香港論壇:法治、警權、人民 Hong Kong Forum: Rule of Law, Police Power, People

香港論壇:法治、警權、人民

 

香港論壇:法治、警權、人民
Hong Kong Forum: Rule of Law, Police Power, People


日期:2019/12/21(六)
時間:9:00 - 17:30

地點:國立交通大學光復校區人社三館103教室

主辦單位:國立交通大學文化研究國際中心、國立交通大學社會與文化研究所、國立交通大學亞際文化研究碩士學位學程(台聯大系統)

活動詳情:https://www.facebook.com/events/1172977786237807/
**全程中翻英同步口譯

Date: December 21, 2019 (Sat) 
Time: 9:00-17:30
Venue: R103 HA Building 3, National Chiao Tung University

Organiser: 
International Center for Cultural Studies (ICCS_NCTU), 
Institute of Social Research and Cultural Studies (SRCS_NCTU), 
International Master’s Program in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies (IACS_UST)
For more details: https://www.facebook.com/events/1172977786237807/

Forum Agenda attached 
**Simultaneous Interpretation(Chinese-English)


簡介
自今年(2019)3月15日起,至6月9日大規模爆發的反對《逃犯條例》修訂草案社會運動,至今已經八個月,香港示威堵路活動仍然不絕。雖然《逃犯條例》至今已暫時撤回,但在催淚瓦斯的煙硝不斷,人民對法治與警權的信任基石已然動搖。

是次活動的首個關鍵詞是「法治」。運動最初由《2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例(修訂)條例草案》(又稱《逃犯條例》)引起,運動期間警方逐漸收緊批出反送中遊行的「不反對通知書」,亦引起對於《公安條例》的討論,10月開始香港政府動用英殖年代以來訂立的《緊急情況規例條例》(又稱《緊急法》)禁止蒙面,11月香港高等法院裁定《緊急法》和《反蒙面法》違憲,繼而引起中國全國人大的反對和港府上訴,法律問題一直貫穿整場運動。在高舉法治為核心價值的香港,「依法司法」(rule of law)作為與中國「以法管治」(rule by law)的區隔,對香港人民而言,司法制度失去合法性意味著甚麼?如何形塑反送中運動的行動?這些法律和司法體制的具體細節和問題是甚麼?從台灣的角度又如何看待《逃犯條例》的問題?
第二個關鍵詞為「警權」。蒙面而高度武裝的執法部隊,匿名地行駛公權力,在遊行集會中,隨意進出民居、大學等私人範圍,把反送中運動示威者呼喝為「曱甴」(蟑螂),發射上萬枚戰爭禁用的催淚彈藥,配以「不公開成分」的水炮設備,拘控數以千計的市民。被捕的人除了示威者,也不乏記者、社工,以至急救人員,他們當中受可致命的棍擊、槍傷不計其數,甚至有疑被阻延急救。在扣留期間,執法部隊對被捕人士施以酷刑、性侵,「示威者被自殺」的傳言也不徑而走。而面對親政府示威者的暴力行為,執法部隊卻被咎病尺度不一。在全球學者聯署譴責執法部隊下,另一邊廂,卻有指這些執法者徇私枉法的形象,源於示威者的惡意渲染,到底這種認知上的平行時空是如何構成?新冷戰的分析又如何左右我們對運動的理解?
第三個關鍵詞是「人民」。反送中運動經常以「香港人」的身份認同作為框架,到底以這種身份認同動員的運動有甚麼能量和限制?運動裡的香港人和居港的少數族裔真的連結了嗎?對中國內地人的取態如何?再退後一步觀察,「香港人」跟地緣政治的關係是甚麼?如何理解運動裡的情感結構?運動的複雜面貌如何從日常生活組構和重組?
這次運動被視為1967年六七暴動以來最大規模的社會運動,也是香港1997年回歸以來最嚴重的政治與社會危機。這次運動值得我們觀察與思考的面向,包括(1)事件的起因以及運動主要訴求的階段性發展與變化,(2)香港法治體制之下的警權擴張與人權問題,(3)香港民間社會的組織力與內在張力,(4)法治、警權、人民的對立之下,香港出路何在?
本論壇邀請香港學者以及台灣學者,針對下列議題,共同討論,希望能夠擴大各地社會對於香港當前狀況的理解,並構想可能的出路。

 議程 Agenda

=============

About

Started from March 2019, and further fueled by the protest on June 9, Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement (Anti-ELAB Movement) has swept Hong Kong for eight months and protests in Hong Kong still show no sign of subsiding. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the bill, the firing of multiple rounds of tear gas has shaken the legitimacy of rule of law and police authority in Hong Kong.

 

The first keyword of our forum is “rule of law”. The movement was triggered by the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, also known as the extradition bill. Subsequently more and more protests and rallies failed to obtain letters of no objection from the Hong Kong police, engendering public debate on the Public Order Ordinance. In October, the Hong Kong government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, a colonial-era relic, to forbid the use of face masks; the emergency law was then ruled unconstitutional by the High Court in November and aroused a fierce objection from both National People’s Congress Standing Committee in China and Hong Kong government. Legal issues have been the recurring flashpoints throughout the crisis. As an entrenched core value in Hong Kong, rule of law also works as a divergence from rule by law in China. To Hong Kong people, what does an illegitimate legal system imply? How does such illegitimacy radicalize the actions of protestors? What are the explicit details and loopholes of these laws and the legal institution? How does Taiwan view the issues arising from the extradition bill?

 

The second keyword is “police power.” Masked and armed force exercises their authorities anonymously in the city. Cases of abuse of power have been reported—marching into private areas like residences and university campuses without a warrant, calling demonstrators “cockroaches”, and firing tens of thousands of rounds of war-banned CS gas accompanied with the “composition undisclosed” blue liquid from water cannons to civilians. Thousands of citizens including reporters, social workers, and first-aid workers have been arrested. Among them many were injured from deadly use of police baton and gunshot, and some of them reported to have suffered from delayed medical treatment due to deliberate mishandle from the police. Some arrestees reported to have been tortured, sexually assaulted by the police officers during detention and there have been rumours about faked suicides. The police force has also been criticized for selective law enforcement by showing leniency towards violence by pro-government protesters against pro-democracy protesters. While a petition has been signed by global academics against the police brutality in Hong Kong, some critics suggest that such image of the police was a result of malicious exaggeration by protesters. So how exactly were these contradictory points of views formulated? And how does an analysis of the New Cold War shape our understanding of the movement?

 

The third keyword is “people”. The Anti-ELAB Movement, more often than not, mobilizes the framework of identity politics—Hongkongers. Does this framework open up new possibilities or impose more limits? Does it foster solidarity between Hong Kong citizens of ethnic Chinese and other “ethnic minorities”? What are activists’ attitudes toward Chinese mainlanders? From the vantage point of geopolitical underpinning, how can we articulate Hongkongers’ relations to global politics and the bordering China? How can we advance our understanding on the structure of feelings in the movement? How does everyday life demonstrate and rearticulate the great complexity of the movement?

 

The Anti-ELAB Movement is the largest social movement since the 1967 riots as well as the most severe political and social crisis since the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. There are dimensions that deserve close observation and consideration, including (1) the causes of the incident, the development in different phases and the transformation of the movement’s demands; (2) the expansion of police power and human rights concern under the rule of law in Hong Kong; (3) the organization and tension among the civil society in Hong Kong; and (4)  possible way out for Hong Kong under the conflict of rule of law, police power, and people?

 

This forum invites scholars from Hong Kong and Taiwan to discuss the aforementioned issues together. We wish to shed more light on the current situation of Hong Kong and seek possible resolutions to the crisis.


**自由參加。但位置有限,簽到後入場,不用事先報名。先到有位置,現場若爆滿就不再開放入場。請把握機會**

 議程 Agenda

香港議程第一天

 

香港論壇議程第二天