奧運聖火昨日香港傳遞，當然是大事件，在一貫正確光榮偉大、而且罵也罵不倒的組織之下，三數十名人事趁大事件時抗議，當然是大事件之下的小風景了。不過小風景奇峰突出，當然要予以報道，不過正如高官的演辭、市民的心聲要咬文嚼字，描述小風景的文字也得再三玩味－－我肯定是老朽了，在如此大事之前，只顧鑽研這些蠅頭小事。不過在大事件的論述鋪天蓋地之時，我這樣的小文字，又何妨？
不怎麼長篇累牘了，容我在這篇當文「拷貝」公：
《香港商報》A4版：示威者變過街老鼠
聖火熱潮傳遍香江，但仍有零星示威者在港九各處「冒險」示威。說他們是「冒險」，絕不為過。因為在一片愛國熱情高漲的人群中，示威者可說成為「過街老鼠」，到處被人指罵，尤幸在警方人員保護下，保障了他們的安全，部分人士更要由警車接走。
聖火尚未開始傳遞時，港大女學生陳巧文和數名外籍朋友，在尖沙咀柏麗大道展示支持藏獨的標語及旗幟，立即引起在場人士不滿，大批愛國市民更包圍他們，部分人高聲指罵示威者，又不斷高唱國歌和揮舞國旗，企圖在聲威上壓倒對方。雖然群眾都保持克制，但由於聲援人數繼續增多，警方為免場面失控釀成衝突，決定以人鏈分隔示威者和群眾，同時沒收示威旗幟和標語；但示威者仍不斷反抗，好像不知自己已犯眾怒，他們最後被警車接送離開現場．．．
．．．即使是反對派的立法會議員李柱銘、何俊仁、李卓人等人在人群中穿過，也不得不低下了頭；的確，反對派也許估不到，香港人的愛國熱情如此澎湃！
《成報》A5版：警方排眾「救」出支聯會成員 示威者猶如過街老鼠
多個團體趁著奧運聖火在香港傳送期間抗議，惟不得人心，所到處均被大批奧運支持者喝倒采，有人甚至帶備兩打雞蛋擬擲向支持西藏獨立的者，示威者成過街老鼠！其中，支聯會的遊行隊伍更被大批奧運支持者包圍，阻止前行。警方見狀，馬上手拖手築成人牆，把「護火者」與示威者隔開，惟情況愈來愈難控制，最終索性以警車載走示威者，以平息民憤。
《星島日報》A8版：成功阻隔示威確保順利傳送 3700警海陸空護聖火
本港為中國境內聖火傳送第一站，數以萬計市民和內地遊客熱烈歡迎聖火，而各地示威者亦趁機活動，警方嚴陣以待，動員三千七百名人員，展開海陸空保安行動，在中港人民自發性保護聖火安全下，昨日成功阻隔示威者活動，在不需使用武力下，令聖火在本港傳送的神聖任務圓滿完成。．．．
．．．消息稱，警方事前做足風險評估和預備，昨日更嚴陣以待防止有示威者生事，已部署以人牆或人鏈戰術，以人肉作圍牆阻隔示威者與群眾，避免衝突事件發生。
不料，事實在意料之外，示威者每當現身，即遭以百計歡迎聖火的群眾指罵和包圍，有情緒激動市民和內地遊客，欲以國旗桿打示威者，示威者以寡敵眾隨時捱打，警方急築人牆分隔雙方，人牆和人鏈戰術變為保護示威者，不需使用武力便完成保衛聖火傳送任務。
奧運聖火香港站傳遞展開，全城熱烈和應。不過，有示威者卻企圖利用這個歷史時刻的機會，宣揚「藏獨」、「要求中國改善人權」等訴求，但面對眾多支持京奧的市民一浪一浪的紅色旗海，一聲又一聲的「中國加油」、「支持北京奧運」的呼喚，一波又一波「不要將奧運政治化」的批評，他們陷入「四面楚歌」的窘境。．．．
常說：「我不贊成你說的任何一句話，但我誓死捍衛你說話的權利」。意見是表達了，報道也轉述了，不過這些小風景的文字，躍然而出的是一波又一波的嘲弄、訕笑，那才是恐怖的地方。
「寬容」(tolerance)是中國人至今都學不到的東西……
謝謝啊! 文「拷貝」公!
我覺得, 昨天有資格成為港觴日…
昨日支聯會所要表達的，亦都是與奧運相關的奧運精神，亦是北京政府申奧時所承諾，但未辨好的事，但昨天的香港，就是容不下這一丁點不同角度的聲音，証明港人在言論自由、包容不同意見方面，仍未成熟，我之前成日話中國政府在處理國際敏感問題上強差人意，今云我都要題醒 o下香港人，我們都要好好學習 o下！
尤其是要讚陳巧文，她以一界弱質女流，都夠膽在一片紅海中，甘冒扮演過街老鼠的角式，來表達出心中理念，那種勇氣，確實令一男兒漢汗顏，絕對值得我們敬佩！
今日的因，結明日的果。
今日不尊重別人表達意見，他朝所有表達意見的機會將會被扼殺。
这回怎么不说民意了？
（宽容）？你们又何常宽容过什么？
So the people has spoken. But wait, the people, it seems, has been brainwashed?!
WTF…
Is it possible that a Hongkong native loves (or even joined) the torch relay in Hongkong, but hates CCP, Beijing and SAR government? Is it possible that he is proud of free speech in Hongkong but think those so-called “democracy advocates” are just a bunch of shitheads? Is it possible that he believes it is essential for Hongkong to keep its independent legislative and economic institutions but also embrace the idea of “Great China Economic Zone”? So what do you call him?
The people has spoken. And the people is right.
「躍然而出的是一波又一波的嘲弄、訕笑，那才是恐怖的地方。」
反過來說，當大陸或者香港政府(尤其老董時代)發生什麼事的時候，
也不是一堆媒體跳出來訕笑嘲弄嗎?
要捍衛就要連別人嘲弄的權利也一併捍衛，這樣才叫得上是包容
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
我對「我不贊成你說的任何一句話，但我誓死捍衛你說話的權利」的理解一向是書生式的，因為我根本無法將「誓死捍衛」與「說話的權利」連在一起。但睇返當日片段，香港警方正是執行這句話當中「誓死捍衛你說話的權利」的部分，我才真正認識到說話的權利，其實必須用武力去維持，否則乜都冇得講。可惜執行者今次都俾人砌到開花。批評者是否葉公好龍？
表達意見，要有話語權，要佔用輿論空間，就必須爭取；越尖銳對立的意見表達，就越要爭取。要爭取就乜野都會發生，古今中外一樣，其間難分對、錯，文鬭以至武鬭，甚至犧牲個人利益、生命，亦等閒事也。所以，我認為發表負責任意見的人，必須有兩點先要注意：
a. 發表者是否令受眾感覺其言論正在侵佔他們的言論空間，甚或令言論平衡失序；
b. 發表者是否令受眾感覺冒犯，其言論是否已超越他們的「以眼還眼」的底線。
於此，我强調的是受眾的感覺，不是發表者的主觀想法。至於受眾的感覺、反應，以至反擊，是否合理、合法，當然會有公論或法規制衡，但這是後話。所以發表意見者，尤其係尖銳的對立意見，不小心事先衡量得失，只是事後埋怨，是有d天真、無知。將自已認為對的意見、價值觀加諸對方，以為真理我有，是另一種野蠻。今日C老板喺730都有d類似討論。
咁咪冇言論自由囉？事實上，喺許多地方，言論係有禁忌的。喺美國，反猶太、反以色列的言論極難見光；喺歐洲，有d言論要立法禁止，例子：
「司法部長齊普里斯周一透露，. .」「齊普里會於周一至周二在德累斯頓的會議，游說歐盟成員支持建立針對種族及仇外主義的刑事法典。她說：『我們不能接受仍有人在歐洲說600萬猶太人並沒死於納粹屠殺。立法雖引起言論自由爭議，我們相信言論自由也有限制，就是不能冒犯其他宗教及種族。』」(http://www.mingpaovan.com/htm/News/20070116/ttae1.htm)
言論也算是一種武器。弱小個體、民族常賴之以抗衡强大敵人的有效手段，甚至不惜以生命換取這種表達的渠道。中國「大國崛起」，當然不用或不屑為之，但中東諸國，樂此不疲。在＜中東現場＞，張翠容這樣說：「以哈瑪斯為首. . 開始廣泛採取自殺式炸彈襲擊的手段，. . 是讓世人聆聽他們政治訴求的最有效方式，同時亦是對恃強凌弱的西方霸權一種最悲壯的控訴。」
K大女生喺呢個為內地大部分中國人視之為頭等大事的場合，公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛，如果佢冇準備作一d個人利益的放棄、犧牲，是對其言論負責的一種輕率態度，如果不是為了做show，就是太無知了。唔排除兩者都有。
