新西兰人权律师声援高智晟绝食抗议中共 呼吁所有中国的律师：履行他们在专业上和道德上的义务 保障公义得到声援

对人权的关心是这次和平抗议的基点。 确切的讲, 由中共犯下的人权罪行导致了这场绝食维权运动。参与绝食人士列举了中共侵犯基本人权的种种恶行: 威胁, 恐吓, 拘留, 攻击, 酷刑和迫害之死。

高智晟先生声明作为法律专业人士的一员,他有义务进行开始这场绝食,作为新西兰法律界专业人士, 我应该对高律师的陈述作出见证。

在法律学领域, 公义是一个司法系统对公民个人和群体附有的义务。义务的本质是公正、合理, 而又含符道德的解释和应用相关的法律。公义可以讲,是对所有个人给予合理道理, 公正的对待。

可以讲, 中共非常轻易地侵犯中国公民的基本人权。中华人民共和国宪法第35条言论、出版自由、集会, 第36条宗教自由是保障中国公民的基本人权。蔑视这些基本人权的行为是不道德的、不合理的。一切禁止中国公民行使最基本的人权是违反宪法的, 许多中国公民是讨论民主改革, 寻求建立对话机制。

那些对人权关心的人, 是有权力进行申诉, 这是由中国人民共和国宪法第41条规定所附予, 这个条款同时规定, “任何人不能压制这样的申诉、指控和报导, 也不能报复相关的人士。” 令人遗憾的是, (例如高律师和他的同事, 以及其他申诉的人士遭到连续来自中国官方人员的威胁、恐吓、拘留、敲诈、勒索和人身侵犯)。

因此, 我们可以从这些发生的人权侵犯行为作出结论, 中共已经作出违反人权的行为, 并犯下严重的人权罪行。司法是一种纠正的措施, 他有力纠正错误, 同时是走向正确的, 不断努力的一部份。

一个中国的律师应该清楚知道他(她)有责任保证正义得到声张。就是讲, 中国的律师有更大的责任保障基本人权的不受侵犯和不允许违反宪法的行为发生。一旦这种行为发生, 将应该受到法律的惩罚。我希望所有中国的律师应该履行他们在专业上和道德上的义务, 保障公义得到声张。如果一种和平抗议只是表达对中共压制公义行为不满, 那么这种抗议方式是完全合理。

籍此机会, 我希望那些参加接力绝食抗议的人士获得成功。

新西兰高等法院注册律师 戈尔

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