Thursday, June 9, 2011
Saturday, October 9, 2010
看看网友如何评论刘晓波得诺贝尔和平奖
2010年10月9日
看看网友如何评论刘晓波得诺贝尔和平奖
昨天（10月8日）下午5点，网上传来消息：刘晓波喜获诺贝尔和平奖（不认识刘晓波的网友，请看“这里”的介绍。看完刘晓波的介绍之后，俺强烈建议，顺便再看看零八宪章的介绍）。
然后，Twitter上就炸锅了，关于刘晓波的tweet如潮水般涌出。俺怀着极大的兴趣，看了Google实时搜索的Twitter评论（请翻墙后猛击“这里”），一直看到凌晨。
以下是俺收集整理的网友评论，大部分来自Twitter。俺会抽空不断更新本帖子，把精彩的评论添加进来。
★纯属幽默讽刺的评论
据说台湾和大陆在诺贝尔奖问题上是有分工的:台湾负责自然科学的类别,大陆则专攻和平奖。
诺贝尔和平奖即将揭晓。今晚新华社,人民日报,环球时报,外交部等媒体和部门肯定准备好了2份稿件准备二选一发布。一份是赞美和平奖得主的,一份是谴责诺贝尔评委会的。
快讯:北京时间17:00,中国公民敏感词荣获2010年诺贝尔和平奖。
问:中国诺贝尔和平奖候选人的主管单位是哪个?
答:中华人民共和国司法部监狱管理局。
CNN:温先生,请问你对贵国异议人士刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖有何看法?
温+宝:我浏览了很多网站,没看到这消息啊!
问:有没有中国人获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都拿着外国国籍。(丁肇中、李远哲、朱棣文、崔琦、赛珍珠、钱永健)
问:有没有中国公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都是中华民国的公民。(李政道、杨振宁)
问:有没有新中国的公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他不承认自己是中国公民。(高行健)
问:有没有承认自己是中国人的新中国公民获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但是我们不承认他是中国公民。(达赖)
问:有没有承认自己是中国公民,国家也承认他是新中国公民的诺贝尔奖获得者?
答:有,但他在新中国的监狱里。(刘晓波)
中共外交部一定有刘晓波的暗桩,否则怎么正在挪威方面作最后决定的时候,突然点明事态,逼得美联社/法新社/路透社/BBC等都疯狂发稿大谈刘晓波?
刘晓波果然获得诺贝尔和平奖了,多亏了共产党外交部的大力协助呀,哈哈!
本人强烈建议中共中央,立即逮捕那些抓捕刘晓波并判他11年徒刑的人,是他们阴谋策划,最终制造了一个诺贝尔和平奖获得者。他们才是共产党最大的敌人啊!
今天记者肯定会问诺贝尔奖的事。温宝宝的四种选择:
(1)"刘晓波是中国的一个罪犯,给他授奖是对诺奖的亵渎。"(可能性20%)
(2)"我和晓波的心是相通的。"(可能性2%)
(3)装聋作哑,好像没听到。(可能性75%)
(4)"哎呀,我肚子痛,赶紧送我上医院!"(可能性3%)
南京一爱国青年在得知挪威将诺奖颁给刘晓波后,非常气愤,走上街头发起了一场"抵制挪货,从我做起"的万人签名活动,呼吁广大市民抵制挪货,其中一位情绪激昂的市民在多人劝阻无效的情况下当场点燃了一本《挪威的森林》。
宣称"我没有敌人"的刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,兲朝老大哥非常恼火,冥思苦想后确定了一个更响亮的口号——"我没有朋友"!
评奖的这帮人太狠了,每当钱不够时,就发给一个无法领奖的人。
刘晓波能获得这个诺贝尔和平奖还要归功于胡四的愚蠢。去年我就耻笑中南海连在圣诞节审判刘晓波这样的馊主意都想得出来,群体智慧低到何种程度。果不其然,哪天中共倒台,这帮人居功至伟!
我认为这次中国政府是弄巧成拙了。搞得人家如果不把这个奖给刘晓波,倒好像成了中国政府的二孙子似得。
由于新闻联播在诺贝尔和平奖揭晓的日子竟然只字不提,刘晓波在狱中一定知道他已经获得诺贝尔和平奖。
诺贝尔官网网友留言:"我不知道刘先生是谁,但是我为中国人能够获得诺贝尔奖而高兴。她一定是一名好党员,我们中国人民的好干部,为人民做实事的好领导。"
据传,澳大利亚一亲北京的华人社团迫不及待地向北京发回了第一条贺信:热烈祝贺中华人民共和国培养出了中国大陆上第一个诺贝尔奖得主,粉碎了杨恒均之流污蔑中国政府永远培养不出诺贝尔得奖者的谣言……^_^
影帝遇见千载难逢的政改机会了。影帝应该回国后带着一票记者直奔锦州监狱,然后拉开门就痛哭:晓波,我这次又来晚了,他们判你我真是不知道的啊!
61年了,锦州监狱完成了从"关战犯"到"关诺贝尔和平奖得主"的质的飞跃!
中国是一个热爱和平的国家,却讨厌和平奖。
今晚我专门看了新闻联播,最后一个新闻是大熊猫怀孕了。发现央视进步了,如此深沉。国宝受惊(精)了,这个信息就够了,央视在这个节骨眼上表现出来的幽默是一个不小的进步。
共和国监狱不但关过诺贝尔和平奖得主,还关过皇帝、国家主席、元帅、将军、班禅、等。监狱,是个人才济济的地方!
新华社:中国一名服刑人员在改造期间轻而易举获得了诺贝尔奖,充分体现社会主义法制国家的优越性。
胡锦涛:刘晓波交代了吗?
专案组:他彻底交代了,我们查证属实。
胡锦涛:联邦共和国出自何处?
专案组:中国共产党第二次代表大会公报。原文提法是:建立一个自由的联邦共和国。多了个"自由"。
胡锦涛:那……那军队国家化呢?
专案组:也查清了!出自《周恩来选集》。原文提法是:必须实现军队国家化。多了个"必须实现"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那赞美西方民主制度出自何处?
专案组:《新华日报》社论。原文提法是:美国代表了民主社会。多了个"美国代表"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那解除党禁呢?
专案组:毛太祖反对国民党时提出来的口号!原文提法多了个"打倒一党专政"!
胡锦涛:那……那……那……那结社自由、言论自由、出版自由呢?
专案组:这些,宪法里全有!
无数叫"刘晓波"的人都惨了,短信都不能提及。据说刘晓波获奖后,CCAV那个叫刘晓波的记者泪流满面。回家直怨爹妈乱起名字,害得再也不能出境了 :(
前些日子是全中国人要求日本放人，现在是全世界人要求中国放人。
忽然想到一个刑法的技术问题:拿了诺奖减刑不?
根据刑法第78条的规定，有下列重大立功表现之一的，应当减刑:
(6)对国家和社会有其他重大贡献的。
刘晓波获奖是我党政法委无数次严密实验的科学结晶:
高智晟判三年不行,胡佳判三年半不行,陈光诚判四年半不行,谭作人判五年也不行……
终于,刘晓波判11年——球进了!
感谢国家!感谢党!
微博管理员:尊敬的用户,行行好吧,从六点删到现在我连晚饭都没吃那,手都删软了!
★对真理部的评论
各大门户的诺贝尔专题
新浪 http://news.sina.com.cn/z/2010Nobel/ 被删
网易 http://news.163.com/special/2010NobelPrize/ 页面保留,留下了三个字"已删除"
搜狐 http://news.sohu.com/s2010/nobel10/ 自动跳转到其它页面
看到各门户网站的诺贝尔专题纷纷挂掉,我就知道中国人终于得了个诺贝尔奖。
现在,四大门户专题被撤,中国移动、联通短信过滤刘晓波三字,各大搜索过滤该词,新闻评论、博客和微博审核员加班,除添加自动词条外大幅增强人工干预力度,刘妻被警方紧急带离北京。图为刘晓波妻子刘霞家外站满世界各地记者 http://imgur.com/26nhw
刚亲测短信,发"刘晓波"三个字会被墙,三字中间加空格也会被墙。
你妈联通的,发短信用句号隔开刘晓波都发送失败。
苹果日报: 当确认刘晓波获奖后,不仅中国各平面与电子媒体一致封口,连各大饭店内自行架设卫星接收的CNN/NHK/BBC等国际频道,也在播报相关新闻时遭中国当局盖台,画面顿时变黑。
想必昨天晚上领导们连夜开会了,丑化刘晓波的宣传应该要开始了吧。
博讯: 胡锦涛李长春下令封杀刘晓波获诺奖新闻
明天如果一个国内大报没有把刘晓波获奖作为主要新闻,你就可以知道该报的真正老板是真理部。
中宣部最新指令:有关刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的通稿照发,但所有媒体(含一切纸媒、网媒)不得登载。
1989年的CCTV: 抓住刘晓波的黑手 http://cl.ly/e68e9509762bc370d05d
八九血案后,中国官方日人民报发表《抓住刘晓波黑手》以诬他;明天的日人民报会不会来一篇《抓住诺贝尔奖的黑手》以诬炸药奖,来个前后呼应、宝献双璧呢?
网易关于外交部对刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖的新闻直接关闭了评论,不敢开放,不然估计审计专员要累死。
北京多名维权人士庆祝刘晓波获奖被抓到派出所。
刘晓波的存在和刘晓波的思考使这个政权感到难堪,因为他们害怕真相。刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,就会使当局难以继续封锁刘晓波。六四以后,当局有一种屏蔽的政策,试图使大家忘却曾经有六四这样一个事件。
当年911,全球头版美国遇袭,兲朝头版领导讲话;今年108,全球头版刘晓波获奖,兲朝头版朝鲜领导易人。9年时间,兲朝总算有了国际视野。
昨天全球头条新闻都是刘晓波得奖了,兲朝头条是金正日儿子接班了。今天全球头条都是各国元首要求释放刘晓波,兲朝头条是折腾帝祝贺劳动党生日快乐了。
太给力了!《北京青年报》不要命了? http://twitpic.com/2vpoow
恭喜诺贝尔官网被墙,获得GFW认证!
网友甲:如果网易不删帖,几十年以后,网易就能得诺贝尔和平奖!
网友乙:如果网易不删贴,十几天以后,网易就没有了!
★对中共外交部的评论
中国照会挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖授予中国异见人士刘晓波。对于独裁政权来讲,很难理解在民主国家,有不受政府控制的独立机构存在。
中国驻挪威大使馆对挪威政府表示抗议。
挪威政府表示不解:诺贝尔是独立基金会啊!
中国政府更为不解:独立基金会是神马?难道不都是受政府控制的吗?
挪威政府:……
对于一个没有任何独立机构的中国官方来说,诺贝尔和平奖不受政府控制是不可思议的;中共认定:一旦颁予中国异见人士,挪威政府肯定是幕后黑手。中国政府常能操纵一切,便认为所有政府都像他们一样是幕后黑手。
如果一个政府为不让自己本国国民获得诺贝尔奖而努力,这得混蛋到一定水平才行啊。
外交部长:我要向你表达我国政府对刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的愤怒和失望!
挪威大使:跟我有什么关系?奖又不是我发的,我又不代表委员会。
热烈祝贺刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖: 但外交部发言人说"诺贝尔委会授予刘晓波和平奖是对该奖的亵渎",我还认为把刘晓波关押起来是对宪法的亵渎呢 http://zuo.in/dwOwY4
中国刚刚召见了挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺委会颁发诺贝尔和平奖给刘晓波——外交部真够不要脸的!
土共政权在刘晓波获奖前后令人作呕的反人类表演丢尽了十几亿中国人的脸,马朝旭你已经青史留名了!
★海外的反应
今晚全球各大百年报业一致头条 http://goo.gl/tGJb
全球各大媒体: 时代周刊,纽约时报,华盛顿邮报,洛杉机时报,今日美国,英国卫报,英国泰晤士报,法国回声报,德国明镜周刊,朝日新闻,读卖新闻,GBS,NHK,半岛电视台等报道刘晓波获诺奖的新闻集锦 http://is.gd/fSfo4
美国之音: 奥巴马呼吁中国政府释放刘晓波: 美国总统奥巴马呼吁北京政府释放中国异议人士刘晓波。刘晓波星期五被评为2010年诺贝尔和平奖得主。诺贝尔奖委员会表示,他们将这项荣誉颁发给刘晓波是因为"他在中国为了基本人权作出的长期和... http://bit.ly/b70FSq
美国之音: 美众议院议长佩洛西在书面声明中给予刘晓波高度评价。她说,刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,成为人类历史上争取非暴力、正义和自由的领袖人物之一。
美国之音: 《刘晓波到底是什么人?》 http://is.gd/fSxUZ
美国之音: 俄国媒体:刘晓波是中国萨哈罗夫:刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖在俄罗斯引起热烈反响。媒体把刘晓波称做中国的萨哈罗夫。人权人士称刘晓波获奖当之无愧。有专家认为,中国要想在国际社会扮演更重要角色,必须使政治体制民主化,刘晓波获奖是向中国发出… http://bit.ly/aoypZh
美国之音: 香港各界对刘晓波获奖的反应: 中国内地的异见人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖在香港引起强烈反响,不同阶层,不同政治观点的人做出不同的反应。星期六,绝大多数香港主流媒体都以显著位置长篇报道了刘晓波获奖一事… http://bit.ly/bMDbxr
BBC中文网: 法国政府呼吁释放刘晓波 http://j.mp/bJbSOR 中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖后,法国呼吁中国立即释放被监禁的刘晓波。
BBC中文网: 港媒评论:刘晓波"因言入罪、因言获奖" 香港各大报纸都在头版头条大篇幅报道刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息,并刊发了大量评论和照片。 http://bbc.in/deBVxX
BBC中文网: 美国呼吁北京释放刘晓波:美国总统奥巴马和美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿分别呼吁中国尽快释放诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波。 http://bbc.in/9UnfYq
BBC中文网: 刘晓波获奖 海外异议人士反应不一:因起草《零八宪章》被中共当局投入监狱的中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,海外民运和异议人士作出反应。 http://bbc.in/9hkT5C
BBC中文网: 简讯:刘晓波获奖中国向挪威抗议: 中国周五召见挪威驻中国大使,就挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖颁发给刘晓波提出抗议。 http://bbc.in/9lONiC
BBC中文网: 马英九祝贺刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖: 台湾总统、行政院长分别表示祝贺,在野的民进党则呼吁台湾政府能支持中国民主化进程。 http://bbc.in/dbbhQ8
BBC中文网: 澳大利亚再次呼吁释放刘晓波: 澳大利亚总理吉拉德表示,将继续以刘晓波的名义向中国政府交涉。 http://bbc.in/aRD5hD
BBC中文网: 英国媒体广泛报道刘晓波获诺贝尔奖: 英国各大报章详尽报道刘晓波得到和平奖的消息,分析指这是对中国政府的专制的谴责。 http://bbc.in/brZwe7
德国之声: 德国政府要求立即释放刘晓波: http://bit.ly/bzX0SF
德国之声: 获奖之后,刘晓波家被封锁,自发庆祝者被抓。刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息传出后,中国政府国保阻止刘晓波妻子刘霞与传媒见面,中国四大门户网站诺奖专题被撤下,带有相关敏感词的短信被过滤,至晚间20时…… http://bit.ly/byP6k1
德国之声: 刘晓波获奖受到国际关注:德国、挪威和法国政府均对中国异见人士刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖表示祝贺,并呼吁立即释放这位狱中作家。人权组织大赦国际呼吁中国释放所有良心犯。德国媒体也对刘晓波获奖给予极大关注。 http://bit.ly/9OfLui
德国之音: 中国多个城市警方抓捕刘晓波支持者:刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖后，中国当局从宣布获奖的一刻起，开始对自发庆祝的中国公众进行抓捕。 http://bit.ly/b6Ei6Q
自由亚洲电台: 大陆封锁刘晓波获奖消息,庆祝人士被捕: 刘晓波获奖的消息震撼不少中国人,尽管当局全力封杀有关消息,包括阻止手机发出有关内容的短信、各大门户网站不断删走有关内容的网帖、及对与诺贝尔奖有关的其他报道进行大清洗,但无阻网民以各种……
http://twurl.nl/n7wb2m
华尔街日报连发两篇评论,谈刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖。
第一篇说: 一直没有中国人因为他在中国的努力工作而获得诺贝尔奖,直到刘晓波通过服刑11年这种为了民主而工作的方式获奖。这个对他的勇气和正直表达认同的奖终将有一天会成为所有中国人的骄傲。
第二篇评论是林培瑞写的: 他分析说胡锦涛在05年发表了一篇预防颜色革命的报告,指出要防止中国出现叶利钦/瓦文萨/曼德拉这样的人,所以共产党一直执行的是枪打出头鸟的政策,刘晓波就是他们眼中的出头鸟和大家伙,但是他们犯了一个愚蠢的错误。
纽约客谈刘晓波: 中国持不同政见者的困境,远非外国人可想象。压力不但来自公安,还有雇主,甚至父母。最难堪是来自于知识界/思想界同侪。他们会认为你是为了单纯的对抗而不是求切实的成果。甚至是把自己包装成一个符合西方审美的异议分子。
旺報社評－劉曉波的獲罪與獲獎…大陆那么多出色的评论人却无法在大陆的报章上对此事置一词,真悲哀!
香港電台: 公民黨到中聯辦要求釋放劉曉波!
跟几位以色列人谈了刘晓波获奖后续:饭醉分子被抓,刘霞被隔离……
这几位以色列同学说:1 看来这个奖发对了 2 中国政府为什么这么蠢?
★呼吁弘扬刘晓波和08宪章
告诉你的朋友/家人/同事:谁是刘晓波?他为什么被反华势力爱戴?
要向周围的朋友家人介绍刘晓波,最直接到达的方法无非就是当面讲、语音呼叫讲。什么短信、email、IM过滤统统去死!
如果你的父母搞不清刘晓波是干什么的,你就乘机给他们看一回08宪章吧,他们能看懂的。
要将刘晓波获奖的价值最大化,即是要让最多的中国大陆人知道这件事,无论他认为这是西方的政治阴谋,还是什么。总之,首要的是让尽可能多的大陆人知道刘晓波,知道他获奖。只有这样,刘晓波获得诺贝尔奖的效应才能出来。否则被党继续扼杀着,这个效应就只局限于海外了,努力不能白费!
要发挥个人可利用的所有的媒介传播形式,包括口头传播、QQ传播、社区传播等尽可能多的形式,冲破党对刘晓波获奖信息的封锁,让几亿人知道刘晓波获奖了。呼吁所有的报纸媒体,即使明天刊登的是外交部的抗议,也希望去刊登出刘晓波获奖的消息,不要让这个消息胎死腹中。
谁再问我刘晓波是谁,干了什么。如果我觉得说08宪章对他们有点高深,那就这么回答:
你每天看到贪官污吏横行霸道、强拆自焚、歹徒弑童、宝马碾压、三聚氰胺、毒大米地沟油、藏猫猫、喝水水、做梦梦等,你有感到生气和郁闷吗?刘晓波就是拿出了一个这些问题最终解决方案的人。
对国内最有意义的事情,就是去告诉人们刘晓波为何得奖,让人们看看08宪章是怎么写的。普及现代社会的基础关键,是以人为本,政府民立。只有分清楚了国家、政府、民族这些基本观念,才能真正的出这次获奖的有效意义。
★回顾历史的评论
去年胡祝贺奥巴马,今年奥巴马祝贺刘晓波。情何以堪?
诺贝尔和平奖这么多年来,只有两位是在监狱中获奖:
其一是反战人士、德国人卡尔·冯·奥西厄茨基;其二是中国刘晓波。
前者的国籍是纳粹德国,后者中国。这两个国家的相同性可谓一目了然。
百年来曾经获得诺贝尔和平奖的著名异见人士包括多人。但自二战结束以来,只有刘晓波是身在监狱期间获颁和平奖。昂山素姬获奖时只属软禁,曼德拉则于1990年已出狱。
问:上一位获得诺贝尔和平奖的坐牢人士是谁么?
答:卡尔·冯·阿希厄茨基。
问:那时他的国家谁在执政?
答:希特勒!
三十多年了,从魏京生到刘晓波,希望宛若微弱之光,在风雨飘摇中若隐若现,忽明忽暗。我等之辈,耳闻了西单民主墙,旁观了反自由化,亲历了六四,从热血青年直奔悲情中年。可希望呢,还依旧在坟茔遍布的中国鬼火点点,无法燎原。
刚刚一个1989年6月4日出生的同学问我刘晓波是谁,他获奖又是怎么回事……于是他也刚刚知道自己的生日是多么的不平凡……
希望刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖成为1979年教皇访问波兰那样的标志性事件!
(历史上的今天)10月8日:台湾解除"戒严令",中国人刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖。
★其它评论
刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的意义在于,这世界上不是每个人,每个团体,每个组织都屈服于金钱和权势的力量。当正义在中国和中国人中变得非常微弱的时候,在世界上还有人向中国伸出了援助之手。
刘晓波得奖,意味着中共肆意侵犯公民名誉权历史的终结。这是60年来中国人第一次获得中共无法侵犯的名誉。
今夜属于刘晓波!今夜属于全体签署08宪章的人们!今夜还属于这么多年来前赴后继追求中国民主进步的全体中国人!让我们尽情地欢庆!让毫无人性的残暴统治者发抖去吧!
随着刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,共产党将永久地被钉在耻辱柱上!
晓波师获奖,并不意味着他会获得自由。但刘晓波的自由之日的确可能预示了中国人的自由!
刘晓波是我尊敬的一位学者。我尊重的主要不是他的学问,而是他的骨气、他的豁达;他对社会的责任感令我敬佩。我们从来没有见过面,也没有什么私交。冯正虎评价刘晓波的文章《写在刘晓波审判前后》http://is.gd/fPsSK
共产党需要在未来的动乱或崩溃时期有一个可以谈判的反对党领袖。而刘晓波是他们熟悉的人,他们有跟刘晓波打交道的充分经验,知道如何对付这个人。
余杰:刘晓波将胡锦涛送上了审判席。
刘晓波曾给纽约客的记者解释写公开信的原因。"不是挑衅,是责任。"他认为公开信非常温和。"西方国家一直在敦促中国政府履行人权承诺,但是如果国内的人不发声,政府会说,看,这是国外人士一厢情愿,中国人自己并没有这个要求。"
祝贺刘晓波先生获得诺贝尔和平奖!望其能早日出狱,民主自由是不可逆的历史趋势,任何违背这一趋势的当局都终将自食其果。
中国政府肯定很恨诺贝尔,他妈的设立什么诺贝尔奖,有物理奖、化学奖不就好了吗,后人就不要设什么和平奖、文学奖?凡是华人拿到这两个奖都是亵渎诺贝尔奖。
他是中国人,他是他是中国版曼德拉,他曾经坐过监狱,后放出,但又入狱,至今还在监狱里,他的名字叫刘……晓……波
授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖是中国政府的失败,但对世界人权来说是一大胜利!
估计北京第一中级法院和北京市高级法院做梦也想不到,由他们判处的一个被告人竟然成为诺贝尔和平奖的获得者。这样的经典案例,值得载入司法审判史。
谷歌和诺奖委员会表明,这世界上,有一种最可贵的东西,叫道义,叫信念,利益在其面前,不值一提。
小波获奖,是对土共近年来花重金打造的国家形象毁灭性一击!别以为砸钱办了奥运世博就人家就尊重你了,公道自在人心。
面对越维稳越不稳的国内局面,本次和平奖事件本来是一次很好的向国际、国内社会释放善意的机会,例如让刘晓波回家治病。可惜当局用的还是60多年前的一套,以为武力能解决一切,在提名和公布后,竟然再一次反其道而行,不仅屏蔽消息还抓庆祝的百姓,彻头彻尾就是不懂公关的土包子。
以前某些人假装不知道刘晓波,现在他们还能继续假装吗?
刘晓波获奖了,由于信息封锁,大陆很多人还不知道刘晓波是谁,还不知道和平奖已经颁发。所以在欢庆之时,我们要让身边更多的人知道刘晓波、知道刘晓波获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
刘晓波在网上发表了自己的政治诉求,因此被判11年徒刑。而他的诉求大部分内容都能在中国宪法里面找到。现在他因为诺贝尔和平奖成了全世界最知名的囚犯之一,多么令人尴尬呀!
刘晓波的得奖真是给中国政府一记响亮的耳光——这已经是中国公民第二次得这个奖了。这次政府要如何来丑化刘晓波?丑化诺贝尔和平奖?
当局必须面对这样的现实,那就是在它的黑牢里,关着一位诺贝尔和平奖的得主,但却无力摧毁他那颗伟大的心。所谓三军可夺帅而匹夫不可夺志,说得就是刘晓波。
为中国干杯!我把刘晓波获得的诺贝尔和平奖看成是给中国的,给受苦人的,给百年黑暗谢幕的,给我们所有希望中国变革成一个和平、理性、文明、尊严的大国的人的。这些也包括真心关心中国民主而不赞成他获奖的人。
记者采访刘晓波,问之:请问您为什么要参选诺贝尔和平奖?刘晓波轻抚身旁的孩子,答:不是我要拿这个奖的,是全国人民选举我来拿的 (涛哥此刻内流满面)。
刘晓波:一旦中国变成自由国家,对于人类文明就将具有难以估量的正面价值,它必将是继苏联共产政权崩溃之后,再次带来残存独裁体制的又一次世界性雪崩,朝鲜、缅甸、古巴等独裁政权将难以为继,那些固守独裁体制的中东国家也将受到强烈的震撼。
刘晓波获诺奖标志着中国的社会运动到达了一个临界点。在经过这一临界点之后,处于劣势的公民社会将反客为主,成为中国社会运动的主导力量。
不过说回来,刘晓波总比达赖好,起码08宪章还是一份值得实现的纲领,虽然我不觉得这个纲领能和平实现,也不觉得可以由刘晓波实现,毕竟纲领和实现它是两码事,所谓知易行难。
诺贝尔和平奖颁给刘晓波,最屈辱的不是党和政府,它们知道这是报应。最屈辱的,是那些警察,国保,保安,红袖章老太太,党报记者,还有,新浪的小秘书。
昨天,诺贝尔和平奖颁布给了刘晓波,我才发现:世界主流文明已告诉胡温,政改就是向着08宪章开启的宪政之路去改!胡温听清楚没?
王小山同志有本书叫《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》,果然,昨天他的老师刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,裆中央都阳萎了,喉舌都哑巴了,可刘晓波获奖的消息仍然以《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》在中国大地传播!
当局担心人们借获奖效应,纷纷走出家门,走向街头。可惜的是中国的知识阶层八九时的情怀与冲动,早被拜金主义神龛所俘获。不管是高级知识分子,还是刚入校们青年一代。但民众中普遍的不满正如欲将破壳的岩浆一般,终将爆发。
刘晓波获奖,中国政府的反应很程式化,让人事先都能料到。难怪古人言:智可及,愚不可及!
自今天上溯六十一年,共产党建政以来,为信仰自由,捍卫自由,实践自由而作出贡献和付出代价的所有人,今天颁给刘晓波的诺贝尔奖也是对他们的认知和致敬。
刘晓波真强大。他让中文推圈各派力量空前团结。从昨天下午至今没有发现口臭推,没有发现互指五毛的攻击贴。
刘晓波是二战以来首位在囚获奖者,已经够丢人的了,还顺便创了一个记录,世博算是白办了。
去年提名就应该把人放了,人家给过你机会你不当回事,现在所有人都记得住把刘晓波关起来的是胡温政府,年底之前别出国了。
诺奖评委给温家宝政改一个契机:政治改革突破瓶颈,从释放刘晓波开始!
評委會主席:如果我們不投票給劉曉波,我們等於是背叛了中國境內的人權。我們不能坐視中國境內持續發生的人權侵害!
究竟犯了什么罪,竟遭此毒手?他只不过用笔写写文章,用嘴说说话,而他所写的,所说的,都无非是一个没有失掉良心的中国人的话!...无耻啊!无耻啊!!这是某集团的无耻,但恰好是李先生的光荣!——出自闻一多《最后一次演讲》
司马南今天的《获奖的汉奸依然是汉奸》,对身陷囹圄的刘晓波实在是落井下石的卑劣行径,是助纣为虐的拙劣表演,是向主人摇尾效忠的好机会,也是一次挺身而出的自我大暴露!
甚至连全国政协委员刘梦熊也直言北京应该反省今次刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,指国际社会认同以和平、理性的方式争取人权自由。刘晓波以往所做一切是合乎宪法规定,北京将他囚禁,只会与国际社会认同的普世价值越走越远,对中国文明进步不利。
刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖,可以宣示独裁铁幕即将撕裂,中共可以准备自己的后事了!
刘敏感词代表了面对暴政的华人中不屈服的部分,使生活于这段黑暗史的人们被后人评价时不至于全民尽墨。
挪威,我真的爱你,你给了中国人民一个太大的走向未来的机会! Thank you Norway, you just gave Chinese people a chance towards the bright future!
镰刀把民主一劈两半,一半是民,一半是主;
镰刀把人权一劈两半,一半是人,一半是权;
镰刀把你,一劈两半,一半将牢底坐穿,一半已照亮黑暗;
——致刘先生
政府限制乃至抓捕庆祝刘晓波获奖的民间人士,向全世界证明了:
1 给中国的异议人士颁诺奖绝不是一个错误的选择
2 这个政权愚蠢至极
茅于轼,石天河,戴晴,铁流,郑海天,郭道晖,杜光10月8日在互联网上发表公开信,祝贺刘晓波荣获诺贝尔奖。戴晴在接受法新社采访时表示,目前还仅有7人签名,但她相信其他人会逐渐加入进来。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
版权声明
本博客所有的原创文章，作者皆保留版权。转载必须包含本声明，保持本文完整，并以超链接形式注明作者编程随想和本文原始地址：
http://program-think.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobel-peace-prize-tweet.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
标签： 政治
5 评论:
匿名说...
wiki的评论：08宪章显得过于幼稚
2010-10-9 15:12:00
lf 说...
只有民主才能跳出历史周期律
2010-10-9 17:07:00
good 说...
虽然08宪章很幼稚，其实我们所要的民主就很简单咯，言论，结社，集会，出版自由。你看现在，那点我们自由啦，又有什么东西保障了。
2010-10-9 23:33:00
Nevesa 说...
昨天收到一條短信,短信內容如下:"外交部:劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎是對該獎褻瀆."這是中國電信自動發的短信,由這條短信,穿越GFW,使我認識了劉曉波,使我知道有<08憲章>.劉的獲獎,使我看到國民民主自由的希望,雖然不是今天、明天...但終有一日會實現.
2010-10-10 2:13:00
匿名说...
只要能有效遏制政党官僚机构的腐败，无论谁当政，老百姓都欢迎。现在并不是那个党当政和自由问题，而是腐败问题，有些人被某些集团利用了而已，刘晓波也是。给你和平奖真以为你的觉悟那么高？把你当做进攻的工具而已
2010-10-10 9:08:00
看看网友如何评论刘晓波得诺贝尔和平奖
昨天（10月8日）下午5点，网上传来消息：刘晓波喜获诺贝尔和平奖（不认识刘晓波的网友，请看“这里”的介绍。看完刘晓波的介绍之后，俺强烈建议，顺便再看看零八宪章的介绍）。
然后，Twitter上就炸锅了，关于刘晓波的tweet如潮水般涌出。俺怀着极大的兴趣，看了Google实时搜索的Twitter评论（请翻墙后猛击“这里”），一直看到凌晨。
以下是俺收集整理的网友评论，大部分来自Twitter。俺会抽空不断更新本帖子，把精彩的评论添加进来。
★纯属幽默讽刺的评论
据说台湾和大陆在诺贝尔奖问题上是有分工的:台湾负责自然科学的类别,大陆则专攻和平奖。
诺贝尔和平奖即将揭晓。今晚新华社,人民日报,环球时报,外交部等媒体和部门肯定准备好了2份稿件准备二选一发布。一份是赞美和平奖得主的,一份是谴责诺贝尔评委会的。
快讯:北京时间17:00,中国公民敏感词荣获2010年诺贝尔和平奖。
问:中国诺贝尔和平奖候选人的主管单位是哪个?
答:中华人民共和国司法部监狱管理局。
CNN:温先生,请问你对贵国异议人士刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖有何看法?
温+宝:我浏览了很多网站,没看到这消息啊!
问:有没有中国人获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都拿着外国国籍。(丁肇中、李远哲、朱棣文、崔琦、赛珍珠、钱永健)
问:有没有中国公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都是中华民国的公民。(李政道、杨振宁)
问:有没有新中国的公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他不承认自己是中国公民。(高行健)
问:有没有承认自己是中国人的新中国公民获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但是我们不承认他是中国公民。(达赖)
问:有没有承认自己是中国公民,国家也承认他是新中国公民的诺贝尔奖获得者?
答:有,但他在新中国的监狱里。(刘晓波)
中共外交部一定有刘晓波的暗桩,否则怎么正在挪威方面作最后决定的时候,突然点明事态,逼得美联社/法新社/路透社/BBC等都疯狂发稿大谈刘晓波?
刘晓波果然获得诺贝尔和平奖了,多亏了共产党外交部的大力协助呀,哈哈!
本人强烈建议中共中央,立即逮捕那些抓捕刘晓波并判他11年徒刑的人,是他们阴谋策划,最终制造了一个诺贝尔和平奖获得者。他们才是共产党最大的敌人啊!
今天记者肯定会问诺贝尔奖的事。温宝宝的四种选择:
(1)"刘晓波是中国的一个罪犯,给他授奖是对诺奖的亵渎。"(可能性20%)
(2)"我和晓波的心是相通的。"(可能性2%)
(3)装聋作哑,好像没听到。(可能性75%)
(4)"哎呀,我肚子痛,赶紧送我上医院!"(可能性3%)
南京一爱国青年在得知挪威将诺奖颁给刘晓波后,非常气愤,走上街头发起了一场"抵制挪货,从我做起"的万人签名活动,呼吁广大市民抵制挪货,其中一位情绪激昂的市民在多人劝阻无效的情况下当场点燃了一本《挪威的森林》。
宣称"我没有敌人"的刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,兲朝老大哥非常恼火,冥思苦想后确定了一个更响亮的口号——"我没有朋友"!
评奖的这帮人太狠了,每当钱不够时,就发给一个无法领奖的人。
刘晓波能获得这个诺贝尔和平奖还要归功于胡四的愚蠢。去年我就耻笑中南海连在圣诞节审判刘晓波这样的馊主意都想得出来,群体智慧低到何种程度。果不其然,哪天中共倒台,这帮人居功至伟!
我认为这次中国政府是弄巧成拙了。搞得人家如果不把这个奖给刘晓波,倒好像成了中国政府的二孙子似得。
由于新闻联播在诺贝尔和平奖揭晓的日子竟然只字不提,刘晓波在狱中一定知道他已经获得诺贝尔和平奖。
诺贝尔官网网友留言:"我不知道刘先生是谁,但是我为中国人能够获得诺贝尔奖而高兴。她一定是一名好党员,我们中国人民的好干部,为人民做实事的好领导。"
据传,澳大利亚一亲北京的华人社团迫不及待地向北京发回了第一条贺信:热烈祝贺中华人民共和国培养出了中国大陆上第一个诺贝尔奖得主,粉碎了杨恒均之流污蔑中国政府永远培养不出诺贝尔得奖者的谣言……^_^
影帝遇见千载难逢的政改机会了。影帝应该回国后带着一票记者直奔锦州监狱,然后拉开门就痛哭:晓波,我这次又来晚了,他们判你我真是不知道的啊!
61年了,锦州监狱完成了从"关战犯"到"关诺贝尔和平奖得主"的质的飞跃!
中国是一个热爱和平的国家,却讨厌和平奖。
今晚我专门看了新闻联播,最后一个新闻是大熊猫怀孕了。发现央视进步了,如此深沉。国宝受惊(精)了,这个信息就够了,央视在这个节骨眼上表现出来的幽默是一个不小的进步。
共和国监狱不但关过诺贝尔和平奖得主,还关过皇帝、国家主席、元帅、将军、班禅、等。监狱,是个人才济济的地方!
新华社:中国一名服刑人员在改造期间轻而易举获得了诺贝尔奖,充分体现社会主义法制国家的优越性。
胡锦涛:刘晓波交代了吗?
专案组:他彻底交代了,我们查证属实。
胡锦涛:联邦共和国出自何处?
专案组:中国共产党第二次代表大会公报。原文提法是:建立一个自由的联邦共和国。多了个"自由"。
胡锦涛:那……那军队国家化呢?
专案组:也查清了!出自《周恩来选集》。原文提法是:必须实现军队国家化。多了个"必须实现"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那赞美西方民主制度出自何处?
专案组:《新华日报》社论。原文提法是:美国代表了民主社会。多了个"美国代表"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那解除党禁呢?
专案组:毛太祖反对国民党时提出来的口号!原文提法多了个"打倒一党专政"!
胡锦涛:那……那……那……那结社自由、言论自由、出版自由呢?
专案组:这些,宪法里全有!
无数叫"刘晓波"的人都惨了,短信都不能提及。据说刘晓波获奖后,CCAV那个叫刘晓波的记者泪流满面。回家直怨爹妈乱起名字,害得再也不能出境了 :(
前些日子是全中国人要求日本放人，现在是全世界人要求中国放人。
忽然想到一个刑法的技术问题:拿了诺奖减刑不?
根据刑法第78条的规定，有下列重大立功表现之一的，应当减刑:
(6)对国家和社会有其他重大贡献的。
刘晓波获奖是我党政法委无数次严密实验的科学结晶:
高智晟判三年不行,胡佳判三年半不行,陈光诚判四年半不行,谭作人判五年也不行……
终于,刘晓波判11年——球进了!
感谢国家!感谢党!
微博管理员:尊敬的用户,行行好吧,从六点删到现在我连晚饭都没吃那,手都删软了!
★对真理部的评论
各大门户的诺贝尔专题
新浪 http://news.sina.com.cn/z/2010Nobel/ 被删
网易 http://news.163.com/special/2010NobelPrize/ 页面保留,留下了三个字"已删除"
搜狐 http://news.sohu.com/s2010/nobel10/ 自动跳转到其它页面
看到各门户网站的诺贝尔专题纷纷挂掉,我就知道中国人终于得了个诺贝尔奖。
现在,四大门户专题被撤,中国移动、联通短信过滤刘晓波三字,各大搜索过滤该词,新闻评论、博客和微博审核员加班,除添加自动词条外大幅增强人工干预力度,刘妻被警方紧急带离北京。图为刘晓波妻子刘霞家外站满世界各地记者 http://imgur.com/26nhw
刚亲测短信,发"刘晓波"三个字会被墙,三字中间加空格也会被墙。
你妈联通的,发短信用句号隔开刘晓波都发送失败。
苹果日报: 当确认刘晓波获奖后,不仅中国各平面与电子媒体一致封口,连各大饭店内自行架设卫星接收的CNN/NHK/BBC等国际频道,也在播报相关新闻时遭中国当局盖台,画面顿时变黑。
想必昨天晚上领导们连夜开会了,丑化刘晓波的宣传应该要开始了吧。
博讯: 胡锦涛李长春下令封杀刘晓波获诺奖新闻
明天如果一个国内大报没有把刘晓波获奖作为主要新闻,你就可以知道该报的真正老板是真理部。
中宣部最新指令:有关刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的通稿照发,但所有媒体(含一切纸媒、网媒)不得登载。
1989年的CCTV: 抓住刘晓波的黑手 http://cl.ly/e68e9509762bc370d05d
八九血案后,中国官方日人民报发表《抓住刘晓波黑手》以诬他;明天的日人民报会不会来一篇《抓住诺贝尔奖的黑手》以诬炸药奖,来个前后呼应、宝献双璧呢?
网易关于外交部对刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖的新闻直接关闭了评论,不敢开放,不然估计审计专员要累死。
北京多名维权人士庆祝刘晓波获奖被抓到派出所。
刘晓波的存在和刘晓波的思考使这个政权感到难堪,因为他们害怕真相。刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,就会使当局难以继续封锁刘晓波。六四以后,当局有一种屏蔽的政策,试图使大家忘却曾经有六四这样一个事件。
当年911,全球头版美国遇袭,兲朝头版领导讲话;今年108,全球头版刘晓波获奖,兲朝头版朝鲜领导易人。9年时间,兲朝总算有了国际视野。
昨天全球头条新闻都是刘晓波得奖了,兲朝头条是金正日儿子接班了。今天全球头条都是各国元首要求释放刘晓波,兲朝头条是折腾帝祝贺劳动党生日快乐了。
太给力了!《北京青年报》不要命了? http://twitpic.com/2vpoow
恭喜诺贝尔官网被墙,获得GFW认证!
网友甲:如果网易不删帖,几十年以后,网易就能得诺贝尔和平奖!
网友乙:如果网易不删贴,十几天以后,网易就没有了!
★对中共外交部的评论
中国照会挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖授予中国异见人士刘晓波。对于独裁政权来讲,很难理解在民主国家,有不受政府控制的独立机构存在。
中国驻挪威大使馆对挪威政府表示抗议。
挪威政府表示不解:诺贝尔是独立基金会啊!
中国政府更为不解:独立基金会是神马?难道不都是受政府控制的吗?
挪威政府:……
对于一个没有任何独立机构的中国官方来说,诺贝尔和平奖不受政府控制是不可思议的;中共认定:一旦颁予中国异见人士,挪威政府肯定是幕后黑手。中国政府常能操纵一切,便认为所有政府都像他们一样是幕后黑手。
如果一个政府为不让自己本国国民获得诺贝尔奖而努力,这得混蛋到一定水平才行啊。
外交部长:我要向你表达我国政府对刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的愤怒和失望!
挪威大使:跟我有什么关系?奖又不是我发的,我又不代表委员会。
热烈祝贺刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖: 但外交部发言人说"诺贝尔委会授予刘晓波和平奖是对该奖的亵渎",我还认为把刘晓波关押起来是对宪法的亵渎呢 http://zuo.in/dwOwY4
中国刚刚召见了挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺委会颁发诺贝尔和平奖给刘晓波——外交部真够不要脸的!
土共政权在刘晓波获奖前后令人作呕的反人类表演丢尽了十几亿中国人的脸,马朝旭你已经青史留名了!
★海外的反应
今晚全球各大百年报业一致头条 http://goo.gl/tGJb
全球各大媒体: 时代周刊,纽约时报,华盛顿邮报,洛杉机时报,今日美国,英国卫报,英国泰晤士报,法国回声报,德国明镜周刊,朝日新闻,读卖新闻,GBS,NHK,半岛电视台等报道刘晓波获诺奖的新闻集锦 http://is.gd/fSfo4
美国之音: 奥巴马呼吁中国政府释放刘晓波: 美国总统奥巴马呼吁北京政府释放中国异议人士刘晓波。刘晓波星期五被评为2010年诺贝尔和平奖得主。诺贝尔奖委员会表示,他们将这项荣誉颁发给刘晓波是因为"他在中国为了基本人权作出的长期和... http://bit.ly/b70FSq
美国之音: 美众议院议长佩洛西在书面声明中给予刘晓波高度评价。她说,刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,成为人类历史上争取非暴力、正义和自由的领袖人物之一。
美国之音: 《刘晓波到底是什么人?》 http://is.gd/fSxUZ
美国之音: 俄国媒体:刘晓波是中国萨哈罗夫:刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖在俄罗斯引起热烈反响。媒体把刘晓波称做中国的萨哈罗夫。人权人士称刘晓波获奖当之无愧。有专家认为,中国要想在国际社会扮演更重要角色,必须使政治体制民主化,刘晓波获奖是向中国发出… http://bit.ly/aoypZh
美国之音: 香港各界对刘晓波获奖的反应: 中国内地的异见人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖在香港引起强烈反响,不同阶层,不同政治观点的人做出不同的反应。星期六,绝大多数香港主流媒体都以显著位置长篇报道了刘晓波获奖一事… http://bit.ly/bMDbxr
BBC中文网: 法国政府呼吁释放刘晓波 http://j.mp/bJbSOR 中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖后,法国呼吁中国立即释放被监禁的刘晓波。
BBC中文网: 港媒评论:刘晓波"因言入罪、因言获奖" 香港各大报纸都在头版头条大篇幅报道刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息,并刊发了大量评论和照片。 http://bbc.in/deBVxX
BBC中文网: 美国呼吁北京释放刘晓波:美国总统奥巴马和美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿分别呼吁中国尽快释放诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波。 http://bbc.in/9UnfYq
BBC中文网: 刘晓波获奖 海外异议人士反应不一:因起草《零八宪章》被中共当局投入监狱的中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,海外民运和异议人士作出反应。 http://bbc.in/9hkT5C
BBC中文网: 简讯:刘晓波获奖中国向挪威抗议: 中国周五召见挪威驻中国大使,就挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖颁发给刘晓波提出抗议。 http://bbc.in/9lONiC
BBC中文网: 马英九祝贺刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖: 台湾总统、行政院长分别表示祝贺,在野的民进党则呼吁台湾政府能支持中国民主化进程。 http://bbc.in/dbbhQ8
BBC中文网: 澳大利亚再次呼吁释放刘晓波: 澳大利亚总理吉拉德表示,将继续以刘晓波的名义向中国政府交涉。 http://bbc.in/aRD5hD
BBC中文网: 英国媒体广泛报道刘晓波获诺贝尔奖: 英国各大报章详尽报道刘晓波得到和平奖的消息,分析指这是对中国政府的专制的谴责。 http://bbc.in/brZwe7
德国之声: 德国政府要求立即释放刘晓波: http://bit.ly/bzX0SF
德国之声: 获奖之后,刘晓波家被封锁,自发庆祝者被抓。刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息传出后,中国政府国保阻止刘晓波妻子刘霞与传媒见面,中国四大门户网站诺奖专题被撤下,带有相关敏感词的短信被过滤,至晚间20时…… http://bit.ly/byP6k1
德国之声: 刘晓波获奖受到国际关注:德国、挪威和法国政府均对中国异见人士刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖表示祝贺,并呼吁立即释放这位狱中作家。人权组织大赦国际呼吁中国释放所有良心犯。德国媒体也对刘晓波获奖给予极大关注。 http://bit.ly/9OfLui
德国之音: 中国多个城市警方抓捕刘晓波支持者:刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖后，中国当局从宣布获奖的一刻起，开始对自发庆祝的中国公众进行抓捕。 http://bit.ly/b6Ei6Q
自由亚洲电台: 大陆封锁刘晓波获奖消息,庆祝人士被捕: 刘晓波获奖的消息震撼不少中国人,尽管当局全力封杀有关消息,包括阻止手机发出有关内容的短信、各大门户网站不断删走有关内容的网帖、及对与诺贝尔奖有关的其他报道进行大清洗,但无阻网民以各种……
http://twurl.nl/n7wb2m
华尔街日报连发两篇评论,谈刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖。
第一篇说: 一直没有中国人因为他在中国的努力工作而获得诺贝尔奖,直到刘晓波通过服刑11年这种为了民主而工作的方式获奖。这个对他的勇气和正直表达认同的奖终将有一天会成为所有中国人的骄傲。
第二篇评论是林培瑞写的: 他分析说胡锦涛在05年发表了一篇预防颜色革命的报告,指出要防止中国出现叶利钦/瓦文萨/曼德拉这样的人,所以共产党一直执行的是枪打出头鸟的政策,刘晓波就是他们眼中的出头鸟和大家伙,但是他们犯了一个愚蠢的错误。
纽约客谈刘晓波: 中国持不同政见者的困境,远非外国人可想象。压力不但来自公安,还有雇主,甚至父母。最难堪是来自于知识界/思想界同侪。他们会认为你是为了单纯的对抗而不是求切实的成果。甚至是把自己包装成一个符合西方审美的异议分子。
旺報社評－劉曉波的獲罪與獲獎…大陆那么多出色的评论人却无法在大陆的报章上对此事置一词,真悲哀!
香港電台: 公民黨到中聯辦要求釋放劉曉波!
跟几位以色列人谈了刘晓波获奖后续:饭醉分子被抓,刘霞被隔离……
这几位以色列同学说:1 看来这个奖发对了 2 中国政府为什么这么蠢?
★呼吁弘扬刘晓波和08宪章
告诉你的朋友/家人/同事:谁是刘晓波?他为什么被反华势力爱戴?
要向周围的朋友家人介绍刘晓波,最直接到达的方法无非就是当面讲、语音呼叫讲。什么短信、email、IM过滤统统去死!
如果你的父母搞不清刘晓波是干什么的,你就乘机给他们看一回08宪章吧,他们能看懂的。
要将刘晓波获奖的价值最大化,即是要让最多的中国大陆人知道这件事,无论他认为这是西方的政治阴谋,还是什么。总之,首要的是让尽可能多的大陆人知道刘晓波,知道他获奖。只有这样,刘晓波获得诺贝尔奖的效应才能出来。否则被党继续扼杀着,这个效应就只局限于海外了,努力不能白费!
要发挥个人可利用的所有的媒介传播形式,包括口头传播、QQ传播、社区传播等尽可能多的形式,冲破党对刘晓波获奖信息的封锁,让几亿人知道刘晓波获奖了。呼吁所有的报纸媒体,即使明天刊登的是外交部的抗议,也希望去刊登出刘晓波获奖的消息,不要让这个消息胎死腹中。
谁再问我刘晓波是谁,干了什么。如果我觉得说08宪章对他们有点高深,那就这么回答:
你每天看到贪官污吏横行霸道、强拆自焚、歹徒弑童、宝马碾压、三聚氰胺、毒大米地沟油、藏猫猫、喝水水、做梦梦等,你有感到生气和郁闷吗?刘晓波就是拿出了一个这些问题最终解决方案的人。
对国内最有意义的事情,就是去告诉人们刘晓波为何得奖,让人们看看08宪章是怎么写的。普及现代社会的基础关键,是以人为本,政府民立。只有分清楚了国家、政府、民族这些基本观念,才能真正的出这次获奖的有效意义。
★回顾历史的评论
去年胡祝贺奥巴马,今年奥巴马祝贺刘晓波。情何以堪?
诺贝尔和平奖这么多年来,只有两位是在监狱中获奖:
其一是反战人士、德国人卡尔·冯·奥西厄茨基;其二是中国刘晓波。
前者的国籍是纳粹德国,后者中国。这两个国家的相同性可谓一目了然。
百年来曾经获得诺贝尔和平奖的著名异见人士包括多人。但自二战结束以来,只有刘晓波是身在监狱期间获颁和平奖。昂山素姬获奖时只属软禁,曼德拉则于1990年已出狱。
问:上一位获得诺贝尔和平奖的坐牢人士是谁么?
答:卡尔·冯·阿希厄茨基。
问:那时他的国家谁在执政?
答:希特勒!
三十多年了,从魏京生到刘晓波,希望宛若微弱之光,在风雨飘摇中若隐若现,忽明忽暗。我等之辈,耳闻了西单民主墙,旁观了反自由化,亲历了六四,从热血青年直奔悲情中年。可希望呢,还依旧在坟茔遍布的中国鬼火点点,无法燎原。
刚刚一个1989年6月4日出生的同学问我刘晓波是谁,他获奖又是怎么回事……于是他也刚刚知道自己的生日是多么的不平凡……
希望刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖成为1979年教皇访问波兰那样的标志性事件!
(历史上的今天)10月8日:台湾解除"戒严令",中国人刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖。
★其它评论
刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的意义在于,这世界上不是每个人,每个团体,每个组织都屈服于金钱和权势的力量。当正义在中国和中国人中变得非常微弱的时候,在世界上还有人向中国伸出了援助之手。
刘晓波得奖,意味着中共肆意侵犯公民名誉权历史的终结。这是60年来中国人第一次获得中共无法侵犯的名誉。
今夜属于刘晓波!今夜属于全体签署08宪章的人们!今夜还属于这么多年来前赴后继追求中国民主进步的全体中国人!让我们尽情地欢庆!让毫无人性的残暴统治者发抖去吧!
随着刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,共产党将永久地被钉在耻辱柱上!
晓波师获奖,并不意味着他会获得自由。但刘晓波的自由之日的确可能预示了中国人的自由!
刘晓波是我尊敬的一位学者。我尊重的主要不是他的学问,而是他的骨气、他的豁达;他对社会的责任感令我敬佩。我们从来没有见过面,也没有什么私交。冯正虎评价刘晓波的文章《写在刘晓波审判前后》http://is.gd/fPsSK
共产党需要在未来的动乱或崩溃时期有一个可以谈判的反对党领袖。而刘晓波是他们熟悉的人,他们有跟刘晓波打交道的充分经验,知道如何对付这个人。
余杰:刘晓波将胡锦涛送上了审判席。
刘晓波曾给纽约客的记者解释写公开信的原因。"不是挑衅,是责任。"他认为公开信非常温和。"西方国家一直在敦促中国政府履行人权承诺,但是如果国内的人不发声,政府会说,看,这是国外人士一厢情愿,中国人自己并没有这个要求。"
祝贺刘晓波先生获得诺贝尔和平奖!望其能早日出狱,民主自由是不可逆的历史趋势,任何违背这一趋势的当局都终将自食其果。
中国政府肯定很恨诺贝尔,他妈的设立什么诺贝尔奖,有物理奖、化学奖不就好了吗,后人就不要设什么和平奖、文学奖?凡是华人拿到这两个奖都是亵渎诺贝尔奖。
他是中国人,他是他是中国版曼德拉,他曾经坐过监狱,后放出,但又入狱,至今还在监狱里,他的名字叫刘……晓……波
授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖是中国政府的失败,但对世界人权来说是一大胜利!
估计北京第一中级法院和北京市高级法院做梦也想不到,由他们判处的一个被告人竟然成为诺贝尔和平奖的获得者。这样的经典案例,值得载入司法审判史。
谷歌和诺奖委员会表明,这世界上,有一种最可贵的东西,叫道义,叫信念,利益在其面前,不值一提。
小波获奖,是对土共近年来花重金打造的国家形象毁灭性一击!别以为砸钱办了奥运世博就人家就尊重你了,公道自在人心。
面对越维稳越不稳的国内局面,本次和平奖事件本来是一次很好的向国际、国内社会释放善意的机会,例如让刘晓波回家治病。可惜当局用的还是60多年前的一套,以为武力能解决一切,在提名和公布后,竟然再一次反其道而行,不仅屏蔽消息还抓庆祝的百姓,彻头彻尾就是不懂公关的土包子。
以前某些人假装不知道刘晓波,现在他们还能继续假装吗?
刘晓波获奖了,由于信息封锁,大陆很多人还不知道刘晓波是谁,还不知道和平奖已经颁发。所以在欢庆之时,我们要让身边更多的人知道刘晓波、知道刘晓波获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
刘晓波在网上发表了自己的政治诉求,因此被判11年徒刑。而他的诉求大部分内容都能在中国宪法里面找到。现在他因为诺贝尔和平奖成了全世界最知名的囚犯之一,多么令人尴尬呀!
刘晓波的得奖真是给中国政府一记响亮的耳光——这已经是中国公民第二次得这个奖了。这次政府要如何来丑化刘晓波?丑化诺贝尔和平奖?
当局必须面对这样的现实,那就是在它的黑牢里,关着一位诺贝尔和平奖的得主,但却无力摧毁他那颗伟大的心。所谓三军可夺帅而匹夫不可夺志,说得就是刘晓波。
为中国干杯!我把刘晓波获得的诺贝尔和平奖看成是给中国的,给受苦人的,给百年黑暗谢幕的,给我们所有希望中国变革成一个和平、理性、文明、尊严的大国的人的。这些也包括真心关心中国民主而不赞成他获奖的人。
记者采访刘晓波,问之:请问您为什么要参选诺贝尔和平奖?刘晓波轻抚身旁的孩子,答:不是我要拿这个奖的,是全国人民选举我来拿的 (涛哥此刻内流满面)。
刘晓波:一旦中国变成自由国家,对于人类文明就将具有难以估量的正面价值,它必将是继苏联共产政权崩溃之后,再次带来残存独裁体制的又一次世界性雪崩,朝鲜、缅甸、古巴等独裁政权将难以为继,那些固守独裁体制的中东国家也将受到强烈的震撼。
刘晓波获诺奖标志着中国的社会运动到达了一个临界点。在经过这一临界点之后,处于劣势的公民社会将反客为主,成为中国社会运动的主导力量。
不过说回来,刘晓波总比达赖好,起码08宪章还是一份值得实现的纲领,虽然我不觉得这个纲领能和平实现,也不觉得可以由刘晓波实现,毕竟纲领和实现它是两码事,所谓知易行难。
诺贝尔和平奖颁给刘晓波,最屈辱的不是党和政府,它们知道这是报应。最屈辱的,是那些警察,国保,保安,红袖章老太太,党报记者,还有,新浪的小秘书。
昨天,诺贝尔和平奖颁布给了刘晓波,我才发现:世界主流文明已告诉胡温,政改就是向着08宪章开启的宪政之路去改!胡温听清楚没?
王小山同志有本书叫《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》,果然,昨天他的老师刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,裆中央都阳萎了,喉舌都哑巴了,可刘晓波获奖的消息仍然以《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》在中国大地传播!
当局担心人们借获奖效应,纷纷走出家门,走向街头。可惜的是中国的知识阶层八九时的情怀与冲动,早被拜金主义神龛所俘获。不管是高级知识分子,还是刚入校们青年一代。但民众中普遍的不满正如欲将破壳的岩浆一般,终将爆发。
刘晓波获奖,中国政府的反应很程式化,让人事先都能料到。难怪古人言:智可及,愚不可及!
自今天上溯六十一年,共产党建政以来,为信仰自由,捍卫自由,实践自由而作出贡献和付出代价的所有人,今天颁给刘晓波的诺贝尔奖也是对他们的认知和致敬。
刘晓波真强大。他让中文推圈各派力量空前团结。从昨天下午至今没有发现口臭推,没有发现互指五毛的攻击贴。
刘晓波是二战以来首位在囚获奖者,已经够丢人的了,还顺便创了一个记录,世博算是白办了。
去年提名就应该把人放了,人家给过你机会你不当回事,现在所有人都记得住把刘晓波关起来的是胡温政府,年底之前别出国了。
诺奖评委给温家宝政改一个契机:政治改革突破瓶颈,从释放刘晓波开始!
評委會主席:如果我們不投票給劉曉波,我們等於是背叛了中國境內的人權。我們不能坐視中國境內持續發生的人權侵害!
究竟犯了什么罪,竟遭此毒手?他只不过用笔写写文章,用嘴说说话,而他所写的,所说的,都无非是一个没有失掉良心的中国人的话!...无耻啊!无耻啊!!这是某集团的无耻,但恰好是李先生的光荣!——出自闻一多《最后一次演讲》
司马南今天的《获奖的汉奸依然是汉奸》,对身陷囹圄的刘晓波实在是落井下石的卑劣行径,是助纣为虐的拙劣表演,是向主人摇尾效忠的好机会,也是一次挺身而出的自我大暴露!
甚至连全国政协委员刘梦熊也直言北京应该反省今次刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,指国际社会认同以和平、理性的方式争取人权自由。刘晓波以往所做一切是合乎宪法规定,北京将他囚禁,只会与国际社会认同的普世价值越走越远,对中国文明进步不利。
刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖,可以宣示独裁铁幕即将撕裂,中共可以准备自己的后事了!
刘敏感词代表了面对暴政的华人中不屈服的部分,使生活于这段黑暗史的人们被后人评价时不至于全民尽墨。
挪威,我真的爱你,你给了中国人民一个太大的走向未来的机会! Thank you Norway, you just gave Chinese people a chance towards the bright future!
镰刀把民主一劈两半,一半是民,一半是主;
镰刀把人权一劈两半,一半是人,一半是权;
镰刀把你,一劈两半,一半将牢底坐穿,一半已照亮黑暗;
——致刘先生
政府限制乃至抓捕庆祝刘晓波获奖的民间人士,向全世界证明了:
1 给中国的异议人士颁诺奖绝不是一个错误的选择
2 这个政权愚蠢至极
茅于轼,石天河,戴晴,铁流,郑海天,郭道晖,杜光10月8日在互联网上发表公开信,祝贺刘晓波荣获诺贝尔奖。戴晴在接受法新社采访时表示,目前还仅有7人签名,但她相信其他人会逐渐加入进来。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
版权声明
本博客所有的原创文章，作者皆保留版权。转载必须包含本声明，保持本文完整，并以超链接形式注明作者编程随想和本文原始地址：
http://program-think.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobel-peace-prize-tweet.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
标签： 政治
5 评论:
匿名说...
wiki的评论：08宪章显得过于幼稚
2010-10-9 15:12:00
lf 说...
只有民主才能跳出历史周期律
2010-10-9 17:07:00
good 说...
虽然08宪章很幼稚，其实我们所要的民主就很简单咯，言论，结社，集会，出版自由。你看现在，那点我们自由啦，又有什么东西保障了。
2010-10-9 23:33:00
Nevesa 说...
昨天收到一條短信,短信內容如下:"外交部:劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎是對該獎褻瀆."這是中國電信自動發的短信,由這條短信,穿越GFW,使我認識了劉曉波,使我知道有<08憲章>.劉的獲獎,使我看到國民民主自由的希望,雖然不是今天、明天...但終有一日會實現.
2010-10-10 2:13:00
匿名说...
只要能有效遏制政党官僚机构的腐败，无论谁当政，老百姓都欢迎。现在并不是那个党当政和自由问题，而是腐败问题，有些人被某些集团利用了而已，刘晓波也是。给你和平奖真以为你的觉悟那么高？把你当做进攻的工具而已
2010-10-10 9:08:00
看看网友如何评论刘晓波得诺贝尔和平奖
2010年10月9日
看看网友如何评论刘晓波得诺贝尔和平奖
昨天（10月8日）下午5点，网上传来消息：刘晓波喜获诺贝尔和平奖（不认识刘晓波的网友，请看“这里”的介绍。看完刘晓波的介绍之后，俺强烈建议，顺便再看看零八宪章的介绍）。
然后，Twitter上就炸锅了，关于刘晓波的tweet如潮水般涌出。俺怀着极大的兴趣，看了Google实时搜索的Twitter评论（请翻墙后猛击“这里”），一直看到凌晨。
以下是俺收集整理的网友评论，大部分来自Twitter。俺会抽空不断更新本帖子，把精彩的评论添加进来。
★纯属幽默讽刺的评论
据说台湾和大陆在诺贝尔奖问题上是有分工的:台湾负责自然科学的类别,大陆则专攻和平奖。
诺贝尔和平奖即将揭晓。今晚新华社,人民日报,环球时报,外交部等媒体和部门肯定准备好了2份稿件准备二选一发布。一份是赞美和平奖得主的,一份是谴责诺贝尔评委会的。
快讯:北京时间17:00,中国公民敏感词荣获2010年诺贝尔和平奖。
问:中国诺贝尔和平奖候选人的主管单位是哪个?
答:中华人民共和国司法部监狱管理局。
CNN:温先生,请问你对贵国异议人士刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖有何看法?
温+宝:我浏览了很多网站,没看到这消息啊!
问:有没有中国人获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都拿着外国国籍。(丁肇中、李远哲、朱棣文、崔琦、赛珍珠、钱永健)
问:有没有中国公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都是中华民国的公民。(李政道、杨振宁)
问:有没有新中国的公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他不承认自己是中国公民。(高行健)
问:有没有承认自己是中国人的新中国公民获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但是我们不承认他是中国公民。(达赖)
问:有没有承认自己是中国公民,国家也承认他是新中国公民的诺贝尔奖获得者?
答:有,但他在新中国的监狱里。(刘晓波)
中共外交部一定有刘晓波的暗桩,否则怎么正在挪威方面作最后决定的时候,突然点明事态,逼得美联社/法新社/路透社/BBC等都疯狂发稿大谈刘晓波?
刘晓波果然获得诺贝尔和平奖了,多亏了共产党外交部的大力协助呀,哈哈!
本人强烈建议中共中央,立即逮捕那些抓捕刘晓波并判他11年徒刑的人,是他们阴谋策划,最终制造了一个诺贝尔和平奖获得者。他们才是共产党最大的敌人啊!
今天记者肯定会问诺贝尔奖的事。温宝宝的四种选择:
(1)"刘晓波是中国的一个罪犯,给他授奖是对诺奖的亵渎。"(可能性20%)
(2)"我和晓波的心是相通的。"(可能性2%)
(3)装聋作哑,好像没听到。(可能性75%)
(4)"哎呀,我肚子痛,赶紧送我上医院!"(可能性3%)
南京一爱国青年在得知挪威将诺奖颁给刘晓波后,非常气愤,走上街头发起了一场"抵制挪货,从我做起"的万人签名活动,呼吁广大市民抵制挪货,其中一位情绪激昂的市民在多人劝阻无效的情况下当场点燃了一本《挪威的森林》。
宣称"我没有敌人"的刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,兲朝老大哥非常恼火,冥思苦想后确定了一个更响亮的口号——"我没有朋友"!
评奖的这帮人太狠了,每当钱不够时,就发给一个无法领奖的人。
刘晓波能获得这个诺贝尔和平奖还要归功于胡四的愚蠢。去年我就耻笑中南海连在圣诞节审判刘晓波这样的馊主意都想得出来,群体智慧低到何种程度。果不其然,哪天中共倒台,这帮人居功至伟!
我认为这次中国政府是弄巧成拙了。搞得人家如果不把这个奖给刘晓波,倒好像成了中国政府的二孙子似得。
由于新闻联播在诺贝尔和平奖揭晓的日子竟然只字不提,刘晓波在狱中一定知道他已经获得诺贝尔和平奖。
诺贝尔官网网友留言:"我不知道刘先生是谁,但是我为中国人能够获得诺贝尔奖而高兴。她一定是一名好党员,我们中国人民的好干部,为人民做实事的好领导。"
据传,澳大利亚一亲北京的华人社团迫不及待地向北京发回了第一条贺信:热烈祝贺中华人民共和国培养出了中国大陆上第一个诺贝尔奖得主,粉碎了杨恒均之流污蔑中国政府永远培养不出诺贝尔得奖者的谣言……^_^
影帝遇见千载难逢的政改机会了。影帝应该回国后带着一票记者直奔锦州监狱,然后拉开门就痛哭:晓波,我这次又来晚了,他们判你我真是不知道的啊!
61年了,锦州监狱完成了从"关战犯"到"关诺贝尔和平奖得主"的质的飞跃!
中国是一个热爱和平的国家,却讨厌和平奖。
今晚我专门看了新闻联播,最后一个新闻是大熊猫怀孕了。发现央视进步了,如此深沉。国宝受惊(精)了,这个信息就够了,央视在这个节骨眼上表现出来的幽默是一个不小的进步。
共和国监狱不但关过诺贝尔和平奖得主,还关过皇帝、国家主席、元帅、将军、班禅、等。监狱,是个人才济济的地方!
新华社:中国一名服刑人员在改造期间轻而易举获得了诺贝尔奖,充分体现社会主义法制国家的优越性。
胡锦涛:刘晓波交代了吗?
专案组:他彻底交代了,我们查证属实。
胡锦涛:联邦共和国出自何处?
专案组:中国共产党第二次代表大会公报。原文提法是:建立一个自由的联邦共和国。多了个"自由"。
胡锦涛:那……那军队国家化呢?
专案组:也查清了!出自《周恩来选集》。原文提法是:必须实现军队国家化。多了个"必须实现"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那赞美西方民主制度出自何处?
专案组:《新华日报》社论。原文提法是:美国代表了民主社会。多了个"美国代表"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那解除党禁呢?
专案组:毛太祖反对国民党时提出来的口号!原文提法多了个"打倒一党专政"!
胡锦涛:那……那……那……那结社自由、言论自由、出版自由呢?
专案组:这些,宪法里全有!
