Board logo

標題: 港大生控警禁錮理據足 3人遭6警監視 困5呎丁方1小時 [打印本頁]
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-23 18:37     標題: 港大生控警禁錮理據足 3人遭6警監視 困5呎丁方1小時

http://news.mingpao.com/20110824/gaa1.htm

港大生控警禁錮理據足
3人遭6警監視 困5呎丁方1小時

【明報專訊】3名大學生於上周四國務院副總理李克強到訪港大時在校園示威，被警方強行推入一座教學樓的後樓梯，在梯間一處只有5呎半乘5呎的狹窄空間，被多名警員和港大保安「圍困」1小時，不准離開。其中一名港大學生李成康接受本報訪問時證實，已經尋求法律意見，相信警員行動已構成「非法禁錮」，考慮申請法援，刑事起訴警方或民事索償，並歡迎港大法律學院提供協助。

已尋法律意見 考慮申法援

獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會表示，對於警方處理國家領導人訪港的安排深表關注，監警會日前直接收到一宗來自新聞機構投訴，已轉介投訴警察課處理，以及交由嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進及審核。

當日協調學生示威的港大學生事務長周偉立昨開腔批評警方在港大的保安限制，將典禮場內師生與示威學生「撕裂」；警方則強調，3名學生因進入保安區，被警員移入後樓梯，然後交保安處理（見另稿）。

李克強上周四到港大陸佑堂出席百周年典禮，一批大學生在逾百米外示威，其中3人從梁銶琚樓底層後樓梯步出，打算會合戶外示威的學生，卻被警員和保安「圍困」（見圖）。



本報記者昨與涉及事件的3名學生，包括港大學生李成康、嶺大學生鄧建華和理大學生黃佳鑫回到現場「重組案情」。李成康憶述，當時他們試圖先後打開後樓梯兩道防煙門，步出底層泊有警車的停車道，逾10名警員隨即上前阻止。李成康稱向警員表示「希望通過太古橋，會合示威學生」，但遭對方拒絕。後來一名白衣警員指揮約10名警員「推」學生回去後梯，李成康當時高呼「天理何在」並被傳媒追訪，其間，鄧建華和黃佳鑫倒在後梯兩道防煙門之間，一名警員立即把門關上，阻止傳媒拍攝。

1小時後警指示﹕佢懐走得喇


港大生李成康（右）表示，上周四與理大生黃佳鑫（左）及嶺大生鄧建華，被警方推入後樓梯，困於兩道防煙門之間達1小時，3人正考慮是否申請法援，控告警方非法禁錮。

李成康稱，警員關門後，另一邊的防煙門亦有警員把守，6名警員走進兩道門間大約5呎乘5呎半、面積約27平方呎的狹窄空間，貼身監視3人。李成康說，3人被「禁錮」時，多次查問警員職位及被困原因，警員拒絕回覆。警員約20分鐘後撤出，由7名保安代替「包圍」工作。學生曾要求打開前門「轁氣」亦不得要領，在侷促的空間內被「禁錮」達1小時，直至門外警員向保安示意說「佢懐走得喇」，保安才帶領他們返回平台。

李成康證實昨晚就事件會見律師，律師指「表面證據也反映警員無理禁錮」。他透露會在數日內研究申請法援，刑事起訴警方或民事索償，歡迎港大法律學院協助。

立法會議員兼大律師陳淑莊說，警方在事發場地欠合理解釋拘留學生，令學生人身自由受侵害，或已構成非法禁錮，她鼓勵學生從法律途徑爭取公義。大律師陸偉雄指出，非法禁錮最基本原則是，當受害者意願是希望離開某一個環境，而企圖離開時受阻撓，阻撓除了是言語，也可是肢體動作，令受害者感到恐嚇。他說﹕「當警員向保安示意『佢懐走得喇』，可用作推論『即係之前唔走得』，亦有助學生們立論。」

明報記者 鄭穎瑩 蕭輝浩 錢瑋琪 周婷

作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-23 21:04

I didn't realize the students protested only 100 meters away from 陸佑堂. Was it true it was that closed?  Of course it will be way too closed to 核心保安區 la.  

