港灣豪庭 - 討論區  Metro Harbour View

 找回密码
 注册
今天是
搜索
查看: 28|回复: 2

英人權領袖被港拒入境 約翰遜要求中港解釋

[复制链接]
发表于 2017-10-12 21:33:39 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

請立即注册,结交更多好友,享用更多功能,让你轻松玩转社区。

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?注册

x
聲援香港「雙學三子」的英國保守黨人權委員會副主席Benedict Rogers遭香港入境處拒絕入境,英國外相約翰遜(Boris Johnson)要求解釋。

約翰遜發表聲明,「對一名英國國民被香港拒絕入境的事表示關注」,「英國政府將緊急要求香港當局及中國政府解釋」,指出「香港的高度自治、權利與自由,是香港生活方式的核心部份,應受到充分尊重」。
Benedict Rogers周三早上從泰國曼谷抵港時,被拒絕入境,入境處並無交代原因。Benedict Rogers一直關注亞洲多國的人權狀況,8月曾在倫敦組織聲援黃之鋒、羅冠聰及周永康的行動,又曾批評英國政府作為《中英聯合聲明》簽署國,一直未有盡力為香港發聲,過去一直被中方視為眼中釘。他今午接受英國《衞報》訪問時表示,對被拒入境感到震驚,但坦言過去已有人警告過他遲早會被拒入境,認為今次是另一事例反映一國兩制正步向死亡。
英國外交部網站

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

 楼主| 发表于 2017-10-12 21:44:28 | 显示全部楼层
英人權領袖被港遣返 揭中領館係黑手 入境處職員含淚送機

曾聲援被判囚的雙學三子、英國保守黨人權委員會副主席羅哲斯(Benedict Rogers),昨早從曼谷飛抵香港,惟香港入境處最終拒絕讓他入境,只能乘飛機返回曼谷。事後羅哲斯親自撰文記述今次被拒入境的來龍去脈,透露事前已接獲中國大使館預先告誡將被拒入境香港,意味今次拒絕他來港的決定,來自中國政權。他坦言為香港感到悲哀,希望世界各國能醒覺,「一國兩制」岌岌可危。

全文如下(中文繙譯版本,以英文版為準):
20年前的我剛畢業,便飛到香港開始我的第一份工作。時值香港回歸幾個月,我在香港過了快樂的5年,從1997年起當記者,直至2002年。我從來沒想過,20年之後,我會被拒入境香港。

過去3年,我越來越關注香港的自由、法治和「一國兩制」備受侵蝕的情況。正因如此,我也越來越多機會接觸和宣傳香港的現況。我很榮幸曾在倫敦接待過黃之鋒、羅冠聰與陳方安生,又與李柱銘緊密合作,他們全都是英雄,也是我的朋友。我想這是合適時機再到訪香港,只是簡單地見見人、多聽多了解現況。過去15年我曾多次到香港,近幾年則較少。

此行原本希望與人們私下見面。我已謹慎地查詢過,有否可能探望正在監獄服刑的黃之鋒、羅冠聰與周永康,可惜約在一星期前我發現這是不可能的事。很不幸,即使只作出查詢,亦已引起了中國當局的注意。

上星期五,我接到一通來自英國國會議員的電話。我跟他頗熟悉,也非常尊敬他。他告訴我他接到了中國駐倫敦大使館的電話,對方對我此行冀探望3名學生的行徑表達關注,更表明此舉或「對中英關係構成嚴重威脅」。我請他向中國大使館重申,我不會嘗試到訪任何監獄。
即使或許有人會認為這是做得過火,但我亦只希望為事情降溫,我自願向中國當局保證,不會在香港進行任何公開活動,亦不會接受媒體訪問。我更提出在回程後與中國大使會面,進行建設性的討論,聽取他們的看法。不過這些提議換來的只有拒絕,還有更進一步的威脅,告誡我將會被拒絕進入香港。

看來還有另一因素。我是保守黨人權委員會副主席,是在工餘時間擔任的義務性質職務,我亦在保守黨候選人名單之列。似乎中國當局誤會了我的境況,認為我是國會議員、政黨高層或是政府官員,由此引伸出我今次香港之行,是以黨代表的身份來港。這是可以諒解的,因為在中國,黨員就是黨員,他們或許不理解英國政黨乃是由個人、獨立思想組成的,而且義務黨員與正式黨員亦有區別,代表黨行事與私下行事亦不相同。我試圖通過第三方向大使館保證,我絕對不會代表黨,更不會代表政府,強調此行純屬私人性質,以普通公民身份,私下與新知舊友在香港見面。不幸的是,這也無法滿足中國當局。