无数叫"刘晓波"的人都惨了,短信都不能提及。据说刘晓波获奖后,CCAV那个叫刘晓波的记者泪流满面。回家直怨爹妈乱起名字,害得再也不能出境了 :(
前些日子是全中国人要求日本放人，现在是全世界人要求中国放人。
忽然想到一个刑法的技术问题:拿了诺奖减刑不?
根据刑法第78条的规定，有下列重大立功表现之一的，应当减刑:
(6)对国家和社会有其他重大贡献的。
刘晓波获奖是我党政法委无数次严密实验的科学结晶:
高智晟判三年不行,胡佳判三年半不行,陈光诚判四年半不行,谭作人判五年也不行……
终于,刘晓波判11年——球进了!
感谢国家!感谢党!
微博管理员:尊敬的用户,行行好吧,从六点删到现在我连晚饭都没吃那,手都删软了!
★对真理部的评论
各大门户的诺贝尔专题
新浪 http://news.sina.com.cn/z/2010Nobel/ 被删
网易 http://news.163.com/special/2010NobelPrize/ 页面保留,留下了三个字"已删除"
搜狐 http://news.sohu.com/s2010/nobel10/ 自动跳转到其它页面
看到各门户网站的诺贝尔专题纷纷挂掉,我就知道中国人终于得了个诺贝尔奖。
现在,四大门户专题被撤,中国移动、联通短信过滤刘晓波三字,各大搜索过滤该词,新闻评论、博客和微博审核员加班,除添加自动词条外大幅增强人工干预力度,刘妻被警方紧急带离北京。图为刘晓波妻子刘霞家外站满世界各地记者 http://imgur.com/26nhw
刚亲测短信,发"刘晓波"三个字会被墙,三字中间加空格也会被墙。
你妈联通的,发短信用句号隔开刘晓波都发送失败。
苹果日报: 当确认刘晓波获奖后,不仅中国各平面与电子媒体一致封口,连各大饭店内自行架设卫星接收的CNN/NHK/BBC等国际频道,也在播报相关新闻时遭中国当局盖台,画面顿时变黑。
想必昨天晚上领导们连夜开会了,丑化刘晓波的宣传应该要开始了吧。
博讯: 胡锦涛李长春下令封杀刘晓波获诺奖新闻
明天如果一个国内大报没有把刘晓波获奖作为主要新闻,你就可以知道该报的真正老板是真理部。
中宣部最新指令:有关刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的通稿照发,但所有媒体(含一切纸媒、网媒)不得登载。
1989年的CCTV: 抓住刘晓波的黑手 http://cl.ly/e68e9509762bc370d05d
八九血案后,中国官方日人民报发表《抓住刘晓波黑手》以诬他;明天的日人民报会不会来一篇《抓住诺贝尔奖的黑手》以诬炸药奖,来个前后呼应、宝献双璧呢?
网易关于外交部对刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖的新闻直接关闭了评论,不敢开放,不然估计审计专员要累死。
北京多名维权人士庆祝刘晓波获奖被抓到派出所。
刘晓波的存在和刘晓波的思考使这个政权感到难堪,因为他们害怕真相。刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,就会使当局难以继续封锁刘晓波。六四以后,当局有一种屏蔽的政策,试图使大家忘却曾经有六四这样一个事件。
当年911,全球头版美国遇袭,兲朝头版领导讲话;今年108,全球头版刘晓波获奖,兲朝头版朝鲜领导易人。9年时间,兲朝总算有了国际视野。
昨天全球头条新闻都是刘晓波得奖了,兲朝头条是金正日儿子接班了。今天全球头条都是各国元首要求释放刘晓波,兲朝头条是折腾帝祝贺劳动党生日快乐了。
太给力了!《北京青年报》不要命了? http://twitpic.com/2vpoow
恭喜诺贝尔官网被墙,获得GFW认证!
网友甲:如果网易不删帖,几十年以后,网易就能得诺贝尔和平奖!
网友乙:如果网易不删贴,十几天以后,网易就没有了!
★对中共外交部的评论
中国照会挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖授予中国异见人士刘晓波。对于独裁政权来讲,很难理解在民主国家,有不受政府控制的独立机构存在。
中国驻挪威大使馆对挪威政府表示抗议。
挪威政府表示不解:诺贝尔是独立基金会啊!
中国政府更为不解:独立基金会是神马?难道不都是受政府控制的吗?
挪威政府:……
对于一个没有任何独立机构的中国官方来说,诺贝尔和平奖不受政府控制是不可思议的;中共认定:一旦颁予中国异见人士,挪威政府肯定是幕后黑手。中国政府常能操纵一切,便认为所有政府都像他们一样是幕后黑手。
如果一个政府为不让自己本国国民获得诺贝尔奖而努力,这得混蛋到一定水平才行啊。
外交部长:我要向你表达我国政府对刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的愤怒和失望!
挪威大使:跟我有什么关系?奖又不是我发的,我又不代表委员会。
热烈祝贺刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖: 但外交部发言人说"诺贝尔委会授予刘晓波和平奖是对该奖的亵渎",我还认为把刘晓波关押起来是对宪法的亵渎呢 http://zuo.in/dwOwY4
中国刚刚召见了挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺委会颁发诺贝尔和平奖给刘晓波——外交部真够不要脸的!
土共政权在刘晓波获奖前后令人作呕的反人类表演丢尽了十几亿中国人的脸,马朝旭你已经青史留名了!
★海外的反应
今晚全球各大百年报业一致头条 http://goo.gl/tGJb
全球各大媒体: 时代周刊,纽约时报,华盛顿邮报,洛杉机时报,今日美国,英国卫报,英国泰晤士报,法国回声报,德国明镜周刊,朝日新闻,读卖新闻,GBS,NHK,半岛电视台等报道刘晓波获诺奖的新闻集锦 http://is.gd/fSfo4
美国之音: 奥巴马呼吁中国政府释放刘晓波: 美国总统奥巴马呼吁北京政府释放中国异议人士刘晓波。刘晓波星期五被评为2010年诺贝尔和平奖得主。诺贝尔奖委员会表示,他们将这项荣誉颁发给刘晓波是因为"他在中国为了基本人权作出的长期和... http://bit.ly/b70FSq
美国之音: 美众议院议长佩洛西在书面声明中给予刘晓波高度评价。她说,刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,成为人类历史上争取非暴力、正义和自由的领袖人物之一。
美国之音: 《刘晓波到底是什么人?》 http://is.gd/fSxUZ
美国之音: 俄国媒体:刘晓波是中国萨哈罗夫:刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖在俄罗斯引起热烈反响。媒体把刘晓波称做中国的萨哈罗夫。人权人士称刘晓波获奖当之无愧。有专家认为,中国要想在国际社会扮演更重要角色,必须使政治体制民主化,刘晓波获奖是向中国发出… http://bit.ly/aoypZh
美国之音: 香港各界对刘晓波获奖的反应: 中国内地的异见人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖在香港引起强烈反响,不同阶层,不同政治观点的人做出不同的反应。星期六,绝大多数香港主流媒体都以显著位置长篇报道了刘晓波获奖一事… http://bit.ly/bMDbxr
BBC中文网: 法国政府呼吁释放刘晓波 http://j.mp/bJbSOR 中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖后,法国呼吁中国立即释放被监禁的刘晓波。
BBC中文网: 港媒评论:刘晓波"因言入罪、因言获奖" 香港各大报纸都在头版头条大篇幅报道刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息,并刊发了大量评论和照片。 http://bbc.in/deBVxX
BBC中文网: 美国呼吁北京释放刘晓波:美国总统奥巴马和美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿分别呼吁中国尽快释放诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波。 http://bbc.in/9UnfYq
BBC中文网: 刘晓波获奖 海外异议人士反应不一:因起草《零八宪章》被中共当局投入监狱的中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,海外民运和异议人士作出反应。 http://bbc.in/9hkT5C
BBC中文网: 简讯:刘晓波获奖中国向挪威抗议: 中国周五召见挪威驻中国大使,就挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖颁发给刘晓波提出抗议。 http://bbc.in/9lONiC
BBC中文网: 马英九祝贺刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖: 台湾总统、行政院长分别表示祝贺,在野的民进党则呼吁台湾政府能支持中国民主化进程。 http://bbc.in/dbbhQ8
BBC中文网: 澳大利亚再次呼吁释放刘晓波: 澳大利亚总理吉拉德表示,将继续以刘晓波的名义向中国政府交涉。 http://bbc.in/aRD5hD
BBC中文网: 英国媒体广泛报道刘晓波获诺贝尔奖: 英国各大报章详尽报道刘晓波得到和平奖的消息,分析指这是对中国政府的专制的谴责。 http://bbc.in/brZwe7
德国之声: 德国政府要求立即释放刘晓波: http://bit.ly/bzX0SF
德国之声: 获奖之后,刘晓波家被封锁,自发庆祝者被抓。刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息传出后,中国政府国保阻止刘晓波妻子刘霞与传媒见面,中国四大门户网站诺奖专题被撤下,带有相关敏感词的短信被过滤,至晚间20时…… http://bit.ly/byP6k1
德国之声: 刘晓波获奖受到国际关注:德国、挪威和法国政府均对中国异见人士刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖表示祝贺,并呼吁立即释放这位狱中作家。人权组织大赦国际呼吁中国释放所有良心犯。德国媒体也对刘晓波获奖给予极大关注。 http://bit.ly/9OfLui
德国之音: 中国多个城市警方抓捕刘晓波支持者:刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖后，中国当局从宣布获奖的一刻起，开始对自发庆祝的中国公众进行抓捕。 http://bit.ly/b6Ei6Q
自由亚洲电台: 大陆封锁刘晓波获奖消息,庆祝人士被捕: 刘晓波获奖的消息震撼不少中国人,尽管当局全力封杀有关消息,包括阻止手机发出有关内容的短信、各大门户网站不断删走有关内容的网帖、及对与诺贝尔奖有关的其他报道进行大清洗,但无阻网民以各种……
http://twurl.nl/n7wb2m
华尔街日报连发两篇评论,谈刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖。
第一篇说: 一直没有中国人因为他在中国的努力工作而获得诺贝尔奖,直到刘晓波通过服刑11年这种为了民主而工作的方式获奖。这个对他的勇气和正直表达认同的奖终将有一天会成为所有中国人的骄傲。
第二篇评论是林培瑞写的: 他分析说胡锦涛在05年发表了一篇预防颜色革命的报告,指出要防止中国出现叶利钦/瓦文萨/曼德拉这样的人,所以共产党一直执行的是枪打出头鸟的政策,刘晓波就是他们眼中的出头鸟和大家伙,但是他们犯了一个愚蠢的错误。
纽约客谈刘晓波: 中国持不同政见者的困境,远非外国人可想象。压力不但来自公安,还有雇主,甚至父母。最难堪是来自于知识界/思想界同侪。他们会认为你是为了单纯的对抗而不是求切实的成果。甚至是把自己包装成一个符合西方审美的异议分子。
旺報社評－劉曉波的獲罪與獲獎…大陆那么多出色的评论人却无法在大陆的报章上对此事置一词,真悲哀!
香港電台: 公民黨到中聯辦要求釋放劉曉波!
跟几位以色列人谈了刘晓波获奖后续:饭醉分子被抓,刘霞被隔离……
这几位以色列同学说:1 看来这个奖发对了 2 中国政府为什么这么蠢?
★呼吁弘扬刘晓波和08宪章
告诉你的朋友/家人/同事:谁是刘晓波?他为什么被反华势力爱戴?
要向周围的朋友家人介绍刘晓波,最直接到达的方法无非就是当面讲、语音呼叫讲。什么短信、email、IM过滤统统去死!
如果你的父母搞不清刘晓波是干什么的,你就乘机给他们看一回08宪章吧,他们能看懂的。
要将刘晓波获奖的价值最大化,即是要让最多的中国大陆人知道这件事,无论他认为这是西方的政治阴谋,还是什么。总之,首要的是让尽可能多的大陆人知道刘晓波,知道他获奖。只有这样,刘晓波获得诺贝尔奖的效应才能出来。否则被党继续扼杀着,这个效应就只局限于海外了,努力不能白费!
要发挥个人可利用的所有的媒介传播形式,包括口头传播、QQ传播、社区传播等尽可能多的形式,冲破党对刘晓波获奖信息的封锁,让几亿人知道刘晓波获奖了。呼吁所有的报纸媒体,即使明天刊登的是外交部的抗议,也希望去刊登出刘晓波获奖的消息,不要让这个消息胎死腹中。
谁再问我刘晓波是谁,干了什么。如果我觉得说08宪章对他们有点高深,那就这么回答:
你每天看到贪官污吏横行霸道、强拆自焚、歹徒弑童、宝马碾压、三聚氰胺、毒大米地沟油、藏猫猫、喝水水、做梦梦等,你有感到生气和郁闷吗?刘晓波就是拿出了一个这些问题最终解决方案的人。
对国内最有意义的事情,就是去告诉人们刘晓波为何得奖,让人们看看08宪章是怎么写的。普及现代社会的基础关键,是以人为本,政府民立。只有分清楚了国家、政府、民族这些基本观念,才能真正的出这次获奖的有效意义。
★回顾历史的评论
去年胡祝贺奥巴马,今年奥巴马祝贺刘晓波。情何以堪?
诺贝尔和平奖这么多年来,只有两位是在监狱中获奖:
其一是反战人士、德国人卡尔·冯·奥西厄茨基;其二是中国刘晓波。
前者的国籍是纳粹德国,后者中国。这两个国家的相同性可谓一目了然。
百年来曾经获得诺贝尔和平奖的著名异见人士包括多人。但自二战结束以来,只有刘晓波是身在监狱期间获颁和平奖。昂山素姬获奖时只属软禁,曼德拉则于1990年已出狱。
问:上一位获得诺贝尔和平奖的坐牢人士是谁么?
答:卡尔·冯·阿希厄茨基。
问:那时他的国家谁在执政?
答:希特勒!
三十多年了,从魏京生到刘晓波,希望宛若微弱之光,在风雨飘摇中若隐若现,忽明忽暗。我等之辈,耳闻了西单民主墙,旁观了反自由化,亲历了六四,从热血青年直奔悲情中年。可希望呢,还依旧在坟茔遍布的中国鬼火点点,无法燎原。
刚刚一个1989年6月4日出生的同学问我刘晓波是谁,他获奖又是怎么回事……于是他也刚刚知道自己的生日是多么的不平凡……
希望刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖成为1979年教皇访问波兰那样的标志性事件!
(历史上的今天)10月8日:台湾解除"戒严令",中国人刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖。
★其它评论
刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的意义在于,这世界上不是每个人,每个团体,每个组织都屈服于金钱和权势的力量。当正义在中国和中国人中变得非常微弱的时候,在世界上还有人向中国伸出了援助之手。
刘晓波得奖,意味着中共肆意侵犯公民名誉权历史的终结。这是60年来中国人第一次获得中共无法侵犯的名誉。
今夜属于刘晓波!今夜属于全体签署08宪章的人们!今夜还属于这么多年来前赴后继追求中国民主进步的全体中国人!让我们尽情地欢庆!让毫无人性的残暴统治者发抖去吧!
随着刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,共产党将永久地被钉在耻辱柱上!
晓波师获奖,并不意味着他会获得自由。但刘晓波的自由之日的确可能预示了中国人的自由!
刘晓波是我尊敬的一位学者。我尊重的主要不是他的学问,而是他的骨气、他的豁达;他对社会的责任感令我敬佩。我们从来没有见过面,也没有什么私交。冯正虎评价刘晓波的文章《写在刘晓波审判前后》http://is.gd/fPsSK
共产党需要在未来的动乱或崩溃时期有一个可以谈判的反对党领袖。而刘晓波是他们熟悉的人,他们有跟刘晓波打交道的充分经验,知道如何对付这个人。
余杰:刘晓波将胡锦涛送上了审判席。
刘晓波曾给纽约客的记者解释写公开信的原因。"不是挑衅,是责任。"他认为公开信非常温和。"西方国家一直在敦促中国政府履行人权承诺,但是如果国内的人不发声,政府会说,看,这是国外人士一厢情愿,中国人自己并没有这个要求。"
祝贺刘晓波先生获得诺贝尔和平奖!望其能早日出狱,民主自由是不可逆的历史趋势,任何违背这一趋势的当局都终将自食其果。
中国政府肯定很恨诺贝尔,他妈的设立什么诺贝尔奖,有物理奖、化学奖不就好了吗,后人就不要设什么和平奖、文学奖?凡是华人拿到这两个奖都是亵渎诺贝尔奖。
他是中国人,他是他是中国版曼德拉,他曾经坐过监狱,后放出,但又入狱,至今还在监狱里,他的名字叫刘……晓……波
授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖是中国政府的失败,但对世界人权来说是一大胜利!
估计北京第一中级法院和北京市高级法院做梦也想不到,由他们判处的一个被告人竟然成为诺贝尔和平奖的获得者。这样的经典案例,值得载入司法审判史。
谷歌和诺奖委员会表明,这世界上,有一种最可贵的东西,叫道义,叫信念,利益在其面前,不值一提。
小波获奖,是对土共近年来花重金打造的国家形象毁灭性一击!别以为砸钱办了奥运世博就人家就尊重你了,公道自在人心。
面对越维稳越不稳的国内局面,本次和平奖事件本来是一次很好的向国际、国内社会释放善意的机会,例如让刘晓波回家治病。可惜当局用的还是60多年前的一套,以为武力能解决一切,在提名和公布后,竟然再一次反其道而行,不仅屏蔽消息还抓庆祝的百姓,彻头彻尾就是不懂公关的土包子。
以前某些人假装不知道刘晓波,现在他们还能继续假装吗?
刘晓波获奖了,由于信息封锁,大陆很多人还不知道刘晓波是谁,还不知道和平奖已经颁发。所以在欢庆之时,我们要让身边更多的人知道刘晓波、知道刘晓波获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
刘晓波在网上发表了自己的政治诉求,因此被判11年徒刑。而他的诉求大部分内容都能在中国宪法里面找到。现在他因为诺贝尔和平奖成了全世界最知名的囚犯之一,多么令人尴尬呀!
刘晓波的得奖真是给中国政府一记响亮的耳光——这已经是中国公民第二次得这个奖了。这次政府要如何来丑化刘晓波?丑化诺贝尔和平奖?
当局必须面对这样的现实,那就是在它的黑牢里,关着一位诺贝尔和平奖的得主,但却无力摧毁他那颗伟大的心。所谓三军可夺帅而匹夫不可夺志,说得就是刘晓波。
为中国干杯!我把刘晓波获得的诺贝尔和平奖看成是给中国的,给受苦人的,给百年黑暗谢幕的,给我们所有希望中国变革成一个和平、理性、文明、尊严的大国的人的。这些也包括真心关心中国民主而不赞成他获奖的人。
记者采访刘晓波,问之:请问您为什么要参选诺贝尔和平奖?刘晓波轻抚身旁的孩子,答:不是我要拿这个奖的,是全国人民选举我来拿的 (涛哥此刻内流满面)。
刘晓波:一旦中国变成自由国家,对于人类文明就将具有难以估量的正面价值,它必将是继苏联共产政权崩溃之后,再次带来残存独裁体制的又一次世界性雪崩,朝鲜、缅甸、古巴等独裁政权将难以为继,那些固守独裁体制的中东国家也将受到强烈的震撼。
刘晓波获诺奖标志着中国的社会运动到达了一个临界点。在经过这一临界点之后,处于劣势的公民社会将反客为主,成为中国社会运动的主导力量。
不过说回来,刘晓波总比达赖好,起码08宪章还是一份值得实现的纲领,虽然我不觉得这个纲领能和平实现,也不觉得可以由刘晓波实现,毕竟纲领和实现它是两码事,所谓知易行难。
诺贝尔和平奖颁给刘晓波,最屈辱的不是党和政府,它们知道这是报应。最屈辱的,是那些警察,国保,保安,红袖章老太太,党报记者,还有,新浪的小秘书。
昨天,诺贝尔和平奖颁布给了刘晓波,我才发现:世界主流文明已告诉胡温,政改就是向着08宪章开启的宪政之路去改!胡温听清楚没?
王小山同志有本书叫《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》,果然,昨天他的老师刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,裆中央都阳萎了,喉舌都哑巴了,可刘晓波获奖的消息仍然以《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》在中国大地传播!
当局担心人们借获奖效应,纷纷走出家门,走向街头。可惜的是中国的知识阶层八九时的情怀与冲动,早被拜金主义神龛所俘获。不管是高级知识分子,还是刚入校们青年一代。但民众中普遍的不满正如欲将破壳的岩浆一般,终将爆发。
刘晓波获奖,中国政府的反应很程式化,让人事先都能料到。难怪古人言:智可及,愚不可及!
自今天上溯六十一年,共产党建政以来,为信仰自由,捍卫自由,实践自由而作出贡献和付出代价的所有人,今天颁给刘晓波的诺贝尔奖也是对他们的认知和致敬。
刘晓波真强大。他让中文推圈各派力量空前团结。从昨天下午至今没有发现口臭推,没有发现互指五毛的攻击贴。
刘晓波是二战以来首位在囚获奖者,已经够丢人的了,还顺便创了一个记录,世博算是白办了。
去年提名就应该把人放了,人家给过你机会你不当回事,现在所有人都记得住把刘晓波关起来的是胡温政府,年底之前别出国了。
诺奖评委给温家宝政改一个契机:政治改革突破瓶颈,从释放刘晓波开始!
評委會主席:如果我們不投票給劉曉波,我們等於是背叛了中國境內的人權。我們不能坐視中國境內持續發生的人權侵害!
究竟犯了什么罪,竟遭此毒手?他只不过用笔写写文章,用嘴说说话,而他所写的,所说的,都无非是一个没有失掉良心的中国人的话!...无耻啊!无耻啊!!这是某集团的无耻,但恰好是李先生的光荣!——出自闻一多《最后一次演讲》
司马南今天的《获奖的汉奸依然是汉奸》,对身陷囹圄的刘晓波实在是落井下石的卑劣行径,是助纣为虐的拙劣表演,是向主人摇尾效忠的好机会,也是一次挺身而出的自我大暴露!
甚至连全国政协委员刘梦熊也直言北京应该反省今次刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,指国际社会认同以和平、理性的方式争取人权自由。刘晓波以往所做一切是合乎宪法规定,北京将他囚禁,只会与国际社会认同的普世价值越走越远,对中国文明进步不利。
刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖,可以宣示独裁铁幕即将撕裂,中共可以准备自己的后事了!
刘敏感词代表了面对暴政的华人中不屈服的部分,使生活于这段黑暗史的人们被后人评价时不至于全民尽墨。
挪威,我真的爱你,你给了中国人民一个太大的走向未来的机会! Thank you Norway, you just gave Chinese people a chance towards the bright future!
镰刀把民主一劈两半,一半是民,一半是主;
镰刀把人权一劈两半,一半是人,一半是权;
镰刀把你,一劈两半,一半将牢底坐穿,一半已照亮黑暗;
——致刘先生
政府限制乃至抓捕庆祝刘晓波获奖的民间人士,向全世界证明了:
1 给中国的异议人士颁诺奖绝不是一个错误的选择
2 这个政权愚蠢至极
茅于轼,石天河,戴晴,铁流,郑海天,郭道晖,杜光10月8日在互联网上发表公开信,祝贺刘晓波荣获诺贝尔奖。戴晴在接受法新社采访时表示,目前还仅有7人签名,但她相信其他人会逐渐加入进来。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
版权声明
本博客所有的原创文章，作者皆保留版权。转载必须包含本声明，保持本文完整，并以超链接形式注明作者编程随想和本文原始地址：
http://program-think.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobel-peace-prize-tweet.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
标签： 政治
5 评论:
匿名说...
wiki的评论：08宪章显得过于幼稚
2010-10-9 15:12:00
lf 说...
只有民主才能跳出历史周期律
2010-10-9 17:07:00
good 说...
虽然08宪章很幼稚，其实我们所要的民主就很简单咯，言论，结社，集会，出版自由。你看现在，那点我们自由啦，又有什么东西保障了。
2010-10-9 23:33:00
Nevesa 说...
昨天收到一條短信,短信內容如下:"外交部:劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎是對該獎褻瀆."這是中國電信自動發的短信,由這條短信,穿越GFW,使我認識了劉曉波,使我知道有<08憲章>.劉的獲獎,使我看到國民民主自由的希望,雖然不是今天、明天...但終有一日會實現.
2010-10-10 2:13:00
匿名说...
只要能有效遏制政党官僚机构的腐败，无论谁当政，老百姓都欢迎。现在并不是那个党当政和自由问题，而是腐败问题，有些人被某些集团利用了而已，刘晓波也是。给你和平奖真以为你的觉悟那么高？把你当做进攻的工具而已
2010-10-10 9:08:00
看看网友如何评论刘晓波得诺贝尔和平奖
昨天（10月8日）下午5点，网上传来消息：刘晓波喜获诺贝尔和平奖（不认识刘晓波的网友，请看“这里”的介绍。看完刘晓波的介绍之后，俺强烈建议，顺便再看看零八宪章的介绍）。
然后，Twitter上就炸锅了，关于刘晓波的tweet如潮水般涌出。俺怀着极大的兴趣，看了Google实时搜索的Twitter评论（请翻墙后猛击“这里”），一直看到凌晨。
以下是俺收集整理的网友评论，大部分来自Twitter。俺会抽空不断更新本帖子，把精彩的评论添加进来。
★纯属幽默讽刺的评论
据说台湾和大陆在诺贝尔奖问题上是有分工的:台湾负责自然科学的类别,大陆则专攻和平奖。
诺贝尔和平奖即将揭晓。今晚新华社,人民日报,环球时报,外交部等媒体和部门肯定准备好了2份稿件准备二选一发布。一份是赞美和平奖得主的,一份是谴责诺贝尔评委会的。
快讯:北京时间17:00,中国公民敏感词荣获2010年诺贝尔和平奖。
问:中国诺贝尔和平奖候选人的主管单位是哪个?
答:中华人民共和国司法部监狱管理局。
CNN:温先生,请问你对贵国异议人士刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖有何看法?
温+宝:我浏览了很多网站,没看到这消息啊!
问:有没有中国人获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都拿着外国国籍。(丁肇中、李远哲、朱棣文、崔琦、赛珍珠、钱永健)
问:有没有中国公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他们都是中华民国的公民。(李政道、杨振宁)
问:有没有新中国的公民获得过诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但他不承认自己是中国公民。(高行健)
问:有没有承认自己是中国人的新中国公民获得诺贝尔奖?
答:有,但是我们不承认他是中国公民。(达赖)
问:有没有承认自己是中国公民,国家也承认他是新中国公民的诺贝尔奖获得者?
答:有,但他在新中国的监狱里。(刘晓波)
中共外交部一定有刘晓波的暗桩,否则怎么正在挪威方面作最后决定的时候,突然点明事态,逼得美联社/法新社/路透社/BBC等都疯狂发稿大谈刘晓波?
刘晓波果然获得诺贝尔和平奖了,多亏了共产党外交部的大力协助呀,哈哈!
本人强烈建议中共中央,立即逮捕那些抓捕刘晓波并判他11年徒刑的人,是他们阴谋策划,最终制造了一个诺贝尔和平奖获得者。他们才是共产党最大的敌人啊!
今天记者肯定会问诺贝尔奖的事。温宝宝的四种选择:
(1)"刘晓波是中国的一个罪犯,给他授奖是对诺奖的亵渎。"(可能性20%)
(2)"我和晓波的心是相通的。"(可能性2%)
(3)装聋作哑,好像没听到。(可能性75%)
(4)"哎呀,我肚子痛,赶紧送我上医院!"(可能性3%)
南京一爱国青年在得知挪威将诺奖颁给刘晓波后,非常气愤,走上街头发起了一场"抵制挪货,从我做起"的万人签名活动,呼吁广大市民抵制挪货,其中一位情绪激昂的市民在多人劝阻无效的情况下当场点燃了一本《挪威的森林》。
宣称"我没有敌人"的刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,兲朝老大哥非常恼火,冥思苦想后确定了一个更响亮的口号——"我没有朋友"!
评奖的这帮人太狠了,每当钱不够时,就发给一个无法领奖的人。
刘晓波能获得这个诺贝尔和平奖还要归功于胡四的愚蠢。去年我就耻笑中南海连在圣诞节审判刘晓波这样的馊主意都想得出来,群体智慧低到何种程度。果不其然,哪天中共倒台,这帮人居功至伟!
我认为这次中国政府是弄巧成拙了。搞得人家如果不把这个奖给刘晓波,倒好像成了中国政府的二孙子似得。
由于新闻联播在诺贝尔和平奖揭晓的日子竟然只字不提,刘晓波在狱中一定知道他已经获得诺贝尔和平奖。
诺贝尔官网网友留言:"我不知道刘先生是谁,但是我为中国人能够获得诺贝尔奖而高兴。她一定是一名好党员,我们中国人民的好干部,为人民做实事的好领导。"
据传,澳大利亚一亲北京的华人社团迫不及待地向北京发回了第一条贺信:热烈祝贺中华人民共和国培养出了中国大陆上第一个诺贝尔奖得主,粉碎了杨恒均之流污蔑中国政府永远培养不出诺贝尔得奖者的谣言……^_^
影帝遇见千载难逢的政改机会了。影帝应该回国后带着一票记者直奔锦州监狱,然后拉开门就痛哭:晓波,我这次又来晚了,他们判你我真是不知道的啊!
61年了,锦州监狱完成了从"关战犯"到"关诺贝尔和平奖得主"的质的飞跃!
中国是一个热爱和平的国家,却讨厌和平奖。
今晚我专门看了新闻联播,最后一个新闻是大熊猫怀孕了。发现央视进步了,如此深沉。国宝受惊(精)了,这个信息就够了,央视在这个节骨眼上表现出来的幽默是一个不小的进步。
共和国监狱不但关过诺贝尔和平奖得主,还关过皇帝、国家主席、元帅、将军、班禅、等。监狱,是个人才济济的地方!
新华社:中国一名服刑人员在改造期间轻而易举获得了诺贝尔奖,充分体现社会主义法制国家的优越性。
胡锦涛:刘晓波交代了吗?
专案组:他彻底交代了,我们查证属实。
胡锦涛:联邦共和国出自何处?
专案组:中国共产党第二次代表大会公报。原文提法是:建立一个自由的联邦共和国。多了个"自由"。
胡锦涛:那……那军队国家化呢?
专案组:也查清了!出自《周恩来选集》。原文提法是:必须实现军队国家化。多了个"必须实现"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那赞美西方民主制度出自何处?
专案组:《新华日报》社论。原文提法是:美国代表了民主社会。多了个"美国代表"。
胡锦涛:那……那……那解除党禁呢?
专案组:毛太祖反对国民党时提出来的口号!原文提法多了个"打倒一党专政"!
胡锦涛:那……那……那……那结社自由、言论自由、出版自由呢?
专案组:这些,宪法里全有!
无数叫"刘晓波"的人都惨了,短信都不能提及。据说刘晓波获奖后,CCAV那个叫刘晓波的记者泪流满面。回家直怨爹妈乱起名字,害得再也不能出境了 :(
前些日子是全中国人要求日本放人，现在是全世界人要求中国放人。
忽然想到一个刑法的技术问题:拿了诺奖减刑不?
根据刑法第78条的规定，有下列重大立功表现之一的，应当减刑:
(6)对国家和社会有其他重大贡献的。
刘晓波获奖是我党政法委无数次严密实验的科学结晶:
高智晟判三年不行,胡佳判三年半不行,陈光诚判四年半不行,谭作人判五年也不行……
终于,刘晓波判11年——球进了!
感谢国家!感谢党!
微博管理员:尊敬的用户,行行好吧,从六点删到现在我连晚饭都没吃那,手都删软了!
★对真理部的评论
各大门户的诺贝尔专题
新浪 http://news.sina.com.cn/z/2010Nobel/ 被删
网易 http://news.163.com/special/2010NobelPrize/ 页面保留,留下了三个字"已删除"
搜狐 http://news.sohu.com/s2010/nobel10/ 自动跳转到其它页面
看到各门户网站的诺贝尔专题纷纷挂掉,我就知道中国人终于得了个诺贝尔奖。
现在,四大门户专题被撤,中国移动、联通短信过滤刘晓波三字,各大搜索过滤该词,新闻评论、博客和微博审核员加班,除添加自动词条外大幅增强人工干预力度,刘妻被警方紧急带离北京。图为刘晓波妻子刘霞家外站满世界各地记者 http://imgur.com/26nhw
刚亲测短信,发"刘晓波"三个字会被墙,三字中间加空格也会被墙。
你妈联通的,发短信用句号隔开刘晓波都发送失败。
苹果日报: 当确认刘晓波获奖后,不仅中国各平面与电子媒体一致封口,连各大饭店内自行架设卫星接收的CNN/NHK/BBC等国际频道,也在播报相关新闻时遭中国当局盖台,画面顿时变黑。
想必昨天晚上领导们连夜开会了,丑化刘晓波的宣传应该要开始了吧。
博讯: 胡锦涛李长春下令封杀刘晓波获诺奖新闻
明天如果一个国内大报没有把刘晓波获奖作为主要新闻,你就可以知道该报的真正老板是真理部。
中宣部最新指令:有关刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的通稿照发,但所有媒体(含一切纸媒、网媒)不得登载。
1989年的CCTV: 抓住刘晓波的黑手 http://cl.ly/e68e9509762bc370d05d
八九血案后,中国官方日人民报发表《抓住刘晓波黑手》以诬他;明天的日人民报会不会来一篇《抓住诺贝尔奖的黑手》以诬炸药奖,来个前后呼应、宝献双璧呢?
网易关于外交部对刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖的新闻直接关闭了评论,不敢开放,不然估计审计专员要累死。
北京多名维权人士庆祝刘晓波获奖被抓到派出所。
刘晓波的存在和刘晓波的思考使这个政权感到难堪,因为他们害怕真相。刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,就会使当局难以继续封锁刘晓波。六四以后,当局有一种屏蔽的政策,试图使大家忘却曾经有六四这样一个事件。
当年911,全球头版美国遇袭,兲朝头版领导讲话;今年108,全球头版刘晓波获奖,兲朝头版朝鲜领导易人。9年时间,兲朝总算有了国际视野。
昨天全球头条新闻都是刘晓波得奖了,兲朝头条是金正日儿子接班了。今天全球头条都是各国元首要求释放刘晓波,兲朝头条是折腾帝祝贺劳动党生日快乐了。
太给力了!《北京青年报》不要命了? http://twitpic.com/2vpoow
恭喜诺贝尔官网被墙,获得GFW认证!
网友甲:如果网易不删帖,几十年以后,网易就能得诺贝尔和平奖!
网友乙:如果网易不删贴,十几天以后,网易就没有了!
★对中共外交部的评论
中国照会挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖授予中国异见人士刘晓波。对于独裁政权来讲,很难理解在民主国家,有不受政府控制的独立机构存在。
中国驻挪威大使馆对挪威政府表示抗议。
挪威政府表示不解:诺贝尔是独立基金会啊!
中国政府更为不解:独立基金会是神马?难道不都是受政府控制的吗?
挪威政府:……
对于一个没有任何独立机构的中国官方来说,诺贝尔和平奖不受政府控制是不可思议的;中共认定:一旦颁予中国异见人士,挪威政府肯定是幕后黑手。中国政府常能操纵一切,便认为所有政府都像他们一样是幕后黑手。
如果一个政府为不让自己本国国民获得诺贝尔奖而努力,这得混蛋到一定水平才行啊。
外交部长:我要向你表达我国政府对刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的愤怒和失望!
挪威大使:跟我有什么关系?奖又不是我发的,我又不代表委员会。
热烈祝贺刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖: 但外交部发言人说"诺贝尔委会授予刘晓波和平奖是对该奖的亵渎",我还认为把刘晓波关押起来是对宪法的亵渎呢 http://zuo.in/dwOwY4
中国刚刚召见了挪威驻华大使,抗议挪威诺委会颁发诺贝尔和平奖给刘晓波——外交部真够不要脸的!
土共政权在刘晓波获奖前后令人作呕的反人类表演丢尽了十几亿中国人的脸,马朝旭你已经青史留名了!
★海外的反应
今晚全球各大百年报业一致头条 http://goo.gl/tGJb
全球各大媒体: 时代周刊,纽约时报,华盛顿邮报,洛杉机时报,今日美国,英国卫报,英国泰晤士报,法国回声报,德国明镜周刊,朝日新闻,读卖新闻,GBS,NHK,半岛电视台等报道刘晓波获诺奖的新闻集锦 http://is.gd/fSfo4
美国之音: 奥巴马呼吁中国政府释放刘晓波: 美国总统奥巴马呼吁北京政府释放中国异议人士刘晓波。刘晓波星期五被评为2010年诺贝尔和平奖得主。诺贝尔奖委员会表示,他们将这项荣誉颁发给刘晓波是因为"他在中国为了基本人权作出的长期和... http://bit.ly/b70FSq
美国之音: 美众议院议长佩洛西在书面声明中给予刘晓波高度评价。她说,刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,成为人类历史上争取非暴力、正义和自由的领袖人物之一。
美国之音: 《刘晓波到底是什么人?》 http://is.gd/fSxUZ
美国之音: 俄国媒体:刘晓波是中国萨哈罗夫:刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖在俄罗斯引起热烈反响。媒体把刘晓波称做中国的萨哈罗夫。人权人士称刘晓波获奖当之无愧。有专家认为,中国要想在国际社会扮演更重要角色,必须使政治体制民主化,刘晓波获奖是向中国发出… http://bit.ly/aoypZh
美国之音: 香港各界对刘晓波获奖的反应: 中国内地的异见人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖在香港引起强烈反响,不同阶层,不同政治观点的人做出不同的反应。星期六,绝大多数香港主流媒体都以显著位置长篇报道了刘晓波获奖一事… http://bit.ly/bMDbxr
BBC中文网: 法国政府呼吁释放刘晓波 http://j.mp/bJbSOR 中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖后,法国呼吁中国立即释放被监禁的刘晓波。
BBC中文网: 港媒评论:刘晓波"因言入罪、因言获奖" 香港各大报纸都在头版头条大篇幅报道刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息,并刊发了大量评论和照片。 http://bbc.in/deBVxX
BBC中文网: 美国呼吁北京释放刘晓波:美国总统奥巴马和美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿分别呼吁中国尽快释放诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波。 http://bbc.in/9UnfYq
BBC中文网: 刘晓波获奖 海外异议人士反应不一:因起草《零八宪章》被中共当局投入监狱的中国异议人士刘晓波获得2010年诺贝尔和平奖,海外民运和异议人士作出反应。 http://bbc.in/9hkT5C
BBC中文网: 简讯:刘晓波获奖中国向挪威抗议: 中国周五召见挪威驻中国大使,就挪威诺贝尔委员会将2010年诺贝尔和平奖颁发给刘晓波提出抗议。 http://bbc.in/9lONiC
BBC中文网: 马英九祝贺刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖: 台湾总统、行政院长分别表示祝贺,在野的民进党则呼吁台湾政府能支持中国民主化进程。 http://bbc.in/dbbhQ8
BBC中文网: 澳大利亚再次呼吁释放刘晓波: 澳大利亚总理吉拉德表示,将继续以刘晓波的名义向中国政府交涉。 http://bbc.in/aRD5hD
BBC中文网: 英国媒体广泛报道刘晓波获诺贝尔奖: 英国各大报章详尽报道刘晓波得到和平奖的消息,分析指这是对中国政府的专制的谴责。 http://bbc.in/brZwe7
德国之声: 德国政府要求立即释放刘晓波: http://bit.ly/bzX0SF
德国之声: 获奖之后,刘晓波家被封锁,自发庆祝者被抓。刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖的消息传出后,中国政府国保阻止刘晓波妻子刘霞与传媒见面,中国四大门户网站诺奖专题被撤下,带有相关敏感词的短信被过滤,至晚间20时…… http://bit.ly/byP6k1
德国之声: 刘晓波获奖受到国际关注:德国、挪威和法国政府均对中国异见人士刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖表示祝贺,并呼吁立即释放这位狱中作家。人权组织大赦国际呼吁中国释放所有良心犯。德国媒体也对刘晓波获奖给予极大关注。 http://bit.ly/9OfLui
德国之音: 中国多个城市警方抓捕刘晓波支持者:刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖后，中国当局从宣布获奖的一刻起，开始对自发庆祝的中国公众进行抓捕。 http://bit.ly/b6Ei6Q
自由亚洲电台: 大陆封锁刘晓波获奖消息,庆祝人士被捕: 刘晓波获奖的消息震撼不少中国人,尽管当局全力封杀有关消息,包括阻止手机发出有关内容的短信、各大门户网站不断删走有关内容的网帖、及对与诺贝尔奖有关的其他报道进行大清洗,但无阻网民以各种……
http://twurl.nl/n7wb2m
华尔街日报连发两篇评论,谈刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖。
第一篇说: 一直没有中国人因为他在中国的努力工作而获得诺贝尔奖,直到刘晓波通过服刑11年这种为了民主而工作的方式获奖。这个对他的勇气和正直表达认同的奖终将有一天会成为所有中国人的骄傲。
第二篇评论是林培瑞写的: 他分析说胡锦涛在05年发表了一篇预防颜色革命的报告,指出要防止中国出现叶利钦/瓦文萨/曼德拉这样的人,所以共产党一直执行的是枪打出头鸟的政策,刘晓波就是他们眼中的出头鸟和大家伙,但是他们犯了一个愚蠢的错误。
纽约客谈刘晓波: 中国持不同政见者的困境,远非外国人可想象。压力不但来自公安,还有雇主,甚至父母。最难堪是来自于知识界/思想界同侪。他们会认为你是为了单纯的对抗而不是求切实的成果。甚至是把自己包装成一个符合西方审美的异议分子。
旺報社評－劉曉波的獲罪與獲獎…大陆那么多出色的评论人却无法在大陆的报章上对此事置一词,真悲哀!
香港電台: 公民黨到中聯辦要求釋放劉曉波!
跟几位以色列人谈了刘晓波获奖后续:饭醉分子被抓,刘霞被隔离……
这几位以色列同学说:1 看来这个奖发对了 2 中国政府为什么这么蠢?
★呼吁弘扬刘晓波和08宪章
告诉你的朋友/家人/同事:谁是刘晓波?他为什么被反华势力爱戴?
要向周围的朋友家人介绍刘晓波,最直接到达的方法无非就是当面讲、语音呼叫讲。什么短信、email、IM过滤统统去死!
如果你的父母搞不清刘晓波是干什么的,你就乘机给他们看一回08宪章吧,他们能看懂的。
要将刘晓波获奖的价值最大化,即是要让最多的中国大陆人知道这件事,无论他认为这是西方的政治阴谋,还是什么。总之,首要的是让尽可能多的大陆人知道刘晓波,知道他获奖。只有这样,刘晓波获得诺贝尔奖的效应才能出来。否则被党继续扼杀着,这个效应就只局限于海外了,努力不能白费!
要发挥个人可利用的所有的媒介传播形式,包括口头传播、QQ传播、社区传播等尽可能多的形式,冲破党对刘晓波获奖信息的封锁,让几亿人知道刘晓波获奖了。呼吁所有的报纸媒体,即使明天刊登的是外交部的抗议,也希望去刊登出刘晓波获奖的消息,不要让这个消息胎死腹中。
谁再问我刘晓波是谁,干了什么。如果我觉得说08宪章对他们有点高深,那就这么回答:
你每天看到贪官污吏横行霸道、强拆自焚、歹徒弑童、宝马碾压、三聚氰胺、毒大米地沟油、藏猫猫、喝水水、做梦梦等,你有感到生气和郁闷吗?刘晓波就是拿出了一个这些问题最终解决方案的人。
对国内最有意义的事情,就是去告诉人们刘晓波为何得奖,让人们看看08宪章是怎么写的。普及现代社会的基础关键,是以人为本,政府民立。只有分清楚了国家、政府、民族这些基本观念,才能真正的出这次获奖的有效意义。
★回顾历史的评论
去年胡祝贺奥巴马,今年奥巴马祝贺刘晓波。情何以堪?
诺贝尔和平奖这么多年来,只有两位是在监狱中获奖:
其一是反战人士、德国人卡尔·冯·奥西厄茨基;其二是中国刘晓波。
前者的国籍是纳粹德国,后者中国。这两个国家的相同性可谓一目了然。
百年来曾经获得诺贝尔和平奖的著名异见人士包括多人。但自二战结束以来,只有刘晓波是身在监狱期间获颁和平奖。昂山素姬获奖时只属软禁,曼德拉则于1990年已出狱。
问:上一位获得诺贝尔和平奖的坐牢人士是谁么?
答:卡尔·冯·阿希厄茨基。
问:那时他的国家谁在执政?
答:希特勒!
三十多年了,从魏京生到刘晓波,希望宛若微弱之光,在风雨飘摇中若隐若现,忽明忽暗。我等之辈,耳闻了西单民主墙,旁观了反自由化,亲历了六四,从热血青年直奔悲情中年。可希望呢,还依旧在坟茔遍布的中国鬼火点点,无法燎原。
刚刚一个1989年6月4日出生的同学问我刘晓波是谁,他获奖又是怎么回事……于是他也刚刚知道自己的生日是多么的不平凡……
希望刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖成为1979年教皇访问波兰那样的标志性事件!
(历史上的今天)10月8日:台湾解除"戒严令",中国人刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖。
★其它评论
刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖的意义在于,这世界上不是每个人,每个团体,每个组织都屈服于金钱和权势的力量。当正义在中国和中国人中变得非常微弱的时候,在世界上还有人向中国伸出了援助之手。
刘晓波得奖,意味着中共肆意侵犯公民名誉权历史的终结。这是60年来中国人第一次获得中共无法侵犯的名誉。
今夜属于刘晓波!今夜属于全体签署08宪章的人们!今夜还属于这么多年来前赴后继追求中国民主进步的全体中国人!让我们尽情地欢庆!让毫无人性的残暴统治者发抖去吧!
随着刘晓波获得诺贝尔和平奖,共产党将永久地被钉在耻辱柱上!
晓波师获奖,并不意味着他会获得自由。但刘晓波的自由之日的确可能预示了中国人的自由!
刘晓波是我尊敬的一位学者。我尊重的主要不是他的学问,而是他的骨气、他的豁达;他对社会的责任感令我敬佩。我们从来没有见过面,也没有什么私交。冯正虎评价刘晓波的文章《写在刘晓波审判前后》http://is.gd/fPsSK
共产党需要在未来的动乱或崩溃时期有一个可以谈判的反对党领袖。而刘晓波是他们熟悉的人,他们有跟刘晓波打交道的充分经验,知道如何对付这个人。
余杰:刘晓波将胡锦涛送上了审判席。
刘晓波曾给纽约客的记者解释写公开信的原因。"不是挑衅,是责任。"他认为公开信非常温和。"西方国家一直在敦促中国政府履行人权承诺,但是如果国内的人不发声,政府会说,看,这是国外人士一厢情愿,中国人自己并没有这个要求。"
祝贺刘晓波先生获得诺贝尔和平奖!望其能早日出狱,民主自由是不可逆的历史趋势,任何违背这一趋势的当局都终将自食其果。
中国政府肯定很恨诺贝尔,他妈的设立什么诺贝尔奖,有物理奖、化学奖不就好了吗,后人就不要设什么和平奖、文学奖?凡是华人拿到这两个奖都是亵渎诺贝尔奖。
他是中国人,他是他是中国版曼德拉,他曾经坐过监狱,后放出,但又入狱,至今还在监狱里,他的名字叫刘……晓……波
授予刘晓波诺贝尔和平奖是中国政府的失败,但对世界人权来说是一大胜利!
估计北京第一中级法院和北京市高级法院做梦也想不到,由他们判处的一个被告人竟然成为诺贝尔和平奖的获得者。这样的经典案例,值得载入司法审判史。
谷歌和诺奖委员会表明,这世界上,有一种最可贵的东西,叫道义,叫信念,利益在其面前,不值一提。
小波获奖,是对土共近年来花重金打造的国家形象毁灭性一击!别以为砸钱办了奥运世博就人家就尊重你了,公道自在人心。
面对越维稳越不稳的国内局面,本次和平奖事件本来是一次很好的向国际、国内社会释放善意的机会,例如让刘晓波回家治病。可惜当局用的还是60多年前的一套,以为武力能解决一切,在提名和公布后,竟然再一次反其道而行,不仅屏蔽消息还抓庆祝的百姓,彻头彻尾就是不懂公关的土包子。
以前某些人假装不知道刘晓波,现在他们还能继续假装吗?
刘晓波获奖了,由于信息封锁,大陆很多人还不知道刘晓波是谁,还不知道和平奖已经颁发。所以在欢庆之时,我们要让身边更多的人知道刘晓波、知道刘晓波获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
刘晓波在网上发表了自己的政治诉求,因此被判11年徒刑。而他的诉求大部分内容都能在中国宪法里面找到。现在他因为诺贝尔和平奖成了全世界最知名的囚犯之一,多么令人尴尬呀!
刘晓波的得奖真是给中国政府一记响亮的耳光——这已经是中国公民第二次得这个奖了。这次政府要如何来丑化刘晓波?丑化诺贝尔和平奖?
当局必须面对这样的现实,那就是在它的黑牢里,关着一位诺贝尔和平奖的得主,但却无力摧毁他那颗伟大的心。所谓三军可夺帅而匹夫不可夺志,说得就是刘晓波。
为中国干杯!我把刘晓波获得的诺贝尔和平奖看成是给中国的,给受苦人的,给百年黑暗谢幕的,给我们所有希望中国变革成一个和平、理性、文明、尊严的大国的人的。这些也包括真心关心中国民主而不赞成他获奖的人。
记者采访刘晓波,问之:请问您为什么要参选诺贝尔和平奖?刘晓波轻抚身旁的孩子,答:不是我要拿这个奖的,是全国人民选举我来拿的 (涛哥此刻内流满面)。
刘晓波:一旦中国变成自由国家,对于人类文明就将具有难以估量的正面价值,它必将是继苏联共产政权崩溃之后,再次带来残存独裁体制的又一次世界性雪崩,朝鲜、缅甸、古巴等独裁政权将难以为继,那些固守独裁体制的中东国家也将受到强烈的震撼。
刘晓波获诺奖标志着中国的社会运动到达了一个临界点。在经过这一临界点之后,处于劣势的公民社会将反客为主,成为中国社会运动的主导力量。
不过说回来,刘晓波总比达赖好,起码08宪章还是一份值得实现的纲领,虽然我不觉得这个纲领能和平实现,也不觉得可以由刘晓波实现,毕竟纲领和实现它是两码事,所谓知易行难。
诺贝尔和平奖颁给刘晓波,最屈辱的不是党和政府,它们知道这是报应。最屈辱的,是那些警察,国保,保安,红袖章老太太,党报记者,还有,新浪的小秘书。
昨天,诺贝尔和平奖颁布给了刘晓波,我才发现:世界主流文明已告诉胡温,政改就是向着08宪章开启的宪政之路去改!胡温听清楚没?
王小山同志有本书叫《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》,果然,昨天他的老师刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,裆中央都阳萎了,喉舌都哑巴了,可刘晓波获奖的消息仍然以《迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势》在中国大地传播!
当局担心人们借获奖效应,纷纷走出家门,走向街头。可惜的是中国的知识阶层八九时的情怀与冲动,早被拜金主义神龛所俘获。不管是高级知识分子,还是刚入校们青年一代。但民众中普遍的不满正如欲将破壳的岩浆一般,终将爆发。
刘晓波获奖,中国政府的反应很程式化,让人事先都能料到。难怪古人言:智可及,愚不可及!
自今天上溯六十一年,共产党建政以来,为信仰自由,捍卫自由,实践自由而作出贡献和付出代价的所有人,今天颁给刘晓波的诺贝尔奖也是对他们的认知和致敬。
刘晓波真强大。他让中文推圈各派力量空前团结。从昨天下午至今没有发现口臭推,没有发现互指五毛的攻击贴。
刘晓波是二战以来首位在囚获奖者,已经够丢人的了,还顺便创了一个记录,世博算是白办了。
去年提名就应该把人放了,人家给过你机会你不当回事,现在所有人都记得住把刘晓波关起来的是胡温政府,年底之前别出国了。
诺奖评委给温家宝政改一个契机:政治改革突破瓶颈,从释放刘晓波开始!
評委會主席:如果我們不投票給劉曉波,我們等於是背叛了中國境內的人權。我們不能坐視中國境內持續發生的人權侵害!
究竟犯了什么罪,竟遭此毒手?他只不过用笔写写文章,用嘴说说话,而他所写的,所说的,都无非是一个没有失掉良心的中国人的话!...无耻啊!无耻啊!!这是某集团的无耻,但恰好是李先生的光荣!——出自闻一多《最后一次演讲》
司马南今天的《获奖的汉奸依然是汉奸》,对身陷囹圄的刘晓波实在是落井下石的卑劣行径,是助纣为虐的拙劣表演,是向主人摇尾效忠的好机会,也是一次挺身而出的自我大暴露!
甚至连全国政协委员刘梦熊也直言北京应该反省今次刘晓波获诺贝尔和平奖,指国际社会认同以和平、理性的方式争取人权自由。刘晓波以往所做一切是合乎宪法规定,北京将他囚禁,只会与国际社会认同的普世价值越走越远,对中国文明进步不利。
刘晓波荣获诺贝尔和平奖,可以宣示独裁铁幕即将撕裂,中共可以准备自己的后事了!
刘敏感词代表了面对暴政的华人中不屈服的部分,使生活于这段黑暗史的人们被后人评价时不至于全民尽墨。
挪威,我真的爱你,你给了中国人民一个太大的走向未来的机会! Thank you Norway, you just gave Chinese people a chance towards the bright future!
镰刀把民主一劈两半,一半是民,一半是主;
镰刀把人权一劈两半,一半是人,一半是权;
镰刀把你,一劈两半,一半将牢底坐穿,一半已照亮黑暗;
——致刘先生
政府限制乃至抓捕庆祝刘晓波获奖的民间人士,向全世界证明了:
1 给中国的异议人士颁诺奖绝不是一个错误的选择
2 这个政权愚蠢至极
茅于轼,石天河,戴晴,铁流,郑海天,郭道晖,杜光10月8日在互联网上发表公开信,祝贺刘晓波荣获诺贝尔奖。戴晴在接受法新社采访时表示,目前还仅有7人签名,但她相信其他人会逐渐加入进来。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
版权声明
本博客所有的原创文章，作者皆保留版权。转载必须包含本声明，保持本文完整，并以超链接形式注明作者编程随想和本文原始地址：
http://program-think.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobel-peace-prize-tweet.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
标签： 政治
5 评论:
匿名说...
wiki的评论：08宪章显得过于幼稚
2010-10-9 15:12:00
lf 说...
只有民主才能跳出历史周期律
2010-10-9 17:07:00
good 说...
虽然08宪章很幼稚，其实我们所要的民主就很简单咯，言论，结社，集会，出版自由。你看现在，那点我们自由啦，又有什么东西保障了。
2010-10-9 23:33:00
Nevesa 说...
昨天收到一條短信,短信內容如下:"外交部:劉曉波獲諾貝爾和平獎是對該獎褻瀆."這是中國電信自動發的短信,由這條短信,穿越GFW,使我認識了劉曉波,使我知道有<08憲章>.劉的獲獎,使我看到國民民主自由的希望,雖然不是今天、明天...但終有一日會實現.
2010-10-10 2:13:00
匿名说...
只要能有效遏制政党官僚机构的腐败，无论谁当政，老百姓都欢迎。现在并不是那个党当政和自由问题，而是腐败问题，有些人被某些集团利用了而已，刘晓波也是。给你和平奖真以为你的觉悟那么高？把你当做进攻的工具而已
2010-10-10 9:08:00
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Arrested in China
Arrested in China
by Kang Zhengguo, translated from the Chinese by Perry Link
A year ago, after my classes teaching Chinese at Yale were over and the students had left, I set out for my old home in Xi’an, China, to visit relatives. Early in the morning on June 15, the fifth day of my stay in my mother’s house, I had a rude awakening. Before I had gotten out of bed, eight plainclothes agents of the local State Security Bureau burst in, tersely stated their purpose, and forced me to leave with them immediately.
They said they wanted me to take part in a “returnee interview”—which was a standard thing, they said, and nothing for me to be upset about. It was just that my mother’s house was not the most convenient place for a chat, so they would need to use the sedan they had parked in a corner of the compound to bring me to a more suitable place to ask a few questions. The car made a number of turns and then raced toward the guest house of the nearby Electric Power Institute. First I had breakfast with eight agents in the downstairs dining room; then they brought me up to the seventh floor to a room that had been prepared for me. From time to time I noticed other agents heading downstairs toward the dining room. It seemed as if they had moved in during the previous evening to get things ready for me, and now were just finishing their night duty. Agents kept popping in and out of the room, as if taking part in some scheduled deployment.
Their first item of business was to inspect my documents. The agents took my Chinese passport and my US green card, and said they would keep them for the time being. This little move, both they and I knew, was in fact like attaching to me an invisible leg iron. Every Chinese who goes home and gets into trouble knows that once your documents are gone, they’ve got you. Even if they let you go, you can’t move. So there I was, still groggy from sleep, under comfortable detention in a guest house.
Advertisement
They called it a “chat,” but it was a formal interrogation—it just started gently. In order to create a more relaxed atmosphere, they explained, they had specially recalled an old acquaintance of mine, a man who had in-terrogated me for six months after the Tiananmen events of 1989. I understood the terms of such interrogations, because I had been through them before. The questioner begins from the assumption that you are guilty of many, many crimes and that the police already know the details of all of them. He does not say what the crimes are; it is up to you to show your sincerity and earn forgiveness by confessing. The purpose of this approach is to get as much out of you as possible. If you fall for the promise that “confession brings lenience” and spill everything you know, you only get yourself and your friends more deeply into trouble. So I began by stating my own ground rules: since this was a “returnee interview,” not an interrogation, there would be no need for me to volunteer anything. Their side would have to initiate the questions from start to finish. I would answer what I could.
They began by asking about letters I had exchanged with friends in Xi’an after I had left for the West. Then they asked about my contacts in the US with Liu Binyan and Hu Ping, two well-known critics of the Chinese government. They wanted to make clear their especially profound distaste for an essay called “The Crime of Counterrevolution and the Mendacity of Dictatorship” which I had published in the Hong Kong Ming Pao Monthly in 1995 after Wei Jingsheng had been sentenced to a second lengthy prison term. But both they and I knew that none of this added up to “endangerment of national security” and that my responses were unlikely to yield much of value to them. Hence they were obliged to play their trump card, which revealed more directly why they had arrested me.
They had, they said, concrete evidence that made it necessary for them to talk to me. They had searched the home of an elderly friend of mine the day before, and had confiscated all of the letters, magazines, and newspaper clippings that I had mailed to him after moving to America. Now they had some questions: What publications had I mailed to this friend? How many, all together? To whom else had I mailed similar publications? How many? On whose instructions had I mailed these banned publications into China? And so on. So now things were coming clear: my article supporting Wei Jingsheng had sparked their interest, and their raid on my friend’s house had delivered the goods.
This elderly friend of mine was retired, lived at home, and had time on his hands. But he maintained a lively interest in public affairs, and he kept up a steady correspondence with me after I went abroad. He was always eager to learn, and wanted to use me as a way to get hold of information and opinions that were prohibited inside China. I was over fifty years old, had already been through enough political battles, and perhaps should have put him off. But I thought that, well, if I can supply the needs of an old friend for information and at the same time send some uncensored materials to China, those are things one simply ought to do. So I began to buy magazines like Democratic China and Beijing Spring, which published independent comment on Chinese society, and to mail them to China. The police specifically asked about Liu Binyan because I had given the address of my elderly friend to Liu, who in turn had mailed some writings directly to him. They had asked about Hu Ping because another friend had sent me an article that he wanted to have published, and I had sent it to Hu Ping’s magazine Beijing Spring.
After a full day of questioning, certain things dawned on me. During all that time that I was mailing materials to my elderly friend, we thought nothing was amiss because all of them got through. In fact, though, the police had been reading the mail from the beginning and had let things pass on purpose. They wanted to catch bigger fish; they would cut me some slack, let me pile up a bad record, and then deal with everything at once when I came back to Xi’an to visit relatives.
Now their day of reckoning had arrived. First they raided the home of my elderly friend and took away what they would need for their case; one of the confiscated items, as it happened, was the issue of Beijing Spring that contained the article by my friend which I had sent to the magazine. I now realized why they had asked me about Liu Binyan and Hu Ping at the beginning of the day. They wanted me to confirm and perhaps say more about matters that, from months of reading my mail, they already knew.
My “returnee interview” lasted into the evening. When it was over my handlers made it clear that I would remain on the seventh floor of that guest house while they prepared to spend the night with me.
In the morning they tightened the noose. The section chief who was in charge put on a stern face and said I would have to submit a written self-criticism. They would not let me go home until I put in writing that I admitted my crimes and promised never to mail this kind of publication again. I tried two or three drafts and each was rejected. The two main points at issue were: (1) my statement that “I viewed my mailings of these materials from the standpoint of my context overseas, where, with press freedom and legal guarantees of private correspondence, such mailings violated nothing”; and (2) my insistence that the police had not just happened to discover my mailings during their raid on my friend’s house the day before my arrest, but had long been building their case by opening my mail. This monitoring of my mail, I wrote, gave me a sense of having been entrapped.
During the entire second day, the relevant section chief and department head took turns delivering harsh warnings to me. So long as I did not delete those two items from my written confession I would continue to be held. At one point the section chief adopted a pose of offering friendly advice: even if I were right about the protracted opening of my mail, he said, this was permissible under security law. I could think what I wanted about my mail; I just mustn’t write it down in black and white. In any case, so long as I persisted in my two points, I would never pass muster with their superiors.
And sure enough, during the afternoon of the second day things escalated. They took out a document that they had prepared in advance and read me an official “summons”: within twelve hours my status would shift to that of “legal detainee.” I went to bed under that cloud.
Early the next morning, before dawn, I was suddenly awakened by one of the handlers. Half-asleep, I saw before me a security agent whom I had not met before. He was using the last moments of my twelve-hour “summons” period to read me a decision on “supervised residence.” The gist was that, from this moment on, I could be held for interrogation for up to six months; I would, moreover, be responsible for my own room and board expenses.
It was well known that the methods for persecuting people had shifted in recent years and that economic punishments now had been added to the others. I suspected that the security agents were planning a shakedown, and so refused their request that I sign my name agreeing to “supervised residence.” They responded that the decision would take effect anyway, with or without my signature.
It emerged that their entire plan to “interview” me had run into some interference. This happened because, as soon as I had arrived in the guest house, I had called home and had asked my family to notify my friends and relatives in New Haven that I had been detained. The response from the US, including the State Department, had been quick, and had quickly reached high levels in Beijing, from where, it seems, word went down to Xi’an Security to be careful. As I look back now, all those procedures about “summons,” “supervised residence,” and whatnot seem likely to have been precautionary measures that the police resorted to after their plan to hold me had run into difficulty.
The third day was the beginning of a weekend, and they told me that my case would have to be resolved before the end of the work day. They kept urging me to write a new statement. Since I did want to go home, I decided to relent and open the way to a solution. I deleted the two points that I had been insisting upon, and yielded to the demand that I acknowledge the crime of which I was accused: I had violated the state security law that prohibits the “production, distribution, or reading of materials that endanger state security.” This self-criticism worked. About 6 PM they announced that “supervised residence is ending at this point.”
I returned to my mother’s house in a foul mood, feeling sour and violated. The three days of detention had swept away my zest for visiting relatives. I lay on the bed and replayed for myself, scene by scene, the various political tests I had faced in my life, beginning with the “reactionary statements” I had made during my student days right through to that protest poster that I had put up after the Tiananmen Massacre and that had almost got me arrested. Like other “troublemakers,” I had over the years made more than a few specious “self-criticisms” in order to get past the interrogators. I lived in America now, and by staying there I could have ended all contact with these functionaries; but the threads that pulled me toward family and hometown would not let go.
So here I was, with no one to blame but myself, back for more—more humiliation by experts in “Chinese-style” self-criticism. It’s been several decades now, and we Chinese are stuck with the same old question: Why aren’t people allowed to talk, write, and read what they want? The Party and state won’t tolerate free expression on the part of the people they rule. The naively optimistic intellectuals recurrently hope that China will turn a corner, that this time we’re really going to get things on the right track. But then it always emerges that nothing fundamentally changes and we start over again. For people like me, writing self-criticism feels like falling into a very old rut.
Advertisement
During the Cultural Revolution I was sentenced to reeducation through labor for my “reactionary thinking.” Later I was exonerated, but I still suffered a recurring nightmare. In it I saw myself re-arrested and sent back to the labor team to begin serving another sentence. As the intensity of the nightmare increased, I would awake with a start. For years this dream attacked me at night, over and over, like a ghost clinging to my body. Its spell remained in force until I moved with my family to the US. Then I thought I was finally rid of it. But no. Now, here in Xi’an, it had ambushed me again, and this time in broad daylight. My three days in detention had left my family shocked and exhausted and had worried many of my old friends. Everybody was afraid that if I stayed in Xi’an longer something else might happen, and that things might get out of hand. They urged me to go back to America while I still could. So I decided to cut short my visit to my mother. I changed my air ticket to an earlier flight back to the US.
Any Chinese who gets detained during a trip home to China also normally receives “send-off instructions” just before being released. Your handlers tell you to seal your experiences inside yourself, just as you might seal exposed film inside a light-impenetrable canister. And they back this up with a threat: should you ever dare mention anything to the media, your next visit home will be even more rocky—in fact you might just forget about being allowed back into the country at all. This is the reason why, even though hundreds and thousands of people get harassed in things like “returnee interviews,” so few are willing—or dare—to tell what has happened to them once they reach the outside world.
On the day I was released, the State Security department head who had worked on me suddenly discovered that we had gone to the same school. Now she wanted to invite me to a grand banquet to celebrate the end of her department’s interrogation. At this dinner the agents’ admonitions and warnings now took on the flavor of a word game, since their duty to harass me was clearly behind them. Now they wanted me to join them in acknowledging their patriotic enterprise; it all made me feel that I had somehow become an accomplice in their mission to turn me inside-out.
The whole thing was, moreover, a fitting sign of the officially sponsored commercialism of recent years; even an episode of arresting and then releasing somebody was ending in a little orgy of corrupt consumption. Of course, the messages that got passed along amid the clinking of glasses were sharply pointed. For example, when you go back to the US, you should take care to protect the positive image of State Security; everything that’s happened here should be kept under wraps—let’s not have any loose tongues; and so on. And then some intimate advice, delivered in a voice intended to convey sympathetic feeling: your mother’s getting up there in years, remember; someday you’ll need to come back for those final duties of a filial son. The underlying message was clear enough: so long as I had reason to come back to Xi’an, they could do more to me if they wanted.
I had been given some intimidating warnings, and they were part of the reason why I held my tongue for nearly a year after returning to the US. But there were other reasons as well. The well-intentioned reproach and counsel of my friends and relatives came to be in some ways a bigger psychological problem than the intimidation tactics of State Security. Both in Xi’an and back in the US there were people—including my wife—who made fun of my naive behavior. Why spend good money to mail magazines to China? I had asked for trouble, and had ended by getting it. The root cause of my humiliation was my own stupidity. I hadn’t known how to protect myself.
At one point when the police were pressing me to admit that I had harmed China’s national security, I became exasperated: “I didn’t organize any violence. I didn’t steal national military secrets or sell any economic intelligence—in what way did I harm national security? Is national security all that fragile? A few articles criticizing the judiciary, or the passing around of some things that the authorities don’t want people to read—things like that really threaten security?” The police found my efforts to reason with them laughable, of course. Yet still, even now, I feel the need to make my point: they can look up in their little books whatever empty rule they like, but I did nothing whatever to endanger national security. If “national security” means the security of a nation’s citizens, then the state is the biggest threat to national security.
For the person who lives in a country without legal protections, under an unmoving cloud of intimidation, the best one can often do is to go along, angling for small benefits as best one can. When the price becomes prohibitive even for something like reading an overseas magazine, what other recourse does one have? If we look at my three-day detention, we see that State Security may have failed to change my thinking, but its goal of intimidation has largely been achieved. I am not afraid to mail Beijing Spring to China again, but I no longer know of anyone willing to receive it, and I no longer have the same desire to get in touch with them. The whole episode affected a good many other people besides myself. It also brought disaster down on that elderly friend of mine. I can sense that the Chinese who were hurt or even just tainted by my case feel a certain resentment toward me, and want to keep their distance. They apparently feel that I have become a serious threat to their own security.
So why my delay in writing about my experience? A gross act of persecution can elicit a direct response of indignation. That much is easy. But when you have been persecuted the people around you distance themselves from you, or criticize you, and you lose your self-confidence. It can leave you feeling helpless and frustrated, almost paralyzed, even if still full of rage. When you realize that you have caused trouble to other people, or when people close to you express disappointment at your stubbornness, your resolve to fight back starts to melt away, whether you like it or not. Last year at Christmas and New Year’s I received almost no cards or greetings from Xi’an. The detention episode had put my relations with people there into deep freeze, and had cut me off from my hometown and roots. I feel now that the place where I was born and grew up has been lost to me forever.
I have never had any interest in the kind of attention that can come from telling one’s troubles in public, and for that reason, too, I had no plan to rush into print with my story. But human rights conditions in China are worsening. Over the past year it seems to have become an “open season” on Chinese scholars—some of whom are American citizens—who return to China to visit relatives or do research. Several have been arrested and many others have canceled trips for fear of trouble.
I cannot expect that my voice by itself will do anything to improve the human rights situation in China, but perhaps others can learn something from my account about how to handle it. If you are detained, for example, be sure to try to get word to the outside world as soon as possible; don’t just hope you can quietly plea-bargain your way out. Doing so only gives the other side what it wants: the chance to use pressure in secret. And don’t go along with the other side’s encouragement to confess your mistakes or guilt in detail. You may find no alternative to signing a brief statement to get yourself released; but if the purpose of the authorities is to extract from you the very materials they need in order to nail you, then you only trap yourself by talking.
Here in the US I can speak out, but it’s like shouting at a fire from the other side of a river. The moment a Chinese person steps out of China, he or she is largely separated from the struggles of the people back home who, while lacking both rights and power, somehow hope to sweep away falsity and create a secure system that will use law to serve the true interests of everyone.
After returning to New Haven I applied for American citizenship. The terrifying and absurd experience had ruined my ties to my homeland. The poet Wei Zhuang (836-910 AD) has written:
Until you grow old, do not return home;
Going back only breaks your heart.
My own sadness might be captured by changing the first line to “Once you go out, do not return home.”
—Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link
by Kang Zhengguo, translated from the Chinese by Perry Link
A year ago, after my classes teaching Chinese at Yale were over and the students had left, I set out for my old home in Xi’an, China, to visit relatives. Early in the morning on June 15, the fifth day of my stay in my mother’s house, I had a rude awakening. Before I had gotten out of bed, eight plainclothes agents of the local State Security Bureau burst in, tersely stated their purpose, and forced me to leave with them immediately.
They said they wanted me to take part in a “returnee interview”—which was a standard thing, they said, and nothing for me to be upset about. It was just that my mother’s house was not the most convenient place for a chat, so they would need to use the sedan they had parked in a corner of the compound to bring me to a more suitable place to ask a few questions. The car made a number of turns and then raced toward the guest house of the nearby Electric Power Institute. First I had breakfast with eight agents in the downstairs dining room; then they brought me up to the seventh floor to a room that had been prepared for me. From time to time I noticed other agents heading downstairs toward the dining room. It seemed as if they had moved in during the previous evening to get things ready for me, and now were just finishing their night duty. Agents kept popping in and out of the room, as if taking part in some scheduled deployment.
Their first item of business was to inspect my documents. The agents took my Chinese passport and my US green card, and said they would keep them for the time being. This little move, both they and I knew, was in fact like attaching to me an invisible leg iron. Every Chinese who goes home and gets into trouble knows that once your documents are gone, they’ve got you. Even if they let you go, you can’t move. So there I was, still groggy from sleep, under comfortable detention in a guest house.
Advertisement
They called it a “chat,” but it was a formal interrogation—it just started gently. In order to create a more relaxed atmosphere, they explained, they had specially recalled an old acquaintance of mine, a man who had in-terrogated me for six months after the Tiananmen events of 1989. I understood the terms of such interrogations, because I had been through them before. The questioner begins from the assumption that you are guilty of many, many crimes and that the police already know the details of all of them. He does not say what the crimes are; it is up to you to show your sincerity and earn forgiveness by confessing. The purpose of this approach is to get as much out of you as possible. If you fall for the promise that “confession brings lenience” and spill everything you know, you only get yourself and your friends more deeply into trouble. So I began by stating my own ground rules: since this was a “returnee interview,” not an interrogation, there would be no need for me to volunteer anything. Their side would have to initiate the questions from start to finish. I would answer what I could.
They began by asking about letters I had exchanged with friends in Xi’an after I had left for the West. Then they asked about my contacts in the US with Liu Binyan and Hu Ping, two well-known critics of the Chinese government. They wanted to make clear their especially profound distaste for an essay called “The Crime of Counterrevolution and the Mendacity of Dictatorship” which I had published in the Hong Kong Ming Pao Monthly in 1995 after Wei Jingsheng had been sentenced to a second lengthy prison term. But both they and I knew that none of this added up to “endangerment of national security” and that my responses were unlikely to yield much of value to them. Hence they were obliged to play their trump card, which revealed more directly why they had arrested me.
They had, they said, concrete evidence that made it necessary for them to talk to me. They had searched the home of an elderly friend of mine the day before, and had confiscated all of the letters, magazines, and newspaper clippings that I had mailed to him after moving to America. Now they had some questions: What publications had I mailed to this friend? How many, all together? To whom else had I mailed similar publications? How many? On whose instructions had I mailed these banned publications into China? And so on. So now things were coming clear: my article supporting Wei Jingsheng had sparked their interest, and their raid on my friend’s house had delivered the goods.
This elderly friend of mine was retired, lived at home, and had time on his hands. But he maintained a lively interest in public affairs, and he kept up a steady correspondence with me after I went abroad. He was always eager to learn, and wanted to use me as a way to get hold of information and opinions that were prohibited inside China. I was over fifty years old, had already been through enough political battles, and perhaps should have put him off. But I thought that, well, if I can supply the needs of an old friend for information and at the same time send some uncensored materials to China, those are things one simply ought to do. So I began to buy magazines like Democratic China and Beijing Spring, which published independent comment on Chinese society, and to mail them to China. The police specifically asked about Liu Binyan because I had given the address of my elderly friend to Liu, who in turn had mailed some writings directly to him. They had asked about Hu Ping because another friend had sent me an article that he wanted to have published, and I had sent it to Hu Ping’s magazine Beijing Spring.
After a full day of questioning, certain things dawned on me. During all that time that I was mailing materials to my elderly friend, we thought nothing was amiss because all of them got through. In fact, though, the police had been reading the mail from the beginning and had let things pass on purpose. They wanted to catch bigger fish; they would cut me some slack, let me pile up a bad record, and then deal with everything at once when I came back to Xi’an to visit relatives.
Now their day of reckoning had arrived. First they raided the home of my elderly friend and took away what they would need for their case; one of the confiscated items, as it happened, was the issue of Beijing Spring that contained the article by my friend which I had sent to the magazine. I now realized why they had asked me about Liu Binyan and Hu Ping at the beginning of the day. They wanted me to confirm and perhaps say more about matters that, from months of reading my mail, they already knew.
My “returnee interview” lasted into the evening. When it was over my handlers made it clear that I would remain on the seventh floor of that guest house while they prepared to spend the night with me.
In the morning they tightened the noose. The section chief who was in charge put on a stern face and said I would have to submit a written self-criticism. They would not let me go home until I put in writing that I admitted my crimes and promised never to mail this kind of publication again. I tried two or three drafts and each was rejected. The two main points at issue were: (1) my statement that “I viewed my mailings of these materials from the standpoint of my context overseas, where, with press freedom and legal guarantees of private correspondence, such mailings violated nothing”; and (2) my insistence that the police had not just happened to discover my mailings during their raid on my friend’s house the day before my arrest, but had long been building their case by opening my mail. This monitoring of my mail, I wrote, gave me a sense of having been entrapped.
During the entire second day, the relevant section chief and department head took turns delivering harsh warnings to me. So long as I did not delete those two items from my written confession I would continue to be held. At one point the section chief adopted a pose of offering friendly advice: even if I were right about the protracted opening of my mail, he said, this was permissible under security law. I could think what I wanted about my mail; I just mustn’t write it down in black and white. In any case, so long as I persisted in my two points, I would never pass muster with their superiors.
And sure enough, during the afternoon of the second day things escalated. They took out a document that they had prepared in advance and read me an official “summons”: within twelve hours my status would shift to that of “legal detainee.” I went to bed under that cloud.
Early the next morning, before dawn, I was suddenly awakened by one of the handlers. Half-asleep, I saw before me a security agent whom I had not met before. He was using the last moments of my twelve-hour “summons” period to read me a decision on “supervised residence.” The gist was that, from this moment on, I could be held for interrogation for up to six months; I would, moreover, be responsible for my own room and board expenses.
It was well known that the methods for persecuting people had shifted in recent years and that economic punishments now had been added to the others. I suspected that the security agents were planning a shakedown, and so refused their request that I sign my name agreeing to “supervised residence.” They responded that the decision would take effect anyway, with or without my signature.
It emerged that their entire plan to “interview” me had run into some interference. This happened because, as soon as I had arrived in the guest house, I had called home and had asked my family to notify my friends and relatives in New Haven that I had been detained. The response from the US, including the State Department, had been quick, and had quickly reached high levels in Beijing, from where, it seems, word went down to Xi’an Security to be careful. As I look back now, all those procedures about “summons,” “supervised residence,” and whatnot seem likely to have been precautionary measures that the police resorted to after their plan to hold me had run into difficulty.
The third day was the beginning of a weekend, and they told me that my case would have to be resolved before the end of the work day. They kept urging me to write a new statement. Since I did want to go home, I decided to relent and open the way to a solution. I deleted the two points that I had been insisting upon, and yielded to the demand that I acknowledge the crime of which I was accused: I had violated the state security law that prohibits the “production, distribution, or reading of materials that endanger state security.” This self-criticism worked. About 6 PM they announced that “supervised residence is ending at this point.”
I returned to my mother’s house in a foul mood, feeling sour and violated. The three days of detention had swept away my zest for visiting relatives. I lay on the bed and replayed for myself, scene by scene, the various political tests I had faced in my life, beginning with the “reactionary statements” I had made during my student days right through to that protest poster that I had put up after the Tiananmen Massacre and that had almost got me arrested. Like other “troublemakers,” I had over the years made more than a few specious “self-criticisms” in order to get past the interrogators. I lived in America now, and by staying there I could have ended all contact with these functionaries; but the threads that pulled me toward family and hometown would not let go.
So here I was, with no one to blame but myself, back for more—more humiliation by experts in “Chinese-style” self-criticism. It’s been several decades now, and we Chinese are stuck with the same old question: Why aren’t people allowed to talk, write, and read what they want? The Party and state won’t tolerate free expression on the part of the people they rule. The naively optimistic intellectuals recurrently hope that China will turn a corner, that this time we’re really going to get things on the right track. But then it always emerges that nothing fundamentally changes and we start over again. For people like me, writing self-criticism feels like falling into a very old rut.
Advertisement
During the Cultural Revolution I was sentenced to reeducation through labor for my “reactionary thinking.” Later I was exonerated, but I still suffered a recurring nightmare. In it I saw myself re-arrested and sent back to the labor team to begin serving another sentence. As the intensity of the nightmare increased, I would awake with a start. For years this dream attacked me at night, over and over, like a ghost clinging to my body. Its spell remained in force until I moved with my family to the US. Then I thought I was finally rid of it. But no. Now, here in Xi’an, it had ambushed me again, and this time in broad daylight. My three days in detention had left my family shocked and exhausted and had worried many of my old friends. Everybody was afraid that if I stayed in Xi’an longer something else might happen, and that things might get out of hand. They urged me to go back to America while I still could. So I decided to cut short my visit to my mother. I changed my air ticket to an earlier flight back to the US.
Any Chinese who gets detained during a trip home to China also normally receives “send-off instructions” just before being released. Your handlers tell you to seal your experiences inside yourself, just as you might seal exposed film inside a light-impenetrable canister. And they back this up with a threat: should you ever dare mention anything to the media, your next visit home will be even more rocky—in fact you might just forget about being allowed back into the country at all. This is the reason why, even though hundreds and thousands of people get harassed in things like “returnee interviews,” so few are willing—or dare—to tell what has happened to them once they reach the outside world.
On the day I was released, the State Security department head who had worked on me suddenly discovered that we had gone to the same school. Now she wanted to invite me to a grand banquet to celebrate the end of her department’s interrogation. At this dinner the agents’ admonitions and warnings now took on the flavor of a word game, since their duty to harass me was clearly behind them. Now they wanted me to join them in acknowledging their patriotic enterprise; it all made me feel that I had somehow become an accomplice in their mission to turn me inside-out.
The whole thing was, moreover, a fitting sign of the officially sponsored commercialism of recent years; even an episode of arresting and then releasing somebody was ending in a little orgy of corrupt consumption. Of course, the messages that got passed along amid the clinking of glasses were sharply pointed. For example, when you go back to the US, you should take care to protect the positive image of State Security; everything that’s happened here should be kept under wraps—let’s not have any loose tongues; and so on. And then some intimate advice, delivered in a voice intended to convey sympathetic feeling: your mother’s getting up there in years, remember; someday you’ll need to come back for those final duties of a filial son. The underlying message was clear enough: so long as I had reason to come back to Xi’an, they could do more to me if they wanted.
I had been given some intimidating warnings, and they were part of the reason why I held my tongue for nearly a year after returning to the US. But there were other reasons as well. The well-intentioned reproach and counsel of my friends and relatives came to be in some ways a bigger psychological problem than the intimidation tactics of State Security. Both in Xi’an and back in the US there were people—including my wife—who made fun of my naive behavior. Why spend good money to mail magazines to China? I had asked for trouble, and had ended by getting it. The root cause of my humiliation was my own stupidity. I hadn’t known how to protect myself.
At one point when the police were pressing me to admit that I had harmed China’s national security, I became exasperated: “I didn’t organize any violence. I didn’t steal national military secrets or sell any economic intelligence—in what way did I harm national security? Is national security all that fragile? A few articles criticizing the judiciary, or the passing around of some things that the authorities don’t want people to read—things like that really threaten security?” The police found my efforts to reason with them laughable, of course. Yet still, even now, I feel the need to make my point: they can look up in their little books whatever empty rule they like, but I did nothing whatever to endanger national security. If “national security” means the security of a nation’s citizens, then the state is the biggest threat to national security.
For the person who lives in a country without legal protections, under an unmoving cloud of intimidation, the best one can often do is to go along, angling for small benefits as best one can. When the price becomes prohibitive even for something like reading an overseas magazine, what other recourse does one have? If we look at my three-day detention, we see that State Security may have failed to change my thinking, but its goal of intimidation has largely been achieved. I am not afraid to mail Beijing Spring to China again, but I no longer know of anyone willing to receive it, and I no longer have the same desire to get in touch with them. The whole episode affected a good many other people besides myself. It also brought disaster down on that elderly friend of mine. I can sense that the Chinese who were hurt or even just tainted by my case feel a certain resentment toward me, and want to keep their distance. They apparently feel that I have become a serious threat to their own security.
So why my delay in writing about my experience? A gross act of persecution can elicit a direct response of indignation. That much is easy. But when you have been persecuted the people around you distance themselves from you, or criticize you, and you lose your self-confidence. It can leave you feeling helpless and frustrated, almost paralyzed, even if still full of rage. When you realize that you have caused trouble to other people, or when people close to you express disappointment at your stubbornness, your resolve to fight back starts to melt away, whether you like it or not. Last year at Christmas and New Year’s I received almost no cards or greetings from Xi’an. The detention episode had put my relations with people there into deep freeze, and had cut me off from my hometown and roots. I feel now that the place where I was born and grew up has been lost to me forever.
I have never had any interest in the kind of attention that can come from telling one’s troubles in public, and for that reason, too, I had no plan to rush into print with my story. But human rights conditions in China are worsening. Over the past year it seems to have become an “open season” on Chinese scholars—some of whom are American citizens—who return to China to visit relatives or do research. Several have been arrested and many others have canceled trips for fear of trouble.
I cannot expect that my voice by itself will do anything to improve the human rights situation in China, but perhaps others can learn something from my account about how to handle it. If you are detained, for example, be sure to try to get word to the outside world as soon as possible; don’t just hope you can quietly plea-bargain your way out. Doing so only gives the other side what it wants: the chance to use pressure in secret. And don’t go along with the other side’s encouragement to confess your mistakes or guilt in detail. You may find no alternative to signing a brief statement to get yourself released; but if the purpose of the authorities is to extract from you the very materials they need in order to nail you, then you only trap yourself by talking.
Here in the US I can speak out, but it’s like shouting at a fire from the other side of a river. The moment a Chinese person steps out of China, he or she is largely separated from the struggles of the people back home who, while lacking both rights and power, somehow hope to sweep away falsity and create a secure system that will use law to serve the true interests of everyone.
After returning to New Haven I applied for American citizenship. The terrifying and absurd experience had ruined my ties to my homeland. The poet Wei Zhuang (836-910 AD) has written:
Until you grow old, do not return home;
Going back only breaks your heart.
My own sadness might be captured by changing the first line to “Once you go out, do not return home.”
—Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link
Friday, April 16, 2010
马尾法院，卧槽泥马！
马尾法院，卧槽泥马！
发表时间：2010-4-16 18:37:00 阅读次数:2 所属分类：未分类
福建三网民范燕琼、游精佑和吴华英因言获罪案，今天早上8点30分在福州市马尾区人民法院开庭。上千名来自各地的网友及围观民众在现场声援，大家高喊三网友无罪的口号。今天当地政府派出五百多名警察、保安，在法院的警戒线上戒备。网友通过互联网对现场情况进行了直播。
中午12点左右获悉，福州马尾法院对范燕琼、游精佑、吴华英进行了判决，范、吴当庭表示上诉，游表示会考虑上诉。辩护律师刘晓原接受大纪元记者采访时表示，范燕琼、游精佑、吴华英构成诽谤罪，范燕琼被判处两年有期徒刑，游精佑和吴华英分别被判处一年有期徒刑。罪名这次又改变了，最先涉嫌诽谤罪抓的，逮捕的时候改为诬告陷害，现在又回到诽谤罪。
对于当局的判决结果，刘晓原说：“这个结果我是无法理解的，这个案件我们始终认为，现有的证据和法律规定都不构成犯罪，既不构成诬告陷害，更无构成诽谤，对这个判决，我非常失望和不公。
三网民在庭上为自己做了非常精彩辩护，范燕琼还是呼着氧气，坐着轮椅出庭受审。旁听人员除了家属外，其余都是年轻的便衣。律师坚持要求林秀英和聂志雄出庭作证，仍遭到法庭的拒绝。
这次声援活动，网友准备充分，文化衫、宣传标语、宣传画，纷纷向路人及围观者展示了案件真相及要求追求民主正义的呼声。网友们把这次维权行动定义为中国民主道路上的转捩点，这是中国人克服恐惧，走向街头的一次实质行动。
大纪元记者和现场网友进行了连线，当庭外守护的上千网友听到宣判结果后，家属和广大线民情绪激动，齐声高唱：亚克西！亚克西！马尾法院，卧槽泥马！现场有序的齐喊：抗议、抗议、抗议……福州法院无耻、王鑫下台，唱起了国际歌……网友都哭了，现场一片哭声。
http://www.youmaker.com/
(判决后现场唱歌和哭声一片)
http://www.youmaker.com/
(判决后现场喊口号)
http://www.youmaker.com/
(较早前现场:传来阵阵高呼口号声：吴华英无罪，我们爱你们，我们支持你们，言论无罪，自由万岁，公平正义，比太阳还要光辉，游精佑、范燕琼、吴华英无罪……)
在现场的维权人士王译说：“我们早上六点钟就到了，今天处于非常有序的状况，排着队，喊着口号上来了，我们的口号是和平理性，非暴力，打不还手，骂不还口。我们怕一旦秩序一乱，被他们抓住口舌。过来后，我们自己拉起了警戒线，免打扰的警戒线，他们(警察)也开始拉警戒线。？”
“现在警察比上次多的多，把我们隔在法庭外面，把我们堵在一条马路上，全国各地的网友都往这边赶，有很多人围观，估计有二千人，还有很多网友被堵在外面，警戒线外面有好多群众。今天三网友的每家家属进去三个人旁听。”
中午十一点左右，屠夫在Twitter发来消息，对目前判决不乐观，大批武警正在来的路上，不知道会怎么样?目前法院门前上下行线已经能全部封锁，已无退路，6辆拉人大巴车隐藏于附近街区……
三网友关注团的成员王荔蕻、屠夫、朱承志、华泽、王译、天天、单亚娟、张健、李金城等，日前先行到达福州声援。Twitter网友发来消息，今天现场约有来自全国各地包括香港的声援者约近千人，艾未未已到马尾庭审现场。
郝劲松律师在Twitter现场直播福建马尾法院审理：人们从四面八方赶来，法院门口越聚越多，估计现在有2000多人。对中国人来讲,从思考到行动是一个坎,今天法院门前,有很多中国人正在跨跃这一看似艰难的坎坷,他们从四面八方聚集在这里,为了三个素不相识的人,他们捍卫着自己的言论自由,捍卫自己的民主表达权。
该案于去年11月11日首次开庭审理。审理后超过了一般的法定羁押期限仍无法下判，律师就此质疑超期羁押。但法院称，经过批准，本案须经马尾区人民检察院补充侦查。
今年3月19日，该案在福州市马尾区人民法院开庭。但开庭不到一分钟，法院公诉人即以补充证据为由申请延期。对此辩护律师刘晓原提出严重抗议，数百网友也在法庭外大声抗议和声援律师。
福建马尾“三网民”的诬告陷害案不仅引起了广大网民的极大关注，还引起了国内外媒体的关注。
现场声援人士有著名维权人士、记者、律师还有平民百姓。有访民在现场哭诉，指控福州的司法腐败。声援活动在中午两点左右结束。
有网友表示，福建“三网民”被判的事情绝不能袖手旁观，发生在他们身上的事情或许终有一天会发生在我们身上。关注此次事件，关注每一个到现场的人，彼此支持、彼此温暖，即使他们要“秋后算账”，也要让他们有所忌惮！
事件背景
福建25岁女子严晓玲离奇死亡一事曝光于2009年6月底，与当时正处于全国舆论刀口浪尖的巴东民女邓玉娇手刃淫官案同样引起人们震惊。
网上根据严母林秀英讲述和相关材料整理披露的文章《闽清“严晓玲”比巴东“邓玉娇”悲惨一万倍》，文中叙述，25岁的严晓玲被闽清黑恶人员聂志雄胁迫卖淫、2008年2月一夜间遭官警匪8人轮奸致死。在家属的质疑下，警方将严晓玲子宫等器官割下以毁灭证据，对外宣称其“宫外孕死亡”来掩盖事实真相。
福建省福州公安局曾于2009年6月24日召开新闻发布会高调澄清，称“闽清严晓玲遭轮奸致死”事件调查鉴定结论是“严晓玲系输卵管妊娠破裂致出血性休克死亡，不存在暴力、中毒或轮奸致死问题。”
这则名为《闽清“严晓玲”比巴东“邓玉娇”悲惨一万倍》的帖子，经19万次转载，引来众多愤怒的评论。网民范燕琼、游精佑和吴华英等人先后因代严母林秀英书写冤情发网帖和上传“严晓玲母亲林秀英口述案件”视频，被福州马尾警方以涉嫌“诽谤罪”刑事拘留，后于侦察阶段再改罪名为“诬告陷害”批捕。
发表时间：2010-4-16 18:37:00 阅读次数:2 所属分类：未分类
福建三网民范燕琼、游精佑和吴华英因言获罪案，今天早上8点30分在福州市马尾区人民法院开庭。上千名来自各地的网友及围观民众在现场声援，大家高喊三网友无罪的口号。今天当地政府派出五百多名警察、保安，在法院的警戒线上戒备。网友通过互联网对现场情况进行了直播。
中午12点左右获悉，福州马尾法院对范燕琼、游精佑、吴华英进行了判决，范、吴当庭表示上诉，游表示会考虑上诉。辩护律师刘晓原接受大纪元记者采访时表示，范燕琼、游精佑、吴华英构成诽谤罪，范燕琼被判处两年有期徒刑，游精佑和吴华英分别被判处一年有期徒刑。罪名这次又改变了，最先涉嫌诽谤罪抓的，逮捕的时候改为诬告陷害，现在又回到诽谤罪。
对于当局的判决结果，刘晓原说：“这个结果我是无法理解的，这个案件我们始终认为，现有的证据和法律规定都不构成犯罪，既不构成诬告陷害，更无构成诽谤，对这个判决，我非常失望和不公。
三网民在庭上为自己做了非常精彩辩护，范燕琼还是呼着氧气，坐着轮椅出庭受审。旁听人员除了家属外，其余都是年轻的便衣。律师坚持要求林秀英和聂志雄出庭作证，仍遭到法庭的拒绝。
这次声援活动，网友准备充分，文化衫、宣传标语、宣传画，纷纷向路人及围观者展示了案件真相及要求追求民主正义的呼声。网友们把这次维权行动定义为中国民主道路上的转捩点，这是中国人克服恐惧，走向街头的一次实质行动。
大纪元记者和现场网友进行了连线，当庭外守护的上千网友听到宣判结果后，家属和广大线民情绪激动，齐声高唱：亚克西！亚克西！马尾法院，卧槽泥马！现场有序的齐喊：抗议、抗议、抗议……福州法院无耻、王鑫下台，唱起了国际歌……网友都哭了，现场一片哭声。
http://www.youmaker.com/
(判决后现场唱歌和哭声一片)
http://www.youmaker.com/
(判决后现场喊口号)
http://www.youmaker.com/
(较早前现场:传来阵阵高呼口号声：吴华英无罪，我们爱你们，我们支持你们，言论无罪，自由万岁，公平正义，比太阳还要光辉，游精佑、范燕琼、吴华英无罪……)
在现场的维权人士王译说：“我们早上六点钟就到了，今天处于非常有序的状况，排着队，喊着口号上来了，我们的口号是和平理性，非暴力，打不还手，骂不还口。我们怕一旦秩序一乱，被他们抓住口舌。过来后，我们自己拉起了警戒线，免打扰的警戒线，他们(警察)也开始拉警戒线。？”
“现在警察比上次多的多，把我们隔在法庭外面，把我们堵在一条马路上，全国各地的网友都往这边赶，有很多人围观，估计有二千人，还有很多网友被堵在外面，警戒线外面有好多群众。今天三网友的每家家属进去三个人旁听。”
中午十一点左右，屠夫在Twitter发来消息，对目前判决不乐观，大批武警正在来的路上，不知道会怎么样?目前法院门前上下行线已经能全部封锁，已无退路，6辆拉人大巴车隐藏于附近街区……
三网友关注团的成员王荔蕻、屠夫、朱承志、华泽、王译、天天、单亚娟、张健、李金城等，日前先行到达福州声援。Twitter网友发来消息，今天现场约有来自全国各地包括香港的声援者约近千人，艾未未已到马尾庭审现场。
郝劲松律师在Twitter现场直播福建马尾法院审理：人们从四面八方赶来，法院门口越聚越多，估计现在有2000多人。对中国人来讲,从思考到行动是一个坎,今天法院门前,有很多中国人正在跨跃这一看似艰难的坎坷,他们从四面八方聚集在这里,为了三个素不相识的人,他们捍卫着自己的言论自由,捍卫自己的民主表达权。
该案于去年11月11日首次开庭审理。审理后超过了一般的法定羁押期限仍无法下判，律师就此质疑超期羁押。但法院称，经过批准，本案须经马尾区人民检察院补充侦查。
今年3月19日，该案在福州市马尾区人民法院开庭。但开庭不到一分钟，法院公诉人即以补充证据为由申请延期。对此辩护律师刘晓原提出严重抗议，数百网友也在法庭外大声抗议和声援律师。
福建马尾“三网民”的诬告陷害案不仅引起了广大网民的极大关注，还引起了国内外媒体的关注。
现场声援人士有著名维权人士、记者、律师还有平民百姓。有访民在现场哭诉，指控福州的司法腐败。声援活动在中午两点左右结束。
有网友表示，福建“三网民”被判的事情绝不能袖手旁观，发生在他们身上的事情或许终有一天会发生在我们身上。关注此次事件，关注每一个到现场的人，彼此支持、彼此温暖，即使他们要“秋后算账”，也要让他们有所忌惮！
事件背景
福建25岁女子严晓玲离奇死亡一事曝光于2009年6月底，与当时正处于全国舆论刀口浪尖的巴东民女邓玉娇手刃淫官案同样引起人们震惊。
网上根据严母林秀英讲述和相关材料整理披露的文章《闽清“严晓玲”比巴东“邓玉娇”悲惨一万倍》，文中叙述，25岁的严晓玲被闽清黑恶人员聂志雄胁迫卖淫、2008年2月一夜间遭官警匪8人轮奸致死。在家属的质疑下，警方将严晓玲子宫等器官割下以毁灭证据，对外宣称其“宫外孕死亡”来掩盖事实真相。
福建省福州公安局曾于2009年6月24日召开新闻发布会高调澄清，称“闽清严晓玲遭轮奸致死”事件调查鉴定结论是“严晓玲系输卵管妊娠破裂致出血性休克死亡，不存在暴力、中毒或轮奸致死问题。”
这则名为《闽清“严晓玲”比巴东“邓玉娇”悲惨一万倍》的帖子，经19万次转载，引来众多愤怒的评论。网民范燕琼、游精佑和吴华英等人先后因代严母林秀英书写冤情发网帖和上传“严晓玲母亲林秀英口述案件”视频，被福州马尾警方以涉嫌“诽谤罪”刑事拘留，后于侦察阶段再改罪名为“诬告陷害”批捕。
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
江平：China's Rule of Law is in Full Retreat
China's Rule of Law is in Full Retreat
By Jiang PingMar 3, 2010 - 9:27:54 AM
China's Rule of Law is in Full Retreat
by Jiang PingFebruary 21, 2010
Attending today's lunch and hearing so much praise makes me feel very uneasy. I don't know how many times I have celebrated my birthday this year, and here comes Sun Guodong, hosting yet another event.The first celebration was with fellow scholars and the second with my family, but I felt like something was missing. There was no event with lawyers, or rather we might say some lawyers wanted to have a birthday celebration for me but didn't have a chance. I think today's event might settle that. However, in listening to these words of praise my ears have pricked up, as I must say you have expressed aspirations I have definitely never fulfilled. Perhaps it was just the circumstances around me. Because today the situation for the rule of law in China is grim. So in these circumstances perhaps your expectations of me are even higher. But I think I have not been able to do enough.Strictly speaking, in the 30 years of reform what I did was call for private rights. I chose civil law and private rights because those areas were weak in China, or rather in a China with such strong public powers, private rights were always in a weak position. Private rights include the rights of private enterprise, of private property, and perhaps even broader personal rights.Today, I will just mention three issues, but these are not the same three you all just suggested. The first private right I will mention is the Shanxi coal mine problem [private coal miners were encouraged to invest then their mines were taken by the state at low or no compensation]. The Shanxi coal miners demonstrate a violation of the rights of private property and private enterprise, a brazen violation of constitutional guarantees.The second is the Li Zhuang case [the defense lawyer convicted of inciting false testimony in the Chongqing mafia crackdown]. When Wu Xiaoji brought over Li's defense lawyer to talk to me, we chatted for a long time about what happened in court that day and the entire procedural history of the case. After hearing about it, I was furious. No matter what you think about it, from the most basic level, procedural justice was violated. The evidence was not brought out and many of the witnesses did not appear in court. From the perspective of evidence, that case had serious problems.The third is the Liu Xiaobo case. When I heard about the Liu Xiaobo verdict, I felt it was a crime of speech -- a very dangerous thing. China has a long tradition of criminalizing speech, and if we let that tradition continue today, and if those with a sense of justice can't express their views, then our problems are just too serious. Or perhaps, for those of us engaged in the rule of law, if even we take a hands-off approach -- if there is not a single voice of justice among us -- then I think that is really dangerous.So, looking at China's current situation, I think we are in a period where the rule of law is in retreat. Or perhaps, building the rule of law, judicial reform, and political reform are all moving backwards. This is my first thought.My second thought: In the last two books I published, I used the term "cry out" in the title. The first book was called "What I can do is cry out." I recently published a book that I edited by hand, putting together some of my prior work in a careful compilation that I called "Private Rights Cry Out." This latest is part of a series of 100 works of top people in the humanities; in that series I am the only one from the legal field. Why did I choose the word "cry out," and why in the last two years? Of course, I have been enlightened by Lu Xun's example, but it is not only that. I think that choosing "cry out" is important because the situation has become more oppressive. That is to say the environment outside has become more and more difficult. In those circumstances, one must "cry out." No matter what words you choose, when the circumstances are urgent, you must call out with your voice.I also use "cry out" to to be clear about another issue: we must both dare to fight and be good at fighting. Given the conditions for building the rule of law today, these two things need to be merged. This is something I have pondered a long time, and it is very difficult. Perhaps you are good at fighting but you don't dare stand up. Or you dare to fight, but lose your sense of proportion. Because the basic essence of the problem in China is problem of the Party's leadership, the foundation of the political system. If the political system does not reform, then nothing else can reform. If the political system does not reform, then your rule of law, your judicial reform, your anything-else will not be much of an achievement. In those circumstances, it is easy for you to "cross the line," to step into forbidden territory. So in China's circumstances how to put those two things together -- to both dare to fight and be good at fighting -- this is a formidable task.I remember that Ji Weidong once wrote about this problem, and this has given me something to think about. He wrote: How is it that someone like Jiang Ping can exist in China's current political conditions, how is that he does not "cross the line" too far? Of course, the leadership values you, but they are also conscious that they need to be careful about you. I could be regarded as "inside the line" and also be regarded as "outside the line." That position is actually very difficult. I think that at this moment we should carefully position ourselves as in between of those "inside the line" and those "outside the line", this way everything will be a bit better.My third thought is that overall I am still an optimist. In the past, I used to love to say that China's rule of law was two steps forward, one step back. I still haven't changed that view today. Because in terms of the protection of private rights, today's China is vastly improved over the past. Needless to say, this is the case in the last thirty years, or even more needless to say it is the case compared to the decade of the Cultural Revolution. In the 30 years of reform, with the "baptism" of the Property Law, rights consciousness about private rights protection has been enormously improved. The Chengdu self-immolation case, or other cases, already demonstrate that people's sense of private rights have woken up. Add the function of law to the awakening sense of rights consciousness and that is something that can be extremely powerful.Twenty years ago, when we passed the Administrative Litigation Law, it was hard to imagine that such a law could help protect private rights. But today, whether by litigation or other methods, protecting your own rights is something we can say everyone understands. Everyone understands that their rights cannot be infringed. Perhaps in some places the projection of private rights is overlooked, or in some places it is abused. But no matter what, today when we stress protecting private rights, we want to stress two things: first, ordinary personal rights must be protected, but we also must pay attention to not abusing power. If we grasp this, everything will be fine.So today I would like to thank everyone here. So many of you are still here. Some of the scholars have left, but you lawyers have persisted to the end. This also helps explain an important issue, as Pu Zhiqiang just put it as well. Like our lawyers today, more and more people are genuinely interested in the fate of China's rule of law. Lawyers definitely don't only want to make money; many lawyers have come to understand and think about our country's destiny, the future of the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. That way of thinking, and that theme, has already taken root in our heads.I think this is very heartening phenomenon. I believe that China certainly has a bright future. The world trends are unmistakable: whether human rights, democracy, or freedom, these are irresistible trends. All the world's people are moving forward. That we are moving backward is only temporary. Or perhaps, for the time that some people reign, they can do as they please. But after he steps down, he has no status. I think this is the truth.
By Jiang PingMar 3, 2010 - 9:27:54 AM
China's Rule of Law is in Full Retreat
by Jiang PingFebruary 21, 2010
Attending today's lunch and hearing so much praise makes me feel very uneasy. I don't know how many times I have celebrated my birthday this year, and here comes Sun Guodong, hosting yet another event.The first celebration was with fellow scholars and the second with my family, but I felt like something was missing. There was no event with lawyers, or rather we might say some lawyers wanted to have a birthday celebration for me but didn't have a chance. I think today's event might settle that. However, in listening to these words of praise my ears have pricked up, as I must say you have expressed aspirations I have definitely never fulfilled. Perhaps it was just the circumstances around me. Because today the situation for the rule of law in China is grim. So in these circumstances perhaps your expectations of me are even higher. But I think I have not been able to do enough.Strictly speaking, in the 30 years of reform what I did was call for private rights. I chose civil law and private rights because those areas were weak in China, or rather in a China with such strong public powers, private rights were always in a weak position. Private rights include the rights of private enterprise, of private property, and perhaps even broader personal rights.Today, I will just mention three issues, but these are not the same three you all just suggested. The first private right I will mention is the Shanxi coal mine problem [private coal miners were encouraged to invest then their mines were taken by the state at low or no compensation]. The Shanxi coal miners demonstrate a violation of the rights of private property and private enterprise, a brazen violation of constitutional guarantees.The second is the Li Zhuang case [the defense lawyer convicted of inciting false testimony in the Chongqing mafia crackdown]. When Wu Xiaoji brought over Li's defense lawyer to talk to me, we chatted for a long time about what happened in court that day and the entire procedural history of the case. After hearing about it, I was furious. No matter what you think about it, from the most basic level, procedural justice was violated. The evidence was not brought out and many of the witnesses did not appear in court. From the perspective of evidence, that case had serious problems.The third is the Liu Xiaobo case. When I heard about the Liu Xiaobo verdict, I felt it was a crime of speech -- a very dangerous thing. China has a long tradition of criminalizing speech, and if we let that tradition continue today, and if those with a sense of justice can't express their views, then our problems are just too serious. Or perhaps, for those of us engaged in the rule of law, if even we take a hands-off approach -- if there is not a single voice of justice among us -- then I think that is really dangerous.So, looking at China's current situation, I think we are in a period where the rule of law is in retreat. Or perhaps, building the rule of law, judicial reform, and political reform are all moving backwards. This is my first thought.My second thought: In the last two books I published, I used the term "cry out" in the title. The first book was called "What I can do is cry out." I recently published a book that I edited by hand, putting together some of my prior work in a careful compilation that I called "Private Rights Cry Out." This latest is part of a series of 100 works of top people in the humanities; in that series I am the only one from the legal field. Why did I choose the word "cry out," and why in the last two years? Of course, I have been enlightened by Lu Xun's example, but it is not only that. I think that choosing "cry out" is important because the situation has become more oppressive. That is to say the environment outside has become more and more difficult. In those circumstances, one must "cry out." No matter what words you choose, when the circumstances are urgent, you must call out with your voice.I also use "cry out" to to be clear about another issue: we must both dare to fight and be good at fighting. Given the conditions for building the rule of law today, these two things need to be merged. This is something I have pondered a long time, and it is very difficult. Perhaps you are good at fighting but you don't dare stand up. Or you dare to fight, but lose your sense of proportion. Because the basic essence of the problem in China is problem of the Party's leadership, the foundation of the political system. If the political system does not reform, then nothing else can reform. If the political system does not reform, then your rule of law, your judicial reform, your anything-else will not be much of an achievement. In those circumstances, it is easy for you to "cross the line," to step into forbidden territory. So in China's circumstances how to put those two things together -- to both dare to fight and be good at fighting -- this is a formidable task.I remember that Ji Weidong once wrote about this problem, and this has given me something to think about. He wrote: How is it that someone like Jiang Ping can exist in China's current political conditions, how is that he does not "cross the line" too far? Of course, the leadership values you, but they are also conscious that they need to be careful about you. I could be regarded as "inside the line" and also be regarded as "outside the line." That position is actually very difficult. I think that at this moment we should carefully position ourselves as in between of those "inside the line" and those "outside the line", this way everything will be a bit better.My third thought is that overall I am still an optimist. In the past, I used to love to say that China's rule of law was two steps forward, one step back. I still haven't changed that view today. Because in terms of the protection of private rights, today's China is vastly improved over the past. Needless to say, this is the case in the last thirty years, or even more needless to say it is the case compared to the decade of the Cultural Revolution. In the 30 years of reform, with the "baptism" of the Property Law, rights consciousness about private rights protection has been enormously improved. The Chengdu self-immolation case, or other cases, already demonstrate that people's sense of private rights have woken up. Add the function of law to the awakening sense of rights consciousness and that is something that can be extremely powerful.Twenty years ago, when we passed the Administrative Litigation Law, it was hard to imagine that such a law could help protect private rights. But today, whether by litigation or other methods, protecting your own rights is something we can say everyone understands. Everyone understands that their rights cannot be infringed. Perhaps in some places the projection of private rights is overlooked, or in some places it is abused. But no matter what, today when we stress protecting private rights, we want to stress two things: first, ordinary personal rights must be protected, but we also must pay attention to not abusing power. If we grasp this, everything will be fine.So today I would like to thank everyone here. So many of you are still here. Some of the scholars have left, but you lawyers have persisted to the end. This also helps explain an important issue, as Pu Zhiqiang just put it as well. Like our lawyers today, more and more people are genuinely interested in the fate of China's rule of law. Lawyers definitely don't only want to make money; many lawyers have come to understand and think about our country's destiny, the future of the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. That way of thinking, and that theme, has already taken root in our heads.I think this is very heartening phenomenon. I believe that China certainly has a bright future. The world trends are unmistakable: whether human rights, democracy, or freedom, these are irresistible trends. All the world's people are moving forward. That we are moving backward is only temporary. Or perhaps, for the time that some people reign, they can do as they please. But after he steps down, he has no status. I think this is the truth.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
圣诞祝福
圣诞祝福
圣诞老人就要出发送礼物了，有几个人的住处有重大变动，礼物送不出去，他们是京城小波，福建游精佑，四川两好人黄琦和谭作人。家人的殷切思恋感动得驯鹿们忘了本民族语言，它们第一次用中文大声鸣唱：妈妈盼望你回家过圣诞节！ less than 5 seconds ago from web
Delete
tianbahuang
杜绝良心犯 和谐过圣诞 6 minutes ago from web
tianbahuang
圣诞老人的驯鹿不是马，有一个叫鲁道夫，孩子们一起戴黄丝带，唱圣诞颂歌吧，有礼物，最珍贵的礼物是宪政的阳光，而不是夏天的红太阳。 about 2 hours ago from web
Delete
tianbahuang
孩子们恶狠狠地唱红歌，几个退休老教师又吓得大小便失禁了，在换了4套第四代尿不湿后，有人发话了：先唱红，再拉黑，接着是学生打老师，人整人，然后就是饿死人，整死人——骗术用一次还管用，指鹿为马的把戏在21世纪想在玩出点新意好难，除非是救世主降临。 about 2 hours ago from web
圣诞老人就要出发送礼物了，有几个人的住处有重大变动，礼物送不出去，他们是京城小波，福建游精佑，四川两好人黄琦和谭作人。家人的殷切思恋感动得驯鹿们忘了本民族语言，它们第一次用中文大声鸣唱：妈妈盼望你回家过圣诞节！ less than 5 seconds ago from web
Delete
tianbahuang
杜绝良心犯 和谐过圣诞 6 minutes ago from web
tianbahuang
圣诞老人的驯鹿不是马，有一个叫鲁道夫，孩子们一起戴黄丝带，唱圣诞颂歌吧，有礼物，最珍贵的礼物是宪政的阳光，而不是夏天的红太阳。 about 2 hours ago from web
Delete
tianbahuang
孩子们恶狠狠地唱红歌，几个退休老教师又吓得大小便失禁了，在换了4套第四代尿不湿后，有人发话了：先唱红，再拉黑，接着是学生打老师，人整人，然后就是饿死人，整死人——骗术用一次还管用，指鹿为马的把戏在21世纪想在玩出点新意好难，除非是救世主降临。 about 2 hours ago from web
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- 864056788黄天霸
- wuhan hubei province, China
- 我是世界公民。个人文档 男性 猪猪教愚之家公司 生活在Wuhan, 中国 来自湖北孝感, 中国 用中文或者是英文给我留言 我是世界公民。i love reading and writing.you can know me more by reading my works.my bokee http://user.qzone.qq.com/864056788 http://huangyuping864056788.fyfz.cn http://864056788lazypiggy999.blogspot.com 864056788黄天霸热中于... Avant-Garde Elias canetti literature.cultures making friends Montesquieu.creative works of arts philosophy political systems. reading writing 宫崎骏。 you might comment in english or in chinese. my email:864056788@qq.com MSN:864056788LAZYPIGGY999@live.cn