Discovering the truth behind President Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis is the responsibility of intellectuals and the media. Six months ago, prosecutors sought to charge Professor Hwan C. Lin, Professor Ho De-fen, and Dr. Dennis Peng with defamation. It was the first time an acting president brought forth a lawsuit against scholars.
For two years, anyone who doubted Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis, or even questioned it, were ridiculed by the media and legally persecuted. But, aren’t government leaders in a democratic society obligated to have the authenticity of their credentials tested? Why does the opposite prevail in Taiwan? Why can a leader who has their credentials questioned forgo providing proof and can, instead, use the judicial system to suppress those that question them?
The hallmark of a dutiful scholar is how willing they are to uphold academic integrity. A desire to authenticate Tsai’s degree is a basic reaction for anyone who considers themselves part of the academic circle. However, after Tsai sought legal action against the three scholars, the public came to understand that “questioning Tsai’s degree will get you sued.” Such a precedent is an affront to academic integrity, and an insult to intellectuals everywhere.
Can Taiwan deem itself a proud democracy if its head of state is allowed to use privilege to elevate themselves their whole life, and then escape criticism when questioned? Can Taiwan say it’s the proud democracy it claims to be when judicial mechanisms are used to enact acts of academic fraud? Martial law has been abolished for decades, and yet this country still operates like a dictatorship. Today is about transitional justice in the academic realm. Transitional justice begins when we can face our mistakes. Here, justice begins when Tsai faces her own academic fraud.
Today’s press conference is about rallying the public to stand up against authoritarianism. We call on Tsai Ing-wen to do her duty as head of state and divulge the truth about her thesis. If she refuses to do so, then the other purpose of today is to reveal the evidence we have found that uncovers that truth.
It’s time the lies ended. We will hold a press conference at the Legislative Yuan tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Eat News will broadcast the entire event live: https://www.eatnews.co.uk/video/20210909-1/
#DennisPeng #PengWengjen #HwanCLin #HoDefen #TsaiIngwen #LSEThesisGateScandal
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過25萬的網紅13N,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Po這篇介紹加州高速公路鑽車縫Lanesplitting(直譯為“車道分割/車道共享”)的景象。這是特殊例子,因為其他北美地區摩托車鑽車縫都是違法的。這議題在北美也是非常有爭議。對於習慣二輪的地區,如加州,在塞車時,四輪駕駛多半保持禮讓的態度。比較算是二輪的特權,不是路權,因為並無法規認定違法..但...
legal privilege 在 Facebook 的最讚貼文
(轉)
*【就特區政府引用國安法第22條展開大規模拘捕行動的聲明】*
超過50名民主派議員、社運人士及律師,因組織及/或參與已延期的2020年立法會換屆選舉前的初選,而被指控觸犯國家安全法第22條下,有關顛覆罪的罪行。我們 - 即下列堅定相信基本法和法治的聯署人 - 以個人名義,對上述事宜表達深切關注。
在星期三(6日)的記者會上,警務處國家安全處高級警司李桂華證實,警方在是次行動中,在獲得搜查令的情況下搜查了72個處所,當中包括一間律師事務所。國安法第22條訂明,構成罪行的基本元素是「以武力、威脅使用武力或者其他非法手段」。然而當局在記者會上未能完滿地解釋,在該次初選並沒有出現任何暴力或非法行為的情況下,他們是基於甚麼原因引用第22條採取拘捕行動。
任何人不論政見均有權參與公共事務,是《公民與政治權利國際公約》第25條確保的權利,亦受《香港人權法案條例》第21條保護。這項權利,對發展民主管治和法治均發揮關鍵的作用。因此,我們強烈譴責任何打壓和平表達《基本法》賦予市民的基本人權的行為。
《約翰奈斯堡關於國家安全、言論自由和獲取信息自由原則》(U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1996/39) 第二條訂明:「一種以國家安全為理由所實行的限制是不合法的,除非其真正的目的和可以 證實的效果是為了保護國家的生存或領土完整免遭武力或武力威脅的侵害, 或者保護其對武力或武力威脅反應的能力,無論這些武力或武力威脅來自外 部,如軍事威脅,還是來自內部,如煽動以暴力推翻政府。」2003年3月,特區政府嘗試按照《基本法》第23條制訂國家安全法時,當時的保安局仍然正面地肯定國家安全立法需符合《約翰奈斯堡原則》。
我們促請特區政府解釋,是否已經放棄《約翰奈斯堡原則》內的適用原則,以及《基本法》訂明保障的基本權利,包括表達和集會的自由。
作為律師,我們同時深切關注搜查律師事務所可能會違反《基本法》第35條訂明法律專業保密的基本權利,即「香港居民有權得到秘密法律諮詢、向法院提起訴訟、選擇律師及時保護自己的合法權益或在法庭上為其代理和獲得司法補救」。我們急切呼籲當局自我約束,確保法律專業保密權得到充份保障,以及全面維護所有香港市民參與政治的權利。
帝理邁
張達明
林洋鋐
蔡頴德
黃耀初
2021年1月7日
【Statement on the Mass Arrest under Article 22 of the National Security Law】
We, the undersigned, as legal practitioners who firmly believe in the Basic Law and the rule of law are deeply concerned that more than 50 pro-democracy lawmakers, activists and lawyers, were arrested yesterday for alleged subversion under Article 22 of The Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (“NSL”) for organising and/or participating in a primary election for candidates in the 2020 Legislative Council election.
