Free Speech and Academic Freedom signature campaign

Dear all,

Please note the signature campaign, titled “In Defence of Free Speech and Academic Freedom — Support Conscientious Scholar Professor Benny Tai” (捍衛言論及學術自由 支持良心學者戴耀廷) has been launched.  A copy of the statement is provided herein for your easy reference. Please visit this link (https://sites.google.com/site/hksaaf/academic-freedom-freedom-of-speech-ch) for details, including the names of initiators and signatories.

Please join and help spread this among your colleagues. This signature campaign targets at local and international academics only instead of students or administrative staff.

Regards,

學術自由學者聯盟
Scholars’ Alliance for Academic Freedom
(On behalf of the initiators)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<div>

In Defence of Free Speech and Academic Freedom Support Conscientious Scholar Professor Benny Tai
(Tertiary Education Sector’s Joint Statement)

Recently, Legislative Councillor Junius Ho openly expressed in social media that the remarks made by Law School associate professor Benny Tai, initiator of “Occupy Central with Peace and Love”, are “twisted and evil”. Councillor Ho also initiated a signature campaign and wrote to the Council Chairman of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), urging for Prof Tai to be dismissed. This has raised widespread public concern in Hong Kong. We are worried that Councillor Ho’s claims and actions may have exerted pressure on the University of Hong Kong or other tertiary institutes’ academics and administrative staff. We express our strong indignation over Councillor Ho’s claims and actions. We believe that Councillor Ho’s words and deeds are unfair and biased. We express our condemnation and two points in this statement as follows:

<b>(1) Academic freedom and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of a healthy society</b>

A healthy society must allow freedom of discussion, so that different views can be expressed with clarity and without fear. Only so can social progress be possible. This is why academic freedom and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of human progress. For this reason, Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." In addition, the American Association of University Professors states that the protection of their unfettered expression, including the ability to espouse highly controversial and unpopular views, is an essential social responsibility of universities and colleges. In the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom, it was stated that:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><i>"Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good… [which] depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition… as we have learned from such prior experiences as the dismissals of controversial professors and subsequent constraints on academic discourse during and after the two world wars. These events teach us that political restrictions on academic expression must not be countenanced."</i></p>
We believe that Councillor Ho’s demand for HKU to dismiss Prof Tai on the grounds of his “twisted and evil” remarks may have created enormous pressure for Prof Tai or other scholars whose views differ from that of those in power, so much so that he (they) cannot or would not express criticisms without fear. We believe that Councillor Ho’s speech and actions are detrimental to the development of Hong Kong as a civilized society.

<b>(2) “Rule of law” is more than obeying the law; its higher goal is human right and social justice</b>

One accusation of Councillor Ho is that although Prof Tai is an associate professor in Law, he nevertheless initiated “Occupy Central”, “took the lead to ask others to break the law” and “misled students into breaking the law”, which are the same as “violating the law in the name of the law”. Councillor Ho believes that these run counter to Prof Tai’s status as a teacher.

We must point out that Rule of Law is not simply about the existence and the obeying of the law. More importantly, the Rule of Law encompasses two other important dimensions; it needs to limit the powers of the state, to protect human rights and to achieve social justice. Lord Hoffmann, member of the UK’s Lord of Appeal of the Ordinary, pointed out in 2006 that using unlawful acts to challenge unjust laws and acts by the government, are acts of “civil disobedience” which have a long and distinguished history under common law. Lord Hoffmann stressed that acts of “civil disobedience” have specific characteristics, such as limiting movement and limiting inordinate damage and inconvenience.Throughout history, social movements that promoted human rights and human civilization are results of “unlawful” acts of “civil disobedience”. In the 1950s in Montgomery, USA, blacks not yielding their seats to whites would have violated the law. Martin Luther King “took the lead” and started the bus boycott movement, which eventually forced the government to abolish its racial discrimination policy. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela challenged laws that discriminated on the basis of race, created international and mass pressure which eventually abolished the policy of racial segregation and brought about real universal suffrage to the country. These examples show that unlawful acts of civil disobedience can protect human rights and promote social justice. Also, universal suffrage is a universal human right acknowledged by over a hundred member states of the United Nations. Much research has shown that genuine universal suffrage can reduce corruption, improve civil liberties, political stability, gender equality and quality of governance. Without true universal suffrage, the prosperity, stability, freedom and future prospects of Hong Kong are deeply worrying.Prof Tai proposed Occupy Central with the aim to make Beijing fulfill the promise of real universal suffrage that has been stalled for years. In over a year leading up to Occupy Central, Prof Tai has proactively invited members from a wide range of sectors to participate in deliberation, and has explained numerous times to the public about the aims and legal consequences of participating in the movement. This shows that Prof Tai had no intention of misleading anyone.

