【禁聞】對話前香港高院頒禁令 律師:多餘

FacebookPrintFont Size簡體

【新唐人2014年10月22日訊】香港學聯與港府的首次對話在21號傍晚展開。而在對話前夕,香港高等法院發佈了多個禁止示威者佔據馬路的法令。對此,學聯表示,尊重法庭裁決,但不會主動撤離。有律師則表示,高院頒布禁制令其實是多餘的。

旺角佔領區連日來發生衝突,各界無不希望港府與學聯21號的對話能打破僵局。不過,香港高院卻在20號發佈了3個禁制令。

這3個原告分別是潮聯公共小型巴士有限公司、共同提出申請的香港計程車會代表黎海平與的士司機從業員總會代表譚駿雄,以及金鐘中信大廈業主金蓬投資有限公司。

潮聯和兩名的士業代表,要求禁止示威者持續佔領旺角亞皆老街及彌敦道一帶道路。而代表金鐘中信大廈業主的大律師余若海說,中信大廈對出龍匯道及添美道的路障,連日來阻塞大廈停車場及兩消防緊急通道出入口,導致有人曾被困45分鐘。

法官最終批准申請,頒下禁制令。法官稱,示威者的行為已遠超合理程度,不論想法有多崇高,任何人也不能完全漠視他人權利。

不過,香港立法會議員梁國雄認為,用禁制令解決相關問題,是沒有道理的。

香港立法會議員梁國雄:「因為我們現在佔領的地方是警察可以執行他的公權力的,所以,沒有必要用禁制令去解決這個問題。這個是政府施政失誤的問題,私人去申請禁制令是不當的。公權力可以解決的問題,就用公權力去解決,不能讓法治淪為私人去解決政治問題的手段。」

旅美中國社會問題研究人士張健則認為,香港法院過度使用司法權。

旅美中國社會問題研究人士張健:「我認為每一個去佔領中環的人,都應該知道佔領中環的確是有不妥當的地方,但是罪魁禍首,是因為中共引起的,是因為中共推翻了一國兩制。作為香港的法院,也應該在這個時候挺身而出,是否應該對中共形成一個司法判決,而不單純是用法律制度去約束、壓制香港人們自由的呼聲。」

而據香港《明報》報導,律師梁永鏗說,現時的佔領行動本屬非法集會,在原本已屬違法的行為上實施禁制令其實是多餘的。預期禁制令未必能達「清場」效果。

面對法院頒發禁制令,不少佔中人士表示,會繼續佔領行動,力爭民主。學民思潮召集人黃之鋒表示,不會呼籲撤離,但希望佔中人士考慮法律後果。他強調,運動屬公民抗命,結束後會向警方自首。

特首梁振英21號早上表示,法庭已頒下禁制令,希望佔領街道人士要考慮可能面對藐視法庭等刑事責任。

本身是執業律師的民主黨何俊仁說,市民可以走開、不接收禁制令以避風險。同時他提醒市民,任何人都可要求法庭撤銷,或者收窄禁制令範圍,如果有人提出,他可協助處理。

此外,20號晚,梁振英接受了三家英美傳媒的訪問。他說,在目前時刻,挑戰他或特區政府,對任何一方或香港自治都沒有好處。他還重申佔領行動有外國勢力介入的說法,並不是道聽途說,但是他沒有透露,所稱的外國勢力具體是誰。

梁國雄:「要是他覺得有所謂外來的勢力去做一些違法的事,他就把他們抓起來就行了,不能老是沒有證據去抹黑香港市民,抹黑我們的運動。這是個很嚴重的指控。」

張健:「凡是和中共站在一起的,當本國的人民追求民主的呼聲形成了一個自發的示威的時候,區域首長就會用外來的敵對勢力來蠱惑人心。事實上,我們在這個運動中看到,西方英美國家害怕因為過度的參與,授中共於口舌,所以他們是採用了非常冷若旁觀的一個姿態,而這個姿態被所有人千夫所指了。」

旅美中國社會問題研究人士張健指出,港府反覆使用暴力,並使用非法字眼形容佔中,港府是迫於外界壓力才進行對話,根本就沒有誠意。他認為,談判的最終結果將是無疾而終。

採訪/易如 編輯/陳潔 後製/舒燦

Lawyer: The Injunctions Issued by the High Court of Hong Kong Are Unnecessary

The first dialogue between the Hong Kong Federation
of Students (HKFS) and the SAR Government was held
on the evening of Oct. 21.

On the eve of the dialogue, the High Court of Hong Kong
issued a couple of injunctions to prohibit protesters
from occupying the streets.

In this regard, The HKFS said that it would respect the court
ruling, but it would not take the initiative to evacuate.
Some lawyers said that the High Court injunctions
are actually redundant.

As there have been clashes in the occupied Mong Kok area
recently, people from all walks of life hoped that the dialogue
between the government and the HKFS on Oct. 21
could break the deadlocks.
However, the High Court turned out to issue three injunctions
on Oct. 20.

The three plaintiffs of these cases are Chiu Luen Public Light
Bus Company Limited, the Hong Kong Taxi Association
member Li Haiping, the Taxi Drivers & Operators
Association member Tam Chun-hung, and CITIC Tower
owners Kim Peng Investment Co. respectively.

The Chiu Luen Bus Company and two representatives
from the Taxi Associations requested the court
to ban protesters from continuing occupying the streets
around Argyle Street and Nathan Road in Mong Kok.
Mr. Benjamin Yu, the lawyer representing CITIC Tower
owners Kim Peng Investment Co. said the roadblocks
in Lung Wui Road and Tim Mei Avenue in front
of the CITIC Tower have blocked the building's parking lot
and two fire emergency entrances over the past few days,
leading to the scenario that someone was trapped inside
for 45 minutes.

The judge ultimately approved the applications
and issued injunctions.
The judge said the protesters' deeds have been exceeding
reasonable degrees, and that regardless of how noble
their ideas are, no one can completely disregard
the rights of others.

However, Hong Kong Legislative Council member
Leung Kwok-hung said that to solve related problems
by injunctions cannot be justified.

Leung Kwok-hung: “As the area occupied by us at present
is the place where police can exert their public power,
there is no need to solve this problem with injunctions.

This is the problem resulting from
the government’s dereliction.
So, it's improper for individuals to apply
for the issuance of injunctions.
As long as a problem can be solved by public power,
it should be done so.
The rule of law should not become a means to solve
political problems for individuals."

US-based Chinese social issues researcher Zhang Jian holds
that the Hong Kong High Court has abused judicial power.

Zhang Jian: “I think everyone who participated in the Occupy
Central movement should know that it may not be so good
to occupy Central.

But the direct cause is that the Chinese regime overturned
their promise of “one country, two system.”
Hong Kong courts should come forward at this time to make
a judicial decision on the Chinese regime, as opposed
to simply using the legal system to restrain and suppress
Hong Kong people's voice for freedom."

According to Hong Kong Ming Pao Daily News,
lawyer Vitus Leung said since the current occupation
movement is unlawful assembly, it is, in fact, redundant
to implement injunctions on illegal behaviors.
He predicted that the injunctions would not be able
to have the intended effect of clearance.

Faced with the court injunctions, many people participating
in the movement said that they would continue to go ahead
with the occupation to strive for democracy.

Scholarism student leader Joshua Wong noted that he would
not urge protesters to evacuate the streets,
but he hoped that they could take into account
the legal consequences.
He stressed that this is a civil disobedience movement,
and he would turn himself into the police
after the movement is over.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said on the morning
of Oct. 21, as the court has issued the injunctions, he hoped
that those who occupied the streets should be prepared
to face possible criminal liability for contempt of court.

Democratic Party Legislative Council member,
Albert Ho Chun-yan, who practices law,
said that the public may walk away and refuse to accept
the injunctions in order to avoid the risks.
He also reminded the public that anyone can ask the court
to revoke the injunctions, or narrow their scope.
If someone raises the case, he can provide the assists
to deal with the matter.

Besides, Leung Chun-ying was interviewed
by three American media outlets on the evening of Oct. 20.
He said that the challenges against him or SAR government
would not be good to any party or Hong Kong’s autonomy.
He also reiterated the allegation that the occupation
movement has been intervened by foreign forces.
He noted that it's not simply hearsay, but he didn't disclose
who the alleged foreign forces are.

Leung Kwok-hung: “If he felt that the so-called foreign forces
have done something illegal, he may as well arrest them.
Otherwise, he shouldn't slander Hong Kong people
and defame our movement without evidence.
This is a very serious accusation."

Zhang Jian: “In terms of those who stand by the Chinese
regime, when our nationals' voice for democracy transforms
into a spontaneous protest, the Region's head would use
the allegation of foreign forces to intimidate the people.
In fact, we have noticed that during this movement,
Western countries such as the U.S. and the U.K.
have been afraid of being accused by the Chinese regime
of excessive involvement in the movement.
They thus take a sidelines attitude toward this incident,
but it is still being universally condemned."

Zhang Jian pointed out that the SAR government has
repeatedly resorted to violence and referred
to the Occupy Central protests as illegal activities.

The government was forced with outside pressure to proceed
with the dialogue, without any sincerity.
He believes that the ultimate outcome of the negotiations
would be an outright failure.

Interview/ YiRuEdit/ ChenJie Post-Production/ ShuCan

相關文章
評論