At the press conference on 6 January, Senior Superintendent Steve Li confirmed that the Police had searched 72 premises with a warrant, including a law firm. No satisfactory explanation, however, was given by the authority at the press conference as to why Article 22 of the NSL was invoked in respect of these activities, when that provision expressly requires as an essential element of the offence the use of “force or threat of force or other unlawful means”. The organisation and conduct of the primary election did not involve any violence or other unlawful acts.
The right to participate in public affairs, irrespective of one’s political opinion, is enshrined under Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and also protected under article 21 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). It also plays a crucial role in the promotion of democratic governance and is fundamental to the rule of law in Hong Kong. Therefore, we strongly oppose and condemn any attempts to suppress peaceful exercise of the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Basic Law.
We note that back in March 2003, when the NSL was introduced, the Security Bureau still acknowledged the need for the national security legislation to be consistent with the Johannesburg Principles. Principle 2 of the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1996/39) provides that “A restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country's existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force, whether from an external source, such as a military threat, or an internal source, such as incitement to violent overthrow of the government.”
We call upon the Government to explain whether it has abandoned any due regard to the Johannesburg Principles and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Basic Law, including the freedom of expression and assembly.
As lawyers, we are further troubled by the search of a law firm, which could violate the fundamental right of residents to legal advice as set out in Article 35 of the Basic Law. We urgently urge the authorities to exercise restraint, to ensure effective protection to legal professional privilege, and to fully uphold the right to political participation for all Hong Kong residents.
CHEUNG T.M. Eric
DALY Mark
LAM Kenneth
TSOI W.T. Michelle
WONG Davyd
Dated this 7 January 2021
legal privilege 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的精選貼文
My recent article😎😎😎
我最新的評論文章💪💪💪
Opinion | A misleading slogan by the opposition camp: political prosecution HK
Current2小時前
By Athena Kung
LegCo members Lam Cheuk-ting (hereinafter referred to as "Lam") and Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") were arrested at their residence respectively in the morning on 26th of August 2020. In the afternoon on 27th of August 2020, they were brought before Magistrate Peter Law Esq. sitting in West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts. Both of them faced a count of attempting to perverting the course of justice. Lam was also charged of 1 count of riot. Hui further faced 2 more charges, including criminal damage and access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent. Their bail application was objected by prosecution. After all, the court granted bail to both Lam and Hui. Their cases were adjourned for mention.
Shortly after being released by the court, Lam and Hui strongly criticized the arrest and prosecution and described it as a "public prosecution". All along, whenever any members of the opposition camp have been arrested and prosecuted, then their whole group with the local and foreign media supporting them would together accuse the HKSAR Government of making a political prosecution with an aim to suppress the dissidents. They would also try their best to condemn the HKSAR Government's such act as being a violation of the Sino-British Joint Statement and Hong Kong Basic Law. From time to time, they further attack the Government's such acts as suppressing their freedom of speech.
