英保守党人权领袖被拒入港 英外相要求解释(图)

英国外相约翰逊对英国保守党<a href=http://www.secretchina.com/news/gb/tag/人权 alt= '人权' target='_blank'>人权</a>委员会副主席Benedict Rogers被拒入境香港事件
英国外相约翰逊对英国保守党人权委员会副主席Benedict Rogers被拒入境香港事件表示高度关注。(图片来源:Getty Images)

【看中国2017年10月12日讯】(看中国记者钟灵综合报导)曾声援香港“双学三子”的英国保守党人权委员会副主席Benedict Rogers,昨日入境香港时被拒,最终乘机返回曼谷,事后他透露曾接获中国大使馆告诫指将被拒入境香港。英国外相约翰逊对事件表示高度关注,要求香港及中方解释。

苹果日报》报导,Benedict Rogers昨日早上从泰国曼谷抵港时被入境处拒绝入境,但无交代确切原因。昨日记者会上有记者提问有关事件,林郑月娥拒绝回应,强调入境政策方面有“很大酌情权”,但不能公开透露“谁可以入境,谁不可以”。

英国外相约翰逊对事件表示关注,英国政府要求香港当局及中方解释,并指香港应拥有高度自治、权力与自由,且应得到中方尊重,不能理解有英国国民被拒入港的情况出现。

立法会议员毛孟静今在保安事务委员会提出Rogers被拒入境一事,情况“令人非常尴尬”,质疑与港府因他曾声援“三子”有关。保安局局长李家超被问到有关事件是否按照“中央指示”行事时,李仅表示“每个入境检查,都由入境处按入境法例与既定入境政策,按实际情况处理”,拒绝回应事件。

《852邮报》报导,前政务司司长陈方安生对事件表示震惊,认为有关举动“严重打击‘一国两制’下港人治港的高度自治政策”,并要求政府详细交代拒绝Rogers入境的原因,回应是否在中央政府的指使下作出有关决定,以及以后会否再出现关注人权、民主、自由的海外人士被拒入境的情况。

Benedict Rogers过去一直关注亚洲多国人权状况,8月曾在伦敦组织声援“三子”黄之锋、罗冠聪及周永康的行动,及要求英国政府应以《中英联合声明》签署国身分为香港发声,被中共视为“眼中钉”。他昨日撰文交代事件经过,并慨叹为香港感到悲哀,希望世界各国能够醒觉,关注香港“一国两制”的制度已经岌岌可危。

***

Benedict Rogers撰文,中文翻译全文如下(翻译取自《苹果日报》):

20年前的我刚毕业,便来到香港开始我的第一份工作。时值香港回归几个月,我从1997年起当记者直至2002年,在香港过了快乐的5年。我从来没想过,20年之后,我会被拒入境香港。

过去3年,我越来越关注香港的自由、法治和“一国两制”备受侵蚀的情况。正因如此,我也越来越多机会接触和宣传香港的现况。我很荣幸曾在伦敦接待过黄之锋、罗冠聪与陈方安生,又与李柱铭紧密合作,他们全都是英雄,也是我的朋友。我想这是合适时机再到访香港,只是简单地见见人、多听多了解现况。过去15年我曾多次到香港,近几年则较少。

此行原本希望与人们私下见面。我已谨慎地查询过,有否可能探望正在监狱服刑的黄之锋、罗冠聪与周永康,可惜约在一星期前我发现这是不可能的事。很不幸,即使只作出查询,亦已引起了中国当局的注意。

上星期五,我接到一通来自英国国会议员的电话。我跟他颇熟悉,也非常尊敬他。他告诉我他接到了中国驻伦敦大使馆的电话,对方对我此行冀探望3名学生的行径表达关注,更表明此举或“对中英关系构成严重威胁”。我请他向中国大使馆重申,我不会尝试到访任何监狱。

即使或许有人会认为这是做得过火,但我亦只希望为事情降温,我自愿向中国当局保证,不会在香港进行任何公开活动,亦不会接受媒体访问。我更提出在回程后与中国大使会面,进行建设性的讨论,听取他们的看法。不过这些提议换来的只有拒绝,还有更进一步的威胁,告诫我将会被拒绝进入香港。

看来还有另一因素。我是保守党人权委员会副主席,是在工余时间担任的义务性质职务,我亦在保守党候选人名单之列。似乎中国当局误会了我的境况,认为我是国会议员、政党高层或是政府官员,由此引伸出我今次香港之行,是以党代表的身份来港。这是可以谅解的,因为在中国,党员就是党员,他们或许不理解英国政党乃是由个人、独立思想组成的,而且义务党员与正式党员亦有区别,代表党行事与私下行事亦不相同。我试图通过第三方向大使馆保证,我绝对不会代表党,更不会代表政府,强调此行纯属私人性质,以普通公民身份,私下与新知旧友在香港见面。不幸的是,这也无法满足中国当局。

与他人商量过后,我认为如果我陷入来自大使馆的压力,经第三方传达非正式的文字讯息,我就会一如平日所批评的他人一样做着同一件事:向中国叩头。我的良心不允许我这么做。如果我在第一道关卡就退缩,还怎有面目去看黄之锋、罗冠聪、周永康、李柱铭、陈方安生等人呢?所以我决定按原定行程尝试入境,当作测试。或许他们只是在虚张声势说不让我入境,希望我息事宁人而作罢。又或许他们是认真的,他们就要公开正式拒绝我入境,向世界展示“一国两制”被侵蚀的另一事例。

