Logo
登入
<<<

名稱: 密碼:

加入 | FAQ | 聯絡我們
全部區域 > 倫理 > 社會倫理 > 保安局長的胡說八道

頁:  1 回 應
作者 內容

人言


Posted -
2002/4/19 下午 06:24:25

葉太:『她加入政府二十多年至今,最難忘的莫過於處理居港權事件。不過,被問到若她的角色不是保安局局長,而是社工或主教,對爭取居港權的取態會否轉變時,葉劉淑儀表現得義無反顧﹕「可能教會說的人權與我們不同,教會說的人權可能是天國的絕對權利,人人也可以團聚,但我們俗世是不能的,一定要有規例法例規管人口進出。我只是以我輩俗人的態度去處理這件事。」星島日報報道』

不知各位對保安局長葉太昨天的說話有何看法?我對這番話非常反感和氣憤,為何外國出生的港人子女能回港團聚而在祖國所生的子女卻不能團聚?是釋法出現問題,自己理虧;卻指教會人權與我們不同,簡直強詞奪理.家庭團聚並不是天國的絕對權利而是基本人權和固有尊嚴.

Cecil


Posted -
2002/4/20 上午 09:55:08

"外國出生的港人子女能回港團聚而在祖國所生的子女卻不能團聚?"
This is a sweeping statement. To what extent is this reflective of the actual situation?
Well, many HK people who are descendants and children of foreign nationals still cannot go to join their grandparents or parents.

Josemaria


Posted -
2002/4/20 上午 10:01:19

Allow me to add one word:
I think the crux of the matter is not really 'who and who can reunite with who and who'. If we are to 'criticse' Mrs Ip's statement, I think we should stick to her 'theological' approach - to what extent do 'canon' law merge with temporal laws, and WHO decides what the 'canon' law should be, i.e., WHO interprets it, WHO enforces it, WHO enacts it (of course, we say it is from the enlightenment from the Holy Spirit).
I think we can critically examine the stance of the SARG on the 'discretion exercising' aspect but NOT on the law itself - did Christ himself not say that give to Caeser what's Caesar's, and to Christ what belongs to Christ?
On the one hand, we HK Diocese are saying that the PRC is trampling on religious matters like Falunkung (if it be a religion at all), and on the other hand, we are usurping the temporal government's laws' exercise (equally actively, too, if NOT MORE).
I do think on deep reflection, the Church in HK's stance are on the weak side!!!!

Cecil


Posted -
2002/4/20 上午 10:03:55

'One the weak side" - I would prefer to use "EQUALLY ON THE WEAK SIDE" - fifty steps laughing at 100 steps.
Can some one come up with some more convincing and more novel argument for the ROA claimants, please? (I do think there are).

Josemaria


Posted -
2002/4/20 上午 10:40:42

「是釋法出現問題,自己理虧」-
This understanding by itself is VERY dubious.
The 29 Jan. judgment is dubious jurisprudentially - the CFA should move the issue to PRC's People's Congress. They did not have jurisdiction (i.e. the court do not have this power) to decide on the issue according to the Basic Law. That is crystal clear, but many lawyers just chose to turn a blind eye to this obvious point, and so does the Diocese.
Not until this point is being made clear to the church leaders, there isn't any constructive dialogue possible!

Cecil


Posted -
2002/4/20 上午 10:48:52

老奇josemaria這說法的確就是我當日剛收到判詞後的即時反應,而事實上,不少外國'中立"(即不是凡中必反的立場人士)法律學者們,都持這理解。
為學首要有intellectual honesty,所以我亦不能說甚麼了,因為一29這案的確判錯嘛。
申請人們不服可以理解,針不刺肉不知疼,可不斷叫他們對抗,對他們好嗎?不斷在傷口撒鹹,我第一個於心不忍了。
What value if you win an empty victory? What value if you win the issue but lost peace?

Josemaria


Posted -
2002/4/20 下午 12:04:43

當仁不讓-灑熱血,拋頭顱,是文天祥的大仁大義來的。當然,你會問"誰的血,誰的頭"?
當日大和民族侵華,也是旗幟鮮明得很 : 大東亞共榮圈,是文化上,政治上,思想上的烏托邦,可見抗爭這事兒容易說亦不難做,做得對而又合乎天理的,可不這麼簡單。古往今來有此卓見和能力的,還只三數人而已。
宗教不同'主義',人權是主義的一種,跟宗教有重疊,但絕對不等同宗教。

頁:  1 回 應