人權 2010年春季 Human Rights Spring 2010 by Amnesty International Hong Kong

SPRING

Police Abuse Goes Unchecked in Indonesia

60 Years On: Human Rights in China

印尼警方濫權欠監管

六十年後: 中國的人權發展

愛是人權

Love is a Human Right

春 2010

國際特赦組織(香港) Amnesty International Hong Kong 香港九龍渡船街32-36號富利來商業大廈3樓D室 Unit D, 3/F, Best-O-Best Commercial Centre, 32-36 Ferry Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong 電話 Tel: (852) 2300 1250 傳真 Fax: (852) 2782 0583 網址 Web: http://www.amnesty.org.hk 電郵 Email: admin-hk@amnesty.org.hk 歡迎您的意見和投稿! 請來信或以電郵提出您對我們的意見或分享您對人權工作的經驗。來信請註明姓名、電話、地址和電郵。 WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS! Share with us your views on our work or the actions you've taken for human rights. Please include your name, phone number, address and email address. 閱後請把季刊送贈朋友 Share this newsletter with your friends

特別鳴謝國際特赦組織(香港)在此特別鳴謝以下人士慷慨的時間和努力籌備今季季刊。

好消息 Good News

Special thanks

本地立法諮詢: 家庭暴力條例 Local Legislation: Domestic Violence Ordinance

香港同志遊行2009：愛是人權 Hong Kong Pride Parade 2009: Love is a Human Right

六十年後：中國的人權發展 60 Years On: Human Rights in China

中國人權神話 China's Human Rights Myth

博帕爾：25年的不公義 Bhopal: 25 Years of Injustice

印尼警方濫權欠監管 Police Abuse Goes Unchecked in Indonesia

世界城市反對死刑日：採取行動，廢除死刑 Cities of Life Day: Taking Steps to Abolish the Death Penalty

國際人權日2009：沒有自主，人權何在? Human Rights Day 2009: Where Are My Rights?

尊嚴：生命的基本需要 Dignity: Not Something to Take with a Pinch of Salt

網上人權故事 Learn About Human Rights Online!

實習生、義工及會員 Interns, Volunteers, and Members

AIHK would like to thank the following individuals for their generous time and effort put into this issue of HR Magazine Astrid Lam Brittany Chan Carolyn Suen Candy Chan Delphine Coron Fanny Wu Fei Fei Yeung Helen Mak Isabel Dalpian Julius Chow KL Chan Leo Yau Ma Kin Man Medeleine Mok William Au Patrick Poon Ron Baker Sarah Carmichael Zohura Ali

本刊用再造紙印刷 Ths newsletter is printed on recycled paper

維護人權

主席的話

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR 很高興成為了國際特赦組織(香港)2010年的主席，並且有機會跟你們分享本會在本土以至國際人權事務上的工作經驗，更希望本會訊可以成為我們互相交流促進互動的橋樑。今期會訊的重點文章是關於本會在修訂《家庭暴力條例》的工作。於2007年，當我還沒有成為本會的執行委員時，我代表我工作所屬的婦女團體已跟本會同志組的會員一起參與推動《家庭暴力條例》修訂的運動。我當時了解到整個國際特赦組織已展開了性別觀點主流化工作，所以亦以性別觀點分析家庭暴力問題，並且以「人人生而平等」的基本人權原則，大力倡議保障受害人及防治家庭暴力的政策。在這修例過程中，本會與婦女團體一直合作無間，加上本會同志組跟同志團體緊密聯繫，所以在整個過程中，本會不但在修例上對人權論述作出支援，而且更吸取了相當豐富的游說及與本土團體的連結經驗。另外，2009年是中國建國60周年，全年都充滿了慶祝活動，除了國際間及中國自我推許的經濟建設外，我們更關注中國的人權狀況。今期會訊亦有兩篇關於中國人權議題的文章，其中一篇紀錄了2009年年底本會與香港大學比較法與公法研究中心合辦的研討會，研討會分開了維權人士、死刑、言論自由及經濟、社會及文化權利四大題目，還有潘嘉偉另文補充了維權人士、死刑方面的資料。關注中國人權狀況但沒有出席研討會的朋友，請不要錯過這兩篇文章。除了本土及中國的狀況外，今期亦有東南亞小組為我們報告印尼警察濫權的問題。追溯從前，在上世紀90年代的時候，我在學生時代也響應過印尼學生運動的呼籲，參與了不少到印尼駐港領使處，抗議蘇哈托政權貪污腐敗打壓民主運動的行動，後來欣見蘇哈托政權被推翻，以為新政府可以為人民帶來人權保障，可是事與願違，警方為了寧枉無縱，往往有法不依，導致了很多濫權的情況，所以希望大家支持本會向印尼政府發出停止警方濫權的呼籲。還有其他關於紀錄本會活動的文章，希望能使大家多了解我們去年冬季的工作，亦在此敬祝各位2010年的春天有一個好的開始﹗ 歐美寶國際特赦組織(香港)主席

It is my pleasure to be serving as the Chair of Amnesty International Hong Kong during 2010. I am also delighted to have this opportunity to share some of my experiences concerning local and international affairs; and I hope this magazine will allow all of us to exchange our ideas and facilitate our communication. The main story in this issue is about our work on the Domestic Violence Ordinance. In 2007 – before I became a member of AIHK’s ExCo – I worked with its LGBT Group as a representative of a women’s rights organisation. At that time, I realised that AIHK had already begun work on gender mainstreaming. It therefore analysed the issue of domestic violence from a gender mainstreaming perspective, and it lobbied for a policy to protect the victims of domestic violence on the basis of the basic human rights principle that “everyone is born equal”. AIHK worked closely with women’s rights organisations throughout the amendment of legislation on this subject, and it maintained close relations with the LGBT community through the LGBT Group. In this way, AIHK was able to support the human rights discourse and gain valuable experience of working with other local organisations. Last year also saw the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic China. Besides the celebratory activities and the recognition China received for its economic development from the international community, AIHK focused on human rights issues. This issue includes two articles on the subject. One is a report on the symposium AIHK co-hosted with the Centre for Comparative and Public Law of the University of Hong Kong, which explored the subjects of human rights defenders, the death penalty, freedom of expression, and economic, social, and cultural rights. In the second, Patrick Poon provides additional information about human rights defenders and the death penalty. I hope those of you who did not attend the symposium will read these two articles! Besides reports on the situation in Hong Kong and China, this issue contains a report from the South East Asia Group about the problem of police abuse in Indonesia. When I was a student in the 1990s, I responded to the appeal from the student movement in Indonesia by protesting against Suharto’s corrupt regime and its suppression of democracy at the Indonesian Consulate in Hong Kong. When Suharto was overthrown, I thought the new government would protect the people’s rights, but it appears that there are still problems, due to the police abusing their power. So, I hope that all of you will support our appeal for the Indonesian government to end police abuse. This issue also covers other work that we have done, and I hope you will learn more about our activities during the winter season. I also wish you a good start to the spring of 2010! Mabel Au Chair, Amnesty International Hong Kong

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

好消息 GOOD NEWS

因不公審訊被囚墨西哥原居民終獲釋國際特赦組織歡迎墨西哥原居民Ricardo Ucán Ceca重獲自由。他在不公平的審訊中被控謀殺，被關押接近十年。在審訊時，Ricardo Ucán只能理解及說有限的西班牙語，但卻不懂閱讀和書寫。墨西哥憲法保證原居民擁有在接受審訊時得到傳譯員協助的權利。由於當時他的原居民身份仍未得到確認，因此並沒有傳譯員在旁。而且，國家替他安排的律師亦未能為他提供足夠的辯護。 Ricardo Ucán聲稱他出於自衛才向鄰居開槍，然而國家法庭的判決卻認為他是早有預謀地殺人，因而將其判監廿二年。自從Ricardo Ucán被定罪，國際特赦組織以及當地人權團體進行了各種活動，以尋求公平的審訊，及平反這不公正的判決。國際特赦組織美洲項目副主管Kerrie Howard稱：「墨西哥政府決定解決這案件，就代表默認了Ricardo Ucán遭受的不公及歧視。」

強迫失蹤條約邁進一步再多兩個國家確認一部有關強迫失蹤的條約後，這部劃時代的條約距離正式生效又邁進一步。布基納法索和智利在十二月成為《保護所有人不遭受強迫失蹤國際公約》的第十七和十八個確認國。現在，該《公約》只需要再多兩個國家確認就產生約束力。

MEXICAN INDIGENOUS MAN DETAINED AFTER UNFAIR TRIAL IS FREED

國際特赦組織高級法律顧問Christopher Keith Hall解釋：「該《公約》將為追查強迫失蹤的個案提供新渠道，尤其在某些國家，當有關當局並未執行調查和檢控這些侵犯人權行為的責任。」該《公約》旨在證實強迫失蹤的真相、懲罰加害者並讓受害人及其家屬取得賠償。

TREATY ON DISAPPEARANCES COMES CLOSER TO TAKING EFFECT A landmark treaty concerning enforced disappearances has moved a step closer to coming into force after being ratified by two more countries. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Disappearances Convention) now needs just two more ratifications to become binding, after Burkina Faso and Chile became the 17th and 18th states to ratify it in December. “The Convention will provide a new avenue for pursuing cases of enforced disappearance, which will be particularly important in countries where the authorities fail to meet their obligations to investigate and prosecute such violations,” explained Christopher Keith Hall, Senior Legal Advisor at Amnesty International. The Disappearances Convention aims to establish the truth about enforced disappearances, punish the perpetrators and obtain reparations for victims and their families.

維護人權

Ricardo Ucán與妻子Donaciana Chan在他釋放當天。 Ricardo Ucán and his wife, Donaciana Chan, on the day of his release. © Equipo Indignación

Amnesty International has welcomed the release of Ricardo Ucán Ceca, a Mexican Indigenous man who was detained for almost 10 years following an unfair trial for murder. At the time of his trial, he understood and spoke little Spanish, and he could not read or write. Mexico’s Constitution guarantees Indigenous peoples standing trial the right to have an interpreter. But his status as an Indigenous person was not recognised during his trial, so he was not given one, and his state-appointed lawyer did not provide him with an adequate defence. Ricardo Ucán claimed he shot a neighbour in self-defence, but a state court found him guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him to 22 years. Since his conviction, Amnesty International and local human rights organisations have campaigned for him to be given a fair trial, and for this injustice to be rectified. “The Mexican government’s decision to resolve the case constitutes an implicit recognition of the injustice and discrimination Ricardo Ucán suffered,” said Kerrie Howard, deputy director of Amnesty International's America's programme.

蒙古死囚獲赦免 33歲的Buuveibaatar於2008年10月，獲蒙古總統額勒貝格道爾吉赦免死刑。Buuveibaatar於2008年1月殺害前女友的男友，並於同年8月1日被判謀殺罪名成立。他在案發後翌日被捕，更在沒有律師的情況下接受通宵盤問。他的父親聲稱其兒子是自衛殺人，卻被屈打成招。

撒拉威人權活躍份子絕食抗議後返家國際特赦組織歡迎有關消息指撒拉威人權活躍份子 Aminatou Haidar在蘭薩羅特(Lanzarote)機場絕食抗議一個月後，已回家並與其子女團聚。

Buuveibaatar雖然免除死罪，但仍要在獄中服刑。 2008年蒙古有至少5名囚犯被處決，而所有死刑的資料都被列為國家機密。

MONGOLIAN DEATH ROW INMATE RECEIVES PARDON Buuveibaatar, a Mongolian prisoner, had his death sentence commuted after being granted a reprieve by President Ts. Elbegdorj in October 2008. The 33-yearold had been found guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend in January last year, and he was sentenced to death on 1 August. Buuveibaatar was arrested on the day after the murder, and he was interrogated overnight without access to a lawyer. His father claims the crime was committed in self-defence, and that Buuveibaatar confessed after he was beaten during interrogation. Buuveibaatar will now serve a prison sentence instead. However, at least five people were executed in 2008 in Mongolia, where all aspects of the death penalty are classified as state secrets.

Aminatou Haidar於11月3日被扣留在西撒哈拉阿尤恩 (Laayoune)機場。在此前的一個月，她曾往多國親訪，包括因「不惜冒著巨大人身危險堅定抵抗不公義」而在美國獲授2009年Civil Courage Prize。她說在一位西班牙官員知會她摩洛哥和西班牙官方已簽訂協議後，她獲批以私人飛機返回西撒哈拉。而她的護照則在她返回時獲摩洛哥官方發回。她告訴國際特赦組織她的回歸標誌著「人權及公義的勝利」。該《公約》旨在證實強迫失蹤的真相、懲罰加害者並讓受害人及其家屬取得賠償。

SAHRAWI HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST RETURNS HOME AFTER HUNGER STRIKE

俄羅斯朝廢除死刑邁進一步國際特赦組織歡迎俄羅斯憲法法院最近作出的判決，為徹底廢除死刑的進程踏出重要的一步。法院於去年11月 19日決定延長原定於本年一月結束的死刑暫緩執行期。而且，法院的決定亦意味着完全地廢除死刑。事實上，死刑暫緩執行期自1999年開始實施，原則上會於俄羅斯所有地區都實施陪審團制度時結束。車臣於2010年1月 1日成為最後一個採用陪審團制度的地區，本應暫緩期亦會於同日結束。幸而法院的裁決延長了暫緩期，判詞中亦有提到「在通往完全廢除死刑的大道上是沒有退路的」。

RUSSIA MOVES ONE STEP CLOSER TO ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY Amnesty International has welcomed a decision by Russia's Constitutional Court that brings the country a step closer to abolishing the death penalty entirely. The Court decided on 19 November to extend the current moratorium on executions, which was due to expire in January, and it recommended abolishing the death penalty. In fact, a moratorium has been in place since 1999, and it was due to expire when all the regions of the Russian Federation had introduced jury trials. This was scheduled to happen on 1 January 2010, when jury trials were introduced in Chechnya. The Court has now extended that moratorium, saying that: “The path towards the full abolition of the death penalty is irreversible”.

Aminatou Haidar在蘭薩羅特(Lanzarote)機場絕食抗議32日。 Aminatou Haidar was on hunger strike at Lanzarote airport for 32 days. © Berserk Productions

Amnesty International has welcomed the news that Aminatou Haidar, a Sahrawi human rights activist who spent a month on hunger strike at Lanzarote airport, has returned home and been reunited with her children. Aminatou Haidar was detained at Laayoune airport in Western Sahara on 13 November, when she returned from a month-long visit to other countries, including the USA, where she received the 2009 Civil Courage Prize, which is awarded annually “for steadfast resistance to evil at great personal risk.” She said that she was allowed to fly back to Western Sahara on a private plane after being informed by a Spanish official that an agreement had been reached between the Moroccan and Spanish authorities. Her passport was returned to her upon arrival by the Moroccan authorities. She told Amnesty International that her return was “a victory for human rights and justice”.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

LGBT支持者正在演出“Die –in Action”，諷刺背後的反同性戀團體阻礙立法。 LGBT supporters, including the AIHK LGBT Group, stage a “Die-in Action”, defying the abuse being hurled at them by the anti-gay demonstrators in the background. © AIHK

家庭暴力條例: 保障同性戀者 Domestic Violence Ordinance: Protection of Same-Sex Victims 05

維護人權

家庭暴力條例是賦予受害人向法庭申請禁制令以保護他們繼續受害的民事法律。部份受害人並不希望施虐者負上刑責，但他們亦明白暴力行為很有可能升級，甚至釀成命案。民事法律可在不涉及刑事責任的情況下保障他們。把同性伴侶納入保障範圍的討論於2007 年在立法會展開，國際特赦組織(香港)一開始就介入討論。國際特赦組織(香港)同志組於2007年開始討論《2007年家庭暴力(修訂)條例草案》。是次修訂會廢除過時的條文及加強對家庭暴力受害人的保障。在早期的討論中，曾提及保障同性伴侶的提議，人權組織、婦女組織及同性戀者、雙性戀者及跨性別人士組織均表示同意。

2007 年立法會首讀《 2007 年家庭暴力(修訂)條例草案》草案於2007年6月27日在立法會首讀，兩日後草案便進入法案事務委員會。法案事務委員會在2007年9月28日的第二次會議是公聽會。國際特赦組織(香港)的同志組向法案事務委員會提交意見書，支持修訂條例及強調基於國際人權法，政府有義務把保障同性伴侶納入條例的保障範圍。會議上很多團體也有類似的意見。在2008年5月28日的法案事務委員會會議上，國際特赦組織(香港)向立法會提交第二份意見書，委員會同意應把條例的保障範圍擴展至同性的同居伴侶。政府其後在下一個立法會上提出保障同性同居者的修訂草案。法案於2008年6月18日的立法會上二讀及三讀通過，但並沒有包括同性伴侶。

《2009年家庭暴力(修訂)條例草案》《2009年家庭暴力(修訂)條例草案》在2009年6月5日提出，支持的團體以為法案會順利獲得通過及生效。可是在2009年6月29 日法案事務委員會的首次會議上，數位議員公開表示反對把同性伴侶納入條例的保障範圍。在2009年7月30日的第二次會議上，國際特赦組織(香港)提交了口頭及書面的陳述。有很多反對同性戀的宗教團體出席該次會議，他們並不了解法案的內容但因為它保障同性戀者而反對。國際特赦組織(香港)重申這是人權議題。在過去二十年來，同居的異性伴侶已受到法例保障；同性同居伴侶和異性的伴侶同樣有受到家庭暴力的風險，他們亦應受同等的保障。在國際人權法下，政府有義務不歧視任何人的性取向。在一輪憤怒的言論及激烈的討論後，政府最後也被說服，因為不保障同性同居者是有違基本法及政府的義務。包括同性同居伴侶的草案在2009年12月16日交到立法會，但名稱則改為《家庭及同居關係暴力條例》以取悅反對者。國際特赦組織(香港)及其他組織成功游說大部份議員支持把同性同居者納入保障範圍。這只是一個很簡單的民事法修訂，但這證明持續不斷的爭取人權及能帶來正面的結果，儘管要花費大量的時間和力量。

The Domestic Violence Ordinance is a Hong Kong civil law that grants victims of domestic violence the right to an injunction order from a court against their abusers as a means of preventing them from suffering further harm. Some victims of domestic violence do not wish their abusers to be charged with a criminal offence, yet they may be in a situation where there is a very real risk the abuse could escalate to the point of murder. This civil remedy might therefore offer them some protection without involving the criminal code and punishment. Discussions about the inclusion of samesex couples under the Ordinance began in LegCo in 2007, and AIHK has been involved in them from the outset.

AIHK’s involvement began with the LGBT group The AIHK LGBT Group started to get involved in preparations and discussions about the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2007. This would amend the outdated existing Ordinance to create better protection for domestic violence victims. The coverage of same-sex domestic violence victims was first raised at an early stage in the discussion, and it was endorsed by other human rights, women’s and LGBT organisations.

First reading of the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2007 in LegCo The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill 2007 was first read on 27 June 2007. The Bill Committee work began two days later. The Bill Committee’s second meeting on 28 September 2007 was opened up for public consultation. The AIHK LGBT Group made a written submission to the Bill Committee stating its support for the Amendment Bill, but stressing that it should include same-sex domestic violence victims, based on the government’s obligations under International human rights laws. Many other representatives at the meeting echoed this view. AIHK made a second submission to the Bill Committee at its 27 May 2008 meeting. The Bill Committee agreed the Ordinance should be extended to cover cohabitating same-sex couples. The government gave the task of introducing an amendment to the Ordinance to include same-sex couples to the next legislative session. The Bill was read for the second and third times on 18 June 2008, and it duly passed into law. Yet it did not include same-sex couples.

The Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill 2009 The Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill was first introduced on 5 June 2009. The organisations which had supported the Bill expected it would be passed and come into force smoothly. But trouble began during the Bill Committee’s first meeting on 29 June 2009, when a few vocal legislators openly opposed its inclusion of same-sex couples. AIHK made written and oral submissions to the second meeting on 30 July 2009. This meeting was attended by many anti-gay religious groups. They did not show much understanding of the Bill, but they opposed it because it included same-sex couples. AIHK stated that it was a human rights issue. Partners in samesex cohabiting relationships run the same risk of suffering from domestic violence as their heterosexual counterparts; they should therefore receive the same protection that their heterosexual counterparts had enjoyed for the previous 20 years. It also stressed that the government was obliged under international human rights laws not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. After a lot of heated debate and angry words, the government was finally convinced that not including same-sex couples would be a violation of its treaty obligations and the Basic Law. The Bill – including same-sex couples – was tabled in the Legislative Council on 16 December 2009, but its name was changed to the Domestic and Cohabitation Relationships Violence Ordinance in order to appease its opponents. AIHK and other NGOs therefore succeeded in persuading most LegCo members that same-sex couples should be included in the Domestic Violence Ordinance. Although this was just one simple civil law in Hong Kong, it demonstrated that persistence in fighting for human rights and continuous engagement with the government can yield positive results, even if it takes a lot of time and effort.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

愛是人權

Love is a Human Right 自豪地前進 Marching with pride © Ronald Ng

維護人權

起步！

Action!

我們前進，我們跳舞，我們表達了對同志人權的支持‧‧‧

We marched, we danced, and we showed our support for LGBT rights…

我們穿著AI的T-shirt，揮動著螢光黃的示威標語及橫額，如此吸引，途人絕對無法忽視我們。我們就是AI，我們在這裏就是要支持性小眾所應享有的人權。我們創作「愛是人權」這口號的靈感是來自一首刻劃出我們信念的歌曲，我們堅信：性小眾應得到與所有人一樣的權利，包括選擇愛誰，他們的權利不應被剝奪。這是一個陽光普照的下午，大約2時許，過百AI會員齊集灣仔修頓球場支持是次活動。

It was hard to miss us, in our Amnesty tee shirts and waving our bright yellow protest signs and banners. It was clear that we were Amnesty, and we were there to back the rights of sexual minorities. Our slogan, “Love is a Human Right”, was inspired by a song that describes a truth we believe in: that sexual minorities should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to choose who to love, and that they should not be deprived of those rights. More than 100 Amnesty members met up to show their support for this event at around 2 pm in Southorn Playground, Wan Chai. It was a very sunny day.

警察試圖催促我們加快腳步。但我們並不忽忙，我們按著自己的步伐走到終點站遮打花園後，仍樂而忘返，陶醉在支持同志人權的歌聲中。

The police tried to rush us as we marched. They kept asking us to walk faster. But we were in no hurry, and we marched at our own pace. We continued to participate after we arrived at our destination, Chater Garden, and we enjoyed listening to some singers giving their vocal support for LGBT rights.

這次行動的目的是甚麼？

What was the purpose of our action?

我們特別邀請了一班年青人參加今年的遊行。在音樂的節拍中，我們邁步前進。我們很高興有這麼多途人支持我們及我們的標語。愛是我們所共享的。即使你沒有同志朋友，你也能領會到正是愛把我們連在一起。正是愛推動這麼多人前來，告訴全世界，同性之間也能相愛。他們要挺身而出，向全世界傳達這個訊息及他們的存在。Kelly Alexander，育有兩名子女的同志運動長期支持者說：「我只想我的孩子知道 – 只要他們是個好人，愛誰並不重要。

哪些聯合國人權條約賦予的權利時至今日仍被否定？性小眾的基本人權受到《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》、《經濟、社會與文化權利國際公約》及《兒童權利公約》所保護。香港的「小憲法」基本法亦賦予被平等對待的權利。既然如此，是甚麼使政府就保護性小眾人權及反歧視的立法停滯不前？政府一直將這詭辯成「道德」問題。諷刺的是剝奪同志的權利才是不道德的行為。小眾人權問題存在已久，社會上某些反對的聲音並不能作為政府猶疑不決，未能落實其國際人權公約所授予責任的藉口。

AI成員能怎樣幫忙？我們期望更多AI成員參加我們的遊行。我們鼓勵AI成員加入我們的同志組，支持我們的行動及公眾教育的方針。香港李寶椿聯合世界書院的學生Kumar表示：「我們已得到更多人的接納，雖然未被欣賞，但我們的行動已跨進了一大步。」倘若這個理想能得到你的支持，我們便能喚起更多的改變，創造一個不一樣的世界。同志遊行充滿樂趣，也是一個伸張正義的機會。希望明年會看到更多的AI成員參與! 同志組

We made a special point of asking young people to join us for this year’s march. We marched with our speakers playing upbeat music, and we were delighted to see so many people giving us and our signs a positive response. Love is something we all share in common. And even if a person doesn’t have any gay or lesbian friends, he or she can still appreciate that it is love that binds us all together. It was also love that motivated all those people to come and tell the world that they might fall in love with another person of the same sex. They need to make themselves visible in order to gain the public’s understanding about this reality, and to make it aware of their existence. As a mother of two and a long-time supporter of LGBT rights, Kellie Alexander said, “I want my kids to know that it doesn’t matter who you love, as long as you’re a good person.

What rights guaranteed under UN human rights treaties are people being denied today? The human rights of sexual minorities are protected under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Covenant on the Rights of the Child. Their right to equal treatment is also enshrined in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law. So, what is preventing the government from enacting a law to prevent discrimination against sexual minorities and to protect their rights? It has been making excuses and describing this as a “moral” issue, when it is in fact immoral to deny their rights. The rights of minorities are always human rights issues. The opinions of some sectors of the community are not an excuse for the government’s failure to fulfil its obligations under international human rights treaties.

What do we expect Amnesty members to do about this? We would like more of our members to show an interest in joining our rights marches. We encourage them to join our LGBT group in raising this issue as part of our activism and public education efforts. As Kumar, a student from Li Po Chun United World College, stated: “We have managed to become more accepted, if not appreciated. The fact this is happening is already a big step.” By supporting this cause, we will be able to inspire further changes and make a real difference. The Pride March was a lot of fun, and a chance to do the right thing. We look forward to seeing more of our members there next year! LGBT Group

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

60年後: 中國的人權發展 60 Years On: Human Rights in China 「60年後:中國的人權發展」研討會在香港大學舉行。 “60 Years On: Human Rights in China” took place at the University of Hong Kong. © Billy Leung

在中國經濟持續發展，在國際事務上的重要性日益上升之際，國際特赦組織(香港)聯同香港大學比較法與公法研究中心於2009年 11月7日在香港大學合辦研討會，探討中國的人權發展。有多位知名中國事務專家發言。討論的事項包括中國維權人士、死刑、言論自由、以及經濟、社會、及文化權利。

維權人士中國維權律師關注組創會會員及中國事務秘書張耀良，首先質疑維權律師的定義。對於批評中國人權人士，他反駁: 除了批評，還有何作為?他強調，人權教育及推動與維權人士同樣重要，因此他將知識份子、律師、及本土非政府組織歸類為維權人士。隨後，他討論到地方官員聘用黑道鎮壓和平示威的情況，問題的嚴重性達至令人憂慮的程度。這種高壓手段被廣泛應用，令中央政府關注對管治認受性造成的挑戰。張耀良又提到，加強公共產黨在法律專業角色至為重要；有部分律師事務所與共產黨或黨支部合組事務所，令共產黨可透過法律專業的監控，挑戰維權律師的工作。在總結時，張耀良認為中國維權人士會為國家開創樂觀的未來。

死刑香港大學法律學系系主任傅華伶教授在發言初段時指，中央政府已有共識減少死刑的數目，但對於如何實現目標未有共識。政府曾考慮將部分罪行、如非暴力罪行排除在死刑之外，但擔心這會造成另一些問題。例如，貪污是中國最嚴重的問題，而網民對於貪污不判死刑的建議非常憤怒。傅華伶認為，一個可行方法是修改法律內容但保留法律名稱，如盜竊維持是死罪，但只有情況嚴重的才會被判死刑。傅華伶又認為，程序改革亦有助減少死刑。以前省人民法負責覆議暴力罪行的死刑判決，現在覆議的權力由最高人民法院行使，有助減少死刑數目。由於最高人民法院覆議判決，令地方法官判案時更加小心，對改革死刑產生催化作用，是一個好開始。但是，有關死刑的事宜亦不全是共產黨可以控制。程序改革後，被控刑事罪人士仍是無助，這是因為他們是由法律援助律師代表抗辯，微薄的律師費影響他們對案件的投入程度。共產黨最終目標是維持社會治安及穩定，有關死刑的討論，焦點並不在於應否把人處死，而是如何回應對廢除死刑的強烈民間反應。

言論自由著名時事評論員黃世澤探討中國在科技發展的趨勢下，於互聯網

維護人權

的言論自由。他將互聯網科技演變分開三個階段：Web 1.0, Web 2.0及3G。在Web 1.0階段，由於網站受制於共產黨的互聯網供應牌照制度，網民只能接觸到有限的網上資訊。他引用師濤例子，指雅虎擔心失去牌照，遂與共產黨合作，交出師濤的個人資料。互聯網科技持續發展，網民能在以Web 2.0書寫及上載自己的資料，博客及網上論壇的來臨令分享資訊更加容易。最重要的是， Web 2.0令共產黨更難去過濾資訊。黃世澤然後討論3G年代的重要性，在於令網民可以多媒體方式分享資訊。他指出，3G比2G 速度更快，令網民可以上載及報導更多資訊。但是，3G技術亦同時令政府可以鎖定網民的位置，增加網民的風險。

經濟、社會及文化權利勞工權益活躍份子、中國勞工通訊創辦人韓東方，將中國過去 60年的經濟、社會、及文化權利分開不同階段：最初三十年以毛澤東帶領政治鬥爭為特色，後三十年則以經濟發展扮演領導角色。韓東方指後三十年可細分為1989至1999及1999至現在兩個階段：他形容最初十年是由貪污引起的黑暗與恐懼時代。例如，五十萬工人在國有企業改革期間失去工作而又得不到賠償。工人自覺再沒有任何損失，就大無畏地抗爭，受到警察強力鎮壓。出於對社會公義的要求，促成維權人士及民間組織的興起。韓東方認為，中國過去60年的發展並非以人民利益為依歸，而是不斷的權力鬥爭。但是，他指出現是國家的以人為本的管治哲學正向正確方向邁進。在總結發言，他說：「對於中國的『人權發展』進度，我們感到不滿，但至少向正確方向前進。」

執行委員會會員頒發感謝狀給張耀良先生。 EXCO Member Richard Tsoi presents a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Cheung Yiu Leung. © Billy Leung

serves as a catalyst for other reform. This is a good starting point. Nonetheless, the issue of capital punishment is not in the party’s hands alone. Even after procedural reform, people charged with criminal offences often remain powerless and voiceless, because they are usually represented by legal aid lawyers, whose level of commitment to their clients reflects the minimal fees they are paid. The party’s ultimate objective is social order and stability. Where the death penalty is concerned, its focus is not so much on whether to kill a person or not, but how to respond to the public’s strong feelings about the subject.

Freedom of Expression

韓東方先生。 Mr. Han Dongfang © Billy Leung

As China’s economic development continues and its importance in international affairs grows, AIHK and CCPL co-hosted a symposium to examine the development of human rights in the country at the University of Hong Kong on 7 November 2009. A number of noted experts on Chinese affairs discussed human rights defenders, the death penalty, freedom of expression, and economic, social, and cultural rights in China at the gathering.