Jacky的貼文，有意思，不過我認為這只是一教室例子。歷史上(我先聲明我的歷史知識水平低)得天下者，大都是憑“I came, I conquer”；未打先投降、靠嚇就得天下的例子不多，除咗捷克，德國可以不動一兵之外，去到波蘭，已經要打餐飽。中國就更加唔駛講。國家之興亡，大都物先腐而後虫生，與keep silent無關：”A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
@路過
好像沒有人說這些報紙無權發表言論吧？
如果政府不喜歡它們，說要把它們關閉，我贊成要去捍衛它們的發言權，但它們好好的存在著，沒有面臨倒閉的危險，也沒有人威脅它們．
請問要捍衛它們的甚麼呢？
Mum says “表達意見，要有話語權，要佔用輿論空間，就必須爭取；越尖銳對立的意見表達，就越要爭取。要爭取就乜野都會發生，古今中外一樣，其間難分對、錯，文鬭以至武鬭，甚至犧牲個人利益、生命，亦等閒事也。所以，我認為發表負責任意見的人，必須有兩點先要注意：
a. 發表者是否令受眾感覺其言論正在侵佔他們的言論空間，甚或令言論平衡失序；
b. 發表者是否令受眾感覺冒犯，其言論是否已超越他們的「以眼還眼」的底線。
於此，我强調的是受眾的感覺，不是發表者的主觀想法。至於受眾的感覺、反應，以至反擊，是否合理、合法，當然會有公論或法規制衡，但這是後話。所以發表意見者，尤其係尖銳的對立意見，不小心事先衡量得失，只是事後埋怨，是有d天真、無知。將自已認為對的意見、價值觀加諸對方，以為真理我有，是另一種野蠻。今日C老板喺730都有d類似討論。”
I think the two pre-conditions that you have added to allow people to invoke the freedom of speech completely invalidate said freedom. If every opposing voice must consider how receptive the majority is to its message before they are allowed to speak, then effectively we have no freedom of speech to speak of. The definition of opposition is that it runs counter to the received wisdom of the mainstream; and if we are only allowed an “opposition” when it’s palatable to the mainstream, it’s no longer an opposition then, is it? Yet the creation of a viable opposition (or oppositions) is the prerequisite in any effectively-functioning democratic society. Without opposition, we’re just back to authoritarian rule, and I cannot believe that there are Hong Kong people who could claim to love their country and yet cheer authoritarian practices.
Mum also says, “事實上，喺許多地方，言論係有禁忌的。喺美國，反猶太、反以色列的言論極難見光；喺歐洲，有d言論要立法禁止，例子：
「司法部長齊普里斯周一透露，. .」「齊普里會於周一至周二在德累斯頓的會議，游說歐盟成員支持建立針對種族及仇外主義的刑事法典。她說：『我們不能接受仍有人在歐洲說600萬猶太人並沒死於納粹屠殺。立法雖引起言論自由爭議，我們相信言論自由也有限制，就是不能冒犯其他宗教及種族。』」(http://www.mingpaovan.com/htm/News/20070116/ttae1.htm)”
You’re confusing the existence of taboo topics in any society with the limits on the freedom of speech. Actually, it is precisely because there are taboo topics (e.g. sex, religion, race, and politics being the usual fields within which such topics occur) that it is extra important that freedom of speech is protected. So that, for example, investigative journalists who try to uncover war crimes by their own governments or deceptions by corporates would not be hushed because such reportage are considered to be contrary to government agenda / mainstream interests.
