曾焯文:民族黨被禁的法治迷思 Chapman Chen: The Rule of Law Myth and Ban on HK National Party

Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

本報圖片(曾焯文攝)

(Eng. summary below) 摘要:特區政府刊憲,保安局局長李家超行使《社團條例》第8(2)條賦予保安局局長的權力,發出命令,禁止香港民族黨在香港運作。李家超話民族黨自一六年成立,綱領嚴重違反《基本法》,又引述民族黨曾表示會武裝革命,指其明顯危害國家安全。然而,根據約翰內斯堡原則:所謂危害國家安全,必須有明顯而即時的危險。民族黨曾表示會武裝革命,但無叫人即刻揸槍起義,而該黨成立兩年來,從未有人在香港響應民族黨武裝革命,顯然並無即時危險。(如果有人在街上呼籲周圍的支持者一齊去打劫隔籬的七十一店,則造成即時危險。)執業大律師劉偉聰話平民的主張不可能違憲,只可能與憲法不符。在文明國家,口頭鼓吹獨立,而無實際武力行動,通常獲得包容。真正法治,例如美國法治,需要民主制衡,並且基於全民制定通過的明文憲法,否則容易變成惡法統治。「一人以上」即兩人經可組成非法社團,明顯違反common sense。包致金大法官一五年道:「無民主,香港就只有類法治approximation of rule of law。」Today, based on the Societies Ordinance, Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu officially declared the Hong Kong National Party a unlawful society. Minister Lee said that the party’s pro-independence creed/program seriously contravened the Basic Law, and that in view of the Party’s previous call for “armed revolution”, it was an obvious threat to national security. However, according to the Johannesburg Principles, a real threat to national security has to be “imminent and present danger.” Although the HKNP had called for “armed revolution”, it has never asked people to take up their arms and rise up against the government straightaway. And since its establishment in 2016, no one in Hong Kong has ever staged or joined any armed revolution in response to the “call”. Apparently, there has been no “imminent and present danger.” Lawrence Lau, a local barrister, said at a forum on freedom of speech held last Saturday that any civilian’s advocacy cannot possibly “violate” the constitution; that it can only be “inconsistent with” the constitution. In civilized countries like America, Canada, and the UK, oral advocacies of separatism without violent actions are usually tolerated. Genuine rule of law, such US rule of law, is balanced and checked by democracy, and based on a constitution by the people, of the people, and for the people. Otherwise, it may easily turn into the rule of evil law. According to the Chinese version of the Societies Ordinance, two persons can already constitute a society. And Secretary Lee thinks that if they advocate independence, they are an illegal society. This is clearly against common sense. “Without democracy, Hong Kong can only have approximation of rule of law,” stated Justice Bokhary in 2015.
正文:劉偉聰話言論自由有內在質素,例如思想自由,快樂寫作;外在價值,即立場競爭,尋求真相。普通法不以言入罪,分清意見與事實。意見無法證明,不同事實有對錯。香港應否與中國切割,屬於意見,應可辯論。禁止討論港獨,受損者包括無機會知道命題有無意義的人。平民的主張不可能違憲,只可能與憲法不符。陳浩天港獨主張不符合基本法綱領,但並非不守法。
在文明國家,口頭鼓吹獨立,而無實際武力行動,通常獲得包容。夏威夷王國代表加努西博士(Keanu Sai)一向堅稱夏威夷主權自古以來屬於夏威夷王國,今年尚向歌倫比亞法院控告特朗普非法侵佔夏威夷領土。二零一四年夏威夷NEWS NOW電視臺訪問加努西夏威夷主權獨立論。夏威夷州政府同美國政府皆無譴責電視臺提供場地,鼓吹夏獨,傷害美國人民感情。美國當局亦從未宣布夏威夷王國為非法社團,危害國家安全。加努西本人亦無受到任何政治迫害,大學教席一直保持。
二零一七年,蘇格蘭國會通過一八至一九年間公投是否獨立,全球傳媒現場直播,毫無問題。英國首相文翠珊以一九年英國要脫歐為由,反對蘇格蘭獨立公投時間表,但蘇格蘭國會議長表示事在必行。一四年蘇格蘭都試過獨立公投,結果留英,公投過程非常和平。一九八零,一九九五年,加拿大魁北克省兩次獨立公投,全球播導,過程和平。

真正法治,例如美國法治,需要民主制衡,並且基於全民制定通過的明文憲法,否則容易變成惡法統治。據社團條例中文版,社團定義為:「本條例條文適用的任何會社、公司、一人以上的合夥或組織,不論性質或宗旨為何」(社團條例英文版則並無「一人以上」等字眼:「本條例條文適用的任何會社、公司、人的合夥或組織,不論性質或宗旨為何。 」)「一人以上」即兩人經可組成非法社團,明顯違反常識常理(common sense),這就是香港當今法治的寫照。
彭博作家約翰•賓士甸(John Bernstein)道: 「有法治,無民主,即盲目。」三年前香港終審庭非常任法官包致金在港大某研討會上話:「無民主,香港就只有類法治approximation of rule of law。」查實,中原法治歷史源遠流長。秦始皇採用法家韓非子之說,依法治國,但所謂法治,志在鞏固皇帝權力,壓制蟻民。而希特拉亦都依法屠殺猶太人,只不過法律由納粹黨制定以及詮釋。中華人民共和國的法治亦如是。十八屆四中全會通過:「堅持黨的領導,是社會主義法治的根本要求。」香港基本法解釋權同樣握在全國人大手中,任意搓圓撳扁,香港人無權置喙。況且香港法官由非民主政權委任,如何保證判案時不會媚事權貴,偏信控方執法人員,重判異見人士?


Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments