2015年12月23日星期三

浦志强:我看高智晟

浦志强 (puzhiqiang) on Twitter – twitter.com

Puzhiqiang

我看高智晟(一):律师天职在帮人解困,你的追求再崇高,都得从雇主利益出发,这叫职业伦理。陕北油老板冯秉先,家具大王冯永明,陈光诚谭作人王军涛刘晓波施明德林义雄,所有被告都不会为了律师能大红大紫,甘愿更倒霉。高智晟不磊落,类似律师不只他一个。

 

我看高智晟(二):作人作律师都不该说谎,哪怕是对不堪的对手泼脏水,也属私德有亏,若有意误导舆论更不是小事。高智晟后期介入陈光诚事件,在前往临沂闯关途中,出拳击打非法阻拦者引发冲突,当场对海外媒体称遭遇了六四以来最血腥的镇压(大意)。我不赞成。

 

我看高智晟(三)判断形势要尽量客观,对人对己要负责任。高压下低头可理解,但出尔反尔不可取。零五年为林牧案,高未与张思之商量便发声明宣布联手,老头正急索林家手续,他却不打招呼径行声明退出。入狱前后出来进去,他的立场调门变化多端,不堪信赖。

 

我看高智晟(四)我与高无冤无仇,批评主要在出事后,没理由落井下石,是非我分得清。对事不对人,难免涉及人。高具普遍性示范效应,成了判断正义的标杆时,更该探讨其得失。丽丽称我是张思之的奴才,其实把高当成亲爹,他如此辱骂长者,过分了。

 

我看高智晟(五)高与人相处有障碍,跟同道跟国保,都摆不正心态。丁老师好言相劝,他居然恼羞成怒。好歹都不识,好坏话分不清,当没当过十佳律师都记不得。人要与人为善,警察不都是坏人,原则要坚持,但无需每次冲突。冲突成为常态,空间就荡然无存

 

我看高智晟(六)敬告丽丽:我瞧不起你!你也就敢躲老远喘粗气吧?操谁捐啥哪儿,你不都得回来吗?没长出遇水搭桥的长鞭,你隔山隔水的就只能扯自己的蛋。杀君马者道旁儿,害高的是拼命叫好儿的,高难道会感谢你?扯蛋很玄,劲儿大扯豁了,你撒尿就得改蹲着。

就高智晟事件:再说几句/浦志强

回复Andrew 并各位网友:

 

考虑对自己刑事法律不熟悉, 才建议老鼠就法律适用问题咨询莫律师,因为对高智晟此次被抓的内情不了解,也不敢全信网上描述,所以不好发表意见。至于莫少平是否是高的律师,与我们的话题没有关系。心情不好,导致了我对老鼠缺少耐心,对古木的反驳也颇为失礼。所以,请原谅我并接受我的歉意。至于我是否在野,虽然众说纷纭,但我想肯定不算在朝——那是大隐的境界,我还差着火候儿。

 

就高智晟事件说上几句心里话,初衷不是想掺乎这趟浑水,更不愿意维权乃至高案的是非,被外界看作一摊浑水,避之唯恐不及。我仅仅想就维权谈谈自己的体会,所以希望平心静气地讨论问题。既然自己早已深陷其中,又体会到了分歧和区别,那么说出真实的想法,至少是负责任的态度,对自己和对他人,都是如此。

 

我跟高智晟的交往不多,但对他的关心程度,自信不比他人逊色。我对高智晟事件的态度,连他自己也知道,再多说也没多大意义了。在高智晟出事前发表的那篇《软硬不吃与软硬通吃》中,我相信没有幸灾乐祸之心,倒颇有唇亡齿寒之忧——据说那篇文章当时也受到了不少的批评。至于说我的这些举动目的在于试图降低海内外"拥高"音调,甚至是出于嫉妒高某人抢走了风头,我就不想多作解释了,是非自有公论。

 

社会是复杂的,我们对人对事都要与人为善,说话做事都要负责任,单靠激扬文字就想指点江山,那只能是书生之见。一手提着浆糊桶,一手拿着进步与落后、文明与野蛮的各色标签,以为只要贴到别人的脑门儿上就算万事大吉了,然后再放纵自己的演绎推理,得出的结论难免就会失之偏颇。其实,大家对我的观点难以接受,也未尝不是我脑门上那张标签在作怪——别人这么说老高也就罢了,怎么你也对老高落井下石呢?

 

我说高智晟的维权模式具有危害性,是担心外界轻易将其奉为经典套路。不要误以为一说到维权,就是要与社会和政府作对,凡是想当维权的人,就得瞪着一双斗鸡眼,逮着谁跟谁死磕。逮谁跟谁往死里磕的,不是杨志而是泼皮牛二。维权人士应该是正常的人,希望享受的是正常的生活,他们不该是碎嘴子,似乎一天不骂人就虚度光阴;也不该是贱骨头,好像一天没挨打就浑身不自在,恨不得出手挠人家的胳肢窝。天地不是舞台,不需要太多镁光灯,摆姿势端架子积习难改,那样活着就太累了。

 

我担心人们简单模仿高智晟模式,会变成高的传声筒和媒体的通讯员。我认为信息发布和传播是必要的,自由发布和传播信息也是表达自由的关键,但言论自由不等于随口胡说,及时发布也不要自比为摩托罗拉传呼机,必须"随时随地地传信息",把鸡零狗碎和鸡毛蒜皮都端到网上并不可取。反观高智晟事件,假如事先他不是每天一篇,事后也不是声明满天,也许情况会要好一些。

 

我还反对行文论事过度用词,其实我也有过这种毛病。大而无当实在不好,名不副实会变成脑门儿的负担。谁都不能否认,《金光大道》里的"高大泉"是不成功的人物形象。倘若由着性子爱屋及乌或者恨乌及屋,把别人的行当作标签胡贴,结论自然是当警察的一定是鹰犬走狗,做官僚的一准儿会狼心狗肺,维权律师一定得大义凛然,但可惜这既是片面的,也是失真的。不论高智晟把自己做成高大全,还是拥趸们把他塑造成高大全,我都不会开心,因为这样会害了他。

 

过度用词的标签大王,窃以为首推郭国汀律师。郭兄过往的高论不少,但好到看不出有过多少思量。轻率地将高智晟致参众两院的公开信奉为史诗,郭国汀显然过于性急了。每个人的生活是平平常常的,衣食住行吃喝拉撒概莫能外,维权人士活的要象个常人要做成凡人,假如天天异想天开苦思冥想,打个喷嚏都想作成诗甚至是作成史诗,那只能是气迷芯和神经病,就算侥幸不把自己累死,八成儿也得把别人烦死。所以,不论是江、胡的重要讲话,还是高、郭的史诗巨作,我都看不下去,因为读者没有了空间。

 

维权行动所要寻找和发现的,不是对手的毛病,而是个案通向成功的合法的缝隙。维权最需要的是脚踏实地兢兢业业,不是比谁的胆子大比谁的调门高,不是为媒体制造由头,更不是为赚取鲜花、喝彩和掌声。具体到维权律师,首先是做人,其次是做律师,最好是做一名合格的律师。我很理解,甫一亮相发现无人喝彩,固然会让人灰头土脸心中不爽,但假如对过多的喝彩信以为真至说不定会过早的喝彩当成碰头彩,而是倒彩。

 

把维权运动作为对象来分析和研究,看起来已经很有必要。高智晟的经历、作为、遭遇和存在,无疑是这一课题无法回避的事件。

 

浦志强 2007109

 

浦志强 (puzhiqiang) on Twitter – twitter.com

Puzhiqiang

我看高智晟(一):律师天职在帮人解困,你的追求再崇高,都得从雇主利益出发,这叫职业伦理。陕北油老板冯秉先,家具大王冯永明,陈光诚谭作人王军涛刘晓波施明德林义雄,所有被告都不会为了律师能大红大紫,甘愿更倒霉。高智晟不磊落,类似律师不只他一个。

 

我看高智晟(二):作人作律师都不该说谎,哪怕是对不堪的对手泼脏水,也属私德有亏,若有意误导舆论更不是小事。高智晟后期介入陈光诚事件,在前往临沂闯关途中,出拳击打非法阻拦者引发冲突,当场对海外媒体称遭遇了六四以来最血腥的镇压(大意)。我不赞成。

 

我看高智晟(三)判断形势要尽量客观,对人对己要负责任。高压下低头可理解,但出尔反尔不可取。零五年为林牧案,高未与张思之商量便发声明宣布联手,老头正急索林家手续,他却不打招呼径行声明退出。入狱前后出来进去,他的立场调门变化多端,不堪信赖。

软硬不吃与软硬通吃—我看高智晟事件/浦志强

据说高智晟律师回乡途中,有幸享受了多辆警车"伴驾"的礼遇。坊间对高律师的人身安全忧心忡忡,但笔者还是愿意相信,公人们的来意绝非伺机暗算,而是只限于"保驾护航"。试想眼下高律师警戒规格之高已是尽人皆知,他的举手投足尽在警方掌握之中,但凡有个三长两短,中共首先脱不掉黑手的嫌疑。虽说眼下中国跟和谐风马牛不相及,但华夏也还不是黑社会,高氏亦远逊于民国初年的宋教仁,当今圣上的胆识和韬略也远不及袁世凯。因而笔者认为,除非坐视和谐的牌坊被满世界的狗血泼成猴儿屁股,就算高智晟一没留神失了前蹄,恐怕还是连个闪腰岔气的机会都没有。笔者相信,如今的高大律师已经是天底下最安全的一个白丁了——除非当局咬着牙出手陷害"监守自盗"。

 

    高智晟无疑是维权律师中最有种的一位,其出手招招直掏中共心窝,每每令当局"荡气回肠",只可惜他现在的角色已不再是律师了,如此这般地走下去估计恢复职业资格也难。不论是为法轮功学员辩护,还是为朱久虎律师直言,高智晟都一马当先义无反顾,但这也使成了当局的眼中钉,并导致其律师事务所被违法停业。但出乎当局意料的,是对智晟所的此番"杀一",非但未能收到"儆百"之效,反倒让高大侠破罐破摔愈挫愈勇。先是传檄胡温对诸多罪孽口诛笔伐,继而以退费为噱头竞选律协会长,旋即决定皈依基督教并声明退出共产党,挺身调查迫害法轮功的真相。更为令人敬佩的,是在黑云压城之际,高智晟还能坚持把警方丑态立此存照,甚至不惜冒犯了众鹰犬的"肖像权"。至于他在通牒警告中共党员不得为非作歹,吁请党内人士起义反正,以及若干拥趸山呼万岁,将目标直指诺贝尔和平奖,甚至视其为未来总统的不二人选,在笔者看来,这些都属于说说而,多半当不得真,毕竟在共产党的多年领导下,中国人至今没有谁敢说就具备了这份德行和才干。

   

    共产党纵横江湖数十年,靠的就是那"宁负天下人"的厚黑之术,其心狠手辣和轻诺寡信,甚至远出曹操之右。在摆平了无数对手之后,共产党铸就了一股独大好坏通吃的辉煌。可惜的是黄鼠狼下耗子,"一代不如一代"了,现在的共产党,早就没有了当年的霸气和改革之初的自信,堕落到恬着脸一口咬定其执政地位不仅靠抢,更主要的是靠了历史的选择。可怜天地良心,即使真的有过所谓选择一说,此选择也显然是大错特错。谁都看得出来,历史正寻找机会以便重新选择,不可能满足于把"已经证明"了的错误,再没完没了地"继续证明"下去。但我们还是耳熟能详,无论是偶一为之的修桥铺路,还是无日无之的缺德冒烟儿,都已无损于共产党的"永远代表",就连它对自身腐败的无计可施,也为避重就轻的"反腐秀"贡献了无穷素材。历史已经证明,这个党虽不能停止作孽,也无力改正眼前的错误,但间或还能改正以往的错误。在追求稳定压倒了一切的和谐社会里,即使诸多倒行逆施全都错了,高智晟想逼着共产党立即认罪,也会比登天还难。

   

    高智晟事件的实质,是习惯了软硬通吃的共产党,终于遇到了软硬不吃的高智晟,果真是棋逢对手将遇良才,不是冤家不聚首,当局实在应该额首相庆,对高智晟惺惺相惜才对。看得出来,高智晟正尽可能把丑话说尽,共产党也在伺机把坏事做绝。笔者担心,近期双方的频繁擦枪,迟早将会把这脆弱的平衡打破,而高的入狱便会是平衡破裂的唯一结果,但这恰恰是笔者最不愿意看到的。

   

    在这场冲突中,高智晟虽然处于劣势,但显然是占足了理。其实说到底,他也不过是"该出手时就出手",想到哪儿说到哪儿"爱咋咋地"而已——小事出格儿,但大事却从不糊涂——他的言行没有丝毫违法之处。怪只怪眼下这和谐社会里头,不和谐的事情实在太多了。高智晟梦想着普度众生解民倒悬,说到天边也不能算是恶人,新政再贪功也不好把着所有"好事"可着自己一家做尽,明目张胆地不让"坏人"们积德行善吧?倘若如今这个世道,果真能像温总理的政府工作报告里吹的那样到处莺歌燕舞,老百姓也不这么水深火走投无路的,恐怕他高大侠再想当英雄也是枉然。举例来说,要是没人抢走油老板的产业,哪儿会有朱久虎的奔走呼号穷忙一年?假如没有靖边县栽赃陷害朱久虎,高智晟去了也只能喝上几口西北风;尊重太石村村民正当选举村官的基层民主,岭南又哪儿会是郭飞雄的舞台?要是再往近里说,假如公安不是天天腻歪着人家的老婆孩子,估计高智晟写作的瘾头再大也没啥内容好写——天天无病呻吟跟新闻联播似的,他那雄文又有谁会乐意看呢?

   

    因而,破罐子破摔的不是高智晟,而是那伟大光荣但不一定老是正确的共产党。高智晟最让党和政府光火的,无非是"顶风作案",为法轮功群体提供帮助,而且动不动就给最高当局上书,但高律师敢为他人所不敢为,究竟何罪之有?众所周知,置宗教信仰自由权利的宪法条文于不顾,视与世无争的法轮功徒众为洪水猛兽,无端制造出数以千万计的政权假想敌,给上亿个家庭带来了巨大的人生悲剧,这不仅是前朝的苛政弊政,也是胡温新政现成的宝贵的政治资源——新皇登基除旧布新改弦更张,原本易如反掌,没有理由萧规曹随甚至变本加厉,不该在如此乖戾的歧途上越走越远。高智晟、郭国汀等人的依法维权,肩头上寄托了千千万万人的期待,也为化解冲突创造了契机,他们肯放下身段给领导人上书言事,那是因为瞧得起你们!照理说他们功在千秋利在当代,没有理由被剥夺工作机会,被生生禁锢,甚或远走他乡。退一步讲,就算高智晟等人里通外国结交匪类,他们也只能在现有法律框架内寻章摘句——凡事光靠律师说了还不能算数,都要靠正大光明的法官大人们明镜高悬,区区一个律师哪怕名头再大也是手无缚鸡之力,又哪能颠覆这固若金汤儿的红色江山呢?可悲的是,闻过则跳的党和政府,居然会恼羞成怒到如此地步,非要将高智晟也一刀拿下。

   

    世间本无事,庸人自扰之,官府的理亏之处,常常在于没事找事,明知错了还要继续犯错,以证明先前的错误不是错误。检索当局对高智晟施暴的理由,几乎都难以登上大雅之堂。笔者认为,以高智晟的小节无碍大事明白,未经法定程序监听电话尾随跟踪,当局已经师出无名无法无天了,打发警察打上门寻人家的麻烦,实属人人不齿的下三滥行径。曾记得有警务人员对笔者忿忿然声称,以高智晟的给脸不要和得寸进尺,不知有哪个政府能咽得下这口气?笔者也曾当场作答,大意是既然老百姓已经忍气吞声了半个世纪,至今还在供奉着反客为主的共产党,你们凭什么要对高智晟发这么大的脾气呢!既然宪法以保护公民权利为先,当局如此曲解法律残民以逞,习惯于未经正当程序侵入公民私人领域,其恶习本身就早已人神共愤天理不容!

   

    毋庸置疑,文化革命结束后的三十年来,随着经济发展和社会的多元化,国人的生活质量有了大幅度提升,公民的私人空间也日渐扩大。除了填饱肚子,人们还自然向往自由的呼吸,渴望享有天赋的尊严和权利。转型时期的中国社会,面临着腐败多发和贫富分化加剧的双重困境,而化解矛盾和构建和谐,需要的是朝野之间形成良性互动,需要所有的社会成员同舟共济。倘若共产党死死抱住传统的政治观念,念念不忘卧榻之侧岂容他人酣睡的信条,将所有社会组织和政治团体一概视若乱臣贼子,民间社会势必无从形成,和谐社会的构建又从何谈起!考察当局十几年来对民间结社和媒体言论的持续打击,诸如对民主党"领袖"徐文立等人的重判,对杨子立等人筹组新青年学会的过分敏感,甚至将在网上虚拟组党的清水君科以重刑,将勇于披露孙志刚事件真相的程益中、喻华峰等报人投进监狱,以及中宣部刚刚对《中国青年报》"冰点"周刊所采取的整肃措施,处处显示共产党对世事变迁愈发心中无底。假手正当程序逼走了郭国汀,无法无天禁锢高智晟,不过是惊慌失措地迁怒于维权律师而已。

   

    可以肯定的是,无论是竭泽而渔横征暴敛,还是缘木求鱼讳疾忌医,都将无助于社会危机的化解,而只会将中国导向深渊。就高智晟事件而言,既然高大侠最怕的,便是外界误以为他"怕了",因而当局的"改过自新"先行示好,是让化解冲突的最佳途径。笔者以为,双方近期都应尽力避免新的事态发生。可以想象,高智晟一旦"出事",不仅维权事业将再度受挫,政府形象也会更加不堪。为此笔者曾建议高智晟,无需再以抨击当局为乐——强求"今上"摇身化作尧舜之君既然毫无可能,索性先退一步也不等于退到台下了;笔者也曾向当局传递如下信息:既然当局再狠也不能杀掉高智晟——那样只会把他变成烈士,不妨取消这违法在先的监视、跟踪和骚扰,日后不管对谁,都少干点偷鸡摸狗的龌龊事,把警力投放到纳税人要求的所在,再说政府此举也不等于退到了台下——虽说不能算立地成佛但总算已放下了屠刀。如此则社会的空间有所扩大——象高智晟这样的犯上作乱,将不再是什么了不起的事,当局的"涵养"也有所提升——对高智晟这种口无遮拦的"害群之马",政府也能不以为忤了——口惠而实不至的和谐社会的构建,于是乎可能发端。

   

    高智晟应当明白,罗马不是一天建成的,政府也应该是可能改造好的政府,关键是我们要致力于改造和建设;当局也需要明白,高智晟等维权律师的努力,正在为社会危机的化解注入法治因素,扼杀高智晟的任何举动都是臭棋。一言以蔽之,期待双方在新的一年里退一步海阔天空,但前提是政府错了,当局应当率先迈出这和解的第一步。

   

     2006129日 于河北

   

     转载于:《人与人权》

2015年9月8日星期二

山东一村庄自来水变蓝色 村民不敢喝"谈水色变"

2015-09-09 00:48:06 来源: 中国江苏网

 

现在很多农村都通上了自来水,吃水那是方便的很,可家住烟台福山区东厅街道西厅村村民这两天却吃惊的发现,自己家里流出来的自来水,竟然是蓝色。

 

福山区东厅街道办事处西厅村一位村民告诉山东广播电视台公共频道《民生直通车》记者,村里每天上午十点半准时供水。最近他们却发现,村里的自来水每天刚刚放出来的时候就是深蓝色的水,放一会儿就会变成浅蓝色,再多放一会儿才能恢复正常。

 

村民说:"村里现在有五六家是这个情况,再其他的不知道,也不知道是怎么回事。"这位村民说,西厅村的自来水井就在他家东面的果园里,与自来水井紧挨着的就是村边的一条河。

 

现在自来水变成了蓝色,他们不知道是不是跟河水有关系,村边的河水有没有被污染他们也不清楚。不过离他们村一公里左右有一个钼矿,矿上排下来的污水会不会流到河里而渗到地下水里,他们也说不准。

 

西厅村村委工作人员说:"以前钼矿放水我们找他了,他放完水以后开始发绿的。最近这段时间钼矿没有放水,环保局命令钼矿不准往下放水。"村委工作人员还表示,前一段时间村里还出钱化验过一次,可化验的那段时间刚好自来水并不发蓝,所以化验结果没有问题,可不曾想,化验完没多久这水又开始变蓝了。

 

上午十点半,自来水准时来了,这户村民将水龙头扭开后,记者看到,从自来水管流出来的水慢慢变蓝,颜色越来越深,流了一会后,这水就变成了正常的无色水了。

 

西厅村村委说:"我也找不出来这个水怎么回事,现在我们也没法吃这个井。我们找政府的意思是在村西头打个井,因为这水谁也不敢喝,含什么我们不知道。去化验要花不少钱,村里面没有钱,我们村里的井在河边上,这个井的水现在基本上是断定是渗水,就是河里的水渗进去了。"

时间轴:中国化工灾难大事记—中外对话

中外对话以天津大爆炸为鉴,回顾过去十年发生的重大环境灾难事故。

一系列危化品事故中,最近的一次发生在天津。事故发生以后,公众对化工厂安全标准的担忧日益增加。 图片来源:baidu

 

[新朋友]:点击图片上方 中外对话 关注

[老朋友]:点击右上角 ••• 分享到朋友圈

 

八月初,天津的一家化学品仓库发生了严重爆炸。此次事故是中国近些年来最严重的环境灾难之一。与此同时,中国公众对化工厂安全的担忧也日益增加。

 

上周末(822日),山东省发生的另外一起爆炸事故进一步凸显了中国工业设施事故防控所面临的挑战。目前,中国是世界上最大的化学品生产国和消费国;一方面中国希望增加化工产能,另一方面随着中产阶级的日益强大、环境意识的不断增加,二者之间产生了冲突。

 

20158月:中国东北部港口城市天津发生两起特大爆炸,事故造成158人死亡,其中94名为消防员。爆炸发生地点存放的剧毒化学物氰化钠远远高于安全水平。数百名愤怒的居民联合起来,抗议该危险化学品仓库监管不善,并且距居民区过近,有违国家相关规定。爆炸发生一周之后,中国反腐部门称将对中国安监局领导进行调查。

 

20154月:福建省漳州市古雷PX工厂发生爆炸,造成15人受伤;而两年之前,这家工厂曾发生过相似的事故,当地官员在2013年承诺该类事故将不会再次发生。由于公众对PX工厂十分不满,上海在6月末爆发了大规模民众抗议活动。

 

20148月:上海昆山的一家台湾汽车零件工厂发生火灾,火焰引燃金属粉末,进而引发爆炸,造成至少75人死亡,200人重伤。上海工作安全管理部门称其在此之前已经多次警告该工厂有可能发生爆炸,但均被忽视。

 

20144月:黄河兰州段(当地唯一饮用水来源)发生苯泄漏,造成居民两天之内无法使用饮用水。中国石油天然气集团公司(CNPC)的当地分公司同意就事故造成的空气、水源污染赔付兰州政府1亿元人民币(约1600万美元)。这些赔偿金将用来升级当地中石油分公司的排污系统,以防止污染物泄露到当地土壤和地下水层中,这在当时是中国工业事故中罚金最高的事故之一。

 

201311月:青岛原油管道发生爆炸,造成55人死亡和黄海石油泄露。中国国家安监局调查发现,这起事故的主要原因是石油管道布局不合理、维修保养不善、以及应急行动不力。中国石化公开道歉,并开除9名高管。

 

20136月:吉林一家家禽加工厂发生氨泄漏,进而引发大火,造成113人死亡。这家工厂没有设置任何紧急出口,大多数的逃生路线也被锁死。

 

20116月:中国东北部的渤海湾发生石油泄露,污染了5500平方公里的海域,是中国最严重的一起海洋环境灾难。相关部门将事故规模隐瞒了一个月,直到被媒体揭穿。该油田的联合运行商——康菲石油和中国海油被勒令设立两项基金,用来清除和赔偿该事故造成的破坏。渔民也向法庭提起诉讼,要求对收入损失进行补偿。

 

20107月:大连市附近发生爆炸,造成原油泄露。这在当时是中国最严重的一起石油环境灾难。官方调查发现,事故是因为一艘油轮违规操作,在卸载石油之后,向输油管道内灌注了含有强氧化剂的"脱硫化氢剂"。五年之后,中石油被起诉,要求其赔偿3200万美元,这是中国公益诉讼中金额最高的一桩诉讼案。