Yet “free speech” should NOT be confused with “hate speech” (which the examples that you have cited, especially regarding the laws passed to persecute those holocaust deniers in countries like Austria and Germany). Sprouting clear lies about historical facts (like maintaining that the Holocaust was a pure fabrication; or like those far-right Japanese commentators who maintained that the Nanking masacre didn’t exist), or promoting crackpot theories of racial superiority (like the KKK) is not an exercise in free speech - in fact, it’s the complete opposite. This is not about you having a different opinion or political stance from the mainstream - this is about you persisting in fabrication and deception for your own propaganda purposes. Those who engage in these - by they simply individual Holocaust deniers, or organisations promoting racial hatred, or governments outright lie about WMD in their war propaganda, or mainstream media misrepresenting facts on the ground - all ALL engaging in practices that DESTROY freedom of speech (which depends on availability of information for people to form informed opinions about events). To confuse these despicable practices with exercising free speech is a sick joke.
And it’s sicker still as apparently that is the viewpoint argued by one of the HK newspaper editorials.
To snowdrops.
While noting views from a person who is supposed to have learned and understood some Chinese characters in a remote country, I wish to set the record straight first. (a) 受眾stands usually for recipients, or audience, but not necessarily the majority of a community; hence their views may not be the majority’s. (b) 必須有兩點先要注意should better be interpreted as two points to note beforehand, but not two pre-conditions.
Nothing has been mentioned in my post that pre-conditions are required for making a speech. People who wish to make speeches in particular those carrying hostile messages are reminded to note the two points beforehand, or they would have to bite the bullet.
“To confuse these despicable practices with exercising free speech is a sick joke.” This is not a joke, I’m afraid. It’s totally beyond the depth of many Chinese to understand why those events mentioned can be made to fall within the protective zone of “despicable practices”, “taboo topics” and “hate speech”, but喺呢個為內地大部分中國人視之為頭等大事的場合，公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛, seemingly an action in the course of 冒犯其他宗教及種族 and doubtlessly a harsh sound, an uncouth message offending the ears and the eyes of the Mainland Chinese in the occasion treasured the most by them all, is taken simply as an issue on freedom of speech in the eye of an overseas Chinese, or a non-Chinese.
Bias often causes blindness, and vice versa. Not meaning to be rude, I must say that the same ignorance which renders you incapable of conceiving or embracing the useful restraints of being fair and just to all peoples, irrespective of race, country of origin, etc, exposes you naked and unarmed to the blind terrors of superstition on the western culture and value.
I take the liberty of thanking the blog master for his hospitality to allow the continued freedom of my humble views.
都說留言都比原文精采，確然。
最要多謝的，是Mum與Snowdrops的論辯，令我對事件再多一個觀看的角度。我當日寫這篇東西，是因為我那天早上看不同的報章，對於那種完全漠視新聞寫作需客觀的規則的做法太感驚訝，所以要在這裡留下一個紀錄。
不過之後工作事忙，一直都沒有時間回顧這裡，卻換來Mum多謝我容許對方自由發表意見的感謝，真是錯打正著了。當然，我對留言都是一概歡迎的，沒有甚麼禁制不禁制的。
不過對於一些讀後，還是令我摸不著頭腦的留言，或者希望這些人可以再留言說過明白，這樣對溝通應該是有幫助的。
(Arrgh, I just typed up a lengthy response and it got “eaten” by the browser!!)
I want to thank “Mum” for your lengthy rebuttal. (However, I could not bring myself to thank you for your condescension that I “learned and understood some Chinese characters in a remote country.” Don’t make any assumptions when you don’t know the background of the speaker, is all I can say).
Anyway, I want to thank you for setting the record straight that the two points you’ve stated are for consideration only and are not meant to be treated as pre-conditions before anyone can have the right to freedom of speech. However, I must say that it certainly read that way to me when you are asserting that the protestors got what they deserve (which was that their right to free speech was taken away when they have to be physically removed from the area due to threats of bodily violence from the crowd) in your original comment.
You wrote: “It’s totally beyond the depth of many Chinese to understand why those events mentioned can be made to fall within the protective zone of “despicable practices”, “taboo topics” and “hate speech”, but喺呢個為內地大部分中國人視之為頭等大事的場合，公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛, seemingly an action in the course of 冒犯其他宗教及種族 and doubtlessly a harsh sound, an uncouth message offending the ears and the eyes of the Mainland Chinese in the occasion treasured the most by them all, is taken simply as an issue on freedom of speech in the eye of an overseas Chinese, or a non-Chinese.”
