2004-05-28 - 6:53 a.m.
(27 May 2004, SCMP) For the sake of freedom of speech, we should always tolerate specious and unfounded comments like those made by A. E. Gazeley in his ��free speech intact but threatened by street actions�� (May 24).
Mr. Gazeley asserts that if Hong Kong should ever lose its freedom of speech, it will be the result of democrats taking to the streets-- ��the more Mr. (Martin) Lee gets on the street, the more China will stand firm��. He blames the democrats for the shrinking room for freedom of speech in Hong Kong. But if the central government tries to shut up Hong Kong people just because we are exercising our legitimate right of demonstration and expression, then it is not the actions of the democrats, but the intolerance of the central government, that should be held responsible for the loss of freedom of speech. Does Mr. Gazeley think we should be punished if we take to the streets? And what else can we do to express our will to change the Chief Executive under the current defective, unrepresentative system of selecting the CE?
I am also offended by his malicious metaphor of the 1989 Tiananmen Incident, which he names as the ��Tiananmen Square Revolt��. Again, Mr. Gazeley seems to put the sole responsibility of the massacre on the students-- it is because of their actions that led to the crack-down, and the murderer should not be blamed because they are just ��forced�� to do so. What kind of logic is this?
And I can��t see how he can conclude that our freedom of speech is not affected because the Post still enjoys it. Freedom of speech means freedom for all media and even if one of the media is suppressed by illegitimate means, it is still an infringement of that freedom. Perhaps Mr. Gazeley is as outspoken as Raymond Wong and Albert Cheng, but obviously his comments are not qualified to be a target of suppression because no reasonable person would be convinced by his arguments.
0 comments so far?lt;/P>
?lt;/P>
