Loading

香港警察对新闻工作者:双重标准 【中英对照翻译】

新闻来源:HONG KONG FREE PRESS;作者:TIM HAMLETT

翻译、简评:势不可挡;PR:CharlesS; PAGE: 玄天生

简评:

香港警察在执法过程中对新闻工作者和他们自己采用双重执法标准,一套是适用于新闻工作者的规则和标准,另一套则适用于香港警察。比如,香港警察以“涉嫌非法集会”的名义抓捕妇女,原因是该妇女身穿了新闻制服而被认定为记者;而香港警察执法时本应该显示编码或身份卡,但他们却没有这么做,并且他们被要求不能在制服上设计其它徽章和图标,但却经常这样做了。香港警察指控媒体在拍摄时暴露了警察的个人信息;但泄露有关被捕嫌疑人的个人信息以及一些极有偏见的证据,对香港警察而言却是司空见惯。香港警察指控开车驶入一群警察的摩托车手的行为是“疯狂驾驶”,甚至是“恐怖主义”,导致该车手无法保释;但将摩托车驶入一群和平抗议者中的警察却没有受到任何指控。

原文翻译

Hong Kong police vs. journalists: One set of rules for us, and another for them

香港警察与新闻工作者:一套适用于我们的规则,另一套适用于他们

In the days when I was sometimes invited to address large groups of police officers about their relations with the press, the recurring complaint which came up was that there was no regulatory body to which complaints about the press could be addressed.

有时,在我被邀请向大批警务人员介绍他们与新闻界的关系时,经常听到的抱怨是:没有一个监管机构可以对新闻界进行投诉。

My usual reply, that we would be quite happy to have a complaint arrangement like the police one, did not go down well. The problem clearly continues. Last week the Hong Kong Police Force was reduced to writing a letter containing a series of complaints to the four organisations which, between them, represent most journalists.

我通常的答复是,我们很乐意能像警察投诉科一样有一个接受投诉的安排,但进展不顺利。问题显然仍然存在。上周,香港警务处写了一封信,其中包含了对代表大多数记者的四个组织机构的一系列投诉。

Photo: Kero/United Social Press.

照片:Kero/社会联合媒体。

This was (I hope this did not come as a surprise) widely reported. So we can console the Force with a response to their gripes which will be at least as forthcoming as their usual response to our gripes about them.

这已经(我希望这不足为奇)被广泛报道。因此,我们可以利用对警察部队抱怨的回应来安慰他们,至少这和他们对我们有关警察抱怨的反应通常一样快。

The first complaint was that a woman arrested “on suspicion of illegal assembly” had been “disguised as a reporter”. Apparently she was wearing a press vest. RTHK’s report on the matter could not resist adding at this point that the police did not say why the existence of a non-reporter in a press vest had anything to do with the real reporters to whom their epistle was addressed.

第一个投诉是,一名“伪装成记者”的妇女因“涉嫌非法集会”而被捕。据说,她当时穿着新闻背心。香港电台在报道关此事时忍不住补充说,警方没有说明身穿新闻背心却非记者的事实存在与书信所针对的真正记者有什么关系。

This is a good point. After all police officers have uniform obligations. They are supposed to display their numbers and/or warrant cards, though they often do not. They are not supposed to adorn their uniforms with badges and logos of their own devising, though they often do. Journalists, on the other hand, can wear what they like.

这是个好的观点,毕竟所有警察都有着制服的义务。他们应该显示其编号和/或身份卡,但他们通常不这么做。他们不应该在自己的制服上装饰自己设计的徽章和徽标,但他们经常这么做。另一方面,记者却可以穿自己喜欢的衣服。

File Photo: via social media.

档案照片:通过社交媒体。

Since the days of the trench coat, notebook and fedora with a press pass tucked into the hatband have long gone, it is very difficult to be “disguised as a journalist”.

由于风衣、笔记本和将新闻通行证压入软呢帽帽檐的时代早已荡然无存,因此很难“伪装成新闻工作者”。

And the press vest, handy though it may be, has no formal status at all. We know this because whenever someone complains about journalists being injured when covering street protests, the Force’s response is always that journalists have no special status. Along with first aiders, social workers, human rights observers, and wandering members of the public they are liable to be shot, soaked, or pepper-sprayed at any time they are in the wrong place at the wrong time in one of the Force’s shooting galleries, or streets as we used to call them.

新闻背心虽然很方便,却根本没有正式地位。我们之所以知道这一点,是因为每当有人在报道街头抗议活动时抱怨记者受伤时,警队的反应就是,记者没有特殊地位。与急救人员,社会工作者,人权观察者和流浪的市民一样,在任何错误的时间,任何错误的地方如警队射击场,或我们称为街道的地方之一,记者也容易被射击,被水泡浸湿或被喷辣椒水。

So I’m afraid this complaint must be unsubstantiated.

因此,我认为此投诉必然是没有根据的。

A riot police firing pepper spray at reporters in Mong Kok. Photo: RTHK screenshot.

防暴警察向旺角的记者发射胡椒喷雾。 图片:香港电台截图。

The next complaint (I quote RTHK) goes like this: “Police also accused some online media of taking close-up shots of protesters’ pamphlets that contained personal information on officers. The force described this as ‘extremely unprofessional’, adding that such shots may breach a court injunction that prevents the doxxing of police officers.”

