(http://www.epochtimes.com)
【大纪元1月15日讯】大纪元驻欧洲记者秦川1月14日电/日前﹐新唐人电视台记者就香港23条立法一事采访了英国国会议员史蒂芬‧雷德曼博士。雷德曼博士对中国的人权问题十分关注﹐经常在国会及媒体采访中谈及此问题。图为在他的家中接受了采访。以下是采访全文。
问﹕您对香港23条立法有何看法﹖
答﹕我对针对叛国罪的法律并没有什么反对。每个国家都有反对叛国的法律。我担心的是香港的立法会订得很含糊﹐会把我认为不是叛国的行为也包括其中。叛国是针对政府的一种行为﹐而不能是一种思想或信仰。在英国﹐我有权利同意政府的做法﹐也有权利不同意﹐我有权利对我的朋友们讲我是否支持政府﹐但我不能随便推翻政府。反叛国的法律应该是这样规定的。因为我们还没有看到23条立法的具体条文﹐所以咨询就像在真空中进行。我很担心该法律对叛国的定义会是什么样﹐什么样的行为会被定为有罪。
问﹕该立法会对香港的未来造成什么影响呢﹖
答﹕香港经济如此成功的一个原因是因为它是一个自由的社会﹐人们可以自由地发挥他们的想象力﹐自由地追求自己的梦想。如果你打算限制这种自由﹐最终你会限制香港的成功﹐香港的经济繁荣会开始消失。那不仅会对香港造成伤害﹐当然也会对中国大陆造成伤害﹐因为大陆一直依赖香港进行大量的对西方贸易。
问﹕英国政府在此问题中有什么责任﹖
答﹕因为我们与香港有长期关系﹐因为是我们谈判终止了香港与英国的从属关系﹐所以我们拥有重大的责任。而且﹐香港很多民众期待我们能够对他们提供保护。如果他们感到新立法对他们构成威胁﹐他们会指望英国政府替他们说话。这也是我的立场。我相信﹐我们需要对这种可能性作好思想准备。我们需要确定﹐新法律只能是真正针对叛国罪的﹐而不是对叛国进行含糊定义从而限制人权的。
问﹕12月10日﹐中国副总理钱其琛在北京说﹐香港23条立法与英美两国无关。您对此有何评论﹖
答﹕他错了。人权与我们所有人都有关系﹐不管我们在世界的哪个角落。十分坦率地说﹐我希望中华人民共和国和联合王国成为很好的朋友﹐我希望中国和英国自由地进行贸易。我相信中国经济的增长会给我的国家﹑我的选民﹐以及中国的人民带来繁荣和富裕。但是﹐这种增长只有在人权受到尊重的环境下才能实现。所以﹐我希望看到中国转变为更加开明的政权。实际上﹐我认为中国的新任领导层有很大潜力成为一个很好的改革性的政府﹐并领导中国向改革的方向前进。所以﹐我的直言不讳并没有不尊重中国的意思。相反﹐明确指出我心目中中国变革的正确方向﹐这是一种友好的行为。只有这样﹐我们两国之间才能有真正的友谊﹐而这种友谊我认为是至关重要的。
问﹕迄今为止﹐英国国会对23条立法有什么反应﹖
答﹕现在英国政府说﹐因为还没有看到立法的具体细节﹐因为细节还没有公布﹐所以政府不愿意评论他们还没看见的东西。但是﹐政府已经明确表示﹐希望香港政府尽快公布立法细节﹐并且要求新立法尊重人权。我必须指出﹐我对号称咨询而不公布法律草案这一点持严肃的批评态度。我搞不懂﹐民众对他们根本看不到的新法律如何“咨询”﹖我认为﹐如果香港政府先拟定法律草案再进行咨询﹐让我们知道法律条文是明确的﹐对香港只会有好处而不会有危险﹐那也就不会有今天这种争执了。但他们至今没有公开立法条文﹐所以我们不知道新法律里面会有什么﹐所以人们就会一直保持警惕﹐直到看到具体立法。我指出这些﹐是因为我希望新法律的规定能够是有益无害的。
问﹕23条立法争议很大。如果23条本身就是反人权的﹐英国政府为什么会允许它列入基本法呢﹖
答﹕反叛国的法律并不一定是反人权的。一个国家有一部反叛国罪的法律是完全合理的。但我相信﹐叛国是一种明确的行为﹐它是行为而不是思想。人们必须永远拥有向他人谈论自己信仰的自由﹐与有共同信仰的人们交往结社的自由﹐以及向他人介绍和解释自己信仰的自由。这些都是完全合理的权利﹐世界上任何地方的任何人都应该享有的权利。如果你超越这些权利而犯下叛国的行为﹐那么有法律针对这种行为也是完全合理的。所以﹐23条是否会违反人权﹐要看立法最终是怎么规定的。而我担心的就是到现在我们还没有看到立法的细节。有可能我们现在是小题大作了﹐但在看到具体立法之前我们不能放心。
问﹕23条立法会对英国产生什么后果呢﹖它只是一个道德问题﹐还是有可能会有更深刻的影响﹖