Human Rights Defenders Mr. Cheung Yiu Leung, a founding member and current Mainland Affairs Secretary of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, began his talk by questioning the definition of human rights defenders. His rationale was to address the critics of human rights in China. “Besides criticising, where do we go from here?” he asked. Cheung emphasised that the roles of people who promote and educate others about human rights are just as important as those who defend them. For that reason, he included intellectuals, lawyers, and local NGOs under the heading of human rights defenders. Cheung went on to discuss the employment of gangsters by local officials to crack down on peaceful protests, which is quite worrying. Local authorities have been using their services so extensively that the Central Government is beginning to get concerned that the practice might undermine its governing legitimacy. Cheung raised another point about the significance of strengthening the Communist Party’s role within the legal profession. Apparently, a number of law firms in China have established joint branches with the party or party branches. In fact, the party’s policy is to maintain tight control over the legal profession. Obviously, its oversight of the profession poses numerous challenges for lawyers who wish to defend human rights. However, he ended on a positive note by concluding that China’s human rights defenders create optimism about the country’s future.

The Death Penalty The Head of the Law Department at the University of Hong Kong, Professor Fu Hualing, began his talk by pointing out that there is a general consensus in China’s Central Government about reducing the number of executions. But how to achieve this has still not been decided. The government once considered removing some items from the list of crimes that might be subject to capital punishment, such as non-violent crimes. But this would create another problem. Corruption is the most serious crime in China, and Netizens are very upset by the idea that it might no longer be subject to the death penalty. Fu mentioned that one way to change the law is by changing the substance without changing the title. For instance, theft would remain a capital offence, but only in serious cases. Fu indicated that procedural reform would be another way to reduce the number of death sentences. In the past, reviews of sentences for violent crimes were delegated to provincial courts; but the Supreme People’s Court has now recentralised the process in order to reduce the number of executions. The fact that the Supreme People’s Court will review death sentences puts pressure on judges to be more careful about passing them, and it

Prominent political commentator Mr. Martin Oei examined freedom of expression on the Internet in China in the context of technological developments. He divided the evolution of Internet technology into three phases: Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and 3G. During the Web 1.0 phase, Netizens could access only a limited amount of online information, because websites were regulated by the party’s IP licensing system. He cited Shi Tao as an example, stating that Yahoo had cooperated with the party by handing over Shi’s personal information, for fear of losing its licence. As Internet technology continued to develop, Netizens were able to write and upload their own content on Web 2.0. Sharing information became much easier with the advent of blogs and online forums. Most importantly, it became much more difficult for the party to filter the flow of information. Oei then discussed the significance of the 3G era, which has given Netizens the technology to share information in multimedia formats. He pointed out that 3G is much faster than 2G, and that Netizens can upload and report even more information. However, 3G technology poses a risk to Netizens, because the government can use it to pinpoint their location.

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR) Mr. Han Dongfang, a workers’ rights advocate and founder of the China Labour Bulletin, examined the development of ESCR in China over the past 60 years by separating it into different stages. He argued that it could be divided into the first 30 years, characterised by the political struggles led by Mao Zedong, and the second 30 years, in which economic development played the leading role. Han claimed that the second 30 years could be further subdivided into the decade from 1989 to 1999 and the decade from 1999 to the present. Han described the first 10 years as a period of unnecessary darkness and fear, resulting from corruption. For example, half a million workers lost their jobs without compensation during the reforms of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Feeling they had “nothing to lose”, these workers fought without any sense of fear, but the police forcibly suppressed their efforts. Demands for social justice created the need for the human rights defenders and civil organisations who emerged during the second decade. Han concluded that China’s development in the past 60 years has not been in the interests of its people. It has simply been an ongoing power struggle. However, he pointed out that it is important that the current administration’s people-oriented (以人為本) governing philosophy is moving in a positive direction. Han closed his speech by saying: “We may not be happy with the speed [of human rights development], but at least it’s moving in the right direction”.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

中國人權神話 China’s Human Rights Myths 儘管中國近年經濟猛飛，我們還是天天看到報章以中國侵犯人權的新聞作頭條。我不時會遇到一些人，一些在中國人權狀況屢遭評擊時依然不聞不問的人。他們只道中國旅遊景點或商業樞紐；他們不理解為何人權組織針對中國的人權問題。或許，因為他們不曾見過村裏窮農民或城中貧工人吧？更不用提及異見人士、作家、維權律師，和其他為少數族裔、宗教團體和不同性向的群體爭取權益，及廢除死刑及捍衛人權的人士。有人會懷疑百姓的投訴及活躍份子的說法的真偽，因為他們從平日於中國的「實際生活」經驗得出，在這片土地上，他們還是可以到上高級餐館或是豪華酒店享用豐富的晚膳，到裝潢一流的商場購物。更重要的是，中國成功舉辦2008年的北京奧運會！這一切都太完美了，完美得叫西方國家不禁思量是否該開始「仿傚」中國這種「富中國特色的社會主義」。總結以上種種，對中國人權狀況的指控是否純屬虛構？或是一如中國政府面對所有批評時所堅持的，是外國破壞份子的陰謀？又或者是一如中國官員經常聲稱的，中國當前最迫切的人權議題是讓13億人民得到溫飽，滿足了人民的基本需要，始可著手改善其他人權範疇的問題？無疑，中國正在崛起，其一動一靜對全球經濟舉足輕重。尤其是非洲及阿拉伯的國家，更視中國為可與美國抗衡的龐大經濟體系。但難道這都是支持中國政府實行獨裁統治，及打壓異見人士的理據嗎？中方常稱其對人權的理解與西方有異，而每當西方國家譴責中國對人權問題處理不當時（如死刑問題、迫害維權人士、鎮壓藏人及維吾爾族人等），中國總是反指外國「干預中國內政」。

女子接受被判處死刑。 Woman receiving death penalty sentence © Reuters

走。這個日子正是《零八憲章》出版前兩天。劉氏起草《零》，為的是宣告其對中國境內改善人權、爭取民主及維護法治的訴求。超過300名知識份子已簽署《零》，當中包括學術人士、作家、記者及律師等。2009年6月23日，劉氏正式被控以「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」。在此之前的七個多月中，劉一直住在北京城郊，接受「監視居住」。12月25日這天本是普世歡騰的節日，但對劉來說，2009年的聖誕節卻是淒涼的一天：劉氏於這天被判罪名成立，入獄11年。可喜的是，直至2009年12月為止，國內外已有超過10,000人簽署《零》，相信劉氏亦會感到欣喜。另一個案例的主人翁是譚作人和黃琦，他們一直在四川從事維權工作。2008年5月四川汶川發生大地震，樓房倒塌導致多人死亡，譚氏和黃氏二人致力調查「豆腐渣工程」問題。最後分別被控以「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」及「持有國家機密罪」，黃氏更於 2009年11月23日被判罪名成立，入獄三年。

事實勝於雄辯。現在讓我一一羅列中國主要的人權問題。讀者看後可自行決定這些指控是否只是「妖魔化中國政府的陰謀」。死刑：據國際特赦組織資料顯示，中國政府於2008年至少處決了 1,718個死囚，另有7,003多人被判處死刑。值得關注的是這些判決並非經公平聆訊所得。在絕大部份情況下，被告人都不能循正常途徑接觸律師。在扣留期間，他們有可能遭受各種酷刑對待。縱然有關當局指，自2007年起最高人民法院開始再度審理案件，判處死刑的數字已顯著下降，但實際行刑數目屬國家機密，不能外泄，故外界無法得悉官方所言是否屬實。 2009年12月29日，中國處決一名英藉男子Akmal Shaikh，指其偷運海洛英入境。Akmal Shaikh的家人及英國政府曾求情，指謝犯罪時神智不清，可是中方依然堅持己見。Akmal Shaikh是自1951 年以來首位被中方判處死刑的歐洲公民。可見中國政府決心為執行死刑辯護，向外國種種有關人權的指控下戰書。迫害維權人士：在國內，異見作家、維權律師和維權活躍份子一直遭受不同形式的打壓，如禁錮、酷刑虐待及全天候監視。中國政府最常以「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」及「顛覆國家政權罪」的罪名作懲罰維權人士的藉口。劉曉波案是近來最炙手可熱的例子。劉氏是北京有名的作家，更是獨立中文筆會的榮譽會長。2008年12月8日，劉氏遭公安帶

維護人權

第三個例子是有關中國政府如何「禮待」國內維權律師。江天勇、唐吉田、劉巍、溫海波四人的律師執照無法續期，有關當局更定期警告他們不要受理一些敏感的案件；高智晟自2009年2月4 日在北京的老家失蹤，至今音訊沓然；山東失明「赤腳律師」陳光誠在服刑的4年3個月期間，一直肚瀉，離奇得很；廣東法律維權人士郭飛雄正在服其5年判刑，但他卻無法與其家人見面。這些故事令人汗顏－－律師尚且受到政府當局此等對待，平常百姓爭取人權的道路豈不是更荊棘滿途？美國總統奧巴馬於2009年11月15至18日期間訪華，與國家主席胡錦濤和總理溫家寶會晤，但奧巴馬並沒有把握機會在會面時指出中國的人權問題，亦沒有對談時提及境內遭監禁的維權人士。既然如此，我們能夠採取甚麼行動? 如果我們不希望看到中國的人權問題延續，作為世界公民，我們必須讓中國政府明白應該怎樣對待她的公民。潘嘉偉國際特赦組織（香港）執行委員會會員獨立中文筆會副會長中國維權律師關注組執行秘書香港天主教正義和平委員會執行委員會會員

News about human rights violations in China continues to hit the newspaper headlines every day, even though many people are impressed by the country’s remarkable economic development. I sometimes meet people who shrug their shoulders when human rights groups criticise China’s human rights records. They only travel to the country’s magnificent tourist spots or business hubs, and they can’t understand why human rights groups still focus on China’s human rights problems. Perhaps they never have the chance to meet ordinary farmers or workers, not to mention the increasing number of political dissidents, writers, human rights lawyers and other activists who advocate rights for ethnic minorities, religious groups and people with various sexual orientations, as well as the abolition of the death penalty, and other basic human freedoms. Some outsiders might say they doubt whether the grievances of these ordinary people and the claims of the activists are genuine. Their “real-life” experiences in China show them that it is possible to enjoy dinners in luxurious hotels and restaurants, and shop in glossy shopping malls. On top of everything else, China is such a great nation that it even hosted the Beijing Olympic Games. Everything in China seems so perfect that some Westerners consider whether they should “learn” from China’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” So, are the accusations about China’s human rights record just myths or conspiracies created by “subversive foreign elements”, as the Chinese government invariably maintains when it faces any criticism? Or is China’s most urgent human rights issue still the struggle to feed its 1.3 billion population, after which it will be able to improve in other areas, as Chinese officials often claim? China is undoubtedly becoming a world power. It has enormous influence in the global economy. Many African and Arab countries in particular regard it as a counterbalance to the United States’ dominance of the world economy. But are we reinforcing China’s authoritarian regime and rationalising its suppression of dissidents? China often claims its understanding of human rights is different from that of the West. It accuses Western countries of “interfering in China’s internal affairs” if they criticise its human rights shortcomings, such as the death penalty, harassment of human rights defenders and suppression of Tibetans and Uyghurs. Facts speak better than rhetoric. Let’s look at some of China’s major human rights problems. Readers can then decide whether or not they really are parts of a “conspiracy to demonise the Chinese government”. The death penalty: According to Amnesty International, at least 1,718 executions were carried out and 7,003 people were sentenced to death in China during 2008. These penalties were not in the result of fair trials, and the defendants did not always have proper access to lawyers. They may also have been tortured in various ways after they were detained. Although the authorities say the number of death sentences has fallen since the Supreme People’s Court began reviewing all of them on 1 January 2007, the statistics on this subject and the number of executions carried out remain state secrets. So external observers are unable to verify the official claims.

