什麼是法治？九年前為了要宣揚法治，我「痛改前非」，從新學說及寫中文，希望以簡淺的語言，令更多的香港人明白法治的真正義意。
法治不單是守法那麼簡單；否則，這世上沒有可說是法治的社會：因為每個文明社會都有人不守法，甚至刻意犯法。法治是指以一套符合社會公義、基本人權的法律原則去規犯、制衡政府。您有否聽過政府得知有人犯法之前，先申請禁制令？既有法例，為何不執行，要拉法庭進入政治漩渦？利用法律程序藉以達到政治目的，遠遠比公民抗命來得更傷害法治！
有幸大法官看穿了這根本的虛偽，還了民間電台一個公道。這也是香港之福！只希望政府不要不停挑戰法治.....
2 comments:
Ronny,
I support protests or civil disobedience behavior. But I do have reservation on some legislators' decision to attend the Citizens' Radio broadcast.
How do you expect the public to understand the legitimacy of these people's behavior? How do you expect parents to explain to their kids that they are allowed to break the law if they think they are doing what's right?
The Telecommunications Ordinance is outdated, is unconstitutional and needs amendment. But that does not justify people who violate it. Although the Eastern Court has ruled against it, the ruling is yet to be executed and so the law is still valid.
Shouldn't legislators amend the laws they don't see fit for the society? If legislators led in violating laws that they don't see fit, what's left in the faith of rule of law?
I sympathize the activists, but I really can't convince myself to cheer for their "disobedience".
Please convince me, Mr. Barrister.
Two things. First, the definition of civic disobedience is you should accept legal consequences peacefully and not defend any legal punishment. That in itself is respect for the law. If Gandhi did not propound this form of protest, India may never be free. Same for Martin Luther King or Mandela for that matter. So the activists are in good company.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't agree with what they did either. That is why I did not take part. But I can understand their behaviour and I respect it.
Secondly, it is not as if there is no law to prevent their action. There is. My point is why use the Court to achieve a political purpose? That is far more damaging to the Rule of Law than a few people breaking the law. Especially if they are breaking it in the name of civil justice and in the form of civic disobedience. The Judge seems to agree with it.
One last point. Rule of Law is not about blind acceptance of the law. I am not advocating total disobedience. But it is healthy and indeed crucial to any modern society to question the law. That, is the pivotal distinction between Rule of Law and Rule by Law.
Post a Comment