與他人商量過後,我認為如果我陷入來自大使館的壓力,經第三方傳達非正式的文字訊息,我就會一如平日所批評的他人一樣做著同一件事:向中國叩頭。我的良心不允許我這麼做。如果我在第一道關卡就退縮,還怎有面目去看黃之鋒、羅冠聰、周永康、李柱銘、陳方安生等人呢?所以我決定按原定行程嘗試入境,當作測試。或許他們只是在虛張聲勢說不讓我入境,希望我息事寧人而作罷。又或許他們是認真的,他們就要公開正式拒絕我入境,向世界展示「一國兩制」被侵蝕的另一事例。

很遺憾,後一種情況最終發生了。抵港之後我步向入境部門,如常向入境處人員出示護照。入境處人員將我的名字輸入電腦,顯然電腦說了「不可以」。她(入境處人員)向上級請示,並帶我到櫃檯後的房間叫我等候。過了不久,一個穿著便服的官員和我見面,我向她保證今次行程屬私人性質,私下見見朋友,又提到我曾經在香港生活過5年。她查看我的酒店預訂,我還在想或許她們會放行。一會兒後,她正式告知已決定拒絕我入境,將把我送上返回曼谷的航班,亦即今次航程的原出發地。

我必須強調,我對拒絕我入境、一直「看顧」我的入境處人員絕無責怪之意。他們只是執行他們的職務,而且他們待我盡可能地友善和禮貌,他們給我水,又向我微笑。的確,我的印象是他們並不想這樣做(拒絕我入境),他們只是在執行上頭的指示,他們控制不了。
我在等待上機時,轉向身旁的入境處人員微笑,感謝他對我照顧有加。「一國兩制是否已死?」我問,「一國一制,對吧?」他眼泛淚光,懇切地說,「先生,我只是在履行職務,我不能評論。謝謝你的合作。」我向他說我知道,我不會怪他。

稍後,我們在上機前握了手,我對他說:「對香港來說,這是非常悲哀的一天。對我來說也悲哀,我無法探望在香港的朋友,但對香港而言特別悲哀,拒絕一個沒有犯罪的公民入境。」他點頭,再次眼泛淚光,「我明白。這很悲哀。」我臨上機前向他說最後一句話,「希望事情會變得更好。」

「一國兩制」的原意理應為「港人治港」。但很明顯,今次拒絕我入境的決定並非來自香港,而是來自中國政權。「一國兩制」的原意理應為法治,惟即使何俊仁律師坐列車趕來機場,希望看看有甚麼能幫得上忙,最終也未能成事,因為在那之前我已被帶上飛機。「一國兩制」的原意理應為表達自由、結社自由,這是香港的基本權利,惟儘管我保證不會參與任何公開活動,只有私人性質會面,但我自己的表達自由,以及我希望能會面的人的表達和結社自由,都已經被剝削了。

我倒沒關係,香港才是重點。從今次嚴竣的、個人的、悲痛的親身經歷可知,即使「一國兩制」仍然未死去,亦已行將消亡殆盡,而且正在加快。世界各國必須醒覺,尤其作為《中英聯合聲明》簽署方的英國。我對中英關係不會構成任何威脅,但我相信中國政權的舉動,尤其是在香港的行徑,反而會(構成威脅)。

Benedict Rogers親撰英文原文
By Benedict Rogers

Twenty years ago, as a fresh graduate, I flew to Hong Kong just a few months after the handover, to begin my first job. I spent five very happy years working as a journalist in Hong Kong, from 1997-2002. I never expected that twenty years later, I would be refused entry to Hong Kong.
In the past three years I have become increasingly concerned about the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms and the rule of law, and the threats to “one country, two systems”. As a result, I have been increasingly engaged in advocacy for Hong Kong. I have had the privilege of hosting, in London, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Anson Chan, and of working closely with Martin Lee – all heroes and friends of mine. I decided it was time for me visit Hong Kong again, simply to meet people and to listen and learn about the current situation. I had visited Hong Kong several times over the past fifteen years, but had not been back for a few years.
My    intention was to meet people privately. I had made discreet enquiries about whether or not it would be possible or desirable to visit Joshua Wong, Nathan Law or Alex Chow in prison, but I had realized a week or more ago that it would not be possible. Unfortunately, even enquiring about the possibility drew the attention of the Chinese authorities.

