此信来自外国友人，鉴于原信较长，现分段刊登，中文翻译由本博提供。
1、
My primary comment would be to decide what the goal of the document is. Is this solely a response to the current regime? Is it intended to establish a new structure? Are you looking for the most enlightened ideal, or are you intending this as a conversation with the current regime? Do you intend for the current party to remain in power and take on this constitution, or is the idea that a whole new structure would emerge?
我建议首先确定这份文件的目标是什么？是对现政权的回应还是希望建立新的社会结构？您是希望寻找最启发人的理想还是希望用此文件和现政权进行对话？您希望现政权继续执政但采纳这部宪法还是希望未来诞生一个新的社会？
2、
In the American Constitution, we begin with an overall structure of government. That way we know what/why the people are voting and whom they are voting for. You could add something about multiple parties, to ensure that no one single party is ever the sole player. In any society this is one of the most important things: if the structure is not there to protect rights, than no matter how nice your constitution is the rights therein will not be guaranteed.
在美国的宪法里，我们首先确定政府的总体结构，这样我们（人民）知道人民选举的是什么以及为什么人民要选举，以及他们选举了谁？你可以就多党制做些补充以确保一党专制不会发生。在任何社会，这都是最重要的问题。如果社会结构不能保护权利，那么无论宪法对权利描述得多么好，它都是没有保障的。
3、
Regarding some of the more specific points, I think you need to be very careful in your articles about restricting speech of any kind, regardless of where it comes from. In a court, like the supreme court, every word is going to be parsed for meaning and flexibility and range of use. For instance, in Article 1, part 1, number 2, you say the government cannot use public resources to promote any moral, religious, or ideological agenda, and in number 3 you say the government cannot call any thought/religious creed a cult. In a court, a judge might say, well, can the government put up public service announcements in the subway, for instance, urging people to step aside to let passengers on the train? Or to let the disabled have a seat? These public service announcements would fall under a moral or ethical agenda, but under the draft writing this would not be allowed. And in number three, what if an organization posing as a religion advocates collective suicide, or abuse and torture of its members? (these things have actually happened). In this case it matters less what the government says that what people are doing, if it’s harmful or not.
下面是针对具体内容的建议：我认为你需要对文中限制言论的条款非常谨慎，无论言论出自于谁。在法庭上，例如最高法院，每一个字和措辞在其含义与尺度上都十分谨慎。例如，文中的第一条第一款的第二点说，"政府在个人信仰及意识形态上保持中立，不得借用公共权力与公共资源宣传任何具体的道德体系、宗教信仰或意识形态，包括公立学校除设置公民法律教育课程外，在意识形态方面，不得设置道德思想课和以宣扬爱国主义和传统道德思想为目的的历史课、哲学课、伦理课等课程"。那么在法庭上，法官可以提出：若这样，那么政府是否可以张贴地铁公益广告，例如，要求大家往车厢边上靠，以便流出客流通道？或者给残疾人让座？这些都属于道德及伦理范畴，但是在这样一个建议稿之下，却是不被允许的。还有第三点说"政府亦不将任何信仰确定为巫术、邪教或罪恶”，那么如果一个组织以宗教名义要求信众集体自杀、侵害人权或实施酷刑折磨，（这些事情实实在在地发生过），在这样的情况下，最重要的是该组织的行为本身以及是否造成伤害，而政府说什么却在其次。
4、
And in Section 2 of Article 1, you begin to raise extremely tricky issues by restricting the ability to talk about Marxism etc. What if an organization devoted to history wants to publish a book on communism? What if a school group wants to make a website about their parents experience of communism in China? Under this law, these things which seem ok would be prohibited. In this country we protect everyone’s speech, regardless of if we like it or not. Once you prohibit one person’s speech, you very quickly move to prohibit more an more.
在第一条第二款，你提出“集体、党团、组织、政府部门均不得在公共场合(包括网络)宣传共产 主义(包括马克思主义、列宁主义、及以中国共产党领导人命名的任何思想)”。而限制谈论马克思主义等是极易引发争议的问题。例如一个研究历史的组织希望出版关于共产主义的书籍，那怎么办？或者，一个学校的组织要开办一个网站介绍在中国共产主义中国环境下，他们的父母的经历，可以吗？在这部法律之下，这些事本来是没有问题的，却会遭到禁止。在美国，无论你喜欢与否，每一个人的言论都是受到保护的。一旦你禁止一个人的言论，那么你将很快滑向限制越来越多的言论。
没有评论:
发表评论