Board logo

標題: 香港政府應否替陳巧文討回公道 [打印本頁]
作者: 飛鳥    時間: 2008-6-13 09:32     標題: 香港政府應否替陳巧文討回公道

陳巧文澳門被拒入境 欲過境轉飛澳洲旅行
(明報) 06月 13日 星期五 05:10AM

【明報專訊】一直主張西藏    人民有權自決的港大女生陳巧文，原計劃昨午乘船往澳門    過境轉飛機到澳洲    旅行，但卻被澳門當局拒絕入境，對方未有解釋原因。今次是陳巧文上月在香港奧運    火炬傳遞活動示威後首次離開香港，她多次強調，半年前過境澳門時亦沒有任何問題，認為今次事件可能存在「政治原因」。她說﹕「5月2號我去和平示威被警察強行帶走，想不到現在連去澳門都沒自由了！」

要求致電回港求助被拒

昨午3時許，揹着小背囊的陳巧文手執香港永久居民身分證、特區護照    及澳門當局向她發出的拒絕入境通知書，一臉無奈步出港澳碼頭。她表示，昨午由尖沙嘴    乘船前往澳門，約1時半在澳門過關時，被澳門當局人員帶入問話室，被扣查約20分鐘，其間自己曾多次詢問被拒入境原因及要求致電回港求助，但遭拒絕，而當局安排了4至5名制服人員看守她。她又指，雖然她拒絕簽署拒絕入境通知書，不過仍遭強行送上船折返香港。

她指出，過去曾兩次往澳門轉飛機到其他國家旅行，最近一次是去年12月，完全沒有受阻，今次是她對西藏人權問題公開發表意見後首次離開香港，沒想過會被「打回頭」，擔心今次是受「政治原因」影響，「我們是香港特別行政區    的居民，為何不能夠去中國另一個特別行政區？出入境自由其實是一個基本的權利，究竟今次有什麼問題，難道我已經不再是中國公民？」

曾兩次赴澳門轉飛他國旅行

陳巧文原本計劃由昨天至本月29日到澳洲旅行，花了5000多元購買由澳門出發的來回機票，但現在被迫返港，她感到既失望又可惜，但從未對自己早前高調示威感後悔，因為「覺得自己一直做的事都是對的」。她指，下一步會向澳門當局了解被拒入境原因，然後再向本港入境處查詢，暫未有計劃再出國旅行。

澳門﹕根據內部保安綱要法

澳門新聞局發言人表示，當局是根據內部保安綱要法第17條拒絕陳巧文入境。據澳門印務局資料顯示，該條例下有多項條文，其中包括「對依法被視為不受歡迎，或對內部保安的穩定構成威脅的非本地居民進入澳門特別行政區，或者將其驅逐出境」。

香港人權監察昨晚發出新聞稿，指關注陳巧文被澳門拒絕過境事件，澳門當局應清楚交代事件，若查明被拒原因是由於她曾在港行使和平示威權利，則有違《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》之嫌，當局應受到譴責，而香港政府亦應替她討回公道。
作者: dizzc    時間: 2008-6-13 10:37

哎..............完全回歸
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-13 17:52     標題: 回復 #1 飛鳥 的帖子

澳門幾時變成香港殖民地 ?  
你有咩《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》關澳門卵事  ?
不x 知所謂

港燦周不時俾英美拒絕入境
連理由都莫需有
你咬人地食呀 ? :bird:

[ 本帖最後由 飛毛腿 於 2008-6-13 17:53 編輯 ]
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-13 17:53

引用:
原帖由 dizzc 於 2008-6-13 10:37 發表
哎..............完全回歸
澳門完全回歸香港管治  ?  
作者: bonbon2468    時間: 2008-6-13 18:01

陳巧文同政府搞對抗, 真係好天真好傻! 之後幾廿年, 真係唔知點過~

政府唔請, 私人公司唔敢請, 連返中國同澳門自由都冇埋.........呢d.....只係冰山一角!

〔蘋 果 日  報 道 〕 不 滿 北 京 當 局 處 理 西 藏 問 題 的 香 港 大 學 女 生 陳 巧 文 ， 昨 經 澳 門 往 澳 洲 旅 遊 時 ， 遭 澳 門 當 局 引 用 《 澳 門 內 部 保 安 綱 要 法 》 ， 指 陳 對 當 地 保 安 穩 定 構 成 威 脅 為 由 拒 絕 入 境 。
作者: kcpw0n    時間: 2008-6-13 18:14

是否出位有價,怕佢過境賣淫所以被拒呀,真該煨!!!!!!

人怕出名豬怕肥,有利(價高d)有敝(被拒)

[ 本帖最後由 kcpw0n 於 2008-6-13 18:18 編輯 ]
作者: 理魯竇    時間: 2008-6-13 18:19

這些小朋友頭腦簡單，思想幼稚，

不知道搏出位是要付出代價的。
作者: 理魯竇    時間: 2008-6-13 18:27

大把人去申請美國簽證被拒絕，

仲無得回水，

香港政府應否替他們討回公道？
作者: 維圓阿伯    時間: 2008-6-13 20:24

低狗死洋腸妹
玩野玩出火嘞
諗住攪出位零代價
尼次重吳偷雞吳到蝕渣米
入國內呢可能????????
阿伯唔駛飲崩大碗都心凉
作者: CAB    時間: 2008-6-13 23:17

She has the right to protest.