很遗憾,后一种情况最终发生了。抵港之后我步向入境部门,如常向入境处人员出示护照。入境处人员将我的名字输入电脑,显然电脑说了“不可以”。她(入境处人员)向上级请示,并带我到柜台后的房间叫我等候。过了不久,一个穿着便服的官员和我见面,我向她保证今次行程属私人性质,私下见见朋友,又提到我曾经在香港生活过5年。她查看我的酒店预订,我还在想或许她们会放行。一会儿后,她正式告知已决定拒绝我入境,将把我送上返回曼谷的航班,亦即今次航程的原出发地。

我必须强调,我对拒绝我入境、一直“看顾”我的入境处人员绝无责怪之意。他们只是执行他们的职务,而且他们待我尽可能地友善和礼貌,他们给我水,又向我微笑。的确,我的印象是他们并不想这样做(拒绝我入境),他们只是在执行上头的指示,他们控制不了。

我在等待上机时,转向身旁的入境处人员微笑,感谢他对我照顾有加。“一国两制是否已死?”我问,“一国一制,对吧?”他眼泛泪光,恳切地说,“先生,我只是在履行职务,我不能评论。谢谢你的合作。”我向他说我知道,我不会怪他。

稍后,我们在上机前握了手,我对他说:“对香港来说,这是非常悲哀的一天。对我来说也悲哀,我无法探望在香港的朋友,但对香港而言特别悲哀,拒绝一个没有犯罪的公民入境。”他点头,再次眼泛泪光,“我明白。这很悲哀。”我临上机前向他说最后一句话,“希望事情会变得更好。”

“一国两制”的原意理应为“港人治港”。但很明显,今次拒绝我入境的决定并非来自香港,而是来自中国政权。“一国两制”的原意理应为法治,惟即使何俊仁律师坐列车赶来机场,希望看看有什么能帮得上忙,最终也未能成事,因为在那之前我已被带上飞机。“一国两制”的原意理应为表达自由、结社自由,这是香港的基本权利,惟尽管我保证不会参与任何公开活动,只有私人性质会面,但我自己的表达自由,以及我希望能会面的人的表达和结社自由,都已经被剥削了。

我倒没关系,香港才是重点。从今次严竣的、个人的、悲痛的亲身经历可知,即使“一国两制”仍然未死去,亦已行将消亡殆尽,而且正在加快。世界各国必须醒觉,尤其作为《中英联合声明》签署方的英国。我对中英关系不会构成任何威胁,但我相信中国政权的举动,尤其是在香港的行径,反而会(构成威胁)。

Benedict Rogers亲撰英文原文

By Benedict Rogers

Twenty years ago,as afresh graduate,I flew to Hong Kong just afew months after the handover,to begin my first job.I spent five very happy years working as ajournalist 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 Ihave 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 aresult,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 afew 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 Ihad realized aweek 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 Ihad that there was aproblem came last Friday,when Ireceived atelephone call from aBritish Member of Parliament whom Iknow 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 Iwould not be attempting to visit any prisons.I took afurther step–a compromise,some might say one too big,but one intended to de-escalate the situation–by voluntarily assuring them that Iwould not undertake any public engagements or media interviews while in Hong Kong.I also offered to meet the embassy upon my return,for aconstructive discussion and to hear their perspectives.These offers were rebuffed and Ireceived further,increasingly threatening messages from the embassy,culminating in amessage warning me that Iwould 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 Iam on the Conservative Party’s Candidates List.It appears that the Chinese authorities misunderstood my status and thought at first that Iwas aMember of Parliament or asenior 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 aparty member is aparty member come what may.They perhaps don’t understand that British political parties are made up of individual,independent minds–and furthermore there’s adifference between avoluntary party member and aparty official,and adifference between someone acting on behalf of the party and someone acting in aprivate,personal capacity.Nevertheless Isought to reassure the embassy,via athird party,that Iwas absolutely not representing the party,and certainly not the government,and that my visit was apurely personal,private visit to meet old friends and new acquaintances in Hong Kong,as aprivate citizen.Unfortunately,that did not satisfy either.

In consultation with others,I took the view that if Iwere to cave in to pressure from the embassy,sent through unofficial text messages via athird party,I would be doing exactly what Ihave criticized others of doing:kowtowing to China.My conscience would not allow me to do that.How could Ilook my friends Joshua Wong,Nathan Law,Alex Chow,Martin Lee,Anson Chan and others in the eye if Icaved at the first hurdle?I decided therefore that Ihad 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 Iwould 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 Ipresented 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 aprivate room behind the counters,and Iwas asked to wait.After alittle while aplain clothes official conducted an interview with me.I assured her that my visit was aprivate,personal visit to meet friends,and that Ihad lived in Hong Kong for five years.She took details of my hotel booking,and Ithought 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 Ihad flown from.

It is important to emphasise that Ido 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 Iwaited to board Iturned gently to the officer standing with me.I smiled,and Ithanked him for looking after me well.“Is one country,two systems dead now?”,I asked.“One country,one system,right?”He looked with ahint 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 Iknew he was only doing his job,and that Idid not blame him.

A little later,as we shook hands at the entrance to the plane,I said to him:“This is avery sad day for Hong Kong.It’s sad for me,that Iam unable to visit my friends in Hong Kong,but it’s particularly sad for Hong Kong,that aprivate citizen who has committed no crime is refused entry.”He nodded,again with ahint 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 asolicitor,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 Iwas 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 Iwould 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 Ihad 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 Ibelieve the conduct of the Chinese regime,particularly in Hong Kong,is.



发表时间: 2017-10-12 15:45:01 作者: 钟灵