下一封投诉(我引用香港电台)是这样的:“警方还指控一些在线媒体对抗议者的小册子进行了特写拍摄,其中包含有关官员的个人信息。警察部队将其描述为“极端不专业”,并补充说,此类拍摄可能违反法院的禁令,即防止暴露有关警务人员的个人信息。

I deplore the making of unfounded legal threats. Taking a picture of a leaflet is not “doxxing”. Of course “may” is a weasel word. President Trump may win the Nobel Peace Prize. Who knows?

我对制造毫无根据的法律威胁感到遗憾。拍摄一张关于传单的照片不是“恶意收集个人信息(doxxing)”。当然“可能”是一个狡猾的词。川普总统“可能”会赢得诺贝尔和平奖。谁知道呢?

I would also dispute the “unprofessional” label. If you are a reporter who is going to report the existence of a leaflet the least you are expected to do is to take a picture of one. This is not for publication, but as evidence for the truth of your story.

我也会对“非专业”这个标签提出异议。如果您是要报道这些传单存在的记者,那么您至少应该拍一张传单的照片。这不是为了出版,而是作为故事真实性的证据。

Now for the third complaint, which is in some ways more interesting.

现在是第三个投诉,这在某些方面更有趣。

“The police’s next complaint was that online media had ‘glorified’ the behaviour of a man suspected of stabbing a police officer by identifying him as a ‘resident’ who had ‘driven back’ the police during the protests. The force claimed the man was not an ordinary resident but ‘a criminal’ and said it was despicable for the outlet to confuse right and wrong.”

“警察的下一个投诉是,在线媒体光荣化了一名涉嫌刺伤警察的男子的行为,因为这些媒体认定这名男子是抗议活动中“驱赶”警察的“居民”。警队声称这名男子不是普通居民,而是“罪犯”,并说媒体混淆是非是可耻的。

There is a legal point lurking here. Once legal proceedings are imminent it is a serious offence (known technically as contempt of court) for a media outlet to report events in a way which implies that the person or people arrested, or soon to be arrested, are guilty…or innocent, for that matter. For that reason reporters are trained to report alleged offences using neutral language, of which “resident” and “driven back” are examples, and “a criminal” is not.

这里有一个法律隐患。媒体用暗示被捕或即将被捕的人在那件事上有罪…或无罪 的方式来报道事件, 假如被起诉的话,是严重的罪行(技术上称为蔑视法庭)。因此,记者需要进行训练,使他们能够以中立的语言报道涉嫌的犯罪,例如“居民”和“驱赶”,而“罪犯”则不是。

The Department of Justice. Photo: GovHK.

香港律政司。图片:香港政府。

It is sadly true, as I have been complaining for years, that this rule is often broken. The reason why it is often broken is because the Department of Justice (DoJ), unlike the old colonial Legal Department, does not keep an eye on the news media to spot infringements.

令人遗憾的是,正如我多年来一直抱怨的那样,这一规则经常被打破。它经常被破坏的原因是因为香港律政司(DoJ)与旧的殖民地法务部不同,它并不关注新闻媒体以发现侵权行为。

From time to time I have written to the DoJ pointing out conspicuous breaches of the rule. Their polite, but unhelpful, reply is that they only initiate prosecutions on receipt of suggestions from the police. This is unhelpful because the usual origin of prejudicial information is a police source, sometimes informal and sometimes in an official press conference.

我不时写信给律政司,指出明显违反规则的情况。他们礼貌但无济于事的答复是,他们只有在收到警察的建议后才提起诉讼。这无济于事,因为偏见信息的通常来源是警察,有时是非正式的,有时是在正式的新闻发布会上。

As it happens the case of the resident accused of stabbing a police officer provided a good example. Within hours of his arrest it was reported on all channels, citing “police sources”, with a variety of details about the arrest which clearly implied an attempt to flee.

居民被指控刺伤一名警察的事件的发生为此提供了很好的例子。在他被捕的几个小时内,所有渠道都以“警察消息来源”来报道,并记录了有关逮捕的各种细节,这些细节清晰暗示了逃跑的企图。

As some media were careless enough to report his name, we must suppose this was among the information supplied. Indeed, as some media managed to interview his family in time for the morning editions we must suppose that his address was supplied as well.

由于某些媒体不小心报道了他的名字,因此我们必须假定这是(警方)提供的信息之一。确实,由于一些媒体设法在早间刊物上及时采访了他的家人,我们必须假定他的地址也已提供。

Photo: Jimmy Lam/United Social Press.

照片:黎智英/社会联合媒体。

So there you go. While photographing the personal information of a police person is “unprofessional”, leaking the personal information – and some highly prejudicial snippets of evidence – about an arrested suspect is business as usual for police officers.

所以你发现了吧。尽管拍摄警察的个人信息是“不专业的”,但泄露有关被捕嫌疑人的个人信息以及一些极有偏见的证据片段,对警察而言却是司空见惯。

There are one set of rules for us, and another for them, as readers will no doubt already have deduced from the case of the motorcyclist alleged to have driven into a group of policemen. Initially charged with “furious driving”, he has now also been charged with “terrorism”, apparently for no better reason than that it meant he was denied bail.

这里有有一套适用于我们记者的规则,而另一套则适用于他们警队,因为读者,毫无疑问,已经可以从涉嫌开车冲进一群警察的摩托车手的案件中推论得出。最初他被指控“超速驾驶”,现在又被指控“恐怖主义”,显然是因为没有比这更好的理由来拒绝保释了。

Meanwhile, the policeman who drove a motorcycle into a group of protesters was not charged with anything.

同时,将摩托车驾驶到一群抗议者中的警察没有受到任何指控。

编辑:【喜马拉雅战鹰团】