One of the most recent examples was Liu Xiaobo, a prominent Beijing writer and honorary president of the Independent Chinese PEN Centre, who was taken away by public security officers on 8 December 2008, two days before its authors planned to publish Charter 08. This manifesto called for improvements in human rights, democracy and the rule of law in China, and it was initially signed by 303 intellectuals, including academics, writers, journalists and lawyers. Liu was formally arrested on a charge of “inciting subversion of state power” on 23 June 2009, after he had been under “residential surveillance” in a Beijing suburb for more than seven months. Even more outrageous was the fact that China chose to sentence Liu to 11 years’ imprisonment on 25 December 2009, while many people in the West were celebrating Christmas. As of December 2009, more than 10,000 people in China and overseas had signed Charter 08. Another is the case of Sichuan human rights defenders Tan Zuoran and Huang Qi. They investigated the sub-standard construction of buildings in which thousands of people died during the Sichuan Earthquake in May 2008. The two were charged with “inciting subversion of state power” and “possessing state secrets”, respectively. Huang was jailed for three years on 23 November 2009. A third example concerns the government’s treatment of human rights lawyers. About 10 of them – including Jiang Tianyong, Tang Jitian, Liu Wei and Wen Haibo – failed to have their legal practice licences renewed; and they have been periodically warned not to take up sensitive cases. Beijing human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng disappeared on 4 February 2009 and has not been heard of since. Shandong’s blind “barefoot lawyer”, Chen Guangcheng, has been suffering from acute diarrhoea while he is serving a prison sentence of four years and three months. Guangdong legal activist Guo Feixiong is serving a five-year sentence, and he is not being allowed to see his family members. If lawyers have also become the targets of official harassment, how can ordinary citizens struggle for their own human rights through legal channels? Unfortunately, US President Barack Obama did not raise any specific human rights issues or the cases of any imprisoned human rights defenders at his meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabo during his first state visit to China on 1518 November 2009. So, what can we do? If we do not want to see the human rights myths about China perpetuated, it is our duty as citizens of the world to make the Chinese government understand how it ought to treat its citizens. Patrick Poon Executive Committee member of AIHK Vice-chairman of the Independent Chinese PEN Centre Executive Secretary of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group Executive Committee member of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese

On 29 December 2009, China executed Akmal Shaikh, a British national who was arrested for smuggling heroin, despite pleas for clemency by his family and the British government, who said he was mentally unstable. Shaikh was the first European citizen to be executed in China since 1951. One thing we can be sure of is that China is still determined to justify executions and defy any foreign criticisms of them. Harassment of human rights defenders: Dissident writers, human rights lawyers and human rights defenders are subjected to various forms of harassment, including imprisonment, torture and roundthe-clock surveillance. The government often invokes charges of “inciting subversion of state power” and “subverting state power” to punish these dissidents.

四川環境活躍份子與作家譚作人。 Sichuan environmental activist and writer Tan Zuoren © Private

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

1984年美國聯合碳化物災害的生還者大多是明及患有早期白內障。 Early-age cataract and blindness are common among survivors of the 1984 Union Carbide gas disaster. © Andy Spyra

博帕爾:25年的不公義 Bhopal: 25 Years of Injustice 13

維護人權

1984年博帕爾慘劇是全球史上最嚴重的工業意外。1984年12月 23日晚上，印度博帕爾一家殺蟲藥工廠 ── 聯合碳化物公司 (UCC)洩漏出27噸致命氣體，導致數以千計在睡夢中的民眾喪生以及更多人受傷。時至今日，許多於當晚受傷的傷者和鄰近地區的居民，仍受到這場災難的後患影響。災難事緣有大量水份流入工廠的異氰酸甲酯(MIC)儲存庫，觸發一場危險的化學反應，導致約40噸MIC從貯存庫排出，散播到空氣之中。事故發生後，工廠被揭早前因縮減開支，以致6個不可或缺的安全系統故障甚至關閉。事件曝光後，當時聯合碳化物公司的行政總裁Warren Anderson就氣體洩漏事故被控以非謀殺行為的殺人罪，被博帕爾最高法院下令出庭受審。 Warren Anderson因為拒絕出庭回應殺人控罪，被印度政府宣佈成為逃犯。由於該公司現歸陶氏化工所有，陶氏被視為在美國國土窩藏逃犯，受壓要將旗下子公司交由法庭審理。 2004年，這場受公眾注目的訴訟在印度中央邦高等法院開審，尋求清理事發現場及其他恢復措施，但至今仍未有定案。縱使高等法院命令政府清理現場，政府卻沒有聽命，關於責任誰屬的法律爭議仍懸而未決。由於大部份受害者均來自社會上的貧窮階層，在過去25年來，沒有人為他們討回公道而做過些甚麼。受害者曾透過美國法律體系索償，亦不成功。起初，聯合碳化物的法律團隊辯稱印度法院更適合審理這宗案件，而美國區域法院亦贊成將博帕爾一案交由印度法院審理，但條件是聯合碳化物必須接受印度法院的管轄，該公司卻對此條件提出上訴。後來，該公司突然改變立場，在上訴庭宣稱：「雖然印度法院提供足夠的討論平台，卻未能遵守本國視為理所當然的合法訴訟程序。」氣體洩漏案事發至今已四分一個世紀，390噸棄置於聯合碳化物工廠的有毒化學物質仍不斷污染該區地下水。由於居民依靠水維生，包括兒童在內，當地約有數以千計的居民因為長期受到這些化學物質影響而健康受損，例如患有癌症、神經線受損、經期絮亂、身體殘障和精神病等。為了提高香港對事件的關注，2009年12月2日，國際特赦組織 (香港)在尖沙咀舉行燭光晚會。我們在會上擺放展板，讓公眾知道事件的相關資訊，並邀請途人簽署請願書支持博帕爾居民。是次活動呼籲陶氏化工淨化前聯合碳化物工廠以及鄰近地區，並促請該機構與印度政府積極合作，向深受其害的死難者作出賠償，結束25年的不公義。縱使聽過此事件的人不算多，我們最終仍得到超過100人簽署，實在令人鼓舞。 1984年博帕爾悲劇破壞性極大，對世界影響深遠，令人難以忘記。博帕爾慘劇反映出機構(尤其跨國機構)如何利用法律保障自身利益，使受害者處於劣勢。在經濟全球化的大氣候下，從事跨國活動者擅長跨國經營，勢力強大，若要避免如此悲劇再度發生，則有必要建立出更有效地應付經濟全球化實況的法律和制度，以保障人權。而類似國際特赦組織(香港)於去年12月安排的請願書和活動，能有助提升公眾關注，朝著為死難者討回公道的目標進發。

The 1984 Bhopal tragedy was the world’s biggest-ever industrial disaster. Twenty-seven tons of lethal gases leaked from the Union Carbide Company (UCC) pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, on the night of 23 December 1984. They killed many thousands of people and injured thousands more as they lay sleeping. A lot of those who were injured that night – as well as others who live in the surrounding area – continue to suffer from its after-effects, even today. The disaster began when a large quantity of water got into the factory’s Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) storage tank. This triggered a dangerous chemical reaction that caused about 40 tons of MIC to pour out of the tank and escape into the air. After the incident, it was found the factory had been trying to cut its costs. Six of its essential safety systems were either malfunctioning or had been switched off in order to save money. As a result of this revelation, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal ordered Warren Anderson, then the Chief Executive Officer of UCC, to appear in court to face charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in connection with the gas leak. Warren Anderson has refused to appear in court to answer the homicide charges, so the Indian Government has declared him a fugitive from justice. Since the company is now wholly owned by Dow Chemicals, Dow is considered to be harbouring a fugitive on American soil, and it is being pressured to surrender its subsidiary to the court. A public-interest litigation case seeking a clean-up of the site and other rehabilitation measures that was brought in 2004 is still before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Although the High Court ordered the government to clean up the site, the government has not done so, and the legal arguments about liability have dragged on in the courts. And, since almost all the victims came from the poorest sectors of the community, little has been done to secure justice for them in the last 25 years. Efforts by the victims to get redress through the US court system have also failed. UCC’s legal team first argued that the Indian courts were a better forum for the case. The US District Court upheld the motion to send the Bhopal case to the Indian courts, on condition that UCC submits to their jurisdiction. UCC appealed against the condition. In a complete about-turn, the company then claimed in the appeals court that: “Indian courts, while providing an adequate forum, do not observe due process standards that would be required as a matter of course in this country.” A quarter of a century after the gas leak, 390 tons of toxic chemicals that were abandoned at the Union Carbide factory are still polluting the region’s groundwater. Exposure to these chemicals is continuing to affect thousands of local residents, including children, who depend on it. They are suffering from various health problems, such as cancer, neurological damage, irregular menstrual cycles, physical deformities and mental illness. To raise awareness about this injustice in Hong Kong, AIHK organised a candlelit vigil in memory of its victims in Tsim Sha Tsui on 2 December 2009. We displayed boards containing information about it, and we invited passers-by to show their support for the residents of Bhopal by signing a petition. This called on Dow Chemicals to decontaminate the former Union Carbide factory and its surrounding area, and it urged the company to engage proactively with the Indian government in order to provide adequate compensation to those who were affected and to end 25 years of injustice. Even though not many people had heard about the incident, we were still able to collect over 100 signatures, which was a great result. The devastating 1984 Bhopal tragedy made a huge impact on the world, and one that will not be forgotten. The Bhopal disaster highlights how companies can use the law to protect their interests, which significantly disadvantages the victims of those companies, particularly transnational corporations. If we are going to be able to prevent more disasters like this from occurring in the future, laws and systems that protect human rights need to evolve in order to deal more effectively with the realities of a globalised economy in which powerful transnational actors operate across state boundaries. And petitions and events like the one AIHK arranged in December will help to increase public awareness and take us one step closer to securing justice for their victims.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

印尼:警方濫權欠監管 Indonesia: Police Abuse Goes Unchecked 印尼自從1998年蘇哈托總統的獨裁政權垮台以來，推行了多項改革，令法治和人權保障得到改善，但政策和現實依然存有極大差距，人權法例的實施情況更值得關注。國際特赦組織不斷收到有關印尼國內侵犯人權的報告，當中更有不少是警員侵權的例子。雖然警方在日常工作上面對不少困難，但執勤時亦有責任尊重印尼國家法律有關人權的條文，以及該國須履行的國際人權公約。國際特赦組織屢次收到巴布亞警方侵犯人權的報告，當中涉及施以酷刑、虐待和非法殺害。然而，他們甚少被追溯此等行為的責任。

和刀傷。目擊者稱，警方於4月6日的示威中，在Karang Tumartis 市場把他拘捕。警員對他拳打腳踢，用步槍槍托毆打他並用刺刀戳他至死。據指他的遺體以黑色膠袋包裹，藏於倉庫3 天後才被棄置於Waharia村。 2009年6月24日，據說警方在38歲Melkias Agape位於納比雷 Siriwani的寓所內把他殺死。Melkias Agape當時患有瘧疾。警員到場指他偷取電單車鑰匙時，他情緒激動，取刀揮舞。他的一名家人介入其中，從Melkias Agape取回鑰匙並將之交還警員，但警員隨即向天鳴槍5響，又將Melkias Agape壓在木柱上，發射3發子彈，把他殺死。

背景印尼保安部隊與巴布亞獨立派武裝份子發生輕微衝突，使軍警雙方加強該區兵力。最近數月，該區暴力升級，多人因和平地表達支持獨立的觀點而被拘捕、扣留或囚禁。

2009年6月，Melkias Agape的遺體置於納比雷警署門前。 Melkias Agape’s body lies in front of Nabire police station, June 2009. © Private

為受害者討回公道地圖顯示印尼巴布亞省的位置。 Map showing the province of Papua, Indonesia. © Amnesty International

巴布亞人權捍衛者Theo Hesegem在香港發表演說時，強調有必要解決警方和軍方侵犯人權的問題，使施虐者和非法殺害者不再免受刑責，為受害者討回公道。Theo於巴布亞提倡人權多年，報導了許多關於軍警涉及虐待和非法殺害的個案，亦曾向警隊講解人權。

巴布亞警方濫用暴力 2009年1月29日，警方暴力驅散一些堵塞道路的和平示威者，據指警方向群眾發射橡膠子彈，令最少5人受傷，同時還對示威者拳打腳踢。事件中，8名示威者被捕，他們除不得與外界接觸，亦被斷水斷糧，受傷人士尋求適當治療的要求亦被拒。他們翌日獲釋，但被勒令其後每天須到警署報到。 2009年4月6日，警方向抗議巴布亞納比雷侵犯人權而呼籲杯葛選舉的示威者發射實彈和橡膠子彈，最少7人受傷，包括一名下課返家途中中槍的10歲學生，一名警員亦被箭刺傷。此外，警方涉嫌拘捕時毆打和虐待16名政治活躍分子。

非法殺害有報導指，巴布亞納比雷警員涉嫌非法殺害Abet Nego Keiya和Melkias Agape。

國際特赦組織呼籲印尼當局： • 調查巴布亞納比雷警方涉及侵犯人權和人命死亡的事件，並發表調查結果； • 把踐踏人權的警員免職，確保他們受到法律制裁； • 確保所有巴布亞警員熟悉有關人權和使用武力的印尼警察規例，以及相關的國際準則，確保他們在日常工作上能夠遵守這些規則；及 • 設立獨立的警隊監察機制，處理公眾人士的投訴。您可以幫助受巴布亞侵犯人權影響的受害者維護公義，請瀏覽http://bit.ly/ausUaR，了解更多有關此行動的詳情。

2009年4月9日，納比雷區 Wa h a r i a 村發現 1 9 歲 A b e t Nego Keiya（右圖）的屍體。他的胸部被壓碎，身上有多處傷痕，包括頭部創傷

立即行動

Indonesia has embarked on many reforms since the downfall of the authoritarian regime of President Suharto in 1998. While these have enhanced the rule of law and provided better protection for human rights, there are still huge gaps between policy and practice where the implementation of human rights laws are concerned. Amnesty International is continuing to receive many reports about human rights violations in the country, including a number committed by police personnel.

rights violations by the police and military forces, so that those responsible for ill-treatment and unlawful killings will no longer be able to act with impunity, and to secure justice for their victims. Theo has been involved in human rights advocacy in Papua for many years, reporting on many cases involving torture and extrajudicial killings by the army and police and giving briefings about human rights to the police.

The police face many challenges in their daily work. Yet while they are carrying out their duties, they are also obliged to respect the human rights provisions in Indonesia’s national laws and in the international human rights treaties that the country has ratified. Amnesty International has received consistent reports about the police violating human rights in Papua. They include allegations of torture, ill-treatment and unlawful killings. Yet police officers are rarely held accountable for such actions.

The background A low-level conflict between Indonesian security forces and proindependence insurgents in Papua has resulted in a heavy police and military presence in the region. Violence there has increased during recent months. Many people have been arrested, detained or imprisoned for peacefully expressing pro-independence views.

Police violence in Papua On 29 January 2009, some peaceful demonstrators who were blockading a road were violently dispersed by the police, who reportedly shot rubber bullets into the crowd, wounding at least five people. They also kicked and beat the demonstrators. Then they arrested eight of them, who were alleged to have been refused access to the outside world and deprived of food and drinking water. Those among them who were injured were said to have been denied appropriate medical care. The eight were released the following day, but ordered to report to the police station every day thereafter. On 6 April 2009, police fired live ammunition and rubber bullets at demonstrators who were calling for a boycott of elections in protest against human rights violations in Nabire, Papua. At least seven were injured, including a 10-year-old student who was shot while he was returning home from school. A police officer was also injured by an arrow. Furthermore, the police beat and ill-treated 16 political activists while arresting them.

Unlawful killings Police officers in Nabire, Papua, were reportedly involved in the unlawful killings of Abet Nego Keiya and Melkias Agape. On 9 April 2009, the body of 19-year-old Abet Nego Keiya (pictured opposite) was found in Waharia village, Nabire district. His chest had been crushed and he had numerous injuries, including trauma to the head and stab wounds. According to witnesses, police had arrested him in the Karang Tumartis market during a demonstration on 6 April. They had punched, kicked and beaten him with rifle butts and stabbed him with bayonets until he was dead. His body was then reportedly hidden for three days in a black plastic bag in a warehouse before it was dumped in Waharia village.

Take action Amnesty International calls on the Indonesian authorities to: • Investigate reports of human rights violations and deaths involving police officers in Nabire, Papua province, and to publish the results of their investigations; • Relieve any police officers who are found to have committed human rights violations of their duties and ensure that they are brought to justice; • Make certain that all police officers in Nabire are familiar with Indonesian police regulations concerning human rights and the use of force, as well as relevant international standards, and ensure they are able to apply these in their daily work; and • Set up an independent police oversight mechanism to deal with complaints from the public. You can help to secure justice for the victims of human rights violations in Papua. To find more details about this action, please go to http://bit.ly/cjA0NH

On 24 June 2009, police reportedly killed 38-year-old Melkias Agape at his home in Siriwani, Nabire. Melkias Agape was suffering from malaria, and he became agitated and brandished a knife when police officers arrived and accused him of stealing a motorcycle key. A family member intervened, obtained the key from him and returned it to the police officers. But immediately afterwards, the officers fired into the air five times, pinned Melkias Agape against a wooden pillar, and shot three bullets into his body, killing him.

Justice for the victims In an inspiring presentation in Hong Kong, Papuan human rights defender Theo Hesegem emphasised the need to address human

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

雖然沒有香港政府的支持，但世界城市反對死刑日亦得到很多人的關注和支持。 Even without the Hong Kong government’s support, Cities for Life Day attracted many supporters and concerned individuals. © Billy Leung

世界城市反對死刑日: 採取行動，廢除死刑

Cities for Life Day: Taking Steps to Abolish the Death Penalty 「世界城市反對死刑日」由聖艾智德團體發起，於2002年在意大利創立，並獲世界反死刑聯盟支持，國際特赦組織為聯盟的創會成員之一。每年該日都有慶祝活動，以紀念托斯卡納大公國於

合國通過死刑暫緩令兩週年，成為全球最大型倡議廢除死刑活動。

1786年成為歐洲首個廢除死刑的國家。

2009年的「世界城市反對死刑日」成功吸引眾多熱心人士及團體，與國際特赦組織一起反對死刑。

國際特赦組織強烈反對死刑，因為死刑等於國家有預謀地冷血謀殺人類，違反生存的權利。聯合國大會於2007年12月18日，通過全球死刑暫緩令，為實現全球廢除死刑目標立下里程碑。此暫緩令的基本原則，是公義不能涉及為報復而殺害他人，以及要以更人道方式對待罪犯。世界上超過一半國家已經廢除這種殘酷不仁的處罰方式，廢除死刑的國家數目，亦由於它們的領袖改變看法而不斷增加。最近，就有多哥及布隆迪兩個國家於2009年廢除死刑。雖然兩年前聯合國通過決議後取得不少進展，但一些國家，包括中國、伊朗、沙地阿拉伯、巴基斯坦及美國仍會執行死刑。這五個國家的處決人數，佔2008年全球被處決人數的一半有多。若果這些國家能跟隨其他更開明的國家廢除死刑，我們將更接近實現全球廢除死刑目標。 2002年有60個國家參與創立「世界城市反對死刑日」。而2008 年，有近1,000個城市、包括55首都城市在該日組織慶祝活動。於2009年，多個倡議廢除死刑團體，在超過1,000個城市慶祝聯

維護人權

香港自1966年起就沒有執行死刑，並在1993年正式從法律上廢除了死刑。然而，香港政府並沒有響應我們的呼籲去參與這項活動，讓香港錯失了表達維護生命的立場，使我們感到相當遺憾。因此，國際特赦組織(香港)、香港天主教正義和平委員會及聖艾智德團體已於11月29日下午2時至6時，齊集尖沙咀慶祝「世界城市反對死刑日」，倡議全球廢除死刑。我們亦成功收集超過 130個簽名支持全球廢除死刑。除了展覽及簽名活動，我們還舉行集會，內容包括死囚證辭、宣言、燃點燭光等等。國際特赦組織相信每一個政府都應該執行聯合國死刑暫緩令，亦會繼續支持「世界城市反對死刑日」，直至死刑完全廢除為止。我們的目標，是令還未廢除死刑國家的領袖改變心態，無論罪犯所犯何罪，都應尋求新的方法對待。這樣，被錯判的人士，將有機會在真相大白後重獲自由──被處死的人卻永遠不會有這樣的機會。最後的問題: 為何我們要處死殺人犯，去證明殺人是不對?

