先講我寫這一篇的目的，我相信由我寫陳玉峰事件開始才間竭性看本blog的讀者，有些人會覺得我立場偏向警察，總是找理由為警察開脫。我當然不同意這看法，我一向工作六親不認，從不徇私。自開blog以來，寫評論也本着同樣態度，批評的時候，不單對警察如此，對法官也如此，2011年寫的升官制度 便是一例，如果你有閒暇從頭看本blog一遍(恐怕要幾天時間)，希望你會感覺到我展示這態度。當然，標少算甚麼東西，值得你費神這樣做？不過，始終會有人偶一不慎，撞了進來，看了幾眼，妄下定論，就把我定了性，我當然不服。我寫時事評論，可以用得上法律觀點，以理性角度去批判，旨在提供主流以外的看法，讓大家評論的事候，不要只顧個人喜惡，而缺乏具體依據的考慮。我雖有此心，但難保不會事與願為，就像梁振英撐警，效果適得其反。
在上一篇，S君質疑我對警察執法公正的判斷，而匿名君在青關會可以被控擾亂公眾秩序之類的控罪嗎？之三，舉了警察對青關會黨羽持刀視若無睹，要我評論。未評論之前我要先講清楚，我評論林慧思事件警察是否執法不公，並沒有廣泛討論警察整體執法態度，我一路的講法只限於一件事的法理依據，當然接二連三發生的事都有警察處理手法的問題，自然會產生累積效應(cumulative effect)。但我講單一事件，就算一件事沒有執法不公，不能因此推論另一件事也一定如此，相反而言，一百件執法公正的案也不會使不公的一件也變成公正。
不論何黨何派，在公眾地方持刀，無合法權限或合理辯解，不管有沒有傷人，沒有理由不拘捕調查。如果有事實根據，警方卻置若罔聞，便欠市民一個不執法的解釋。
S君提供那一段蘋果新聞片，顯示不少暴力鏡頭，根本不是政治黨派之間的示威衝突，是典型新界土匪，張牙舞爪，沒帶狗罩，四處亂噬。如果警方不對這些真流氓採取行動，梁振英沒有理由不責成警務處長提交報告。政治團體那種流氓行為，討厭得來我尚且可以忍受，黑社會那種流氓行為不繩之於法，我氣嚥不下。新界佬心智，把警政推回七十年代，管他撐政府抑或反政府，有份恐嚇、襲擊他人或教唆襲擊他人的，黎庭掃穴，逮捕歸案，以儆後效，有甚麼比拘捕他們更能夠彰顯警察公正的聲譽？
所以說思考方法比立場/價值觀都更爲重要。相信很多人以爲我們作評論是支持/反對一方，而事實上我們並沒有支持/反對，而是要説明事件到底是一樣什麽問題，應搞明白了再去定下立場。
回覆刪除讚賞!愛恨分明、真漢子！
回覆刪除愧不敢當。
刪除You guys remind me of my mom, one of her favorite sayings is "應洗則洗". She is of course right because she gets to decide what is 應. You said "這肥仔的行為值得思考嗎？".
刪除Then later you said, "我相信梁振英和他們毫無關係，獲得這些狗罩黨義助並非他的主意". What are your grounds? Or a quantum leap? Is this an example of "我知我們這些種先思考後動筆的態度"?
Can you think of any dictator or quasi-dictator figure in history who did not make use of gladiatorial scoundrels in their careers especially the earlier parts?
Haha, call me mom then. Leung is only a puppet not a dictator. If he is a dictator, many people would be silenced. You may say my grounds are only wishful thinking. Do you have the slightest hint or evidence to link him to the triads? If you read the news today, you can see the police carried out anti-triad operation in Yuen Long yesterday and arrested 200 odd people. The name of the operation is called 雷霆13. Does this coincide with what I said in my last paragraph in the blog?
刪除山中
回覆刪除我知我們這些種先思考後動筆的態度，分分鐘會惹起在《青關會可以被控擾亂公眾秩序之類的控罪嗎？之三》留言的「叫鷄」仁兄的遐想，又指責我們「以為自己讀多兩曰書就好叻」，如果社會裏懂得客觀議事的人是異藪，我不得不認一次叻，以免這「叫鷄」仁兄搜索枯腸，叫下叫下叫了一桌滿漢全席出來。如果「叫鷄」仁兄繼續看本blog，看到這裏千萬不要講「你好嘢」，理由自己到《標少為古思堯案的判辭一文「開片」》(5月19日)那裏找。
近來拜讀不少你的文章, 感覺十分中肯有理
回覆刪除呢兩日焦點一定是這個肥仔
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XYQ40pkOg8
不少人肯定了這是梁振英或是撐梁陣營請來的打手,
但疑點又不是沒有的. tvb播出肥仔疑似被襲訪問後,
馬上流出不少焦點在肥仔的片段, 這令我十分奇怪,
1) 肥仔是撐梁, 碰巧行為突出,而給人拍了片段
2) 肥仔是倒梁派來, 所以有人預先知道這個肥仔會做某些事,而拍了片段
當然2面可能都是可能, 我都沒有證據, 而且證據不會容易顯露出來
你通常會如何去思考這些事?