I was surprised students were allowed to get that closed.
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-23 21:16

回復 2# rockypath

Just curious, how can you "justify" 100 meters is too close for protest? In HK, 100 meters can be couple blocks away already...
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-23 21:24

That was another batch of students protesting. You can say they are "too close" to 李克強, but that still leaves too many questions unanswered:

1) How do you define "too close", and exactly how large is this "core security zone"? The police gave no guidelines nor indication prior to or during the event. If you do not announce or at least coordinate with the protesters, how is anyone going to know? This "core security zone" would just become however big you say it is. For all I care, they police could simply define the entire HKU campus as core security zone without informing anyone at all. Either way, the outcome is still unacceptable.

2) Why should 李克強 be spared from any protests at all? GWB went through a nearly identical situation at Yale back in 2001, and he was assaulted by all sorts of protests at the ceremony hall.

3) The HKU + PolyU students were not 100m away from 陸佑堂, but that has no bearing on how the police has no right to unlawfully confine them in that tiny staircase room. Furthermore, let's not forget that the police knocked/pushed the student down onto the ground when the student has clearly done nothing other than verbal protests. Just since when can the police use physical force like that without getting their a$$ sued?

Don't try to steer the topic away. This is about the police committing an act of unlawful confinement as part of the extreme measures they have taken to clamp down on the freedom of speech.

-Lik
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-23 22:14

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-23 22:33 編輯

I am not going to comment on whether the police’s actions were lawful. I am not a judge neither a lawyer. Let the judge to determine whether the actions were lawful.

“100 meter is too closed to the core security zone” is my own opinion based on:

1.        How easy it is to initiate an attack from that distance if an attack is successfully initiated (I am pretty confident that I can throw a grenade to that distance (plus the rolling distance of course ) );

2.        How serious the impacts of an attack can create if it is successfully launched;

3.        I experienced the tension of security enforcements in two meetings involving national leaders of different countries (I was in the outer security zone, and the core security zoon was certainly not 100 meters. Even every high place such buildings and towers  in the outer security zone was checked and secured 2 days before the meeting to ensure no attack can be launched from there). To protect the rights of ordinary citizens is certainly not their top priority.
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-23 22:18

And thus you avoided every single question of mine. Good job~
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-23 22:22

I have no intention to answer your questions and I just shared my opinions.

However, I believed I had answered your questions directly or indirectly depending on how you want to interpret what I said.
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-23 23:07

[youtube]3mrVHTf7yKo[/youtube]
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 01:14

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-24 01:20 編輯

可圈可點之處就是 － “可能”違法。I believe he knows what he is saying and it is mainly a tactic to deal with the pressure (this is just my opinion and not necessary the fact).

If the students decide to sue the government, good luck. Sorry to say - "I am expecting the students to lose the case".

Well, there are laws counter each other. For example, you certainly have the ownership to your property and the law protect your belongs. However, the government can take away your property without any compensation under some specific conditions and its authority is granted by the law as well (and you had done nothing wrong on your side).

I am expecting you to provide financial support to the students if they decide to sue the government. Will you?
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 08:14

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-24 08:29 編輯

回復 5# rockypath

Mr. Rock - Are you serious you can throw a gernade 100m without using a launcher? FYI - a "trained" soldier can "normally" hand throw a gernade in the range of 40m-50m.

In addition, it's "difficult" to transport illegal weapons to HK (pistols may be, but certainly not others)... I believe the attack is very likely initiated by the PLA since they are the easiest group that can have such chance...

P.S. - Have you watched movies or played counterstrike too much these days... If you are confident you can throw the gernade to hit a 100m target within the gernade attack zone, I would think you are a member of Snow Leopard...
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 08:29

回復  rockypath

Mr. Rock - Are you serious you can throw a gernade 100m without using a launcher?  ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-24 08:14


I remember I can throw a grenade cross the width of a soccer field. I just checked the size of the field. Yes, the distance I can throw is within 50 meters.

Didn't I say "plus the rolling distance"?  It should be close enough la if it is not 100 meter exactly ....     