Macau has the right to refuse her abode.
作者: 大魔神    時間: 2008-6-14 05:04

倒不如問問佢個所謂「老豆」
究竟係個咩人重好
作者: breatharian    時間: 2008-6-14 08:24

引用:
原帖由 飛毛腿 於 2008-6-13 17:52 發表
澳門幾時變成香港殖民地 ?  
你有咩《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》關澳門卵事  ?
不x 知所謂

港燦周不時俾英美拒絕入境
連理由都莫需有
你咬人地食呀 ? :bird:
中國人去中國既地方，你又搵英美比
作者: ivan99    時間: 2008-6-14 10:22

澳門已實施活雞唔過夜幾年。
作者: COO    時間: 2008-6-14 11:03

各有立場和權利。

澳門唔歡迎妳，冇所謂囉，反正都唔係佢既 final destination。直接去澳洲囉。
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-14 13:35

引用:
原帖由 breatharian 於 2008-6-14 08:24 發表



中國人去中國既地方，你又搵英美比
我講係揸 BNO去大英帝國年代喎
你少睇新聞冇留意啫

而且
想發人爛炸就打民族牌 ?
中國人去中國地方就可以掂行掂過 ?
咁大陸婦女落香港代替香港菲傭得唔得 ?
澳們人要入香港, 香港奉旨一定要放佢地入境咩 ?
作者: oneout    時間: 2008-6-14 18:10

其實她可以求助於達賴喇麻,用雪山獅子的護照,反正澳洲支持達賴!
作者: moxfactor    時間: 2008-6-14 23:21

一時香港又係特區, 一時又係中國, S.A.R. 都真係一個唔錯既借口...

=.='
作者: 飛鳥    時間: 2008-6-15 11:32

引用:
原帖由 oneout 於 2008-6-14 18:10 發表
其實她可以求助於達賴喇麻,用雪山獅子的護照,反正澳洲支持達賴!
西藏流亡護照
作者: ericwong4362    時間: 2008-6-15 22:30

引用:
原帖由 kcpw0n 於 2008-6-13 18:14 發表
是否出位有價,怕佢過境賣淫所以被拒呀,真該煨!!!!!!

人怕出名豬怕肥,有利(價高d)有敝(被拒)
其实甘讲距会唔会有d过份呢？无证无据…
作者: ericwong4362    時間: 2008-6-15 22:35

引用:
原帖由 理魯竇 於 2008-6-13 18:27 發表
大把人去申請美國簽證被拒絕，

仲無得回水，

香港政府應否替他們討回公道？
老实讲…王子认为应该要回水！虽然王子唔使签，但系上次我地一班朋友去玩，就有人罗唔到visa，不但蚀左签证钱，仲蚀埋退机票既手续费…真系唔底！去玩之嘛！甘鬼受气…
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-15 23:03

引用:
原帖由 ericwong4362 於 2008-6-15 22:30 發表

其实甘讲距会唔会有d过份呢？无证无据…
唔怕,
只要唔係侮辱垃圾黨,
就算幾侮辱, 幾難聽,
都唔駛驚會有人舉報.

作者: ericwong4362    時間: 2008-6-15 23:28

引用:
原帖由 熊魔鬼. 於 2008-6-15 23:03 發表


唔怕,
只要唔係侮辱垃圾黨,
就算幾侮辱, 幾難聽,
都唔駛驚會有人舉報.

车…最多咪比人ban！又如何？加多点又玩过…
作者: 飛鳥    時間: 2008-6-16 09:31

引用:
原帖由 飛毛腿 於 2008-6-14 13:35 發表


我講係揸 BNO去大英帝國年代喎
你少睇新聞冇留意啫

而且
想發人爛炸就打民族牌 ?
中國人去中國地方就可以掂行掂過 ?
咁大陸婦女落香港代替香港菲傭得唔得 ?
澳們人要入香港,  ...
好多香港人都想大陸女傭落香港！
作者: kcpw0n    時間: 2008-6-16 14:42

引用:
原帖由 ericwong4362 於 2008-6-15 23:28 發表

车…最多咪比人ban！又如何？加多点又玩过…
閣下又提佢嘅傷痛處,它就是那1點,給網友鄙視和歧視,
他正考慮自宮淨身,廢去1點可以由鬼變人可跟"版主"和
"擦膠"拉關係
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 11:14

點解呢排腦殘洋奴唔繼續貼多d英國佬文章既?



[ 本帖最後由 熊魔鬼. 於 2008-6-18 11:43 編輯 ]
作者: COO    時間: 2008-6-18 11:36

引用:
原帖由 飛鳥 於 2008-6-16 09:31 發表

好多香港人都想大陸女傭落香港！
點解？貪佢地識洗碟，定係識洗我 d 錢？
作者: kcpw0n    時間: 2008-6-18 13:17

引用:
原帖由 熊魔鬼. 於 2008-6-18 11:14 發表
點解呢排腦殘洋奴唔繼續貼多d英國佬文章既?

E!!!!重未自宮淨身呀,果1 點重露出來嘅,

要淨身,

真係好...傷和好...嘅
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 13:24

識得回覆,
即係仲記得自己個名叫腦殘洋奴!
好彩好彩,
要裝返注香先!
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 13:36

引用:
原帖由 kcpw0n 於 2008-6-16 14:42 發表



閣下又提佢嘅傷痛處,它就是那1點,給網友鄙視和歧視,
他正考慮自宮淨身,廢去1點可以由鬼變人可跟"版主"和
"擦膠"拉關係
其實你男人之家成日開口埋口叫人淨身,
係咪你自己有呢方面既問題,
希望有人陪你呀?
聽講以前d太監,
越係搞唔到女人就越係思想污穢,
咁o岩你又鬼咁鍾意去小說版寫寫埋埋咁多淫賤咸故,
諗落都幾相似喎.

作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 13:39

引用:
原帖由 kcpw0n 於 2008-6-18 13:17 發表


要淨身,

真係好...傷和好...嘅
你表情咁痛苦,
果然係過來人!

作者: 熙官    時間: 2008-6-18 13:43

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 13:57

面皮厚得過果d恃住唔會有人舉報,
就肆意用"賣淫"呢類字眼黎侮辱女性?

作者: 飛鳥    時間: 2008-6-18 14:30

引用:
原帖由 熊魔鬼. 於 2008-6-18 13:57 發表
面皮厚得過果d恃住唔會有人舉報,
就肆意用"賣淫"呢類字眼黎侮辱女性?

唔係講緊我掛？
作者: 飛鳥    時間: 2008-6-18 14:35

引用:
原帖由 COO 於 2008-6-18 11:36 發表



點解？貪佢地識洗碟，定係識洗我 d 錢？
起碼同聲同氣嘛！唔使對著印尼女傭咁，雞同鴨講，講極佢都唔明。
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-18 16:33     標題: 從國際法層面探討西藏可否自決 - 夏博義資深大律師

話陳巧文之前, 你可會想一讀此文章 ?

    從國際法層面探討西藏可否自決 - 夏博義資深大律師

    Is Tibet entitled to self-determination?
    26th April 2008

By Paul Harris, SC

   1. The purpose of this article is to explore whether Tibet can be said to have a right to self-determination under international law.
   2. The official position of the Chinese Government on this issue is that Tibet is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China (just as France once claimed that Algeria was an inalienable part of Metropolitan France). Those who question this are regularly attacked in the official Chinese media in vitriolic terms as “splittists”[1], and anti-China. If they are themselves Chinese and live in China they are liable to be imprisoned. Wei Jing Sheng and more recently Hua Jia are well-known Mainland Chinese dissidents imprisoned for calling for a new Chinese government attitude towards Tibet.
   3. Questioners about Tibet from outside China are also habitually criticized by China for “interfering in China’s internal affairs”. However to the Tibetans and most people in the world outside China who are familiar with Tibet’s situation, it is an international problem crying out for a solution.
   4. Most countries recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet. The one notable exception is the United Kingdom which traditionally recognizes “suzerainty” of China with autonomy for Tibet, a subtle evasion which happens to be fairly close to the actual situation of Tibet in relation to China during the last years of the Ching dynasty (1644-1911).  The United States has officially recognized China’s sovereignty over Tibet since 1966. Many states have glossed over or deliberately left undefined the question of whether their recognition is de jure or de facto i.e. recognizing China as having a legal title, or merely recognizing the fact that it is in reality ruling Tibet.
   5. Notwithstanding these ambiguities, overwhelming state recognition for a given territorial status is itself usually powerful or even conclusive evidence of that status in international law. The question therefore arises as to why Tibet should be different? To answer this it is necessary to consider the meaning of sovereignty and of self-determination in international law and the facts of China’s involvement with Tibet.
      What is sovereignty?
   6. Under the traditional theory of state sovereignty which underpinned international law for three hundred years, it was for the rulers of states to determine by agreement between themselves which territories they would rule over. This system, formalized by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, did not give any role to subjects in choosing their ruler. If sovereignty was not determined by conquest, it was decided by mutually agreed cession. No one consulted the inhabitants of the island of Minorca before it was ceded by Spain to Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, or before it was ceded to Britain a second time, after capture by the French, by the Treaty of Paris in 1763, or before it was ceded back to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. Minorca’s experience was typical of many small European territories which happened to be coveted by more than one European power. Similar cession with complete disregard for the views of the inhabitants was also the fate of overseas colonial territories. Bombay became British in 1662 because it was ceded to England by Portugal as the dowry of Charles II’s Portuguese bride, Catherine of Braganza.
   7. Modern international law, although now applied at least to some extent by every country in the world, is largely a European invention[2]. This applies particularly to the doctrine of state sovereignty, under which China claims sovereignty over Tibet. It has been cogently argued[3] that by appropriating this European concept to claim sovereignty over Tibet, China is distorting a traditional historic relationship between the Ching dynasty emperors and the Dalai Lama of Tibet, which was that of a patron and a religious leader, and not that of a sovereign and a subject. If this is right, all China’s claims to sovereignty based on the Ching-Dalai Lama relationship (and its more recent claims based on the earlier relationship between the Mongol (Yuan dynasty) emperors and Tibet) are misconceived. However I argue below that, misconceived or not, these claims are in any case irrelevant to whether Tibet now has a right to self determination.
      Self-determination
   8. The Westphalia concept of state sovereignty came into conflict with nationalist aspirations for statehood in nineteenth century Europe. Polish nationalists did not like Poland being partitioned between the German and Russian Empires. Czechs did not like being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Britain supported the cause of Greek independence against the Ottoman Empire, and the European powers generally supported the cause of independence of the Serbs, Romanians and Bulgarians.
   9. At the Paris Peace Conference after World War 1 US President Woodrow Wilson pushed for the peace settlement to be based on the principle that “every territorial settlement in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned, and not as a part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims amongst rival states”. Despite this, the principle was only selectively applied, where it coincided with the interests of the major players at the conference. In other cases it was flagrantly ignored, most notably in the transfer of the former German Chinese treaty port of Tsingtao to Japan against the wishes of its inhabitants.
  10. By the time the United Nations was set up after World War II, it was generally recognized that peoples had the right of self-determination. Article 1.2 of the United Nations Charter states that the purposes of the United Nations include the development of friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples. It can therefore be said that all states which have become members of the United Nations by ratifying the United Nations Charter – including China – have accepted the principle of respect for the self-determination of peoples.
  11. The United Nations Charter was followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights in the Universal Declaration were elaborated in two more detailed international covenants which, unlike the Declaration itself, are treaties intended to have legal force. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “All peoples have the right to self determination. By virtue of that right they may freely determine their political status”. The ICCPR has been ratified by 161[4] of 192 United Nations member countries. Five other countries, including China, have signed but not ratified. A nation which is a signatory of a international treaty, such as the ICCPR, is obliged under international law to “refrain from acts which would defeat the purpose and object of the treaty” (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18, codifying earlier customary international law).
  12. China is therefore bound, both by its adherence to United Nations Charter and by its signature of the ICCPR to respect the principle of self-determination of peoples.
      What does the right of peoples to self-determination actually mean?
  13. There was no consensus about what the right to self-determination meant when it was included in the ICCPR. Western countries were generally reluctant to include it, but felt obliged to do so in response to the aspirations of recently independent countries to end European colonialism in those places were it still existed. Communist and Soviet influenced countries generally interpreted self-determination as meaning the right to choose a socialist form of government.
  14. Since the ICCPR came into effect in 1976 there has been widespread concern that if the right to self determination in Article 1 is applied literally this could lead to the break-up of many existing states. This applies particularly to Africa, whose national boundaries are mostly colonial era constructs, but also to numerous other states with ethnic minority populations who form a majority in particular regions.
  15. The consensus which has emerged is that the right to self determination for the purposes of ICCPR Article 1 applies only to the following: (1) entire populations living in independent states, (2) entire populations of territories yet to receive independence, and (3) territories under foreign military occupation[5].  
  16. This is a restrictive definition which excludes numerous groups who would in ordinary language be regarded as “peoples”. It excludes African tribes whose populations may be concentrated in one part of state, or parts of more than one state. It therefore gives no encouragement to the destructive tendency to fragmentation of African states which was seen in the Biafran War in Nigeria and which has recently been evident in Kenya. More controversially it excludes some peoples with a long history of struggle for independence, such as the Kurds (spread across parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria).
  17. The issue of self-determination was considered in the context of colonial territories in the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV)) of 14 December 1960. Article 1 of this Declaration states that “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.” A further General Assembly resolution, the Declaration on Principles of International Law, Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, of 1970, again states that “alien subjugation, domination and exploitation are a violation of the principle” [of self-determination], as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the [United Nations] Charter”.
  18. These two United Nations General Assembly Resolutions have been extensively applied.  The concept of alien domination has been treated by the UN as applicable to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan; the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia; the occupation of Arab territories by Israel; of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the former Soviet Union; of Grenada by the United States; of East Timor by Indonesia; and of Kuwait by Iraq[6]. It is strongly arguable that the rule that alien subjugation, domination and exploitation breach a people’s right to self-determination now forms part of international customary law i.e. international law established not by treaties but by the customs of nations.

(to be cont)
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-18 16:34     標題: 回復 #35 Rubber 的帖子

The history of China’s relations with Tibet
  19. China’s present control over Tibet dates from 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet and defeated the Tibetan Army at Chamdo. China claims that Tibet was already part of China when it invaded.
  20. This claim is based on a claim to sovereignty over Tibet by the Ching Imperial dynasty dating from the eighteenth century. More recently China has claimed that its rule over Tibet can be traced to the rule of Tibet by the Mongols – known in China as the Yuan dynasty.
  21. There are at least three major historical difficulties with China’s claim. Firstly, as indicated above, it is doubtful whether the relationship between the Ching and the Yuan on the one hand, and Tibet on the other,was really one of sovereign and subject. The Kangxi Emperor occupied Tibet in 1720. After his death in 1722 this occupation continued under his successor the Yongzheng Emperor until 1728, and there were further Chinese invasions in 1750 and 1792.  However after the end of the occupation in 1728, and after each of the later invasions, the Chinese armies withdrew and Tibet had virtually complete independence in practice[7].  
  22. Secondly, it was never suggested under either dynasty that the relationship made Tibet a part of metropolitan China. If it was a political relationship at all, it was one of dependency which translated into modern language was a colonial relationship. It is therefore a basis for concluding that Tibet is a colony and so entitled to self-determination.
  23. Thirdly, and most importantly, there was no relationship - either similar to that between Tibet and the Ching dynasty, or similar to the modern concept of sovereignty - between Tibet and the Chinese Republic which succeeded the Ching dynasty in 1911. In 1912 the Thirteenth Dalai Lama made a formal declaration of Tibetan independence. Although the Chinese Republic responded by laying claim to Tibet, it never exercised any control over it, save for certain far eastern regions, where there had always been an ill-defined borderland, which it invaded and occupied. Tibet was entirely independent of foreign control between 1911 and 1950.
  24. Even if China’s historical claim was much stronger than it is, this would not provide a justification for invasion of an independent country. Most countries were at one time under alien rule.  In 1911 Ireland was under British rule as it had been for centuries, Finland was ruled by Russia, and Korea was ruled by Japan. The setting up of the United Nations was expressly intended to prevent the kind of aggressive wars, based on spurious or doubtful claims to historical rule or cultural identity, which had been the practice of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
  25. China has frequently attempted to justify the invasion by the claim that Tibetan society was feudal and backward, and that China therefore brought liberation to the Tibetan peasantry from feudal domination.
  26. Scholars agree that the pre-1950 Tibetan regime was feudal and backward[8]. One aspect of its backwardness was its failure to appoint ambassadors to other countries or to apply to join the United Nations until invasion by China was imminent. However this failure was not due to lack of independence but due to the absence, in Tibet’s intensely traditional and isolated government, of a clear sense of the need for a modern state to maintain relations with other states.
  27. At the risk of stating the obvious, the fact that a country is backward cannot justify invading it. Backwardness was often advanced as a justification for nineteenth century colonialism, what Kipling called “The White Man’s burden” when he encouraged the United States to colonise the supposedly backward Philippines. The fact that China relies on the “backwardness” argument[9] to support its occupation of Tibet is a further indication of a classic colonial occupation.
      China/Tibet relations since 1950
  28. China invaded Tibet on 7 October 1950. On 7 November 1950 the Tibetan Government appealed for help to the United Nations but no assistance was forthcoming. Tibetan forces were easily overwhelmed by the much stronger Chinese forces, with the bulk of the Tibetan Army being surrounded and surrendering at Chamdo.
  29. After the surrender the Chinese Government embarked on what would now be called a “charm offensive” in Tibet. Tibetans were given money by People’s Liberation Army representatives, and encouraged to accept Chinese occupation on the understanding that their traditional way of life would be unchanged and that Tibet would enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
  30. In 1951 China and representatives of the Dalai Lama signed the “17 point agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”. The drafting phraseology of this document shows that some-one was looking at it when drafting Hong Kong’s Basic Law. It provides that “the Tibetan people have the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leadership of the Central People’s Government’(Article 3); that “ the Central People’s Government will not alter the existing political system in Tibet”(Article 4), and “will not alter the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama”(Article 4).
  31. These autonomy provisions were never observed. The Chinese Communist Party ruled Tibet, as it rules China, by way of a centralized party organization based on classic communist doctrine, whereby each organ of government is shadowed by an organ of the party. These party organs are accountable to the Chinese Communist Party and do not function in accordance with concepts of autonomy. In Tibet the new Chinese authorities insisted on taking all important decisions and interfered on an increasing scale with the daily life of Tibetans. In response to the harshness of Chinese rule, the Tibetans rose in revolt in 1958. The revolt was easily crushed by China, and in 1959 the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and some 80,000 other Tibetans fled into exile in India.
  32. The severity of Chinese repression in Tibet since that date is well-documented[10]. There is severe repression of Tibetan Buddhism, which in 1997 was labeled as a “foreign culture” Virtually all classes in secondary and higher education in Tibet are taught in Chinese not Tibetan, resulting in a high drop-out rate among Tibetans. Urban development has generally benefited Chinese immigrants, large numbers of whom have moved to Tibet and who are now about 12% of the population in the Tibet Administrative Region. Tibetans are routinely detained for long periods without charge or sentenced to long prison sentences for peacefully advocating independence or maintaining links with the Dalai Lama. Torture and ill-treatment in detention is widespread. Freedom of expression is severely restricted. Peaceful political demonstrations are invariably broken up and their participants arrested. Tibetan culture is treated as inferior to Chinese culture, and most key posts in the government and the economy are held by Chinese. Those few Tibetans who are able to enter Chinese government service do so at the cost of alienation from their own people and culture. Tibet’s environment and natural resources are ruthlessly exploited in the interests of China. Overall the situation bears marked similarities in all these respects to the situation of Algeria under the French or of  Uzbekistan and Kirgizstan under Soviet Russian rule.
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-18 16:34     標題: 回復 #36 Rubber 的帖子

The case for self-determination
  33. No-one disputes that the Tibetans are a distinct people with their own language and culture, who form a large majority of the population of Tibet. They do not control their own destiny. Tibet is controlled by the Chinese Government by means of military occupation for the benefit of the Chinese state. Tibet is a country under foreign military occupation, and its people are subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation” within the meaning of the UN Resolutions on Colonial Peoples and on Friendly Relations.
  34. The severity of the repression the Tibetans have undergone at China’s hands, combined with the threadbare nature of China’s territorial claim to Tibet, mean that if the universal right of peoples to self-determination has any meaning it must extend to Tibet.
  35. Tibet’s status has been given renewed topicality by the recent independence of Kosovo. Kosovo was an autonomous region of Serbia dating from when Serbia was a state within Federal Yugoslavia. About 90% of its population are ethnically Albanian, and so distinct from the Serbs who form the remaining 10% and the large majority of the population of Serbia as a whole. Kosovo had enjoyed some real autonomy in Yugoslavia but in the 1990s this was progressively reduced. In 1996 guerilla warfare broke out as Albanians rose in revolt against Serbian rule. In 1999 as a result of a NATO air campaign against Serbia, the Serbian Army withdrew from Kosovo and a United Nations administration was set up. Following a recommendation from the United Nations Special Representative, Martti Ahtisaari, a plan was devised for Kosovo’s independence, which was bitterly opposed by Serbia. Kosovo nevertheless declared independence on 17 February 2008. This has so far been recognized by 38 countries, including all of the Group of Seven industrialized countries. It has not been recognized by countries such as Russia, China and Spain which face their own separatist issues (although it has been recognized by Turkey).
  36. The recognition of Kosovo would seem to extend the right of self-determination beyond the traditional colonial or foreign occupation situation. Kosovo was never a colony, and the Serbian Army had withdrawn long before the independence issue was determined. The only coherent legal basis for recognizing the exercise of self-determination by the Kosovo people in the form of an independent state is that, prior to that independence, while under Serbian rule, the Kosovar Albanians were subject to “alien subjugation, domination and exploitation”.
  37. The Kosovars and the Serbs were historic enemies. Who was exploiting whom varied at different times in history. However a convincing case can be made that in the later years of Slobodan Milosovic’s rule in Serbia, the Kosovars were being persecuted by the Serbian authorities, and were indeed in that sense subject to subjugation, domination and exploitation by people, who although long part of the same country, were culturally different and could in that sense arguably be described as alien.
  38. If Kosovo has a right to self-determination, the right of Tibet is infinitely stronger. The catalogue of gross oppression, the second class citizen status of Tibetans under Chinese rule, and the identity of Tibet as a country are all much clearer than in Kosovo’s case.
      Self-determination, autonomy and independence
  39. Self-determination need not mean independence. In many situations, autonomy within a larger nation state offers the best of both worlds, combining the benefits of being part of a large state in terms of defence, foreign relations and economic opportunity, with preservation of local laws, customs and culture from outside interference. Hong Kong is a good example.
  40. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he favours autonomy for Tibet within China, provided that it is meaningful autonomy. Such is his authority with the Tibetan people that they would probably support autonomy in any referendum in which he expressed support for it.
  41. However unless there is a change in Chinese government thinking, real autonomy does not appear to be on offer. This is shown by the continuing aggressive denunciation and misrepresentation of the Dalai Lama by Chinese official spokespersons.
  42. Unless real autonomy is offered, self-determination in Tibet is bound to mean independence. China may hold down the Tibetans by force for a long time, but, as the example of Ukraine and Russia shows, even hundreds of years of repression is unlikely to extinguish the longing for self-determination among what are, incontrovertibly, a people.

Paul Harris is a Senior Counsel in Hong Kong known for his expertise in constitutional and administrative law.

[1] For a typical statement see Chinese Government opposes the collusion of Taiwan and Tibet splittists, People’s Daily On-line, 15 March 2001.

[2] Often attributed to the Dutch seventeenth century writer Hugo Grotius, although many international law concepts are older.

[3] See e.g. Dibyesh Anand, Tibet, China and the West, Empires of the Mind, Open Democracy, 2 April 2008.

[4] The most recent ratification is Samoa (February, 2008).

[5] See e.g. Antonio Cassese, Self-determination of Peoples”, p. 59

[6] See list in Cassese, op.cit, p. 94.

[7] There was a further invasion shortly before the end of the Ching dynasty, in 1910, by way of delayed reaction to the brief British invasion of Tibet in 1904. Unlike China’s eighteenth century invasions, where in each case a faction in Tibet had encouraged Chinese intervention, the 1910 invasion was a full-frontal assault against united Tibetan opposition. After the 1910 Chinese occupation of Lhasa the Thirteenth Dalai Lama fled to British India, and fighting continued until the 1911 Revolution in China. In 1912 Chinese forces in Tibet surrendered and were repatriated through India with British assistance, and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama returned from exile.

[8] See the catalogue of obscurantism, rigid traditionalism and wholesale rejection of modernity in Melvyn C. Goldstein A modern history of Tibet, 1913-1951, University of California Press, 1989.

[9] For a very recent speech highlighting how China’s rule has benefited Tibet’s development, see Qiangba Puncog, chairman, Tibet Autonomous Region Council, Xinhua, 9 April 2008

[10] See e.g. the 1997 International Commission of Jurists report Tibet: Human Rights and the Rule of Law
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 16:55

引用:
原帖由 飛鳥 於 2008-6-18 14:30 發表

唔係講緊我掛？
講緊果位又名咸故王既變態佬之嘛.

作者: kcpw0n    時間: 2008-6-18 17:36

引用:
原帖由 熊魔鬼. 於 2008-6-18 11:14 發表
點解呢排腦殘洋奴唔繼續貼多d英國佬文章既?

哈哈

佢嘅偶像"像膠"貼左一篇洋洋大觀嘅英文什麼文章出來wor!!!!,


原來腦殘洋奴係指佢,曲線傷人,真是陰人(鬼)先至喜歡做嘅!!!


絕!!!!!


[ 本帖最後由 kcpw0n 於 2008-6-18 17:41 編輯 ]
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 17:44

講少d廢話,
寫多d變態咸故至係腦殘強項呀!

作者: 熙官    時間: 2008-6-18 17:48

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: 熊魔鬼.    時間: 2008-6-18 17:48

太監寫咸故
更絕!

作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-18 18:18     標題: 回復 #37 Rubber 的帖子

夏博義, 資深大律師  ?

香港都成籮啦
唔通真係外國 -->  真係圓 d ?
洋大人講中國歷史都權威過人
洋主人萬歲  
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-18 19:33

乜原來唔使睇論點去駁人...
咁同唔識字, 又唔講道理....  即係 XX  ...  有幾大分別..
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-18 21:13

講論點 ?

19. China’s present control over Tibet dates from 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet
and defeated the Tibetan Army at Chamdo. China claims that Tibet was already part of China when it invaded.

原來 1950年之前有個西藏國 ?
仲有自己國防軍 ? :bird:

一大堆狗屎論點  
連達賴自己都話唔係想獨立
達拉自己都話西藏係中國一部份
恨做亡國洋奴恨到燒壞腦, 見到有條洋狀棍語無倫次就話係 "國際法" 喎...  
哈哈
作者: CAB    時間: 2008-6-19 00:47

引用:
原帖由 Rubber 於 2008-6-18 16:34 發表
The case for self-determination
  33. No-one disputes that the Tibetans are a distinct people with their own language and culture, who form a large majority of the population of Tibet. They do not ...
So...what is your point?
作者: 熙官    時間: 2008-6-19 01:51

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: jacktychan1    時間: 2008-6-19 09:22     標題: Thanks for sharing

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: ivan99    時間: 2008-6-19 09:28

引用:
原帖由 熙官 於 2008-6-19 01:51 發表

Point? Post 段垃圾出來博你唔睇扮有point囉
一如過往，垃圾當有point，
本版規則
1) 請別單純下載新聞.

2) 如要下載新聞，必需要有個人的意見。若果無自己既opinion，可以搬去垃圾桶。

[ 本帖最後由 ivan99 於 2008-6-19 09:31 編輯 ]
作者: Manics    時間: 2008-6-19 10:32

引用:
原帖由 飛毛腿 於 2008-6-18 21:13 發表
講論點 ?

19. China’s present control over Tibet dates from 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet
and defeated the Tibetan Army at Chamdo. China claims that Tibet was already ...
某會員經常滿口仁義道德，原來又係偽善反共
腦殘一名。見到D人依家淨係可以搵D雞毛小蒜
既事發大黎搞，見到一兩篇西方文章就好似執
到金咁大鑼大鼓「教育」網友，好嘔囉。:bird:

又，想知究竟有幾多幫西藏爭取自由既外國人
真係知道西藏既地理位置同政教歷史，究竟有
幾多真係熟知西藏背景出於真心抗爭定還是只
係純粹借題發揮，滿足佢地年青反叛既心理？？？？？？？
作者: 熙官    時間: 2008-6-19 10:37

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-19 11:43

引用:
原帖由 ivan99 於 2008-6-19 09:28 發表

一如過往，垃圾當有point，
本版規則
1) 請別單純下載新聞.

2) 如要下載新聞，必需要有個人的意見。若果無自己既opinion，可以搬去垃圾桶。  
Well... at least these are written by me

"
話陳巧文之前, 你可會想一讀此文章 ?

    從國際法層面探討西藏可否自決 - 夏博義資深大律師
"

Word for word and information content is more than your response ...
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-19 11:44

引用:
原帖由 飛毛腿 於 2008-6-18 21:13 發表
講論點 ?

19. China’s present control over Tibet dates from 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet
and defeated the Tibetan Army at Chamdo. China claims that Tibet was already ...
Interesting start, lets investigate if he is right in this particular fact...

***
Searching the net revealed that ( from Wikipedia )

" People's Liberation Army first entered Chamdo on October 7 1950. The large number of units of the PLA quickly surrounded the outnumbered Tibetan forces, and by October 19 1950, 5,000 Tibetan troops had surrendered....."

***************
Also some very interesting fact that China Govt. issue Chinese passports to the trade Mission send out by Lhasa..

In 1947-49, Lhasa sent a "Trade Mission" led by the Tsepon (Finance Minister) W.D. Shakabpa to India, Hong Kong, Nanjing (then the capital of China), the U.S., and Britain. The visited countries were careful not to express support for the claim that Tibet was independent of China and did not discuss political questions with the mission. These Trade Mission officials entered China via Hong Kong with their newly issued Chinese passports that they applied at the Chinese Consulate in India and stayed in China for three months. Other countries did, however, allow the mission to travel using passports issued by the Tibetan government. The U.S. unofficially received the Trade Mission.

[ 本帖最後由 Rubber 於 2008-6-19 13:14 編輯 ]
作者: Rubber    時間: 2008-6-19 11:54

引用:
原帖由 CAB 於 2008-6-19 00:47 發表

So...what is your point?
The fact was S.C. Harris commissioned by "Hong Kong Lawyer" to research and wrote an article about Tibet.  However, the editorial board approved but then decided not to publish this article.

For the interest of debate and various viewpoint, which has been the success that make Hong Kong different from any other China city, I think it is better to let the reader decide.

When people yelled at Ms Chan How-man, did any really studied the ration behind.  And are there weakness in PRC's argument or any weakness in S.C. Harris argument ?

Discussion is something that distinguished civilized people and barbarian.  

[ 本帖最後由 Rubber 於 2008-6-19 13:16 編輯 ]
作者: COO    時間: 2008-6-19 12:26

「Discussion is something that distinguished civilized people and barbarian.」 also difference in weapons between ink and fists.
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-19 13:14

引用:
原帖由 Rubber 於 2008-6-19 11:54 發表


Discussion is something that distinguished civilized people and barbarian.    ...
國際法 ?
英國佬又唔好攞福克蘭島, 直布羅陀去國際法庭 ?
要萬里迢迢派兵同阿根廷打仗, 同西班牙紮馬

你講得冇錯呀
G 8 所謂工業發達國有邊個唔係靠打靠搶嘅強盜,  barbarian ?
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-19 13:27

無他嘅
自小由殖民地洋主子餵大嘅人好多都當洋人係絕對權威
洋人講嘅就當係真理
咁我都可以搵篇洋文去揭穿達賴喇嘛嘅所謂自治面具啦 :


Down with the Dalai Lama
Why do western commentators idolise a celebrity monk who hangs out with Sharon Stone and once guest-edited French Vogue?
       
o        Brendan O'Neill
o        guardian.co.uk,
o        Thursday May 29 2008

Has there ever been a political figure more ridiculous than the Dalai Lama? This is the "humble monk" who forswears worldly goods in favour of living a simple life dressed in maroon robes. Yet in 1992 he guest-edited French Vogue, the bible of the decadent high-fashion classes, which is packed with pictures of the half-starved daughters of the aristocracy modelling skirts and shirts that most of us could never afford.
He claims to be the current incarnation of the Tulkus line of Buddhist masters, who are "exempt from the wheel of death and rebirth". Yet he's best known for hanging out with clueless western celebs like Richard Gere and Sharon Stone (who is still most famous for showing her vagina on the big screen). Stone once introduced the Dalai Lama at a glittering fundraising ball as "Mr Please, Please, Please Let Me Back Into China!"
The Dalai Lama says he wants Tibetan autonomy and political independence. Yet he allows himself to be used as a tool by western powers keen to humiliate China. Between the late 1950s and 1974, he is alleged to have received around $15,000 a month, or $180,000 a year, from the CIA. He has also been, according to the same reporter, "remarkably nepotistic", promoting his brothers and their wives to positions of extraordinary power in his fiefdom-in-exile in Dharamsala, northern India.
He poses as the quirky, giggly, modern monk who once auctioned his Land Rover on eBay for $80,000 and has even done an advert for Apple (quite what skinny white computers have got to do with Buddhism is anybody's guess). Yet in truth he is a product of the crushing feudalism of archaic, pre-modern Tibet, where an elite of Buddhist monks treated the masses as serfs and ruthlessly punished them if they stepped out of line.

The Dalai Lama demands religious freedom. Yet he persecutes a Buddhist sect that worships a deity called Dorje Shugden. He outlawed praying to Dorje Shugden in 1996, and those who defied his writ were thrown out of their jobs, mocked in the streets and even had their homes smashed up by heavy-handed officials from his government-in-exile. When worshippers complained about their treatment, they were told by representatives of the Dalai Lama that "concepts like democracy and freedom of religion are empty when it comes to the wellbeing of the Dalai Lama".
As the Dalai Lama tours Britain, lots of people are asking: why won't Brown receive him at Downing Street? I have a different question: why should Brown, who for all his troubles is still the head of an elected political party, meet with an authoritarian, fame-chasing, Apple-loving monk?
The Dalai Lama has effectively been turned into a cartoon good guy. In America and western Europe, where backward anti-modern sentiments are widespread amongst self-loathing sections of the educated and the elite, the Dalai Lama has been embraced as a living, breathing representative of unsullied goodness. Despite the fact that he advertises Apple, guest-edits Vogue and drives a Land Rover, he is held up as evidence that living the simple eastern life is preferable to, in the words of Philip Rawson, westerners' "gradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions". Just as earlier generations of disillusioned aristocrats fell in love with a fictional version of Tibet (Shangri-La), so contemporary un-progressives idolise a fictional image of the Dalai Lama.
Most strikingly, the Dalai Lama is used as a battering ram by western governments in their culture war with China. The reason he is flattered by world leaders and bankrolled by the CIA is not because these institutions care very much for liberty in Tibet, but rather because they want to ratchet up international pressure on their new competitors in world politics: the Chinese. You don't have to be a defender of the authoritarian regime in Beijing (and I most certainly am not) to see that such global sabre-rattling is more likely to entrench tensions between the Tibetan people and China, and increase instability in world affairs, rather than herald anything like a new era of freedom in the east.
Far from "helping Tibet", the slavish western worshippers of the Dalai Lama are helping to stifle the development of a real, lively movement for liberty and democracy in the Tibetan regions. One author on the Tibetan independence movement argues that "the Dalai Lama's role as ultimate spiritual authority is holding back the political process of democratisation", since "the assumption that he occupies the correct moral ground from a spiritual perspective means that any challenge to his political authority may be interpreted as anti-religious".
At least one reason why the Dalai Lama can pose as "the ultimate spiritual authority" and all-round supreme leader of Tibetans and their future is because influential elements in the west have empowered him to play that role. In doing so, they have been complicit in the infantilisation of the Tibetan people. Tibetans now suffer the double horror of being ruled by undemocratic Chinese officials on one hand, and demeaned by the Dalai Lama and his western supporters on the other.

原文出處 :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen ... hthedalailamaSample
作者: 飛毛腿    時間: 2008-6-19 13:34

引用:
原帖由 Manics 於 2008-6-19 10:32 發表


又，想知究竟有幾多幫西藏爭取自由既外國人
真係知道西藏既地理位置同政教歷史，究竟有
幾多真係熟知西藏背景出於真心抗爭定還是只
係純粹借題發揮，滿足佢地年青反叛既心理？？？？？？？
...
腦功能正常又對中國歷史有少少認識
加上對國際政治形勢有些微認識
都知道答案
睇睇我上面篇洋文紅色部份就講出核心問題
當然博一夜成名嘅陳巧文, 恐共植物人等當然不包括在腦功能正常之列
作者: ivan99    時間: 2008-6-19 13:46

引用:
原帖由 Manics 於 2008-6-19 10:32 發表
想知究竟有幾多幫西藏爭取自由既外國人
真係知道西藏既地理位置同政教歷史，究竟有
幾多真係熟知西藏背景出於真心抗爭定還是只
係純粹借題發揮，滿足佢地年青反叛既心理？？？？？？？
想知究竟有幾多幫西藏爭取自由既外國人
真係知道西藏既地理位置同政教歷史---唔重要，究竟有幾多真係熟知西藏背景---唔重要；最重要係中國由共產黨管治，中國領導人是共產黨員，不是一人一票出來的，不是一人一票出來的對班洋奴來說就要反對。
作者: ivan99    時間: 2008-6-19 13:49

引用:
原帖由 飛毛腿 於 2008-6-19 13:34 發表


腦功能正常又對中國歷史有少少認識
加上對國際政治形勢有些微認識
都知道答案
睇睇我上面篇洋文紅色部份就講出核心問題
當然博一夜成名嘅陳巧文, 恐共植物人等當然不包括在腦功能正常之列
一夜成名嘅陳巧文，已身價升倍，目的已達。



歡迎光臨 香港 Xocat Forum 討論區 (http://p.xocat.com/p/) Powered by Discuz! 6.0.0