只有警方才看不見的暴力,青年關愛協會踩場事件

評論之前,灰記先引述警察隊員佐級協會,對日前法輪功攤位被青年關愛協會「踩場」後所發生的事情,發表的聲明。

「警察隊員佐級協會立場聲明

近日網絡上流傳一條短片,內容是在旺角行人專用區,警務人員在依法執行職務,去維持治安及公眾秩序時,有人無理超越警察封鎖線,並以粗言侮辱,甚至以英文粗口辱罵維持治安的警務人員。雖然現場同事仍耐心解釋,並請其冷靜,卻仍換來更無理的指控和謾駡。協會對此深表憤慨!香港警務人員,是依照香港法例去執行維持香港治安和公衆秩序的工作。此是人所共知的道理和事實。我們自小受父 教導要尊敬師長,在學校裏老師教導我們要守法奉公,在警校?我們接受嚴格紀律訓練。今日我們見到前線人員的專業表現,我們深感驕傲,作為你們的同事而感到自豪!協會全力支持警務人員在前線執勤,無懼無畏無理人士的侮辱行為。

但作為香港市民和父母的我們,事件卻令人驚訝和憂慮,對為人師表者的道德水平和專業操守感到懷疑,其對香港的新一代的道德觀、奉公守法觀和價值觀影響巨大。我們希望有關方面能正視這憂慮和懷疑。

另方面,事件再次引起我們對保護執法尊嚴的討論。協會認為,香港有必要立法保護作為捍衛香港法治的香港警務人員,免被無理侮辱,以破壞香港法治精神。 協會將會研究保護執法警務人員的方法,並會向警隊管理層和有關當局反映。請各會員堅守崗位,以警隊專業精神面對今次事件。

陳祖光
香港警察隊員佐級協會主席
日期2013-07-27」

如果沒有詳細看過片段,也許會認為前線警員受「刁民」之罪。但稍為細心及持平的旁觀者,不管在場或看片段,都會認為警方當日在場所採取的措施極不合理,甚至荒謬。道理十分簡單,不管你是否認同法輪功,作為一個合法團體,其言論自由受到法律保護。正如在場一名市民(並非林慧思老師)所言,法輪功在旺角行人專用區宣傳已經有十幾年,從來都是相安無事。現在一個所謂青年關愛協會要「踩場」,要令到法輪功不能如往日般宣傳,如果警方真的依法維持公眾秩序,是否應該針對滋事者,青關協執法?

而最基本及合乎邏輯的做法,就是利用警方封鎖線把找法輪法麻煩的青關協成員隔開,讓希望到法輪功攤位的市民可以繼續前往,青關協要抗議繼續抗議。但在場的指揮官卻不是這樣做,而是利用封鎖線把法輪功攤位與青關協「綑綁」在一起,隔開的是在場圍觀和走過的市民。警方這樣做不是故意製造事端嗎?

舉一個簡單例子,如果有人要找另一個人的麻煩,警員奉召到場,第一時間要做的就是將兩人分開,以免發生肢體衝突,造成傷害。這是普通常識。可是,今時今日的香港警察,準確點說,今時今日的香港警察指揮官,看來連普通人的常識也沒有。

但作為專業的警務人員,分隔可能造成衝突的人、團體這種基本常識為何突然消失?警方可能會辯駁,當時有市民指罵關青協成員,恐怕市民與青關協成員衝突,所以把市民和青關協成員隔開。即使如此,也絕對不能把青關協和法輪功「綑綁」一起。最好做法是要求,必要時利用「最低限度武力」強制青協協成員站遠一些。警方不這樣做,唯一可以得出的結論,就是有意縱容青關協騷擾、阻擋法輪功的宣傳活動。不但如此,利用封鎖線把市民隔開,令有心聽法輪功宣傳的市民不能走近輪功攤位,變相剝奪法輪功的言論自由。

要知道,青關協成員並非純粹行使言論自由,而是有暴力傾向。從片段所見,大批警員離開後,他們肆意破壞法輪功的標語和物件,推撞法輪功的成員,行為與愛港力成員無異。

因此,市民,包括林老師向警方表達不滿,甚至指罵警員事出有因,就是警方執法不公,縱容暴力,縱容一團體剝奪另一團體的言論自由。至於為何要打壓法輪功?不善忘的香港人也許會記得,當年23條立法,其中一個原因也是衝著法輪功這些與中共對著幹的組織而來。換言之,這是梁振英的政治任務。

現在梁振英為了政治任務,縱容暴力組織,受看不過眼的市民指罵當然是前線執法的警員,但灰記在此要向香港警察隊員佐級協會主席陳祖光說一句,是梁振英政府縱容暴力團體破壞言論自由,是你們的指揮官作出荒謬的安排,才令你們受辱。要投訴,就投訴你們的上司,投訴梁振英吧。