The first indication I had that there was a problem came last Friday, when I received a telephone call from a British Member of Parliament whom I know well and respect greatly. He informed me he had received calls from the Chinese Embassy in London, expressing concern that an attempt to visit these three student leaders would pose “a grave threat to Sino-British relations”. I asked him to reassure the Chinese Embassy that I would not be attempting to visit any prisons. I took a further step – a compromise, some might say one too big, but one intended to de-escalate the situation – by voluntarily assuring them that I would not undertake any public engagements or media interviews while in Hong Kong. I also offered to meet the embassy upon my return, for a constructive discussion and to hear their perspectives. These offers were rebuffed and I received further, increasingly threatening messages from the embassy, culminating in a message warning me that I would be denied entry.

It appears there was another factor too. I serve as Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, a voluntary role in my spare time, and I am on the Conservative Party’s Candidates List. It appears that the Chinese authorities misunderstood my status and thought at first that I was a Member of Parliament or a senior party or government official, and that my visit to Hong Kong would be in an official capacity on behalf of the party. I suppose one could forgive them for that mistake, because in China a party member is a party member come what may. They perhaps don’t understand that British political parties are made up of individual, independent minds – and furthermore there’s a difference between a voluntary party member and a party official, and a difference between someone acting on behalf of the party and someone acting in a private, personal capacity. Nevertheless I sought to reassure the embassy, via a third party, that I was absolutely not representing the party, and certainly not the government, and that my visit was a purely personal, private visit to meet old friends and new acquaintances in Hong Kong, as a private citizen. Unfortunately, that did not satisfy either.

In consultation with others, I took the view that if I were to cave in to pressure from the embassy, sent through unofficial text messages via a third party, I would be doing exactly what I have criticized others of doing: kowtowing to China. My conscience would not allow me to do that. How could I look my friends Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow, Martin Lee, Anson Chan and others in the eye if I caved at the first hurdle? I decided therefore that I had to put it to the test by going as planned to Hong Kong. Perhaps they were bluffing, threatening to deny me entry in the hope that I would go away quietly. Or, if they were serious, then they would have to refuse me entry formally and publicly, exposing to the world yet another example of the erosion of one country, two systems.

Very regrettably, the latter course was what occurred. I landed in Hong Kong, proceeded to immigration, and when my turn came I presented my passport and arrival card as normal. The immigration officer put my name into the computer, and evidently the computer said no. She called other officers over, they took me to a private room behind the counters, and I was asked to wait. After a little while a plain clothes official conducted an interview with me. I assured her that my visit was a private, personal visit to meet friends, and that I had lived in Hong Kong for five years. She took details of my hotel booking, and I thought perhaps they were about to allow me in. A little later, however, she informed me that the decision had been made to deny me entry, and put me back on the flight to Bangkok, which was where I had flown from.

It is important to emphasise that I do not in any way blame the immigration officers who “looked after” me during this time. They were just doing their job and, in the circumstances, they treated me as kindly and courteously as possible. Their manner was polite and friendly, they offered me water, they smiled. Indeed, I had the impression that they really did not want to be doing this, but that they were operating according to orders from above, beyond their control.

As I waited to board I turned gently to the officer standing with me. I smiled, and I thanked him for looking after me well. “Is one country, two systems dead now?”, I asked. “One country, one system, right?” He looked with a hint of tears in his eyes, pleadingly. “Sir please, I am just doing my job. I cannot comment. Thank you for your cooperation”. I reassured him that I knew he was only doing his job, and that I did not blame him.

A little later, as we shook hands at the entrance to the plane, I said to him: “This is a very sad day for Hong Kong. It’s sad for me, that I am unable to visit my friends in Hong Kong, but it’s particularly sad for Hong Kong, that a private citizen who has committed no crime is refused entry.” He nodded, again with a hint of tears. “I understand. It is sad,” he said. My final word to him was this: “I hope things will change for the better”.

“One country, two systems” is supposed to mean “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong”. Yet it is overwhelmingly clear that the decision to deny me entry to Hong Kong was not taken in Hong Kong, but by the Chinese regime. “One country, two systems” is supposed to mean the rule of law, yet a solicitor, Albert Ho, who very kindly took the train out to the airport in order to meet me and see if he could assist, was denied access to me because I was put back on the plane before he could reach me. “One country, two systems” is supposed to mean basic rights in Hong Kong – freedom of expression and association – yet despite assurances from me that I would not engage in any public events, and would simply be having private meetings, my own freedom of expression and more importantly the freedom of expression and association of those I had hoped to meet has been curtailed.

This is not about me. It is about Hong Kong. And it is clear from this very stark, personal, first-hand and painful experience that if “one country, two systems” is not yet completely dead, it is dying rapidly, being decapitated limb by limb with accelerating speed. The world, and especially the United Kingdom with its responsibilities under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, must wake up to this. I am no threat to Sino-British relations. But I believe the conduct of the Chinese regime, particularly in Hong Kong, is.

                               
登录/注册后可看大图


 楼主| 发表于 2017-10-12 22:20:21 | 显示全部楼层
回應英人權領袖被拒入境 林鄭指外交屬中央事務

曾聲援被判囚的雙學三子、英國保守黨人權委員會副主席羅哲斯(Benedict Rogers),昨日入境香港時被拒,事後羅哲斯透露事前已接獲中國大使館預先告誡將被拒入境香港,意味有關決定來自中國政權,他為香港感到悲哀,嘆一國兩制岌岌可危。英國外相約翰遜已要求香港及中國解釋。特首林鄭月娥今早出席電台聯播節目時,回應指每個地方在入境政策方面都有很大酌情權,但她不能公開講誰人可以入境、誰人不可以,特區的外交屬中央事務,要看入境問題是否涉及外交,但她不便透露詳情。

保安局局長李家超今午被問到羅哲斯被拒入境一事,是否接到中央指示行事,以及是否有入境黑名單時指,「特首已解釋,每個入境檢查,都係入境處按入境法例同既定入境政策,按實際情況處理」。

香港本土議員毛孟靜在保安事務委員會指,昨日羅哲斯被拒入境香港,情況令人非常尷尬,令人質疑是與他曾聲援學三子有關,希望下次委員會能邀請保安局局長出席交代。委員會主席陳克勤稱,委員會不會討論個案問題,因為事務委員會主要討論政策,但指毛孟靜可以將問題調整為一條政策問題,他亦會紀綠低,稍後與副主席見局長討論會議日程時反映。陳克勤又指,委員會已有一個關於「旅客的入境政策」的議題,故無論毛是否提出,該議題都已在委員會,議程先後次序會與副主席討論。

黃之鋒與羅冠聰所屬的香港眾志發表聲明,形容羅哲斯一直是他們的戰友,譴責中國政府的干預,以及香港政府拒絕英國公民進入香港的決定,批評是嚴重鎮壓人權的跡象,是「一國兩制」被進一步侵蝕,也違反了「公民和政治權利國際公約」,要求入境處和保安局解釋為何拒絕羅哲斯先生入境;香港眾志促請國際社會,特別是英國政府,監察「中英聯合聲明」的執行情況。如中國的專制手段不受制衡,只會影響越來越多的外國公民,讓自由和人權進一步崩壞。

法律界立法會議員郭榮鏗認為,今次羅哲斯明顯是中國外交部出手干預的結果,特首林鄭亦受制於中國外交部,認為外交部今次做法不合理和令人遺憾,因為羅哲斯今次只是以私人身份來港,「我地星期六,有一班美國參議員到訪香港立法會,你係咪又唔畀佢地入境?」

身兼大律師的公民黨立法會議員陳淑莊亦指,羅哲斯被拒入境一事事態非常嚴重,質疑政府已設有黑名單,對入境人士作出政治審查,「呢個人(羅哲斯)其實有咩情況,會危害香港安全呢?佢純綷得把口同個腦」,質疑政府今次拒絕羅哲斯入境,是因為害怕羅哲斯一旦來港,探訪正在獄中的「雙學三子」,將引起外國傳媒關注和報導,認為特區政府今次做法,只會令香港的國際開放性更低。

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

手机版|小黑屋|港灣豪庭討論區 mhvlive@gmail.com

GMT+8, 2017-10-20 07:29 , Processed in 0.079507 second(s), 16 queries .

Metro Habor View MHVLive DZ!X3.2

© 2007-2016 MHVLive

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表