【新唐人2014年10月22日讯】香港学联与港府的首次对话在21号傍晚展开。而在对话前夕，香港高等法院发布了多个禁止示威者占据马路的法令。对此，学联表示，尊重法庭裁决，但不会主动撤离。有律师则表示，高院颁布禁制令其实是多馀的。
旺角占领区连日来发生冲突，各界无不希望港府与学联21号的对话能打破僵局。不过，香港高院却在20号发布了3个禁制令。
这3个原告分别是潮联公共小型巴士有限公司、共同提出申请的香港计程车会代表黎海平与的士司机从业员总会代表谭骏雄，以及金钟中信大厦业主金蓬投资有限公司。
潮联和两名的士业代表，要求禁止示威者持续占领旺角亚皆老街及弥敦道一带道路。而代表金钟中信大厦业主的大律师余若海说，中信大厦对出龙汇道及添美道的路障，连日来阻塞大厦停车场及两消防紧急通道出入口，导致有人曾被困45分钟。
法官最终批准申请，颁下禁制令。法官称，示威者的行为已远超合理程度，不论想法有多崇高，任何人也不能完全漠视他人权利。
不过，香港立法会议员梁国雄认为，用禁制令解决相关问题，是没有道理的。
香港立法会议员梁国雄：“因为我们现在占领的地方是警察可以执行他的公权力的，所以，没有必要用禁制令去解决这个问题。这个是政府施政失误的问题，私人去申请禁制令是不当的。公权力可以解决的问题，就用公权力去解决，不能让法治沦为私人去解决政治问题的手段。”
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健则认为，香港法院过度使用司法权。
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健：“我认为每一个去占领中环的人，都应该知道占领中环的确是有不妥当的地方，但是罪魁祸首，是因为中共引起的，是因为中共推翻了一国两制。作为香港的法院，也应该在这个时候挺身而出，是否应该对中共形成一个司法判决，而不单纯是用法律制度去约束、压制香港人们自由的呼声。”
而据香港《明报》报导，律师梁永铿说，现时的占领行动本属非法集会，在原本已属违法的行为上实施禁制令其实是多馀的。预期禁制令未必能达“清场”效果。
面对法院颁发禁制令，不少占中人士表示，会继续占领行动，力争民主。学民思潮召集人黄之锋表示，不会呼吁撤离，但希望占中人士考虑法律后果。他强调，运动属公民抗命，结束后会向警方自首。
特首梁振英21号早上表示，法庭已颁下禁制令，希望占领街道人士要考虑可能面对藐视法庭等刑事责任。
本身是执业律师的民主党何俊仁说，市民可以走开、不接收禁制令以避风险。同时他提醒市民，任何人都可要求法庭撤销，或者收窄禁制令范围，如果有人提出，他可协助处理。
此外，20号晚，梁振英接受了三家英美传媒的访问。他说，在目前时刻，挑战他或特区政府，对任何一方或香港自治都没有好处。他还重申占领行动有外国势力介入的说法，并不是道听途说，但是他没有透露，所称的外国势力具体是谁。
梁国雄：“要是他觉得有所谓外来的势力去做一些违法的事，他就把他们抓起来就行了，不能老是没有证据去抹黑香港市民，抹黑我们的运动。这是个很严重的指控。”
张健：“凡是和中共站在一起的，当本国的人民追求民主的呼声形成了一个自发的示威的时候，区域首长就会用外来的敌对势力来蛊惑人心。事实上，我们在这个运动中看到，西方英美国家害怕因为过度的参与，授中共于口舌，所以他们是采用了非常冷若旁观的一个姿态，而这个姿态被所有人千夫所指了。”
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健指出，港府反覆使用暴力，并使用非法字眼形容占中，港府是迫于外界压力才进行对话，根本就没有诚意。他认为，谈判的最终结果将是无疾而终。
采访/易如 编辑/陈洁 后制/舒灿
Lawyer: The Injunctions Issued by the High Court of Hong Kong Are Unnecessary
The first dialogue between the Hong Kong Federation
of Students (HKFS) and the SAR Government was held
on the evening of Oct. 21.
On the eve of the dialogue, the High Court of Hong Kong
issued a couple of injunctions to prohibit protesters
from occupying the streets.
In this regard, The HKFS said that it would respect the court
ruling, but it would not take the initiative to evacuate.
Some lawyers said that the High Court injunctions
are actually redundant.
As there have been clashes in the occupied Mong Kok area
recently, people from all walks of life hoped that the dialogue
between the government and the HKFS on Oct. 21
could break the deadlocks.