Well, I would like to see the students to sue the government. Just let the court to make a ruling.
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 08:32

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-24 08:33 編輯

回復 11# rockypath

Come on come on , let the gernade rolling for 50m and it's not even explode yet... That gernade must be an OEM made in China...
作者: sheep    時間: 2011-8-24 08:33

I remember I can throw a grenade cross the width of a soccer field. I just checked the size of the ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-8-24 08:29



    加埋你百米助跑
應該唔止咁近
一定超過二百公尺
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 08:35

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-8-24 08:37 編輯

回復 13# sheep

HK police are not paper cops, they will not allow you to run 100m straight... If you can make it, you are having a good potential to develop your career as a football player...
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 08:36

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-24 08:42 編輯
回復  rockypath

Come on come on , let the gernade rolling for 50m and it's not even explode ye ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-24 08:32


Why don't  you justify 100 meter is a safe enough distance to prevent any possible attack giving throwing a grenade is not an option (since no one can throw 100 meters)?  



hmmm.... can a grenade roll down a slope or roof top for 50 meters or its explosion (damage) area make up that 50 meter shortage? just kidding.  
作者: sheep    時間: 2011-8-24 08:38

去多倫多 blue jays 學做投手
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 08:43

去多倫多 blue jays 學做投手
sheep 發表於 2011-8-24 08:38


投得遠不代表投得准投得快。
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 08:47

回復 15# rockypath

It also depends on the security size too...

To ensure safety, they should provide a tank for Mr Lee... otherwise he will be attack by a UAV helicopter...
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 08:50

回復  rockypath

It also depends on the security size too...

To ensure safety, they should provide ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-24 08:47


You are not answering my question directly. Why are you so confident that 100 meter is a safe enough distance?
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-24 09:33

收皮啦，契弟～ 依家係大律師公會出來兜口兜面咁摑你、禿鷹曾、同所有認同核心保安區呢件垃圾嘅人兩巴呀！

http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/express ... 10824_55_779520.htm
大 律 師 公 會 稱 警 方 設 核 心 保 安 區 沒 法 理 依 據
2011-08-24 HKT 21:54

因 應 副 總 理 李 克 強 早 前 訪 港 的 保 安 安 排 ， 大 律 師 公 會 發 表 聲 明 ， 稱 警 方 設 立 「 核 心 保 安 區 」 並 無 法 理 依 據 ， 保 護 政 要 避 免 因 公 眾 表 達 意 見 遇 到 尷 尬 的 理 由 ， 顯 然 理 據 不 足 。 公 會 又 稱 示 威 、 遊 行 及 新 聞 自 由 在 憲 法 上 得 到 保 障 。

公 會 要 求 保 安 局 及 警 方 公 開 交 代 有 關 保 安 措 施 、 限 制 言 論 、 遊 行 示 威 及 採 訪 的 法 理 依 據 。
作者: chunsh    時間: 2011-8-24 09:38

要靠別人供錢﹐供糧﹐供水仲o甘很多小動作, 學人反社會, 反領導
有"籌碼"先同人講數啦
作者: ricrick    時間: 2011-8-24 09:50

本帖最後由 ricrick 於 2011-8-24 09:56 編輯

在公平公正的社會，表達意見為何要"籌碼"？
表達意見根本是每人應有的權利
聽取民意，是政府的責任

你有這樣的想法，可反影香港已慢慢變得封閉及獨裁化了
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 10:50

回復 22# ricrick

Agree x 2

Public demonstration should be part of the youth, most late 60's & 70's do lack that in their growth...
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 11:25

收皮啦，契弟～ 依家係大律師公會出來兜口兜面咁摑你、禿鷹曾、同所有認同核心保安區呢件垃圾嘅人兩巴呀！
...
Lik 發表於 2011-8-24 09:33


何必在此跳草裙舞？ 不如直接告政府顯得有誠意。 發什麼聲明？ 夠料就告，那才是真正為民請命而不是令人感到有抽水的嫌疑。

我相信阿力就算不能出力，也一定會出錢支持。

我也支持他們告政府，但只是精神上支持。讓法官去判好了，總比讓每個香港人自己做法官自己隨個人喜好來裁定要好得多。
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-8-24 11:28

回復  rockypath

Come on come on , let the gernade rolling for 50m and it's not even explode yet... That gernade must be an OEM made in China...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-24 08:32


More likely OEM made in Canada.
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 11:57

回復 25# peter236

Which arsenal in Canada do produce OEM gernade? Thanks for letting me know...
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-8-24 12:13

回復 19# rockypath

To be honest, 100m safety distance is way more than necessary.
30m - 50m should be appropriate in terms of providing security to the VIPs and a buffer zone for the protest group (the safety distance is just one of the many safety measures (bag check, ID check..., etc) that's been applied), providing the police force available that day at HKU...
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 12:29

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-24 12:35 編輯
回復  rockypath

To be honest, 100m safety distance is way more than necessary.
30m - 50m should be ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-24 12:13


Based on what criteria you come to the conclusion that 100 meter is more than enough?

