2012年6月10日星期日

叫化行乞不遂罵粗,該當何罪?

上個月我寫了悉尼「道」姑的種族言論 一文,數天前收到朋友電郵,訴說類似的遭遇。朋友下班時在悉尼QVB(Queen Victoria Building)外等車,遇到一個行乞的女人。我這朋友跟其他候車的人都沒有給她錢,唯獨是這朋友給罵了一句fxxk off,朋友看過我那篇文,也叫她wash your mouth。我看了她的電郵,無奈之餘,花了不少時間思考及尋找應付的方法,寫這篇文希望探討一下這帶種族歧視的問題的處理方法,更希望藉此拋磚引玉,吸納讀者的集體智慧,也許向州政府或有關警區寫信,要求正視問題。

行乞begging alms在澳洲絕大部分地方都屬違法,但新南威爾斯州例外。新州原本管制行乞的法例Vagrancy Act 1902,是根據英國的Vagrancy Act 1824訂立的,香港也據此訂立了法例第228章《簡易程序治罪條例》,裏面第26A(行乞)及26B(恐嚇性行乞)列出懲治方法。新州在70年代廢除了Vagrancy Act 1902,雖然在2000年悉尼奧運前一度考慮重新還原有關條例,最終都放棄了,自此行乞在新州已不屬違法。人權份子及社工人士大聲疾呼,反對把行乞刑事化(criminalise),對於行乞基於生活需要、生存權利等大道理我沒有異議,但行乞不遂,發難罵粗,還專挑亞洲人來欺負,就不知是甚麼權利。如果她個個都罵,我還可以當她有病,不會計較,但發種族優越的窮惡,就太豈有此理了。

行乞不犯法,在這種情況下,應該怎樣反應呢?首先,我會看她會否違反任何其他法例。西澳法律改革委員會在建議廢除行乞條例時,有以下看法:

If a particular instance of begging is sufficiently ill-mannered to annoy or insult persons faced with it sufficiently deeply to warrant the interference of the criminal law it can be dealt with under the offence of disorderly conduct.

對你罵"fxxk off "or  "you fxxking go back to where you came from."是否足以構成在公眾地方內擾亂秩序行為(disorderly conduct),我毫無疑問覺得不足夠。這樣單罵一句,只會觸犯Summary Offences Act 1988 Section 4A Offensive Language。我在再論他媽的 一文講過有關條例,不再覆述。如果你遇到類似情況,可以向警方投訴,或者告訴我,讓我來寫信。最好清楚描述這女子的樣貌年歲。事事啞忍,便姑息養奸。










2 則留言:

  1. Hi Bill, were you aware of this news? Do you have any comments on it?
    O記高調查律政司高官
    涉作假證供 正放大假及被調職
    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/geocheck/ci/http__3A__2F__2Fhk.apple.nextmedia.com__2Fnews__2Fart__2F20120609__2F16411213

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Hi

      I am aware of the report of Gavin Shiu in the Apple Daily a couple of days ago. It was also reported in Ming Pao yesterday. It is premature to comment at this stage. I am sure he is in deep shit. While it is not common to ask the defrauding company to pay in exchange for non prosecution, since the police were also present in the meeting, there might not be something dubious in itself. It may be a wrong decision to make without consulting his superior Dr. Alain Sham, one of the DDPPs. What is even worse is trying to play a memory loss game and shift the blame to his subordinate Denise Chan. His integrity problem has left much to be desired. He should leave DOJ as a result. I cannot comment further. People should keep written record when such aberrant decisions are made. It is fortunate that Denise Chan could testify and produce minutes and emails to cover herself. Your boss can be the perpetrator. In the past, I would only shoulder the responsibility for my subordinates' wrong decisions and then gave them a closed door lecture.

      刪除