However, the High Court turned out to issue three injunctions
on Oct. 20.
The three plaintiffs of these cases are Chiu Luen Public Light
Bus Company Limited, the Hong Kong Taxi Association
member Li Haiping, the Taxi Drivers & Operators
Association member Tam Chun-hung, and CITIC Tower
owners Kim Peng Investment Co. respectively.
The Chiu Luen Bus Company and two representatives
from the Taxi Associations requested the court
to ban protesters from continuing occupying the streets
around Argyle Street and Nathan Road in Mong Kok.
Mr. Benjamin Yu, the lawyer representing CITIC Tower
owners Kim Peng Investment Co. said the roadblocks
in Lung Wui Road and Tim Mei Avenue in front
of the CITIC Tower have blocked the building＇s parking lot
and two fire emergency entrances over the past few days,
leading to the scenario that someone was trapped inside
for 45 minutes.
The judge ultimately approved the applications
and issued injunctions.
The judge said the protesters＇ deeds have been exceeding
reasonable degrees, and that regardless of how noble
their ideas are, no one can completely disregard
the rights of others.
However, Hong Kong Legislative Council member
Leung Kwok-hung said that to solve related problems
by injunctions cannot be justified.
Leung Kwok-hung: "As the area occupied by us at present
is the place where police can exert their public power,
there is no need to solve this problem with injunctions.
This is the problem resulting from
the government's dereliction.
So, it＇s improper for individuals to apply
for the issuance of injunctions.
As long as a problem can be solved by public power,
it should be done so.
The rule of law should not become a means to solve
political problems for individuals."
US-based Chinese social issues researcher Zhang Jian holds
that the Hong Kong High Court has abused judicial power.
Zhang Jian: "I think everyone who participated in the Occupy
Central movement should know that it may not be so good
to occupy Central.
But the direct cause is that the Chinese regime overturned
their promise of “one country, two system.”
Hong Kong courts should come forward at this time to make
a judicial decision on the Chinese regime, as opposed
to simply using the legal system to restrain and suppress
Hong Kong people＇s voice for freedom."
According to Hong Kong Ming Pao Daily News,
lawyer Vitus Leung said since the current occupation
movement is unlawful assembly, it is, in fact, redundant
to implement injunctions on illegal behaviors.
He predicted that the injunctions would not be able
to have the intended effect of clearance.
Faced with the court injunctions, many people participating
in the movement said that they would continue to go ahead
with the occupation to strive for democracy.
Scholarism student leader Joshua Wong noted that he would
not urge protesters to evacuate the streets,
but he hoped that they could take into account
the legal consequences.
He stressed that this is a civil disobedience movement,
and he would turn himself into the police
after the movement is over.
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said on the morning
of Oct. 21, as the court has issued the injunctions, he hoped
that those who occupied the streets should be prepared
to face possible criminal liability for contempt of court.
Democratic Party Legislative Council member,
Albert Ho Chun-yan, who practices law,
said that the public may walk away and refuse to accept
the injunctions in order to avoid the risks.
He also reminded the public that anyone can ask the court
to revoke the injunctions, or narrow their scope.
If someone raises the case, he can provide the assists
to deal with the matter.
Besides, Leung Chun-ying was interviewed
by three American media outlets on the evening of Oct. 20.
He said that the challenges against him or SAR government
would not be good to any party or Hong Kong's autonomy.
He also reiterated the allegation that the occupation
movement has been intervened by foreign forces.
He noted that it＇s not simply hearsay, but he didn＇t disclose
who the alleged foreign forces are.
Leung Kwok-hung: "If he felt that the so-called foreign forces
have done something illegal, he may as well arrest them.
Otherwise, he shouldn＇t slander Hong Kong people
and defame our movement without evidence.
This is a very serious accusation."
Zhang Jian: "In terms of those who stand by the Chinese
regime, when our nationals＇ voice for democracy transforms
into a spontaneous protest, the Region＇s head would use
the allegation of foreign forces to intimidate the people.
In fact, we have noticed that during this movement,
Western countries such as the U.S. and the U.K.
have been afraid of being accused by the Chinese regime
of excessive involvement in the movement.
They thus take a sidelines attitude toward this incident,
but it is still being universally condemned."
Zhang Jian pointed out that the SAR government has
repeatedly resorted to violence and referred
to the Occupy Central protests as illegal activities.
The government was forced with outside pressure to proceed
with the dialogue, without any sincerity.