Prof Tai has continued to stress the non-violent principles of “peace and love”, and aimed to minimize how the movement may affect the public. He also took legal responsibility by turning himself in to the police after the movement has ended. He has led by example in the fight for true universal suffrage for Hong Kong people through “civil disobedience”, and had personally paid a hefty price as a result. Prof Tai did all he could, as an intellectual, to safeguard basic values (such as freedom, democracy and political equality).

In his online signature campaign, Councillor Ho made no mention of the underlying principles and rationale of Occupy Central’s acts of “civil disobedience”. There was no mention of how the Beijing authorities have for over thirty years, since the Sino-British negotiations on the future of Hong Kong, resisted enacting true universal suffrage in Hong Kong. There was no mention of how the Central government has denied real universal suffrage through the August 31st announcement prior to the Umbrella Movement. Councillor Ho chose to only focus on the element of “obeying the law”, ignoring the more important principle of “using the law to achieve justice” in his mobilisation of the public. He put forth a figure for the number of on-line signatories that are difficult to be verified, urging for HKU to dismiss a selfless, righteous and conscientious professor who has worked incessantly for the future of Hong Kong. Recently, Junius Ho has gone even further, requesting that HKU respond to his demands in a week, or else he may take legal action against the university and organise mass rallies in protest. We believe that Councillor Ho’s words and deeds may obstruct the efforts at reform of conscientious scholars. At the same time, pro-government media such as the Wen Wei Po and Tai Kung Po used substantial coverage to attack Benny Tai. Pro-establishment online media such as Speakout.HK and Silent Majority also echoed in unison, as if manufacturing white terror, in an attempt to remove a voice of social conscience that dared to criticize the political regime. We believe that Councillor Ho’s suitability to continue as member of a university council is highly debatable.

We do not wish for any academic or indeed anyone to suffer from unreasonable suppression because their views differ from that of those in power. This should not occur in a free and civilized society. We express our strong condemnation of Councillor Ho’s words and deeds that urge HKU to dismiss Professor Tai.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

發起人/發起團體 Initiators (Individuals/Organizations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* HO Chi Kwan (Caritas Higher Institute of Education, Research Professor)
* Stephen C.K. CHAN (LingnanU, Professor)
* CHAN Ka Lok Kenneth (HKBU, Associate Professor)
* SING Ming Dixon (HKUST, Associate Professor)
* IP Kin-yuen (Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR, Legislator of the Education Sector)
* CHAN Yin Ha (CUHK, Senior Lecturer)
* LUK Kit Ling (HKCC, PolyU, Lecturer)
* TO Yiu Ming (HKBU, Assistant Professor)
* WONG Wai Kwok Benson (HKBU, Assistant Professor)
* Helena Pik-wan WONG (PolyU, Lecturer)
* CHUNG Kim Wah (PolyU, Assistant Professor)
* NGO Hang Yue (CUHK, Professor)
* Alvin SO (HKUST, Chair Professor)
* HO Sik Ying (HKU, Professor)
* Dora Po King CHOI (CUHK, Adjunct Associate Professor)
* WONG Chi Wai (CCCU, Lecturer)
* KUAN Hsin Chi (CUHK, Emeritus Professor)
* The Chinese University of Hong Kong Employees General Union
* HKU Alumni Concern Group
* Scholars Alliance for Academic Freedom

捍衛言論及學術自由 支持良心學者戴耀廷
(大專學界的聯署聲明)

何君堯議員日前在社交媒體公開指責推動「和平佔中」的香港大學法律學院副教授戴耀廷教授之相關學術言論為「歪論邪說」,並於網上發動聯署,更去信香港大學校委會主席,要求辭退戴教授,此事已引起香港社會廣泛關注。我們憂慮何君堯的言行,可能已對港大或各大專院校部分教職員構成壓力。對此,我們表示強烈憤慨,並認為何的有關言行,是不公平以及偏頗的,對此,我們予以譴責,並就以下兩點作出聲明:

(1) 言論及學術自由乃健康社會之基石

健康的社會必須容許自由討論,讓持不同意見者能無懼地表達各種觀點,才能推進社會文明的發展。因此,聯合國《世界人權宣言》第19條列明「人人有主張及發表自由之權;此項權利包括保持主張而不受干涉之自由,及經由任何方法不分國界以尋求、接收並傳播消息意見之自由。」另外,全美大學教授協會(American Association of University Professors)強調「保護學者無拘無束地表達,包括提出極具爭議和不受大眾歡迎的見解,是大學必須履行的社會責任」。早於1940年,美國《學術自由和任期原則聲明》亦已說明:

「高等教育機構為落實重大社會公益而建,而學者追溯真理的自由和表達的自由是達至重大社會公益的基礎……以往的經驗,包括把觀點具爭議的教授解僱,及在兩次世界大戰期間及戰後,對於某些學術的討論和箝制,教曉我們任何對學者表達自由的政治限制,都絕對不可支持。」