It appears that whenever the opposition camp alleges the Government conducts a political prosecution, all they mean is that the Government is making use of the political reasons to arrest or prosecute them. Recently, the term "political prosecution" has been the slogan made use of by the opposition camp frequently for the purpose of smearing the Hong Kong Police, Department of Justice, the Judiciary as well as the whole HKSAR Government. The motive behind is to provoke the public's hatred towards the HKSAR Government and even the Central Government, which has been a very important step in the Colour Revolutions instigated by the US Government all over the world.
Everyone is equal before the law. Even the LegCo Members must comply with all the laws in Hong Kong. No doubt, according to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, Cap 382, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"), the privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by the LegCo Members include:
(1) Freedom of speech and debate "in the Council or proceedings before a committee" under Section 3 of the Ordinance.
(2) Immunity from legal proceedings, namely no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any member for "words spoken before, or written in a report to, the Council or a Committee, or by reason of any matter brought by him therein by petition, Bill, resolution, motion or otherwise" under Section 4 of the Ordinance.
(3) Freedom to arrest under Section 5 of the Ordinance, including:
(a) No member shall be liable to arrest for any civil debt whilst going to, attending at or returning from a sitting of the Council or a committee;
(b) No member shall be liable to arrest for any criminal offence whilst attending at a sitting of the Council or a Committee.
In short, the privilege, immunity and freedom of speech and debate can only been exercised by the LegCo Members when they are performing their duties in making speech and debate in the Council or during the committee proceedings. The charges faced by Lam and Hui occurred in Yuen Long MTR Station on 21st of July 2019 or outside Tuen Mun Police Station on 6th of July 2019 respectively. Clearly, on both days, Lam and Hui were not performing their duties in the Council or before any Committee. On 26th of August, they were arrested at their home, but not during their attending at or returning from the Council or any Committee. Obviously, the LegCo Members from the Opposition Camp often exaggerate their privilege, immunity and freedom of speech to mislead the public.
Outside the Council and Committees, all LegCo Members must obey to all the laws in Hong Kong. Being the lawmakers who play a significant role in discussing and passing the Bills in the Legislative Council, as expected by the society, they have to behave themselves properly and setting up as good models for the public to follow and imitate, particularly for those youngsters who are immature. Their keeping on showing no respect at all towards the law and order is step by step ruining Hong Kong's rule of law, which has been the cornerstone of the success gained by the Pearl of the Oriental.
The Opposition Camp often alleges that the HKSAR Government has violated the Sino-British Joint Statement and the Hong Kong Basic Law. However, never have they pointed out which part of the 2 documents have been breached by the HKSAR Government. Obviously, such condemn is slogan as well without any concrete support at all, aiming at spreading the hatred towards the Government in the society.
So long as the Opposition Camp is of the view that any prosecution has insufficient basis to support the charge, all they should do is to face the trial bravely instead of keeping on criticizing the Government wrongfully from time to time. In court, they may have the right to deny the charges against them. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution whereas the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Defence discharges of no burden of proof at all. All defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent. Prosecution had the duty to produce evidence to prove all elements of the charges they are facing. They also have the right to have their legal representation, call their own witnesses and decide whether to give evidence during the court process. Even if they are convicted after trial, they still have the right to appeal against the conviction and/or the sentence.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責任編輯:CK Li
編輯:Whon
legal privilege 在 13N Youtube 的最佳解答
Po這篇介紹加州高速公路鑽車縫Lanesplitting(直譯為“車道分割/車道共享”)的景象。這是特殊例子,因為其他北美地區摩托車鑽車縫都是違法的。這議題在北美也是非常有爭議。對於習慣二輪的地區,如加州,在塞車時,四輪駕駛多半保持禮讓的態度。比較算是二輪的特權,不是路權,因為並無法規認定違法..但也沒有法規認定合法。Highway lane-splitting is not illegal in California. It is also not "legal" per say as there's no regulation, but only guidelines. It is a controversial topic. Most riders consider it a privilege of riding, but not a right. 順道一提,鑽車縫只能在兩個直線道中間,不能像在台灣這樣單線道邊這樣騎。
Bike: Yamaha WR250X supermoto 滑胎車
Vlog 17 摩托日記第十七篇
Outro Music: Anikdote - Which Direction?
NCS Release bit.ly/1LfXUQh
https://soundcloud.com/anikdotemusic #13N 追蹤 13N Instagram:
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SecGuvGTR80/hqdefault.jpg)
legal privilege 在 Legal Advice Privilege - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>