答﹕首先﹐这是一个重大的道德责任。其次﹐像我刚才说的﹐这也是一个重要的经济问题﹐因为我们希望能够与香港和中国大陆自由地进行贸易﹐而如果当地的人权不受尊重﹐我们就不能够自由地贸易。第三﹐很多香港人现在住在英国﹐很多大陆来的人也来英国定居﹐他们在家乡都有亲人﹐如果新立法构成威胁﹐他们的家人会遭遇危险。所以﹐很多在英国定居的有中国背景的人会担心立法对他们家人的影响。
问﹕这个问题好像并没有吸引很多英国媒体的注意力。您认为英国公众还关心香港吗﹖
答﹕我肯定地认为﹐英国公众仍然关心香港。23条的问题没有获得应有的注意﹐我觉得可能是因为现在大家在探讨一个相当复杂的技术性问题﹐而媒体往往喜欢报导看起来黑白分明的事。我认为﹐当立法公布以后﹐如果像我所担心的那样﹐它是危险的﹐或者它的规定是含糊不清的﹐那么我相信这个问题会在英国获得大得多的关注。另外﹐不要忘记﹐奥运会还有几年就要在中国大陆召开了。英国人喜欢他们的体育﹐但如果他们认为中国政府不是一个开明的﹑尊重人权的政府﹐他们就不会盼望北京奥运的召开。所以﹐在今后的几年里﹐奥运也会逐渐提升英国国内对中国人权问题的兴趣。我认为﹐英国人民确实仍然关心着香港。
问﹕您怎样看待中国的人权问题﹖
答﹕目前这个问题是很麻烦的。我非常关心法轮功和一些基督教团体所遭受的待遇。我相信﹐在一个国家里﹐宗教和政治信仰应该是多元化的。但目前而言﹐信仰多元化在中国是不受尊重的。但我对新的领导层抱有很高的期望﹐我相信他们倾向于改革﹐我也希望他们能在今后的几年里设法改善中国的人权状况。我不想对中国政府和中华人民共和国有任何的不敬或不尊重﹐因为我希望他们参与探讨改善中国人权状况的对话﹐并与我的政府和其他西方国家政府一道﹐致力于增进我们的关系。
问﹕中国政府在人权问题上听取过西方国家的意见吗﹖
答﹕迄今为止还没有。但是﹐如果他们不听﹐我们能做的只有让我们的声音更响亮些﹐更清楚些。我希望﹐当他们看到今天这个节目时﹐能够重新开始考虑这些问题。正像我说的﹐有两样东西是中国大陆迫切需要的﹕一个是成功举办奥运会﹐另一个是确定与西方的贸易关系。这两样事情完全取决于他们能否改善人权记录。所以我希望新的领导层不再背前任领导人的包袱﹐能够开诚布公地讨论这些问题﹐以使我们在以后的几年里获得进步。
问﹕您认为英国政府和其他西方国家政府对中国人权问题有没有足够的关注﹖
答﹕我认为他们经常对自己的立场表达得不够明确。我觉得他们有时候会被做生意的欲望所左右﹐而在道德问题上不能够坦率直言。我认为﹐我们应该在与中国做朋友的同时﹐明确地表达我们内心的想法。朋友之间有时会很坦率﹐有时候会指出我们做错的地方。所以我认为﹐如果我们要与中国大陆维持这种重要的友好关系和贸易关系﹐英国政府就应该更明确地告诉中国我们到底希望看到什么。
问﹕您能不能介绍一下您参与的有关中国人权的活动﹖
答﹕我的活动局限于在国会讲话﹐以及对媒体明确表达我的想法。我不参加示威或其他类似的直接活动﹐因为我认为不必要做这些。我相信我们可以用对话来解决问题。在香港﹐我们可以在咨询中表达自己的看法﹐并且在立法最后提出时﹐我们要清楚地知道什么是好的﹐什么是不好的﹐并且把不好的东西改掉。我们可以同中国采取议会间﹑政府间的对话来解决这些问题。
问﹕是什么促使您为中国的人权付出努力呢﹖
答﹕是一种道德的义务。从中国来的﹑在中国和香港有亲人的人们会来告诉我他们的担懮。而且我相信﹐如果我们要在二十一世纪拥有世界的和平﹐我们就必须与中国交往﹐让中国更深入地参与到我们的想法中来。没有中国﹐我们不可能拥有稳定和发展的经济﹐我们不可能拥有稳定持久的世界和平。而要与中国交往﹐我们就必须与之对话。这就是驱使我这样做的动力。
————
UK Member of Parliament Talks about Article 23
New Tang Dynasty TV interviewed Dr Steve Ladyman, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, on the proposed Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong. Dr Ladyman has been very concerned with the human rights situation in China, and has been vocal in expressing his concerns to the media and in the parliament. Below is the full report.