He believes that the ultimate outcome of the negotiations
would be an outright failure.
Interview/ YiRuEdit/ ChenJie Post-Production/ ShuCan
旺角占领区连日来发生冲突，各界无不希望港府与学联21号的对话能打破僵局。不过，香港高院却在20号发布了3个禁制令。
这3个原告分别是潮联公共小型巴士有限公司、共同提出申请的香港计程车会代表黎海平与的士司机从业员总会代表谭骏雄，以及金钟中信大厦业主金蓬投资有限公司。
潮联和两名的士业代表，要求禁止示威者持续占领旺角亚皆老街及弥敦道一带道路。而代表金钟中信大厦业主的大律师余若海说，中信大厦对出龙汇道及添美道的路障，连日来阻塞大厦停车场及两消防紧急通道出入口，导致有人曾被困45分钟。
法官最终批准申请，颁下禁制令。法官称，示威者的行为已远超合理程度，不论想法有多崇高，任何人也不能完全漠视他人权利。
不过，香港立法会议员梁国雄认为，用禁制令解决相关问题，是没有道理的。
香港立法会议员梁国雄：“因为我们现在占领的地方是警察可以执行他的公权力的，所以，没有必要用禁制令去解决这个问题。这个是政府施政失误的问题，私人去申请禁制令是不当的。公权力可以解决的问题，就用公权力去解决，不能让法治沦为私人去解决政治问题的手段。”
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健则认为，香港法院过度使用司法权。
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健：“我认为每一个去占领中环的人，都应该知道占领中环的确是有不妥当的地方，但是罪魁祸首，是因为中共引起的，是因为中共推翻了一国两制。作为香港的法院，也应该在这个时候挺身而出，是否应该对中共形成一个司法判决，而不单纯是用法律制度去约束、压制香港人们自由的呼声。”
而据香港《明报》报导，律师梁永铿说，现时的占领行动本属非法集会，在原本已属违法的行为上实施禁制令其实是多馀的。预期禁制令未必能达“清场”效果。
面对法院颁发禁制令，不少占中人士表示，会继续占领行动，力争民主。学民思潮召集人黄之锋表示，不会呼吁撤离，但希望占中人士考虑法律后果。他强调，运动属公民抗命，结束后会向警方自首。
特首梁振英21号早上表示，法庭已颁下禁制令，希望占领街道人士要考虑可能面对藐视法庭等刑事责任。
本身是执业律师的民主党何俊仁说，市民可以走开、不接收禁制令以避风险。同时他提醒市民，任何人都可要求法庭撤销，或者收窄禁制令范围，如果有人提出，他可协助处理。
此外，20号晚，梁振英接受了三家英美传媒的访问。他说，在目前时刻，挑战他或特区政府，对任何一方或香港自治都没有好处。他还重申占领行动有外国势力介入的说法，并不是道听途说，但是他没有透露，所称的外国势力具体是谁。
梁国雄：“要是他觉得有所谓外来的势力去做一些违法的事，他就把他们抓起来就行了，不能老是没有证据去抹黑香港市民，抹黑我们的运动。这是个很严重的指控。”
张健：“凡是和中共站在一起的，当本国的人民追求民主的呼声形成了一个自发的示威的时候，区域首长就会用外来的敌对势力来蛊惑人心。事实上，我们在这个运动中看到，西方英美国家害怕因为过度的参与，授中共于口舌，所以他们是采用了非常冷若旁观的一个姿态，而这个姿态被所有人千夫所指了。”
旅美中国社会问题研究人士张健指出，港府反覆使用暴力，并使用非法字眼形容占中，港府是迫于外界压力才进行对话，根本就没有诚意。他认为，谈判的最终结果将是无疾而终。
采访/易如 编辑/陈洁 后制/舒灿
Lawyer: The Injunctions Issued by the High Court of Hong Kong Are Unnecessary
The first dialogue between the Hong Kong Federation
of Students (HKFS) and the SAR Government was held
on the evening of Oct. 21.
On the eve of the dialogue, the High Court of Hong Kong
issued a couple of injunctions to prohibit protesters
from occupying the streets.
In this regard, The HKFS said that it would respect the court
ruling, but it would not take the initiative to evacuate.
Some lawyers said that the High Court injunctions
are actually redundant.
As there have been clashes in the occupied Mong Kok area
recently, people from all walks of life hoped that the dialogue
between the government and the HKFS on Oct. 21
could break the deadlocks.
However, the High Court turned out to issue three injunctions
on Oct. 20.
The three plaintiffs of these cases are Chiu Luen Public Light
Bus Company Limited, the Hong Kong Taxi Association
member Li Haiping, the Taxi Drivers & Operators
Association member Tam Chun-hung, and CITIC Tower
owners Kim Peng Investment Co. respectively.
The Chiu Luen Bus Company and two representatives
from the Taxi Associations requested the court
to ban protesters from continuing occupying the streets
around Argyle Street and Nathan Road in Mong Kok.
Mr. Benjamin Yu, the lawyer representing CITIC Tower
owners Kim Peng Investment Co. said the roadblocks
in Lung Wui Road and Tim Mei Avenue in front
of the CITIC Tower have blocked the building＇s parking lot
and two fire emergency entrances over the past few days,
leading to the scenario that someone was trapped inside
for 45 minutes.
The judge ultimately approved the applications
and issued injunctions.
The judge said the protesters＇ deeds have been exceeding
reasonable degrees, and that regardless of how noble
their ideas are, no one can completely disregard
the rights of others.
However, Hong Kong Legislative Council member
Leung Kwok-hung said that to solve related problems
by injunctions cannot be justified.
Leung Kwok-hung: "As the area occupied by us at present
is the place where police can exert their public power,
there is no need to solve this problem with injunctions.
This is the problem resulting from
the government's dereliction.
So, it＇s improper for individuals to apply
for the issuance of injunctions.
As long as a problem can be solved by public power,
it should be done so.
The rule of law should not become a means to solve
political problems for individuals."
US-based Chinese social issues researcher Zhang Jian holds
that the Hong Kong High Court has abused judicial power.
Zhang Jian: "I think everyone who participated in the Occupy
Central movement should know that it may not be so good
to occupy Central.
But the direct cause is that the Chinese regime overturned
their promise of “one country, two system.”
Hong Kong courts should come forward at this time to make
a judicial decision on the Chinese regime, as opposed
to simply using the legal system to restrain and suppress
Hong Kong people＇s voice for freedom."
According to Hong Kong Ming Pao Daily News,
lawyer Vitus Leung said since the current occupation
movement is unlawful assembly, it is, in fact, redundant
to implement injunctions on illegal behaviors.
He predicted that the injunctions would not be able
to have the intended effect of clearance.
Faced with the court injunctions, many people participating
in the movement said that they would continue to go ahead
with the occupation to strive for democracy.
Scholarism student leader Joshua Wong noted that he would
not urge protesters to evacuate the streets,
but he hoped that they could take into account
the legal consequences.
He stressed that this is a civil disobedience movement,
and he would turn himself into the police
after the movement is over.
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said on the morning
of Oct. 21, as the court has issued the injunctions, he hoped
that those who occupied the streets should be prepared
to face possible criminal liability for contempt of court.
Democratic Party Legislative Council member,
Albert Ho Chun-yan, who practices law,
said that the public may walk away and refuse to accept
the injunctions in order to avoid the risks.
He also reminded the public that anyone can ask the court
to revoke the injunctions, or narrow their scope.
If someone raises the case, he can provide the assists
to deal with the matter.
Besides, Leung Chun-ying was interviewed
by three American media outlets on the evening of Oct. 20.
He said that the challenges against him or SAR government
would not be good to any party or Hong Kong's autonomy.
He also reiterated the allegation that the occupation
movement has been intervened by foreign forces.
He noted that it＇s not simply hearsay, but he didn＇t disclose
who the alleged foreign forces are.
Leung Kwok-hung: "If he felt that the so-called foreign forces
have done something illegal, he may as well arrest them.
Otherwise, he shouldn＇t slander Hong Kong people
and defame our movement without evidence.
This is a very serious accusation."
Zhang Jian: "In terms of those who stand by the Chinese
regime, when our nationals＇ voice for democracy transforms
into a spontaneous protest, the Region＇s head would use
the allegation of foreign forces to intimidate the people.
In fact, we have noticed that during this movement,
Western countries such as the U.S. and the U.K.
have been afraid of being accused by the Chinese regime
of excessive involvement in the movement.
They thus take a sidelines attitude toward this incident,
but it is still being universally condemned."
Zhang Jian pointed out that the SAR government has
repeatedly resorted to violence and referred
to the Occupy Central protests as illegal activities.
The government was forced with outside pressure to proceed
with the dialogue, without any sincerity.
He believes that the ultimate outcome of the negotiations
would be an outright failure.
Interview/ YiRuEdit/ ChenJie Post-Production/ ShuCan