 

200511月:吉林的一家化工厂发生爆炸,将近100吨含有苯和硝基苯等剧毒化学物质的污染物泄露至松花江,造成哈尔滨(中国北方最大的城市之一)水源供应中断接近一周时间。调查结果表明,这家工厂缺少此类事故的应急方案,吉林当地环境部门也没有全面、准确地报告潜在的水源污染风险。中国国家环境保护总局(现环境保护部)局长解振华引咎辞职,并被指责在早期低估了灾难的规模。同年,在国家媒体对当地官员故意隐瞒泄露事故、拖延筹备工作、在哈尔滨引起恐慌等问题提出批评之后,吉林市的一市副市长自缢身亡。

 

翻译:Sherlock

 

伊泽贝尔·安南,中外对话实习生

 

The huge explosions at a chemical storage facility in Tianjin earlier this month was one of China's most serious environmental disasters in recent times – and came against the backdrop of growing concerns among the Chinese public about the safety of chemical plants.

 

Late last week, another explosion, this time in Shandong province, further underlined the challenge of preventing accidents at facilities in China. The country is by far the biggest producer and consumer of chemicals where the need for new capacity often clashes with the wishes of an increasingly emboldened and environmentally-aware middle class. 

 

2015 – August:  Two huge blasts in the northeastern port city of Tianjin kill 114 people including 21 firefighters. Levels of sodium cyanide, a highly toxic chemical stored at the site, remain many times over the safe limit.  Hundreds of angry residents have protested about lax oversight of the storage site and an apparent breach of rules on the distance between residential areas and chemical facilities. In the week after the blast, China's anti-graft watchdog said it will investigate the chief of China's State Administration of Work Safety.

 

2015 – April: An explosion ripped through the Gulei PX factory in Zhangzhou, Fujian province, leaving 15 injured, almost two years after a similar accident at the plant had prompted a local official to promise in 2013 that it would never happen again. Public unease about PX plants erupted into mass protests in Shanghai in late June.

 

2014  – August: A blast at a Taiwanese-owned car parts factory in Kunshan near Shanghai killed at least 75 and seriously injures 200 after a flame ignited metallic dust. The city's work safety regulator said it had warned the factory of the potential for an explosion several times, but it was ignored.

 

2014 – April:  A benzene leak into the Lanzhou section of the Yellow River – the only source of drinking water for the provincial capital – left residents without running water for two days. A subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) has since agreed to pay the government of Lanzhou 100 million yuan (US$16 million) for incidents that polluted air and water in the city in the northwestern province of Gansu. The money will be used to upgrade the drainage system at the CNPC subsidiary to prevent any more leaks into the city's soil and water table, and at the time was one of the largest fines paid in China for an industrial accident.

 

2013 – November: An explosion at a pipeline in Qingdao killed 55 people and leaked crude oil into Yellow Sea. An investigation led by the State Administration of Work Safety found poor pipeline layout and maintenance, and an insufficient emergency response, was mainly responsible for the accident. Sinopec apologised publicly and nine senior executives were fired.

 

2013 – June: A huge fire sparked by an ammonia leak in a poultry plant in Jilin province killed 113. The factory had no emergency exit while most escape routes were locked.

 

2011 – June: An oil spill polluted 5,500 square kilometres of northeastern China's Bohai Bay, the worst marine environment disaster in China. The scale of the accident was covered up by the authorities for up to a month before Chinese press reports uncovered the scale of the damage.  The joint operators of the oilfield, ConocoPhillips and China National Offshore Oil Co, were ordered to establish two funds to clean up and compensate for any damages arising from the incidents. Fishermen went to court to file a lawsuit for financial losses.

 

2010 – July: A spill of crude oil following an explosion near Dalian was at that time one of China's worst oil-related environmental disasters. Official investigations found that the explosion was caused by improper injections of strongly oxidizing desulfurizer into the oil pipeline after an oil vessel had finished unloading its oil. PetroChina was sued US$32 million in one of nation's largest public interest lawsuits five years later.

 

2005 – Nov:  Supply of water to Harbin, one of northern China's biggest cities, was cut off for almost a week after explosions at a chemical plant in Jilin polluted the Songhua river with around 100 tonnes of pollutants containing highly-poisonous benzene and nitrobenzene. Investigators concluded that the plant had had no effective contingency plans for such accidents and Jilin environment officials had failed to report the potential water pollution risks comprehensively and accurately. The State Environmental Protection Administration (now the Ministry of Environmental Protection) minister Xie Zhenhua lost his job because of the spill, and was also blamed for initially underestimating the scale of the disaster. A vice mayor of Jilin city hanged himself that year after national media criticised city officials for deliberately covering up the spill, delaying preparations and causing panic in Harbin.

 

--------------------------------------

 

"中外对话"是世界上致力于环境问题的第一个完全双语网站,旨在发布高质量文章,提供双语信息,促进直接对话,为我们共同面临的环境挑战寻求解决方案。

 

欢迎关注同名微信公众平台:中外对话

今年1—7月 石家庄大气污染颗粒物仍居首位

稿件来源: 河北日报   发布时间:2015-09-07 16:45:13

  从石家庄环境监测中心获悉,按照各项污染物分担率评价,前7个月,颗粒物对石家庄市大气污染贡献率最大,其次为二氧化氮,臭氧排第三位。

  1-7月,PM10对石家庄市大气污染的分担率为35.8%,其中PM2.5的分担率为21.2%。二氧化氮的污染分担率为19.2%。臭氧的污染分担率为15.5%。一氧化碳的污染分担率为15%。二氧化硫的污染分担率为14.5%。(作者 段丽茜)

环保组织状告污染腾格里沙漠三企业

法制网记者 郄建荣

 

  位于腾格里沙漠内蒙古自治区区域的三家化工企业成为环保组织环境公益诉讼的被告。今天,中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会(以下简称绿发会)向法制日报记者透露,96日,其已向内蒙古自治区阿拉善盟中级人民法院提起环境公益诉讼,请求法院判三家污染企业恢复生态环境或成立沙漠环境修复专项基金并委托具有资质的第三方进行修复。

 

  绿发会称,阿拉善盟中级人民法院立案庭已接收诉讼材料,表示将按规定时间通知结果。

 

  20149月,腾格里沙漠污染事件经媒体曝光后,引起全社会的广泛关注。绿发会认为,内蒙古渤亚化工有限公司(以下简称渤亚化工)、阿拉善左旗恒盛化工有限公司(以下简称恒盛化工)、内蒙古新亚化工有限公司(以下简称新亚化工)是造成腾格里沙漠污染的肇事企业之一。

 

  今年55日,环保部发布的关于腾格里沙漠地区环境污染问题挂牌督办的通知中,这3家企业均在挂牌督办之列。环保部在挂牌督办通知中说,新亚化工5台锅炉未经环评审批擅自建成投运3年;擅自将危险废物出售给无危险废物经营许可证的单位,未执行危险废物转移联单制度等。渤亚化工环保验收意见要求将精萘车间萘油及二萘酚蒸馏釜残外售给天津市西青区亿隆强防水材料厂回收利用,但对方没有危险废物经营许可证。恒盛化工4个项目未获得环评批复即开工建设。

 

  同时,三家企业相关责任人均涉嫌环境犯罪,或被取保候审,或被审查起诉。

 

  绿发会称,三家企业构成腾格里工业园区污染事件的主体。针对三家企业的污染行为,绿发会在公益诉讼起诉书中提出7项诉讼请求,其中包括请求法院判令三家企业对造成环境污染风险的危险予以消除;请求法院判令三家企业赔偿环境修复前生态功能损失;请求法院判令三家在全国性媒体上公开赔礼道歉;请求法院判令被告承担原告为维权而支出的鉴定费、差旅费、律师费等合理费用等。

 

  按照新环保法规定,依法在设区的市级以上人民政府民政部门登记;专门从事环境保护公益活动连续五年以上且无违法记录的社会组织可以提起环境公益诉讼。

 

  绿发会称其是国务院批准,民政部注册,中国科学技术协会主管全国性非营利的社会组织,完全符合新环保法的相关要求。

 

  据记者了解,此前,绿发会曾在甘肃、海南以及山东等地提起环境公益诉讼,特别是针对康菲石油污染事件,绿发会在青岛海事法院提起环境公益诉讼,且被法院受理。

 

  但是,就腾格里沙漠污染问题,今年813日,绿发会曾在宁夏自治区中卫中级人民法院对8家涉嫌污染腾格里沙漠的企业提起环境民事公益诉讼。宁夏中卫中级法院却以绿发会从事的生物多样性保护与绿色发展工作不属于环境保护公益活动为由,认为绿发会不是适格主体。绿发会表示,就主体资格问题,其已于827日向宁夏高院提起上诉。

 

  法制网北京97日讯

2015年8月27日星期四

Non-governmental organisations:Uncivil society

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21661819-new-draft-law-spooks-foreign-not-profit-groups-working-china-uncivil-society?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/uncivilsociety

 

A new draft law spooks foreign not-for-profit groups working in China

Aug 22nd 2015 | BEIJING | From the print edition

 

RECENTLY the Communist Party has put forward a raft of proposals aimed at preventing perceived challenges to its monopoly of power. On July 1st a national-security law was passed that authorised "all measures necessary" to protect the country from hostile elements. Now a draft of China's first law for regulating foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is expected to pass in the coming weeks. The law is deemed necessary because of the threats NGOs are presumed to pose.

 

The draft law represents a mixture of limited progress and major party retrenchment in a sensitive area. Under Mao Zedong, China had no space for NGOs. But they have multiplied in the past decade to fill the gaps left by the party's retreat from people's daily lives. Officials say the law will help NGOs by giving them legal status, a valid claim. But it will also force strict constraints on foreign or foreign-supported groups. No funding from abroad will be allowed. And all NGOs will have to find an official sponsoring organisation. They will then have to register with China's feared public security apparatus, which will now oversee the entire foreign-backed sector.