何君堯以戴教授發表「歪論邪說」為由,要港大將其辭退,我們認為這或許已經對與政權意見不一致的戴教授或其他學者構成巨大壓力,使他(們)不能或不會對政權無懼地表達批評。我們認為何的言論以及行為不利於香港社會文明的發展。

(2)「法治」不單指守法,更要達致人權和公義

何君堯對戴教授的指控之一,是指戴身為法律學者,卻發動佔中,「帶頭叫人犯法」,「誤導學生犯罪」,是「以法律之名,行違法之實」,與他教師的身分背道而馳。

我們必須指出,法治(Rule of Law)並非只有「有法可依」和「有法必依」兩個層次,更重要者,是法律需要做到「以法限(政府)權」和「以法達義(人權和公義)」。英國大法官、終審法院非常任法官賀輔明勳爵(Lord Hoffmann)曾指出,以違法行為挑戰不公義法律或政府行為等公民抗命活動,在普通法有悠久及光榮的歷史。賀勳爵強調,公民抗命有其特徵,如行動節制、不造成過分破壞或不便等。回顧歷史,不少推進人權及人類文明的變革皆由「違法」的「公民抗命」開始:五十年代的美國蒙哥馬利市,黑人在巴士不讓座給白人是「違法」的,於是馬丁路德金帶頭「違法」,發動黑人不讓座,最終逼使政府取消各種歧視黑人的政策;在南非,人權鬥士曼德拉透過不斷挑戰帶有種族歧視的法例,最終迫使南非政府廢除種族隔離政策,並落實真普選。由此可見,違法的公民抗命可在不同社會促進人權和公義;而真普選,是獲聯合國百多個成員國共同認可的國際人權。大量研究顯示真普選有助提升廉潔、公民自由、政治穩定、男女平等和管治質素。若不能在香港落實真普選,將對香港未來的繁榮、穩定、自由和發展前景構成極大隱憂。戴教授進行「公民抗命」,是要令北京落實拖延多年的真普選。在發動佔中前一年多,戴亦積極邀請各界參與討論,多次向大眾解釋佔中的目的和所需要承擔的法律後果,可見他並沒有企圖誤導任何人。

戴教授亦一直強調「愛與和平」及非暴力原則,並盡量減少對大眾的影響,而事後亦主動向警方投案,承擔法律責任。戴教授以身作則,為了香港的未來,坐言起行,以「公民抗命」為港人爭取真普選,其違法行為絕非為一己之私,並為此付上沉重的個人代價。戴教授竭盡所能,落實了知識分子守護人類基本價值(如自由、民主、政治平等)的重要使命。

何君堯在社交媒體所作出的相關言論,隻字不提和平佔中「公民抗命」背後的理據,不提北京當局自中英談判香港前途以來,拒絕在香港落實真普選已超過30年,不提中央透過831的人大聲明,在雨傘運動前已否決真普選,忽視法治之下「以法達義」這個更重要的原則,只偏頗聚焦在「守法」的元素。何君堯發動群眾運動,以難以核實的網上簽名人數,要求港大辭退正直無私、為香港前途努力不懈的良心學者,且步步進迫,限港大在一周內回應其要求,並揚言不排除對港大採取法律行動,和舉行公眾聲討集會。我們認為何的言行,有可能窒礙良心學者改革香港的努力。同一時間,親政權的《文匯報》、《大公報》亦大篇幅抨擊戴耀廷,建制網媒《港人講地》、《幫港出聲》等亦齊聲附和,彷彿在製造白色恐怖,要以群眾壓力把敢於批判政權的社會良心拉下馬。何君堯是否適合繼續擔任專上學府的校董,非常值得商榷。

我們絕不願意看見任何人,因與政權意見不一而遭受無理打壓,這是自由文明社會絕不應存在的。何君堯促請港大辭退戴教授的言行,我們予以嚴厲譴責。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
發起人/發起團體 Initiators (Individuals/Organizations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* 何芝君 (明愛專上學院客座教授)
* 陳清僑 (嶺南大學教授)
* 陳家洛 (香港浸會大學副教授)
* 成 名 (香港科技大學副教授)
* 葉建源 (香港特別行政區立法會教育界議員)
* 陳燕遐 (香港中文大學高級講師)
* 陸潔玲 (香港理工大學香港專上學院講師)
* 杜耀明 (香港浸會大學助理教授)
* 黃偉國 (香港浸會大學助理教授)
* 黄碧雲 (香港理工大學講師)
* 鍾劍華 (香港理工大學助理教授)
* 敖恆宇 (香港中文大學教授)
* 蘇耀昌 (香港科技大學講座教授)
* 何式凝 (香港大學教授)
* 蔡寶瓊 (香港中文大學客座副教授)
* 黃志偉 (香港城市大學專上學院講師)
* 關信基 (香港中文大學榮休講座教授)
* 香港中文大學員工總會
* 港大校友關注組
* 學術自由學者聯盟