世界城市反對死刑日紀念著托斯卡納大公國於1786年成為歐洲首個廢除死刑的國家。 Cities for Life Day celebrates the decision in 1786 by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany to become the first country in Europe to abolish the death penalty. © Billy Leung

“Cities for Life Day” was started in Italy in 2002 by the Community of Sant’Egidio, and it is supported by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP), of which Amnesty International was a founding member. Every year, it celebrates the decision in 1786 by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany to become the first country in Europe to abolish the death penalty. Amnesty International strongly opposes the death penalty, because it is a premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state, and it violates the right to life. On 18 December 2007, the UN General Assembly voted in favour of the Universal Moratorium on Capital Punishment. This was a milestone in the direction of worldwide abolition. It was based on the principle that justice should never involve avenging the loss of one life by taking another, and that convicted criminals should be dealt with in more humane ways. More than half of the countries in the world have abandoned this horrific and cruel method of punishment. The number is constantly growing, as more and more change their views about the subject. Most recently, Togo and Burundi abolished the death penalty in 2009. Yet, despite the further progress there has been since the UN resolution was approved two years ago, some countries – including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States – still practice the death penalty. Between them, these five nations accounted for more than half the executions that took place around the world during 2008. If they followed the example of more enlightened members of the international community and did away with the practice, it would make the goal of ending the death penalty worldwide a lot easier.

The 2009 “Cities of Life Day” was a huge success. It attracted many concerned individuals and organisations, who voiced their opposition to the death penalty in unison with Amnesty International. Hong Kong stopped executing people in 1966, and it officially abolished the death penalty in 1993. However, the Hong Kong government did not respond to our call to promote “Cities for Life Day”. We were greatly disappointed that it missed this opportunity to defend the right to life. In response, AIHK, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese, and the Community of Sant’Egidio joined forces in Tsim Sha Tsui to celebrate the 2009 “Cities for Life Day” and campaign for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty from 2:00 to 6:00 pm on 29 November. More than 130 signatures were collected in support of the global abolition of the death penalty. Besides an exhibition and collecting signatures, we organised a public assembly which included the testimonies of death-row prisoners, declarations, and a candlelit vigil. Amnesty International believes every government should fully implement the UN resolution, and it will continue to support “Cities for Life Day” until all of them do. Our goal will be to get those countries which have not yet abolished capital punishment to change their mindsets and find new ways of dealing with offenders, regardless of the nature of their crimes. That way, anyone who has been wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit can still be freed if the mistake comes to light, an option that is not available if they have already been executed. One final question: “Why do we kill people who have killed other people in order to show that killing people is wrong?”

In 2002, the inaugural “Cities for Life Day” was observed in 60 countries. In 2008, nearly 1,000 cities, including 55 capitals, organised activities to mark it. In 2009, various organisations that are campaigning to end the death penalty celebrated the second anniversary of the UN resolution in more than 1,000 cities, making it the biggest-ever worldwide event to campaign for the abolition of capital punishment.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

國際人權日2009 Human Rights Day 2009

維護人權

2009年12月6日，國際特赦組織(香港)和其他機構在銅鑼灣慶祝每年一度的國際人權日。

AIHK and various other organisations staged their annual celebration of Human Rights Day in Causeway Bay on 6 December 2009. A different general theme is chosen for this event every year.

國際人權日2009的目標是聯手抱擁多元、結束歧視。「人人生而自由，在尊嚴和權利上一律平等。」這是《世界人權宣言》第一條的開首語。聯合國1948年通過並公佈《世界人權宣言》，第一次確立國際人權法的基本原則。然而時至今日，世界上仍然有數以百萬計的人被迫每天抵抗著歧視。很多國家的人民被暴政和鎮壓逼使著沉默。只有還有人需要為自由抗爭，國際特赦組織等機構就會與他們攜手行動，並為那些沒有其他發聲渠道的人說話。

The goal of Human Rights Day 2009 was to join hands to embrace diversity and end discrimination. The expression “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” are the opening words of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948. This document established the basic principles of international human rights law for the first time. However, even now, millions of people around the world are forced to struggle against discrimination on a daily basis. People in many countries are being silenced by tyranny and oppression. As long as people need to fight for liberty, organisations such as AI will stand side by side with them, and speak out for those who have no other voice.

歧視通常都會妨害人權。所以國際人權日也希望能夠提醒大家反歧視的重要性。國際特赦組織(香港)在國際人權日2009活動負責的主題是「難民」。難民是害怕因自身的種族、宗教、國籍、社會團體成員的身分或政見而被迫害的人。他們在自己的國家得不到幫助，因此嘗試在其他國家尋求庇護來保護。可是，他們經常不能獲得難民身份，反而被分類為尋求庇護人士或非法入境者。難民一般會被協助移居他國；但如果他們沒被重新安置，他們就可能成為疾病、童兵、恐怖主義招募活動、暴力行為或性暴力的受害者。這主題與香港尤其相關，因為《聯合國關於難民地位的公約》尚未於本港適用。而且，香港政府仍未建立一套符合國際標準的法律框架及程序，去就尋求庇護人士的身份清晰和決斷地行動和決定，確定尋求聯合國《禁止酷刑公約》保護的申訴的合法性。這些人被剝奪了很多權利，要制止這種情況，我們必須停止對它們和其他遭受不平等待遇的人的不公正。國際人權日提醒我們所有人，這些問題是如何的重要，而如果足夠的人決定採取行動，我們或可帶來改變。

Discrimination usually hinders human rights. Human Rights Day therefore exists to remind people about the importance of this issue. The theme of the AIHK contribution to the 2009 Human Rights Day Event was “Refugees”. Refugees are people who fear being persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. They are unable to receive aid in their home country, so they try to protect themselves by seeking refuge in another country. However, they often do not receive refugee status. Instead, they are classified as asylum seekers or illegal immigrants. Refugees are usually taken in by another country; but if they are not resettled, they risk becoming the victims of disease, child soldiering, terrorist recruitment, or physical and sexual violence. This topic is especially relevant in Hong Kong, because the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not yet apply here. Neither has the Hong Kong government established a legal framework and procedure for determining the validity of the claims of those seeking protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture that complies with international standards and provides clear and decisive action and decisions concerning the status of asylum seekers. Such people have many of their rights taken away from them. To stop this happening, we must stop the injustices against them and other individuals who are suffering from inequality. Human Rights Day reminds all of us about how significant these subjects are. And if enough individuals decide to take action about them, we may be able to make a difference.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

「樽鹽」與「尊嚴」一樣都是生命的基本需要。 Bottle of Salt in Chinese (尊嚴) sounds the same as 'Dignity'. Dignity is essential to life, as salt is. © APYN

尊嚴:生命的基本需要 Dignity: Not Something to Take with a Pinch of Salt 21

維護人權

「尊嚴聖誕」行動: 青年網絡會員在12月23日在銅鑼灣散播尊嚴信息。 Dignity Santa: APYN Members gather in Causeway Bay on 23 December to spread the idea of Dignity. © APYN

國際特赦組織是個獨立於任何政治理念、宗教派系和經濟體系的團體，現在積極地在全球各國發起爭取人權運動，為生活於貧窮和被剝削的人發聲。亞太區青年網絡 (下稱「青年網絡」)是國際特赦組織旗下的一個地區性青年網絡。此網絡旨在團結社會上的年青人，共同為各種人權議題行動。自去年9月開始，香港青年網絡發起尊嚴與人權運動，集中力量組織一連串以人權為中心的行動，在社會中傳揚爭取更多人權是減少貧窮的起步點之重要訊息。尊嚴與人權運動的目的在於為社會各階層爭取更多人權以減少貧窮現象和喚起市民對尊嚴與人權等議題的關注。尊重人權意指社會上每個人能共享有尊嚴的生活，有權得食物、水、基本醫療、教育和住屋；此外，社會上還有不少人生活在被剝奪、不安全和不受重視的環境之中。解決這些問題的重點正是喚起更多人對尊嚴的關注和認同。 2009年12月23日，一群香港的年青人發起了「尊嚴聖誕」行動，趁著臨近聖誕佳節的熱鬧氣氛，一同到銅纙灣的中心地區向廣大市民派發自製的宣傳品。一個個細小的玻璃樽，盛載著雪白的鹽，中間豎有一張印有「尊嚴」二字的字條，以「樽鹽」的形態向廣大市民發放共同爭取更多「尊嚴」訊息。鹽是人類每天生活中不可或缺的礦物，既珍貴又普遍，貼切地象徵著人人都該享有的尊嚴和基本人權的訊息。藉著向這次行動，我們希望喚起社會對人權和尊嚴的關注，令更多人明白要協助解決貧窮和人權不平等等問題，需要社會上每一分子的參與和支持。經過上次「雨傘快閃黨」的行動，我們已成功地引起某些媒體和不少市民的注意。於是，這次的「尊嚴聖誕」行動，我們期望進一步讓市民認識香港青年網絡以及其宣揚的訊息，為往後更多以爭取人權和維護尊嚴為中心的行動帶來積極的影響力。