To me, 100 meter is too close based on the reasons I already stated and personal experiences. Will you object the actions of checking and securing residential buildings before and during the international summit of national leaders in the outer security zone is unnecessary? The security enforcement certainly quite 擾民 during that period of time.

Honestly speaking, I don't think the actions of HK police are unnecessarily over the limit (even though people like Lik certainly will not agree with me).

Different people have different opinions and that it is why I support the suggestion of suing the government and let the judge to make a ruling.
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-8-24 12:32

回復  peter236

Which arsenal in Canada do produce OEM gernade? Thanks for letting me know...  ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-8-24 11:57

Canada does not have much technology to produce, dues to low level of military technology knowledge.
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-24 12:47

To me, 100 meter is too close based on the reasons I already stated and personal experiences. Will you object the actions of checking and securing residential buildings before and during the international summit of national leaders in the outer security zone is unnecessary? The security enforcement certainly quite 擾民 during that period of time.

Honestly speaking, I don't think the actions of HK police are unnecessarily over the limit (even though people like Lik certainly will not agree with me).
rockypath 發表於 2011-8-24 12:29

Obviously, you know shxt about the law. As a matter of fact, I'd say you can't judge what is reasonable and what isn't, nor do you have any common sense at all. All you know is, whatever stance that can help shine Grandfather's shoe is the stance you'll take.

http://news.mingpao.com/20110825/gaa1.htm

大律師公會轟保安區違法
5頁強硬聲明 指警設「禁區」須先刊憲

【明報專訊】警方上星期以保護副總理李克強訪港為名，在麗港城及香港大學設「保安區」限制示威，爆發法治危機。繼有學生研控告被警員「非法禁錮」，大律師公會昨發表強硬聲明，直指所謂「核心保安區」全無法律基礎，「若為了避免政治人物尷尬而限制示威，做法明顯不恰當」，公會敦促政府，全盤公開交代警方當時作出妨礙市民示威和傳媒採訪權的法理依據。

3大學願助禁錮學生

此外，除港大正協助於示威中被「禁錮」的港大學生李成康，另外兩名當時同被困後梯的理大學生黃佳鑫及嶺大學生鄧建華，理大和嶺大證實，已就事件聯絡他們的學生了解情，由學生事務處跟進。

警方發言人表示，有責任保護訪港政要安全，在進行風險評估後，警方會制訂執行安保行動，包括在保安區內實施管制措施，以確保政要的安全。警方執行細節時，會與有關地點負責保安的單位商討，每次進行大型行動後都會檢討，和考慮地點管理單位的意見。

李克強上周訪港三天，警方在他下榻的灣仔君悅酒店、進行家訪的麗港城，以及出席港大百周年慶典的港大校園俱設有「保安區」，限制市民示威和採訪（見表）。警務處長曾偉雄上周回應一名穿六四T恤的男子在麗港城被捕時說﹕「這位市民當日出現在核心保安區裏面，相信他想示威，了解後將他帶離，目的是確保受保護政要的安全。」

「倘僅為免政要尷尬 基礎不恰當」

不過，大律師公會昨發表長達5頁聲明，指特區政府有義務保障市民和平示威權利和傳媒採訪自由，指警方所謂的保安區或核心保安區，沒任何法律基礎，直指「這類字眼並無在任何香港法例中出現」。

聲明指出，警方有權引用《公安條例》，設「指定公眾地點」和「禁區」，但事前要由特首頒布及刊憲，讓市民事前清楚知道禁區界線和自律，禁區的實施亦應合乎實際需要。聲明說，若保安區是「為了避免政治人物因要面對不同意見人士發表意見而感到尷尬，這明顯無恰當基礎」。

就3名學生在港大示威被警方「禁錮」後梯，港大法律學院院長陳文敏昨出席港大開學禮後表示「連日來看到警方都出現了一些憲制問題」，他說﹕「學生手無寸鐵，警方困3人欠合理理由，不讓他們離開，令學生感覺到驚嚇，已足夠構成非法禁錮。」