最後,也想講講林老師。前線警員代表指︰「但作為香港市民和父母的我們,事件卻令人驚訝和憂慮,對為人師表者的道德水平和專業操守感到懷疑,其對香港的新一代的道德觀、奉公守法觀和價值觀影響巨大。我們希望有關方面能正視這憂慮和懷疑。」

沒錯,林老師在憤怒之下講粗口,很多人未必接受。但她和她的學校已發表聲明致歉,比特區政府那些沒有在公開場合說粗口,但操守低劣仍賴著不肯下台的高官強得多。林老師當時和其他市民一樣,都是看不過眼警方偏頗做法,縱容關青協鬧事,沒有盡責保護市民行使言論自由的權利,因而仗義執言。

不過,言論自由永遠都需要人民自覺捍衛及爭取,特別面對一個並非人民授權的政權,特別面對越來越失去基本常識的香港警方。

當日現場較詳細片段

14 responses to “只有警方才看不見的暴力,青年關愛協會踩場事件

  1. The communists in ensuring their so called “harmony" have been inflicting more harms, chaos and injustice upon the Mainland people than creating real harmony. This trend has spreaded to HK after our “underground communist member" CE took office 13 months ago.

    What Ms. Lam had done in her defiance against the police and that gang set a good example for her students as well as the peace and freedom loving people of HK who normally do not have the courage to do the same thing (including myself). That is what separates her from becoming an average teacher. She deserves more than our praise, admiration and support.

  2. The communists’ technique in misconstruing facts and summoning their followers (accomplices) to launch attacks on their oppositions had worked well before the internet era that began in the 90’s.

    They could never succeed in doing same in HK because HK is an international city full of educated people, freedom of speech protected by an impeccable judicial system and high technologies.

    Running a nation by tyrany, suppressions and telling lies is doomed to fail because people are not animals. The HK government and its police force have to take serious consideration before fully succumbing to such an evil regime who treats its people as enemies.

  3. 前線警員代表指︰「但作為香港市民和父母的我們,事件卻令人驚訝和憂慮,對為人師表者的道德水平和專業操守感到懷疑,其對香港的新一代的道德觀、奉公守法觀和價值觀影響巨大。我們希望有關方面能正視這憂慮和懷疑。
    This line of thought has become more and more typical and as it becomes the norm the future of Hong Kong is very bleak indeed. Since the beginning of the new millennium, it is getting harder and harder to stand up for what is right, in fact it has become dangerous to do so. What happened today, 4Aug2013, is perhaps just the beginning. You only have to take a look at what usually happen up north to people who stand up for what is ‘right’, and you could easily come to a very good idea of what has yet to come.
    As in this case, people are concentrating only on what Ms Lam said and nothing else. It is the same as CY Leung planning, now, for housing for our youth 20 years down the road, but is not doing anything to alleviate the shortage of housing for today’s needy; this is like we have a house on fire but instead of fighting the fire now, the firefighters are standing there watching the fire and talking fanatically about regulations for the need of fire alarms and fire extinguishing equipment in the house 20 years down the road.
    Instead of discussing what led to the confrontation in Ms Lam’s case, which should be what the police was doing (or NOT doing) there, or the attitude and behavior of the officers involved, we now have associations formed by police officers, determine to sort of witch hunt for the head of Ms Lam. If this is all that the police force can do, I am worried what their investigation would be like when they are dealing with criminal cases. I suspect that it may not be too long before a raped victim could be prosecuted because she was too attractive or that she caused injury to her attacker as she struggled while being raped. Some authoritative figure has already put out some warning, and I read, with little suspicion, that it already occurred up north.
    May be our police officers wish for more teachers who would be able to groom students into adults like CY Leung or MP Chan or at least into the likes of most of the members in the executive council..

  4. I agree with you on most of your comments except “This line of thought has become more and more typical and as it becomes the norm the future of Hong Kong is very bleak indeed."

    It is true the future of HK is not promising especially after July 1, 2012 when CY Leung took office after getting a mere 689 votes out from 1,200 eligible voters who were mostly representing the interest groups.

    I believe a majority of police officers are like the rest of us in terms of having the same line of thinking concerning basic core values and what is right or wrong. It is their superiors who are the culprits of forcing them to act against their will. Mind you the HK police has a great reputation in discipline and following orders.

    That is why the police or army can be very dangerous in a dictatorial country. Without democracy to control the election of top leaders who have the authority to appoint top officials, the police and army made up of ordinary people like us can easily become their instruments of suppression.

    HK is very unique as far as politics are concerned. The city is famous of its protest activities the main cause of which is its good schooling system and traditional freedom of speech protected by a great judicial system while its government officials are not elected by universal suffrage. It is only natural for the government and its top officials to show strong bias in favor of the Communists who can decide who can be elected or not.

    That is the main cause of our present confrontations and predicaments.The best antidote is to have universal suffrage promised to us by the Basic Law.

  5. I believe that quite a number of very senior police officers, though retired or enjoying so call pre-retirement leave, showed up to support the persecution of Ms Lam. 香港警察隊員佐級協會 and 香港警務督察協會 announced publicly their contempt for Ms Lam. 食環工會 were threatened by who knows whom for its support of Ms Lam, and the potential withdrawal of help from the police force in future. All these are signs of the changed nature of the force. The political prosecution that took place and the physical threat/assault from some pseudo crime association could reduce to a great extend the number of people who will dare to voice out their grievance/discontent. I fear that the internet could come under some form of control/surveillance in the not too distant future in Hong Kong, possibly undetected nor declared. That is why I feel bleak.

  6. 警方其實可以對他們作什麼樣的阻止,人權法不是同樣保障他們的權利嗎?

    如説愛港力班人乞人憎,咁人民力量追擊民主黨,警方能否用一樣的法例阻止它們??

    9OCT2011 人民力量追擊民主黨

  7. 不同意人民力量的行為。但這條片段顯示遊行是「泛民」不同政黨「一起」的活動,民主黨一直與大隊一起進入政總,然後人力發難,民主黨亦沒召警協助。而當日旺角行專用區事件,是法輪功宣傳受青關會阻撓而召警協助。還有兩年前民主黨通過政改方案,其後參加七一遊行,其團隊沿途受大批警員護送。因此,警方有責任保障市民表達自由,問題是他們是否願意履行吧了。

  8. 關鍵就在於此,我相信如法輪功報警要求護送,警方會跟據安全要求去安排。
    但如法輪功驅趕青關會,那麼警方便陷入兩難。

  9. 其實有無兩難?等於屋苑保安制止有人「搞事」,再報警求助,難道也是兩難?任何人用最低武力去保護自身及物,再求警協助,最正常不過。法輪功要保護其橫額不受阻擋,驅趕別人(當然要看具體如何「驅趕」),應不算有問題。

  10. 我嘗試看過,因裡面又再有 link: “辱警何罪?溫柔的潑婦老師! 及 辱警何罪?溫柔的潑婦老師!" 再深入就不再看了。

    1. 文中說練乙錚舉1942年美國的案例不妥:「這種法律是一路在發展修訂的,舉1942年美國的案例,毫無意義。」當然,及後美國有越戰,黑人民權運動,水門事件等,但大致上仍朝開放行去,政治上,麥卡錫年代、怕蘇、怕中共,已被新的策略取代。1942年太舊?現在打算引用控告斯諾登的間諜罪,是1917年立法的。

    2. 「青關會當時究竟有沒有違法?如果有,違了甚麼法?」 「說他們犯了遊蕩罪,我解答了這講法行不通的理由。」 「就算青關會侵犯了法輪功的言論及表達自由,都不會受到《人權法》約束,警察也無權過問。」

    很簡單,用簡易治罪條例之類的 toolbox 就行了。諸如那些「公眾地方行為不檢」就可夠用了。例如你行街,你向左向右,我都阻你,又或者我尾隨女生,但我又沒做甚麼,只是有意無意睄睄她過短的短裙…這些都可能是公眾地方行為不檢。

    3. 警察設置封鎖區的權力:「當時兩幫流氓已情緒發酵,再讓其他人入內吵架,會火上加油」。假如只係談及權力,是否火上加油根本不關事。或者,警方正好是希望火上加油?林老師也太笨,遇有這情況根本只能拍下現場情況再找警監,因當時警察已是最高權力,就如在法庭當席法官最大。而在事後,你最多也只能找警監,去解決那些「是否開多條行車線給示威隊伍行走」之類。至於說警方應該怎樣做才算平息風波?一,一切還原,你有你擺,我有我擺,互不相阻。二、一齊拆走,再將個波跟給相關部門(路政定康文?這不清楚) 最多只係「建議」,是否兩造要擺街將牌也隔遠些?曼聯跟阿仙奴的球迷中間是否應有些「緩衝區」?似警方現下做法係搵野黎做,盞旺角警區做得乜肺而矣。

    這文已寫得過長,仲煩過女人纏腳布,真係不太值得。

  11. I have learn some just right stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting.
    I wonder how a lot attempt you set to make this sort of fantastic informative web site.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s