Q: What do you think of the proposed Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong?
A: I have no objection to laws against treason. Every country has laws against treason. My concern is that the new legislation may be framed so widely that things I don’t regard as treason will be captured by it. Treason is an act against the government; it isn’t a thought or belief against the government. In the UK I’m free to agree or disagree with the government, I’m free to talk to my friends about whether I agree or disagree with the Government, but I’m not free to try and overthrow the Government. And that’s the way a law on treason should be framed. Because we haven’t seen the details of the new legislation yet because the consultation has been held in a vacuum, I’m very concerned about the way it will be framed and what will be capture by it.
Q: What indications might the proposed law have for the future of Hong Kong?
A: One of the reasons why Hong Kong has been such a success economically is because it has been a free society where people have been free to use their imaginations and free to follow their dreams. If you start to restrict that freedom then ultimately you will start to restrict the success of Hong Kong and its economic prosperity will start to diminish. And that will damage not just Hong Kong but of course it will ultimately damage the People’s Republic because the People’s Republic is going to rely on Hong Kong for a lot of its trading with the Western world.
Q: What responsibilities do the British Government have in this matter?
A: Because of our long-term relationship with Hong Kong, because it was us that negotiated the end of the treaty where Hong Kong was a British protectorate, we have great responsibility and, of course, many of the people in Hong Kong look to us for protection. So if they feel threatened by the proposed changes in legislation, it’s to the British Government they look for someone who will be an advocate on their behalf and that’s very much my position. I just believe that we need to be aware of this possibility and we need to make sure that when the new legislation is framed, it genuinely deals with real treason and not with a wider concept of treason which I would regard as a restriction of human rights.
Q: On December 10th, the Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen said in Beijing that the proposed legislation on Article 23 in Hong Kong has nothing to do with the UK or USA. Do you have any comments on that?
A: He’s wrong. Human Rights are to do with all of us wherever we are in the world. And, let me be absolutely frank, I want the People’s Republic and the United Kingdom to be great friends; I want the People’s Republic and the United Kingdom to trade freely. I believe that growth of the economy in the People’s Republic can bring prosperity to my country and my constituents as well as to the people in the People’s Republic. But that growth can only come about in an environment where human rights are respected. So I want to see the People’s Republic moving towards what I regard as a more liberal regime, and actually I believe that the new Leadership in the People’s Republic has a great potential to be a great reforming Government and to lead the People’s Republic in that direction. So with me speaking out is with no disrespect to the People’s Republic. It is an act of friendship that I want to identify the way I believe the People’s Republic needs to move so that we can have the friendship between our two countries that I believe is vital for us.
Q: What has been the response in the British Parliament to this legislation?
A: Well at the moment the Government is saying that, because it hasn’t seen the detail of the new legislation, because it hasn’t been published yet, it’s not willing to criticise what it hasn’t seen. But it’s making clear that it wants to encourage the Hong Kong authorities to publish the new legislation as quickly as possible and it wants it framed in such a way as to respect human rights. I have to say I am very critical of the fact that the legislation has not been published whilst the consultation has been going on. I don’t see how you can have a consultation about legislation that you haven’t seen yet, and I think that, if the Hong Kong authorities drafted the legislation and then held the consultation, we might not be having this dispute now, because it would be clear that the legislation was tightly framed and was going to be helpful rather than dangerous. Because they haven’t released the legislation we don’t know what’s going to be in it, so the people are very much keeping their powder dry at the moment until they’ve seen the legislation. I’m speaking out now because I want to make sure that the legislation is framed in the way I believe will be helpful.
Q: Article 23 legislation has caused such a dispute today. If it was anti-human rights from the very beginning, then why did the British Government allow it to become part of the basic law?
A: Well it isn’t necessarily anti-human rights. It is absolutely reasonable for every country to have a law about treason. But I believe is treason is an overt act, something that you do, not something that you think. You must always be free to talk to people about your beliefs, to associate with people that share your beliefs, and to try and convince other people that you are right. That is perfectly reasonable and something that everybody everywhere in the world should be allowed to do. If you take that further and commit an act of treachery, then it’s entirely reasonable that you have laws against that. So whether Article 23 turns out to be anti-human rights or not depends upon the way the legislation is framed and it’s the legislation we haven’t seen yet so that’s my concern. It could potentially, almost be a storm in the teacup that we may have nothing to argue about, but we won’t know until we’ve seen the detail of the regulations.
Q: What consequences do you think this legislation might have on the United Kingdom? Is it just a moral responsibility for the UK or does it have more profound implications?
A: Well, first of all, there is the moral imperative. Secondly, as I said earlier, there is the economic imperative because we want to trade freely with Hong Kong and with the People’s Republic and if we don’t believe that human rights are being respected we won’t be able to trade freely. Thirdly, many people from Hong Kong now live here in the United Kingdom and people from Mainland China have also come here to live in the United Kingdom and they have family at home and their family will be threatened if the legislation is dangerous. So, many people who have a Chinese background who live here will worry about what the effect will be on their family at home.
Q: This issue doesn’t seem to have attracted very much attention from the British Press. So do you think that the British public in general still care about Hong Kong?
A: I certainly think they do still care about Hong Kong. This particular issue hasn’t got the profile I would like it to have got. I think that probably because it’s quite a technical argument at the moment and it’s quite complex and the media quite often likes to deal with things that seem like they’re black and white. I think when the legislation is published, if it is dangerous, if it is too widely framed, as I fear it might be, then I think it will become very much more of an issue in the United Kingdom. Also, let’s not forget we’re in the lead up to the Olympic Games on the Mainland, and the British love their sports and they aren’t going to be able to enjoy looking forward to the Olympic Games if they don’t see the Peoples Republic as being a liberal regime that respects human rights, so there will be that issue as well over the coming years, which will ramp up the interest in the UK. But people in the UK certainly still do care about Hong Kong.
Q: How do you evaluate the Human Rights situation in China?
A: Well it’s difficult at the moment, and I have considerable concerns about the way people like Falun Gong and some Christian communities are being treated. I believe that you need to have a plurality of both religious and political beliefs within a country. And the range of beliefs is not being respected at the moment. But I have high hopes for the new leadership and I do believe the new leadership do want to be reformists and I hope that they’ll move to improve human rights in China over the coming years. So I’m not going to be rude or disrespectful to this Government and the People’s Republic of China, because I want them to engage in a discussion about how human rights should improve in the People’s Republic and work together with my Government and with other Western governments to improve our relationship.
Q: Have they been listening to western governments in regard to human rights issues?
A: Not so far. But, if people aren’t listening, all one can do is talk a little louder and more clearly. And, hopefully, when they see this broadcast, they’ll start thinking about these issues again. And as I say, we do have two things that the People’s Republic desperately want: One is to hold successful Olympic Games, and secondly to approve their trading position with the West. Those two things are going to be entirely dependent on them improving their human rights record. So I’m hoping that the new leadership don’t perhaps have the same baggage as the previous leadership, and we’ll take that on board and move things forward over the coming years.
Q: Do you think the British Government and other Western Governments have paid enough attention to human rights issues in China?
A: I don’t think they’ve been clear enough about their position quite often. I think sometimes they’ve allowed desire to trade get in the way of speaking out on the moral issues involved and I think we should be clearer about what we believe and it’s definitely possible to be clear about what we believe whilst still being a friend to China. Friends are sometimes frank with each other, sometimes tell each other where we’re making mistakes. So I think that the British Government, which is the only one I can try and influence, should be clearer about what we want in the future if we’re going to have this friendly relationship and trading relationship that we definitely want with Mainland China.
Q: You have been involved in some activities in regard to human rights in China. Could you tell us more about that?
A: Well my activities are restricted to speaking out in Parliament and making my views clear in the media. I don’t get involved in demonstrations or any of these direct activities because I don’t believe that it’s necessary to do that. I believe we can deal with the problem by talking. We can deal with it in Hong Kong by people making their views clear during this consultation, by making sure that, when the legislation is finally tabled, we’re all very clear about what we believe are the good parts and bad parts of it, and getting that fixed. And we can deal with this problem by talking parliament to parliament and Government to Government with the People’s Republic of China.
Q: What has been driving you to do all this for human rights of China?
A: The moral dimension. People of Chinese background who have family back in China and in Hong Kong who have come to tell me of their fears and my belief that if we are going to have the sort of world peace that we all desperately want in this 21st Century, it’s only going to be if we can engage with China and involve China more closely in our deliberations and in our thoughts. We can’t have a stable and growing economy and we can’t have a stable and improving peace in this world without China and we can only have that engagement with China by talking so that’s what’s driving me.
Q﹕ Thank you very much, Dr Ladyman.(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