他認為，警方或已超越法律賦予的權力，必須公開交代，若學生考慮從民事訴訟索償，校方會全力支持。事件中的港大生李成康表示，當日根本不知學校有設定警方所指的保安區，他說﹕「怎知幾時踏入、何時踏出了保安範圍？」因此，若警方在沒有刊憲下設定區域，他們或會就此提出司法覆核。

警接7投訴 監警會將促警交代

警方的投訴警察課表示，至今收到7宗有關李克強訪港期間的保安措施投訴。監警會主席翟紹唐表示，對警方的保安措施引起市民不滿，感到遺憾，認為不少投訴涉及公眾利益，監警會有必要跟進。他說，收到一家電視台投訴警方懷疑阻礙採訪，由於事態嚴重，已交由嚴重投訴委員會跟進。翟紹唐已要求警方盡快交代其他投訴內容，監警會將於下周四與警方舉行例行公開會議，相信屆時會有委員要求警方交代。

作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-24 12:48

http://news.mingpao.com/20110825/gaa2.htm

陳文敏﹕倘裁警違法 意義大於實際



【明報專訊】港大法律學院院長陳文敏及大律師公會昨日相繼出招，質疑警方上周的保安行動違法，由法律專家點出問題核心，下周舉行的立法會保安事務委員會特別會議亦因而有了焦點，避免流於警方與議員自說自話。對警方而言，要將民意和輿論從示威者一邊拉回來，一點也不容易，最低限度，先要回答大律師公會昨日提出的5個基本問題。

公會在5頁聲明向警方提出5問﹕1. 在港大和麗港城設立保安區，法理依據何在？2. 限制兩地點的示威活動，法理依據何在？3. 限制記者採訪自由，法理依據何在？ 4. 即使有法理依據，警方限制言論、集會、示威自由的具體行動，是否又符合法律規定？5. 警察所設的限制是否具備合理目的？具體行動又是否必要？

大律師公會的質疑，主要是集中警方行動是否具有法律基礎。事實上，《警隊條例》雖賦予警方權力截停及拘留行動可疑的人士，但陳文敏解釋，法院過去的案例清楚指出，警方行使有關權力時必須要合理（reasonable），而行動本身亦須與目的相稱（proportionate），觀乎今次李克強訪港期間警方的部署，無論是警力或者封鎖範圍都超出實際所需，超出了《警隊條例》所賦予的範圍。

陳文敏解釋，事件中的同學，目前可考慮向監警會投訴，或直接控告警務處長，要求法院宣布警方行動構成非法禁錮，不過，由於案件屬民事性質，即使法庭裁定警方行動違法，亦是象徵意義大於實際，很可能只會有象徵式賠償。但只要法庭作出有關裁決，警方必然要面對政治後果。
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 12:59

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-24 13:01 編輯
Obviously, you know shxt about the law. As a matter of fact, I'd say you can't judge what is reasonable and what isn't, nor do you have any common sense at all. All you know is, whatever stance that can help shine Grandfather's shoe is the stance you'll take.
Lik 發表於 2011-8-24 12:47


Here we go again. The idiot will never learn the lesson.

Right from the beginning, I had said I knew shxt about the law - "I am not a judge neither a lawyer" (direct quote of my own word).

Apparently, you certainly know a whole lot of SHXT about the law.

Why don't you just sue the HK government since you know a whole lot of SHXT instead of barking like a headless mad dog here?




P.S.      告政府告政府，唔告就係正衰公。   
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-24 13:22

Right from the beginning, I had said I knew shxt about the law - "I am not a judge neither a lawyer" (direct quote of my own word).

Apparently, you certainly know a whole lot of SHXT about the law.
rockypath 發表於 2011-8-24 12:59

It's ok to know shxt about the details of the law. However, it is not ok to have zero common sense AND it is not ok to lack even the most basic sense to differentiate between right and wrong.

Given that the HK Bar Association has given you a nice clean big slap on your face, perhaps you ought to learn to shut up when you clearly don't know shxt about what you are talking about.

-Lik
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 13:36

回復 33# Lik

I have stated my position again, again and again. It is you who do not understand what I said sine your brain is filled with shxt.