這肥仔的行為值得思考嗎？除非，要寫一篇"The Birth of Stupidity"。當社會的人對低層次無聊瑣碎的事嗤之以鼻，就沒有人拍這些片，沒有人放上youtube，放了也沒有人看，根本這肥仔就不會出現。Stupidity unborn。對嗎？
回覆刪除這肥仔的行為不值得思考, 但我有些擔心香港下一代小朋友的健康, 他身體已經肥胖, 但從片中看到那肥仔仍然飲那些甜及不健康的樽裝飲品, 我不管他爸的或他媽的政治取向及怎樣教育他的兒子行為, 但健康資訊應該一視同仁. 我希望見到上街示威的青少年都是健健康康的.
刪除你越來越孬，乘機國罵起來。(魯迅在一九二五年七月十九日寫了一篇雜文叫「論他媽的」，後來收於結集成書的《墳》裏。魯迅在文中說，如果牡丹是中國的國花，那麼「他媽的」可以算是國罵了。)
刪除說的也是, 我其實是不懂如何處理facebook上不同意見的post,
刪除近幾年自身的facebook頁面,充斥著的不是朋友的生活上的點滴
而家不同的政見, 或是 當中當然有過激的post, 我現在都是睇完就算.
因為回應的話,我能預見的會變成不是討論, 而是罵戰. (可能我是錯的)
不知標少會不會遇到這種狀況?
我幾年前開了facebook，之後就不用了。與人罵戰要謹記，不要被人牽着走，大事大非一定要爭，雞毛蒜皮由它去吧。
刪除標少, 小弟都係跟您學野啫, 尚未滿師. 一句他媽的政治取向真是大快人心, 正所謂橫看成嶺側成峰，遠近高低各不同. 讀blog者所處的角度不同，理解到的詞意也各不相同, 真有意思! 最近的政治混亂, 正好給那些收稿費的政治評論寫手抽水($$$), 可惜標少正義行頭, 視錢財如汽水(有害冇益,只能得到一時間的快感). 如果肯屈膝投靠某某報館, 你餐餐食青邊鮑都得. :)
回覆刪除有稿費我都想，標少視錢財如聖土，但如果要看人眉睫，逢迎大眾，我寧願吃白飯。
刪除標少:
回覆刪除想問一個白痴問題。
1特首現要求教局長寫報告
2如果報告譴責林老師，而校方因此解雇她，
3如報告直接要懲處林老師（只有解雇一途)
林老師或其他老師可否申請司法覆核，因政府剝削了她言論自由？
L
他們應該會開一個board，根據報告内容討論對林慧思應有的處分。林慧思也需要就這件事答辯。過程像律師、醫生協會的内部聆訊差不多。政府沒有剝削了她言論自由，因爲她作爲教師要有專業操守。至於教師的專業操守是否需要像律師這樣嚴格，我認爲是不必要的。
刪除如果報告認爲要處分林慧思，這將會是一件極嚴重的政治事件。教協會有反應，所有政治團體都會有反應，大部分市民都會看不過眼。我是政治團體的話，我會希望他們取消林慧思教師資格。
我不清楚教師的監察機制，可能一方面有學校聘用，另一方面要由教署批出教師證。所以學校聘用而教署不批就卡死她。教署不是僱主，應無權懲處。如果是學校聘用而教署不批，林慧思可以以司法覆核挑戰不批的決定。成功與否要視乎不批的依據，違反教育執例那項，決策過程是否公平，當事人有沒有申辯的機會，違反教育執例的嚴重程度相對於不批教師證是否合乎比例。這是我的猜測，因為我不知道教育執例怎樣講。
刪除律師、醫生等的紀律聆訊有點不同，法例規定他們要成為律師會、大律師公會、醫學會的會員，會費包含專業保險professional indemnity，也訂下code of conduct，法例說明專業公會可以進行紀律聆訊及懲處的權力，專業公會有權不發practising certificate給你，發了也有權釘牌，甚至永久除名。教師不是專業到那種程度，所以沒有發牌的專業公會，不加入教協之類的工會也能教書。
言論自由並非絕對的，有很多其他複雜法律考慮。大律師馬恩國在立法會罵長毛，就要面對紀律聆。訊。
教育條例沒有説明標準與程序， 只說常任秘書長能夠取消教員的註冊：
刪除如常任秘書長覺得該教員不稱職;…
如常任秘書長覺得該教員作出的任何行為，屬常任秘書長認為足以構成專業上的失當行為者；或
如常任秘書長覺得該教員作出的任何行為，屬常任秘書長認為不利於維持該教員任教的學校的良好秩序及紀律。
如果他們就按著常任秘書長一言取消林慧思的教員註冊，就會死的很難看。如果他們寫了報告又沒有相關行動，又或組成獨立小組但不處分，梁振英就算是演了場三流喜劇。
常任秘書長的報告可以只交代林慧思的學校怎樣處理，full stop and then the fool has to stop there and say no more.