Dignity means recognition and protection of the rights (civil, cultural, economic, political and social) that every human being is entitled to. It embodies the concepts of justice and the inclusion of all people. Demand Dignity has been launched to stop the human rights abuses that keep people poor. Since September last year, a group of local people have been planning and organising events at regular intervals to demand greater dignity for deprived people. By demanding dignity, we mean insisting that every state implements laws, policies, and practices to end deprivation, insecurity, and exclusion. We aim to amplify the voices of those who live in poverty, and press for effective responses by political leaders. On 23 December 2009, Asia Pacific Youth Network(APYN) took advantage of the year-end holiday atmosphere to spread awareness of the concept of dignity by holding the Dignity Santa event in the heart of Causeway Bay. During a season associated with peace and goodwill, we spoke out with the aim of reminding Hong Kong people how important dignity is to all of us. We wore Santa Claus hats as our uniforms, displayed APYN’s banner, and handed out small bottles containing some salt and a piece of paper bearing the Chinese character for “dignity” to passers-by. In Chinese, “Bottle of salt” (尊嚴) sounds similar to “dignity”; so we used salt to convey the idea that dignity is as essential to life as salt. As with our previous events – such as Capture Dignity and the Umbrella Flashmob last September and October respectively – we succeeded in raising the public’s awareness. However, we felt we were able to interact even more closely with people during the Dignity Santa event. This meant we could promote the concept of dignity with greater effectiveness. In our upcoming 2010 events, APYN Hong Kong will continue to work on issues of widespread importance, and enlist the support of more people. APYN is sponsored by Amnesty International, and its impact is increasing as we gather a growing number of young people and broaden our network in different countries of the Asia-Pacific region. APYN Hong Kong is currently campaigning to raise public awareness in Hong Kong, particularly about human dignity.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

網上人權故事

Learn about human rights online! 籌備半載的網上人權故事終於在2009年12月10日（國際人權日）「啟播」。在此，本會感謝所有參與製作、策劃、校對及配音之義工們。雖然故事暫時只有中文版，但各位的努力已令更多港人了解人權的真義 – 至今已有超過7,000人次登入該網站。

After six months of preparations, our website displaying adapted stories about various human rights concerns went “live” on 10 December, 2009, International Human Rights Day, at http://www. amnesty.org.hk/edweb/ . The site has so far received more than 7,000 hits.

網上人權故事以改編個案為骨幹，闡述不同的人權關注點。

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all the volunteers who have taken part in producing, planning, proofreading and dubbing it. Although the stories are available only in Chinese at the moment, their efforts have already helped more people to understand the meaning of human rights.

故事網站： http://www.amnesty.org.hk/edweb/ 人權，並非什麼遙不可及的概念。滿足人們的基本生活所需 – 衣、食、住、行 – 亦乃人權之一部份；免受歧視和侵犯亦是人權之一；兒童擁有接受教育及生存的權利；貧民區居民亦應有尊嚴地生活。國際特赦組織(香港)揀選了幾個不同範疇的人權議題 – 難民、死刑、對婦女使用暴力、童兵、種族歧視及貧民區 – 為故事大綱。故事內容淺白易明，讓大眾能簡單掌握人權的基本概念。網站適合社會各階層、家長、教師及學生瀏覽。瀏覽者亦歡迎在「意見欄」留言及發表意見。

今天，世界各地仍有無數人的權利被侵害，卻沒有能力反抗。當我們生活在一個看似富足，人人都有權選擇的地方的同時，請放遠目光，關心我們身邊不同的弱勢社群，積極為他們爭取人們應有的尊嚴和自主。我們希望透過此故事網站，讓大眾更了解侵犯人權的嚴重性及尊重人權的重要性。故事英文版已展開籌備工作，期望很快與大家見面，讓我們的人權訊息傳遍世界每個角落。

維護人權

Human rights is not a complex idea. We all need food, clothing, housing and transportation to satisfy our basic needs, while freedom from discrimination and violence and the right to receive education and live with dignity are all parts of our human rights. The individual stories have been grouped under various human rights themes, such as refugees, the death penalty, violence against women, child soldiers, racial discrimination, slums and forced eviction. They are simple and clear enough to enable people to comprehend basic human rights concepts. Their target audiences are parents, teachers, students and other parties who are interested in exploring human rights. Visitors are welcome to leave their comments after viewing them. Millions of people cannot speak out for their rights. Whilst most of us in Hong Kong live comfortable lives, it is also important for us realise the grave human rights violations that are taking place around us. Through this educational website, we hope the general public can learn more about the seriousness of human rights violations and the importance of respecting human rights and human dignity. The preparatory work for the English version has begun. We expect to have the stories ready soon, which will allow us to spread human rights messages to all the corners of the world.

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

實習生、義工及會員 Interns, Volunteers & Members 我在國際特赦組織(香港)六個星期的實習一轉眼便完結了。在這裡每一天我都學到新的事物，與同事分享富啟發性的時刻和集體構思一些更好的運動。沒有一刻令我覺得自己是在「工作」。每個人都很熱衷想做好每一場人權運動。記得其中一位同事曾經告訴我，推動人權運動的成果不是一朝一夕可以看到，有時人們在過程中甚至會感到氣餒，在這些時候我們應當想起國際特赦組織的蠟燭標誌。與其詛咒黑暗，不如點燃蠟燭。如果我們每一個都能點亮一根蠟燭，黑暗就會慢慢被光明取締。國際特赦組織為良心犯爭取權利。多年來它的工作已伸展到包括所有被侵害人權的人。於實習期間，我有機會為其中的一些人爭取權益。當中由其使我感動的是在昂山素姬捕及審訊後發起的運動，難民電影節和紀念六四事件的人權運動。作為人權推動者要接觸融入大眾不是一件容易的工作。我也認識到教育公眾的重要性︰這是人們能夠參與的唯一途徑。我很感激可以有機會在國際特赦組織實習。與我共事的都是很好的人，他們對自己的工作都是充滿熱誠的。這是一個年輕和重視創意的工作空間。我很享受在這裡的時間，獲益良多，更交了不少有趣的朋友。 My six weeks at AIHK passed by very swiftly. I learned so much every day, shared some inspiring moments with my colleagues, and came up with some ideas for better campaigning. I didn’t for one moment think that I was “working”. Everyone in the AIHK office enjoys their work for the right reasons: it is meaningful because it helps to improve human rights, and it involves real individuals and real events. I remember one colleague telling me that human rights campaigning doesn’t usually have immediate, measurable and visible results, and people sometimes become frustrated during the process. It’s at moments like these when the icon of the AI candle comes to mind. Instead of cursing the darkness, we can light candles. And if each of us lights a candle, the darkness will eventually be replaced by light. AI campaigns for prisoners of conscience. Over the years, its work has extended to include many people whose human rights are being violated. During my internship, I had the chance to campaign for some of them. I was especially moved by the campaign following the arrest and trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Refugee Film Festival, and the human rights campaign to commemorate the June 4th Massacre.

維護人權

Reaching out to the community as a human rights activist isn’t always easy. I also realized how important public education is: it’s the only way the public can be involved. I’m very grateful to have had the opportunity to be an intern at AIHK. I worked alongside some amazing colleagues who are passionate about what they are doing. It’s a perpetually young office where creativity is valued. I enjoyed my time very much, learned a lot, and made some very interesting friends. 陳少蘅 Candy Chan

作為一個主修會計及金融的學生，我一直對國際特赦組織(香港)及其工作不甚了解。然而，這五個星期的實習使我獲益良多—不只對機構本身，更重要的是一些和我們有切身關係的課題。如果我沒有得到在國際特赦組織實習的機會，便不會知道世界上正在發生的許多事，例如博帕爾化學洩漏事件及有關死刑的議題。過去五星期的實習是一個非常好的經驗。我認識了許多很好的人，也有機會做一些改變了我對事情的看法的研究。此外，實習有助我更常思考世界，及如何可為它帶來改變及令更多人知道不公義的存在。 As an accounting and finance major, I didn’t know much about AIHK or exactly what it did. But my five-week internship taught me a lot, not only about the organisation but also about a number of issues that affect everyone. If I hadn’t been given this chance to intern with AIHK, I wouldn’t have known much about things that are happening in the world, such as the effects of the Bhopal chemical leak and the death penalty. Working here for the past five weeks has been an amazing experience. I was able to meet plenty of wonderful people, and I had the chance to research topics that have helped to change my outlook about various matters. Furthermore, the internship helped me to think more about the world, and what I can do in order to make a difference and make more people aware of the injustices that exist. Zohura Ali

我一直都很想成為國際特赦組織的義工，因為我十分欣賞這非政府組織所作的事──在世界各地為維護及捍衛基本人權作出抗爭。我的家鄉法國在推動全人人權視野方面作出了很大的貢獻。可惜政府經常都因為經濟及政治的原因而違背這個理想。作為一個學生會有很多空閒時間，所以我可以容易地抽出時間及盡我所能去幫助國際特赦組織(香港)。我在那裏遇到的人總是十分友善，而且他們會毫不猶疑地向我提供幫助。即使我不懂得說中文，也從來不是一個問題。每當有一個原則需要去捍衛時，國際特赦組織(香港)就會在那裏。在世界反死刑日，我們收集簽名來抗議日本的情況；在香港同志遊行中我們有很多參與者，不同國藉的支持者都在國際特赦組織的旗幟下昂然前進。比起收集簽名或籌募捐款，我比較享受辦公室的文職工作，主要是因為對一個不會說本地的語言的外國人來說，要主動接洽及說服別人有一定的難度。我希望在將來能夠繼續為國際特赦組織服務，因為這在任何方面都是一個有趣、有意義及充實的經驗。爭取人權的抗爭是永不熄滅的。 I’ve always wanted to be a volunteer at Amnesty International, because I have a great admiration for this NGO, which fights to uphold and protect the essence of human rights all around the world. My country - France - has made big contributions to promoting the vision of human rights for all people. Yet its government often compromises on this ideal for economic and diplomatic reasons. As a student with a lot of free time, it’s relatively easy for me to help out at AIHK every now and then, and as much as I can. I always find the people I meet there extremely kind, and they offer me their unhesitating support. Even though I don’t speak Chinese, that’s never been a problem so far. AIHK is there every time a principle needs to be fought for. We collected signatures to protest against the situation in Japan on the World Day Against the Death Penalty; and we had quite a big contingent at the Hong Kong Pride Parade, with supporters of many nationalities marching behind the Amnesty International flag. I enjoy doing manual and office work more than collecting signatures or fundraising, mainly because it’s a bit difficult to approach people and advise them when you come from a different nationality and you don’t speak the local language. I hope I will be able to continue helping in the future, as it’s a very interesting, fulfilling and enriching experience, in every way. And the battle for human rights never ends. Delphine Coron

DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS