責。你明白嗎?阿迷要的根本不是這樣的一個防中,阿迷要的是只是一個「有破壞而無建設」的正宗破壞性的防中。正如女人要的只不過一個能給予她安全感與信心的男人,而不是一個能給予無限物質或額外享受卻沒有安全感的男人。阿迷也只不過是個簡單女子。如今雲加精明,重簽昔日捍將法明尼,比起《愛回家》全體仝人HARDSELL溫情呼籲舊人回家來得溫馨。不需呼籲也想回家的才算是真正的「愛」回家。有些人恨不到了。

大概你看到了吧,那天沒有法明尼的阿仙奴,中場線立刻被多蒙特牽制住,藍斯顧得攻時又忘掉了守;阿迪達雖稱職卻非一位純破壞性的防中,整支阿仙奴好像變回以前那支進退失據的阿仙奴。你說,阿仙奴這刻怎可以沒有法明尼?等同眼睛不能沒眼淚;雞汁不能沒MAY姐;《烈火雄心》不可能沒有王喜一樣,失去了,一切都會變得平凡、失色。這刻的法明尼的重要性甚至蓋過了標王奧燒。沒有高斯爾尼,還有華美倫;沒有奧燒,還有路斯基;沒有基奧特,還有禾確特、賓特拿;沒有法明尼?還有......?這刻我無言以對。究竟還有誰?什麼?雲加口中「傷癒就是新球員」的大鴨比?(哽咽).....對不起,(哽咽)......他還在球隊嗎?(眼裡有些微淚水)。

這刻你終於明白填詞的人不是胡亂岩音而填上去,而是真的很到肉很應景,甚至更加想起更應景的一句:「原來沒有你,阿迷相當痛楚!」而所謂的「打碌撚」,已不再單指球賽無法與對方較量,更代表一眾廠迷已無法脫下褲安坐在電腦/電視面前高速上下移動他的小弟,因為流出的再也不是一絲絲的白沬,而是一絲絲的無奈與唏噓.......

所以法明尼,為了一眾名迷能夠繼續「J爆兵工廠」,請你快點康復過來,讓我們繼續挽手再度打J下去!讓我可~

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 《盜海狙擊》(Captain Philips ) : 人質安全

 
Interested in creating incredible beauty looks?

Enroll in this online course where you will learn to harness the power of color while mastering makeup techniques and application.
From our sponsors
《盜海狙擊》(Captain Philips ) : 人質安全
Oct 26th 2013, 03:06, by 葉七城

人質安全

如果抱著看《叛諜追擊》系列去看Paul Greengrass導演的《盜海狙擊》(Captain Philips),必然大惑不解,為何這位擅長拍密集動作火爆場面的他,這次竟然如此冷靜克制。

本片具備一切「開波打鑊金」的條件:持械的海盜、嚴陣以待的美國海軍及劍拔弩張的脅持人質場面,加上暗夜與怒海,完全有開打的mood 。

但格連加斯卻選擇以忠於事實的態度,呈現2009年索馬里海盜挾持美國貨輪阿拉巴馬號事件,船長Philips(湯漢斯 /Tom Hanks 飾)領航,從開曼運送貨物,包括一批救援的糧食及物資前往非洲,航線經過俗稱「非洲之角」,海盜猖獗的危險水域,結果被4名來自索馬里的持械海盜強行登船,Philips著令大部份船員匿藏,一邊採取緩兵之計,等待救援。

海盜違反協定,帶同走船長作人質,登上救生船離開,欲勒索船公司巨額贖款。

當救生船駛往索馬里途中,美軍艦隻及海豹特種部隊已奉命到場攔截,雖然雙方戰鬥力懸殊,但軍方為了確保船長安全,必需謹慎行事,船長在大海中命懸一綫,海盜殲滅戰一觸即發。

本片的篇幅集中於海盜劫船及美軍營救過程,對於船長及海盜的背景只有很少的描述。Philips位責任心重的船長,而忽略照顧子女;索馬里的一眾海盜原本是漁民,為了生計鋌而走險,也非窮凶極惡之徒,諷刺的是當他們遇到美軍時,還天真地高呼他們並非「阿爾蓋達」!

導演盡量抑制「戲劇效果」,鉅細無遺地重,挾持人質事件,過程扣人心弦,突顯了美軍救援行動的審慎及精準。

本片風格有點似他的舊作《United 93》,根據多方面的資料整理出「911事件」當天,聯合航空93號班機遭恐怖份子騎劫,機組人員及乘客合力制服劫機者,阻止它撞向五角大廈的經過,結果飛機在郊野墜毀,無人生還。片末導演更安排演員與死難者家屬見面,以表敬意。

一心想看槍林彈雨的觀眾可能會失望,海盜頭目被擒的過程更有點反高潮及諷刺。Philips船長在導演鏡頭下,亦非勇往無懼的英雄,他有平常人的脆弱及信念崩潰之時,導演特地詳細拍攝船長獲救後,接受醫護人員治理時的慌張失神,湯漢斯很傳神地張那份恐懼感感呈現。

原刊 av magazine 25-10-2013

原文刊於此

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

香港獨立媒體: 沉痛哀悼

 
Find SIGG's Classic Aluminum Water Bottles at MYSIGG

Reducing our carbon footprint one bottle at a time!
From our sponsors
沉痛哀悼
Oct 26th 2013, 02:36, by 頂理

文:張子銘

「三年多的時間,超過一千天的光陰,數以億計的投資,難以估量的心血與勇氣,換來的卻僅僅是一個不合理的拒絕。」

一個免費電視牌照記者會,將筆者的情緒引導起來。在前,既期待卻又心驚膽戰;在後,雖憤怒卻無奈得向現實低頭。套用一句老掉牙的說話:今天是香港最黑暗的一天。

一籃子因素、行政會議保密決定、公平公正,說白一點只是兜圈子,連基本準則都隱瞞起來,只是以陳腔濫調含糊過去,事實上難以服眾,亦不得不令人聯想起政治壓倒一切的硬道理。

但丁的神曲內提到:「地獄最熾熱的地方是留給那些在重大道德危機中仍然保持中立的人」。今天,我們看電視的權利被無名地剝奪去;明天,可能上街集會自由也被限制;後天、大後天、以後,可能連我們的財產人身權利個人安全也備受威脅。

此時此刻,筆者心情仍然未能平伏,為的不只是香港電視的落選,反而為香港的未來感到無助不安。既懷念往日的自由開放,亦概嘆香港的崩壞已經無可挽回。

政治有如生活,逃不開也避不掉,卻教人痛苦萬分,我想,這是活生生的例子吧。

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions