對人權的關心是這次和平抗議的基點。 確切的講, 由中共犯下的人權罪行導致了這場絕食維權運動。參與絕食人士列舉了中共侵犯基本人權的種種惡行: 威脅, 恐嚇, 拘留, 攻擊, 酷刑和迫害之死。
高智晟先生聲明作為法律專業人士的一員,他有義務進行開始這場絕食,作為新西蘭法律界專業人士, 我應該對高律師的陳述作出見證。
在法律學領域, 公義是一個司法系統對公民個人和群體附有的義務。義務的本質是公正、合理, 而又含符道德的解釋和應用相關的法律。公義可以講,是對所有個人給予合理道理, 公正的對待。
可以講, 中共非常輕易地侵犯中國公民的基本人權。中華人民共和國憲法第35條言論、出版自由、集會, 第36條宗教自由是保障中國公民的基本人權。蔑視這些基本人權的行為是不道德的、不合理的。一切禁止中國公民行使最基本的人權是違反憲法的, 許多中國公民是討論民主改革, 尋求建立對話機制。
那些對人權關心的人, 是有權力進行申訴, 這是由中國人民共和國憲法第41條規定所附予, 這個條款同時規定, 「任何人不能壓制這樣的申訴、指控和報導, 也不能報複相關的人士。」 令人遺憾的是, (例如高律師和他的同事, 以及其他申訴的人士遭到連續來自中國官方人員的威脅、恐嚇、拘留、敲詐、勒索和人身侵犯)。
因此, 我們可以從這些發生的人權侵犯行為作出結論, 中共已經作出違反人權的行為, 並犯下嚴重的人權罪行。司法是一種糾正的措施, 他有力糾正錯誤, 同時是走向正確的, 不斷努力的一部分。
一個中國的律師應該清楚知道他(她)有責任保證正義得到聲張。就是講, 中國的律師有更大的責任保障基本人權的不受侵犯和不允許違反憲法的行為發生。一旦這種行為發生, 將應該受到法律的懲罰。我希望所有中國的律師應該履行他們在專業上和道德上的義務, 保障公義得到聲張。如果一種和平抗議只是表達對中共壓制公義行為不滿, 那麼這種抗議方式是完全合理。
籍此機會, 我希望那些參加接力絕食抗議的人士獲得成功。
紐西蘭高等法院註冊律師 戈爾
附英文:
Support Human Rights lawyer, Mr Gao Zhisheng with his hunger strike in protest at injustice
– Great Support from New Zealand Human Rights Lawyer
10 February 2006
The celebrated Chinese Human Rights lawyer, Mr Gao Zhisheng, has recently commenced a hunger strike. His concern for maintaining the minimum level of morality for human existence, for the dignity of humanity, and the value of human civilization has led him, and others inspired by his example, to choose this particular form of protest.
Human rights concerns lie at the foundation of this peaceful protest. Specifically, alleged human rights violations committed by members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have precipitated the hunger strike. Instances of threats, intimidation, detention, assault, torture and death are cited by some participants in the hunger strike as examples of the CCP』s disregard for fundamental human rights.
Mr Gao Zhisheng has stated that his is obliged to commence a hunger strike given his membership of the legal profession. As a member of the legal profession in New Zealand, I find I am stimulated to provide some observations concerning Mr Gao』s statement.
In the field of jurisprudence, philosophy of law, justice is the obligation that a legal system has toward the individual citizen and the community. The nature of the obligation is to interpret and apply the relevant law fairly, morally, and impartially. Justice, it may be said, requires the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons.
It can be argued quite easily that the CCP has acted unjustly by violating fundamental human rights of some Chinese nationals. It is both immoral and discriminatory to refuse to respect fundamental human rights such as are supposedly protected by the Constitution of the People』s Republic of China: Articles 35. Freedom of speech, press and assembly; and 36. Religious freedom. It is unconstitutional to refuse to allow Chinese nationals to exercise these most fundamental human rights and freedoms. Many Chinese nationals wish only to discuss matters of democratic reform, seeking only to establish dialogue.
Those who have human rights concerns enjoy the right to petition the state, by virtue of The Constitution of the People』s Republic of China, Article 41. That article also provides that 「 No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures or retaliate against the citizens making them」. Sadly, many lawyers (e.g. Mr Gao and his peers) and some of their clients who petition the state have met with and continue to encounter threats, intimidation, detention, blackmail, extortion, and physical abuse by state officials.
Therefore we are able to argue from the occurrence of human rights violations to the conclusion that the CCP has acted unjustly in engaging in unconstitutional behaviour and committing serous human rights violations.
Justice is a corrective measure, it seeks to rectify wrongs, and this is part of the continued effort to do what is right.
A Chinese lawyer ought to be aware that he or she has a responsibility to help ensure that justice is done. This implies that a Chinese lawyer has a further responsibility to ensure that fundamental human rights violations and unconstitutional behaviour shall not be permitted to occur, or if it does, that it should not occur with impunity.
I hope that all Chinese lawyers acknowledge their professional and moral obligation to see that justice is done. If a form of peaceful protest is a way to express this concern at the attacks upon justice committed by the CCP, then that course of action is entirely justified.
I take the opportunity to wish those participating is the relay hunger strike every success.
K.L. Gore,
Barrister,
Auckland, New Zealand