Just sue the government la instead of continuing 跳草裙舞.
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-24 13:41

回復  Lik

I have stated my position again, again and again. It is you who do not understand what I ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-8-24 13:36

I have stated my position again and again -- when you don't know shxt, or when you are only gonna suck on Grandfather's toes, you might as well just shut the fxxk up.

Naturally, I don't expect you to understand any of this since your brain is completely filled with shxt (and Grandfather's propaganda).

-Lik
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 13:48

回復 35# Lik

Just answer my question directly pitiful coward - why did you keep avoiding support the option of suing the government and let the judge to make a ruling?  

Remember - lawyer is lawyer and not a judge. Their opinions are just their positions but not the ruling.

告政府，告政府，阿力寧願做衰公也不敢告政府。
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-8-24 13:56

LOL~ What makes you think I am against suing the SAR government and HK Gung On Dept on this matter?

You are more blind and stupid than I thought!

-Lik
作者: ricrick    時間: 2011-8-24 14:05

作為一個人都應該明白為何要保護自己的自由及權利
作為一隻狗就不需要了，夠忠心，有得食，有得屙就得啦
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 14:50

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-24 15:00 編輯
作為一個人都應該明白為何要保護自己的自由及權利
作為一隻狗就不需要了，夠忠心，有得食，有得屙就得啦 ...
ricrick 發表於 2011-8-24 14:05


Are you talking about yourself? Have you guys ever respected the rights and freedom of other people？  Lol.

說到狗性，沒人比得上你們。

道理說不過就用低賤言語攻擊他人。你們如此行徑只會讓我更鄙視你們這群瘋狗。

應該加多一句 -- ，你們對自己就講人性，對他人就表露狗性。
作者: ricrick    時間: 2011-8-24 15:59

Are you talking about yourself? Have you guys ever respected the rights and freedom of other peopl ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-8-24 14:50



我有說你嗎，不需搶著認
你吾開心，甘我改口law
作為一隻狗都應該明白為何要保護自己的自由及權利
作為一個人就不需要了，夠忠心，有得食，有得屙就得啦
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-24 16:12

我有說你嗎，不需搶著認
你吾開心，甘我改口law
作為一隻狗都應該明白為何要保護自己的自由及權利
作為 ...
ricrick 發表於 2011-8-24 15:59


我沒有說你在說我，而是在問你是否在說你自己。
作者: ricrick    時間: 2011-8-24 17:04

我沒有說你在說我，而是在問你是否在說你自己。
rockypath 發表於 2011-8-24 16:12



當然不是
作者: chunsh    時間: 2011-8-24 17:36

本帖最後由 chunsh 於 2011-8-24 17:37 編輯
在公平公正的社會，表達意見為何要"籌碼"？
表達意見根本是每人應有的權利
聽取民意，是政府的責任

你有這 ...
ricrick 發表於 2011-8-24 09:50


seriously? after looking at the history and news and u still believe 公平公正的社會 exist in the world?
天真都要有個限度呀﹐唔該
作者: auyatyat    時間: 2011-8-24 17:50

回復 2# rockypath

由KK Leung 經太古橋行去陸佑堂又上又落,唔係平路,我最怕就係行呢個100米...
作者: ricrick    時間: 2011-8-24 19:06

seriously? after looking at the history and news and u still believe 公平公正的社會 exist in the w ...
chunsh 發表於 2011-8-24 17:36



    你甘炭都無你辦法
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-8-25 09:11

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-8-25 09:15 編輯
seriously? after looking at the history and news and u still believe 公平公正的社會 exist in the w ...
chunsh 發表於 2011-8-24 17:36


一般人是不會理解現實社會所謂的平等和公平是建立在不同的利益群體手上握有不同的"籌碼"相互制衡。

平等和公平一般是弱勢群體的意願但是否能實現就要看他們手上的"籌碼"有多少。

西方的工會組織的從弱勢變強勢的發展過程就是一個非常好的具體實例。 有多少人現在還會覺得工會是個弱勢組織？為什麼工會的會員就是要比非會員的工資要高很多哪怕比市場平均水平高出很多？ 從他們的利益角度來講，他們當然覺得他們拿多些是很公平，但工會之外的人卻不這麼看。



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2