I very much disagree with your contention that supporting Tibetan autonomy is made equivalent to “公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛”. Do remember that Tibet has NEVER invaded China (quite the opposite in fact), and I found it distasteful and disingenious the conflation of the indigenous Tibetans’ call for human rights and autonomy with the Western powers’ invasion of China. Up to March 14th riots, the Tibetans have not hurt the Han Chinese in any way, and the riots were stoked by ugly rumours that the Chinese authorities were locking up and torturing Tibetan monks during their earlier protests, for which you could blame foreign “anti-China forces”, but which is also the result of the ill-advised media black-out engineered by the Chinese government itself.
In any case, it is really quite a stretch for you to claim that supporting Tibetan human rights and autonomy is equivalent to 冒犯其他宗教及種族. I have never heard a Tibetan protestor insult the Chinese people themselves or denigrate their religion. On the contrary, it is the Communist Party who has consistently denigrated the Dalai Lama as evil, branded Tibetan Buddhism as an unscientific and silly faith and insulted the Tibetan people as uncouth and their way of life as backward. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to when Tibetan protestors have actually used insulting language to describe the Chinese people with specific examples? (And please don’t trot out Cafferty’s “goons and thugs” remark from CNN, because Cafferty is not affiliated with the Tibetan cause the Western media’s racist bias should NOT be blamed on the Tibetans themselves).
You also wrote “Not meaning to be rude, I must say that the same ignorance which renders you incapable of conceiving or embracing the useful restraints of being fair and just to all peoples, irrespective of race, country of origin, etc, exposes you naked and unarmed to the blind terrors of superstition on the western culture and value.”
Sorry to have to break it to you, but you were indeed rude. And what do you mean by “blind terrors of superstition”??? Again you are making lots of unwarranted and uncalled-for assumptions about my background. I for one believe in secularism - i.e. the separation of Church and State - but I also believe in the rights of the people to practice their own religions and not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious backgrounds. Sadly, the right to practice their own religion is not extended to the Tibetans (and before you point out that there are many temples that have been rebuilt by the Communists, please realise that it is only the State-sanctioned version of Tibetan Buddhism - without the Dalai Lama - that is allowed. Similar to the millions of Chinese “Catholics” who have to severe links with the Vatican). Please do a bit more research yourself into the extent of freedom and autonomy enjoyed by the Tibetans before you label your opponents as “ignorant”.
(Oh forgot to insert the following paragraph in my above reply to “Mum” - this is meant to follow the 2nd paragraph above):
In any case, while I understood of course that “受眾” meant “recipients, or audience, but not necessarily the majority of a community”; but here (as your own argument also shows), the audience in this case IS the majority. So I don’t see how your comment could derail my argument that opposing voices should be allowed even when it is unpalateable to the majority.
Last but not least, thanks Alex also for allowing this debate to continue (and apologies for not being able to follow up until now).
And is it possible NOT to have the Wordpress browser automatically save my settings? Because it’s not displaying the “security code” that is required for me to submit a comment, thus I lost my writing several times and it was only after numerous attempts that I got it to work. (Though this is probably a problem with my own browser than with Wordpress per se…).
(Sorry, the below is actually another point that I had made in my original “eaten” response but which I didn’t manage to include in the above comments):
“Mum” wrote: “It’s totally beyond the depth of many Chinese to understand why those events mentioned can be made to fall within the protective zone of “despicable practices”, “taboo topics” and “hate speech”
I’ve re-read that passage several times, and forgive me if I don’t quite get what you’re getting at. Because I have NEVER stated that “taboo topics” / “descipable practices” / “hate speech” fall into any so-called “protective zones”!!! On the contrary, I stated that it is FREE SPEECH THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF TABOO TOPICS!!! I have never argued for taboos or hate speech to be protected, I mean, WTF??? Please don’t twist my words. If I want “hate speech” protected, I wouldn’t call such practices “despicable” now would I???
You seem to understand English, so please don’t twist my assertions to make the exact opposite point of what I intended.