刪除Passing the bucket? It could work if the principal lacked a backbone. Otherwise, it would create a storm in that school. The report could suggest some minor disciplinary actions, like anger management or something. That could dissipate some pressure.
刪除1，馬律師的Case不同。他高調地在立法會爆粗，想要不知他是馬律師也難。但林只在街上課餘，若不是給人起底，她只是一無名巿民。
回覆刪除2教師没有大律師公會的組織，操守議會只是橡皮图章。
教局局長應不會直接除她的教師牌，最大可能是在報局用强硬言詞，然後交辦學團體解雇她。這樣，司法覆核有可能嗎？直接操刀不是政府，但因它而死。
林或不足取，但我關心的是立下的先例。將來哪位老師參与反國教、佔中，只要找到他的私德有損，放在網上blow大，教局寫報告，想搵食都難。
L
Of course, the barrister was behaving in a manner bringing disrepute to the reputation of the HK Bar.
刪除Sorry for being lazy when I made earlier replies. I have now read the Education Ordinance (Cap 279). There are 2 sections relevant to Ms Lam's case.
Section: 46 Grounds for refusal to register teacher
The Permanent Secretary may refuse to register an applicant as a teacher if it appears to him that the applicant- (Amended 3 of 2003 s. 11)
(a) is not a fit and proper person to be a teacher;
(b) has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment;
(c) is a person in respect of whom a permit to teach has previously been cancelled;
(d) is medically unfit;
(e) does not possess the prescribed qualifications;
(f) has attained the age of 70 years; or
(g) in making or in connection with any application-
(i) (Repealed 42 of 1993 s. 17)
(ii) for registration as a manager or a teacher; or
(iii) to employ a person as a permitted teacher in a school,
has made any statement or furnished any information which is false in any material particular or by reason of the omission of any material particular.
and
Section: 47 Grounds for cancellation of registration of teacher
The Permanent Secretary may cancel the registration of a teacher- (Amended 3 of 2003 s. 11)
(a) on any ground specified in section 46 which applies to the teacher, whether or not such ground existed at the time when he was registered as a teacher;
(b) if it appears to the Permanent Secretary that the teacher is incompetent;
(c) if the teacher has contravened any provision of this Ordinance;
(d) if it appears to the Permanent Secretary that the teacher has behaved in any manner which, in the opinion of the Permanent Secretary, constitutes professional misconduct; or
(e) if it appears to the Permanent Secretary that the teacher has behaved in any manner which, in the opinion of the Permanent Secretary, is prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline in the school in which the teacher teaches.
S.46(a) and S.47(d) are 2 relevant subsections for the Permanent Secretary to consider to refuse Ms Lam's registration or if she has already registered in the coming school term in September, to revoke her registration.
Supposing the Permanent Secretary either refuses or revokes Ms Lam's application for registration, Ms Lam can appeal to the Appeal Board under S.61 and under S.64, the Appeal Board may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the Permanent Secretary appealed against, and shall state its reasons for its decision.
If the Appeal Board confirms the decision of the Permanent Secretary (refusing or revoking Ms Lam's registration), Ms Lam can further appeal to the Chief Executive in Council under S.65.
If the Chief Executive in Council upholds the decision, Ms Lam can apply for judicial review. I really don't think it will develop like this. The outburst of foul and vulgar language was only an isolated incident which should not be grave enough to render a justifiable ground for refusing or revoking her registration. The penalty would be disproportionate to the behaviour.
If it is the school's decision to sack Ms Lam, judicial review is not possible. Ms Lam can sue the school for unlawful dismissal then. That said, I do not feel that she can make out a case. It is not only the repeated 4 letter word she tarnished her image as a teacher. Her hysterical outburst was more than an improper slur. Her image as a whole does not impress me at all. I don't want to embroil into any moral argument. I can only say personally I do not appreciate her behaviour as a whole in the incident. She is justified to be sacked and at the same time it is not wrong to let her stay. Either way, the decision is not wrong, being draconian versus magnanimous. The school may not be pressurized by the Government but what about parents who have conservative and pro-government stance?
刪除Thanks! That's comprehensive. Read Mountwithin's blog. Now it seems it is more related to politics than law. Just hope both EDB and the school are wise enough to deal with it.
刪除L
I subscribed mountwithin's blog. So whenever he writes something new, it will be notified. I have posted my comment in this particular blog you refer me to (林慧思調查報告可以有什麽結果？)
刪除天水圍事件,黑社會與人力,只是一場傳媒加偽政黨鬧劇,黑社會做壞事,永遠不會在記者面前做,記住佢冇人才打,成件事自編自導自演,平時梁振英到边到,長毛,疏民實到,當日他們在那？,因有噹噹係身,幕後做編劇,導演,轉移視線（司馬昭之心,路人皆見）
回覆刪除I cannot disagree that the media sometimes flare up social incidence. I really need to sit down and write something about it. There are so many factors intertwining here.
刪除