 

Many workers at foreign NGOs worry that the party wants to change the definition of what an NGO is so that it can kick out any organisation it does not like. If the law is implemented as drafted, one foreign employee in Beijing says, it will have "a broad and chilling effect". Yet opposition from foreign groups, diplomats and businessmen has already brought hints that the party might soften its stance.

 

About 1,000 foreign NGOs operate in China, with thousands more providing financial and other support. Some larger ones, such as Save the Children, have been there for decades and are welcomed. Groups overtly supporting labour or human rights are not.

 

Foreign money has been crucial, though it is impossible to measure exactly how much flows in. For anything sensitive, such as promoting the rule of law or policies against discrimination, the only source of funding is abroad. This is the money the party wants to shut off. 

 

Until now foreign and Chinese groups have operated in a legal grey area. Many are unregistered but still able to function; some are registered as businesses. They have not had specific permission to do anything. But because much of their work has been with the poor or distressed, and has helped enhance social stability, they have been tolerated. "The grey area was dangerous but also liberating. You could get a lot done," says Jessica Teets of Middlebury College in Vermont. The new draft law looks to be getting rid of the grey area.

 

By letting some NGOs register formally, the law would allow them to open bank accounts for the first time and take part in official activities. But it would also bring closer monitoring, and requires groups to hire employees only through official channels. Any group dealing with sensitive issues would be unlikely to find a sponsor and would be forced to close. The law uses vague terms about endangering national security that can be used to justify any move against an NGO.

 

"Party leaders are shooting themselves in the foot," says Shawn Shieh of the China Labour Bulletin in Hong Kong. He believes the police do not have the resources or knowledge to deal with the thousands of foreign groups that would need to register. Perhaps the party does not care. Disrupting some anti-poverty work is "the necessary cost of maintaining control over the groups it deems subversive," says Jia Xijin of Tsinghua University's NGO Research Centre.

 

A wide net

The law, as written, could also have an impact abroad. Any foreign non-profit organisation, broadly defined, that does not have an office in China would need a temporary permit and an official sponsor to engage in any kind of programme there. Anything from a university exchange to a visiting orchestra could be denied entry based on something said or done that is perceived to be against China. The aim may be to silence criticism of the regime abroad. More than 40 American trade associations and lobby groups in China, including the American Chamber of Commerce, have also complained that the law could be used against them. The party may try to allay such fears because it cares about foreign business. But it seems unafraid to show that it wants non-governmental organisations to bow to the government. "They are saying: 'We don't want any of your values, we'll do things our way,'" says a former diplomat in Beijing. Many Chinese officials believe foreign-funded NGOs to be Trojan horses for Western ideas. The Arab spring, the revolution in Ukraine and demonstrations in Hong Kong last year confirmed those suspicions in their minds.

 

President Xi Jinping has cracked down on promoters of Western liberalism. Last October police detained the former head of a reformist think-tank in Beijing. In June two members of a group promoting the rule of law were arrested. Many such groups have received funding from the Open Society Foundations in New York, founded by George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist. Several hundred civil-rights lawyers have recently been detained.

 

Yet the draconian nature of the draft law has surprised many, because legislation covering domestic NGOs seemed to be softening. A new charities law is due to be passed soon to spur individual and corporate philanthropy. Annual contributions to charity have risen tenfold in five years, to $15.2 billion. And last year China actually liberalised the environment for local groups it deemed to be non-political. The party knew that its ability to deliver grass-roots services was failing and discovered that many NGOs filling the gap were not anti-party, as it had feared. So it began to encourage and fund them, just as nascent Chinese foundations and philanthropists did the same. Groups doing social work can now register without a sponsor. Some can also find financial support within China, says Ma Jun, the founder of an environmental NGO.

 

As for foreign groups, the restricted number of bodies authorised to be a sponsoring agency, and the limited incentive to play that role, mean that even apolitical groups will struggle to find a sponsor. Yet if they are not seen as dangerous they might be allowed to continue working in the grey zone. In late July the minister for public security, Guo Shengkun, claimed that China supported the activities of foreign NGOs if they are "carrying out friendly exchanges and co-operation".

 

The new draft law follows a meeting of the Communist Party last year that trumpeted how China must be ruled by fazhi, a phrase translated as the "rule of law". But Ms Jia points out that fazhi is not the rule of law as understood in the West. It should, rather, be translated "law-based governance", meaning that the law is a tool the party can use to maintain order.

 

The new law will not necessarily be implemented to the letter. As with the internet, the party is eager to see the NGO sector flourish, but only on its own terms. It will use the language of civil society to persuade the world that such a concept exists in China. Yet anyone pushing genuine civil liberties will not be tolerated. Gradual reform is possible, but control remains everything.

NGOs in China:Pummelling the little platoons

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661665-communist-party-wants-squeeze-civil-society-would-be-unwise-well?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/pummellingthelittleplatoons

The Communist Party wants to squeeze civil society. That would be unwise as well as unjust

Aug 22nd 2015 | From the print edition

Timekeeper

 

EARLIER this year the Chinese government arrested five women who were campaigning against sexual harassment on buses. This was not because China's leaders believe that groping is a good thing, or that it is acceptable if perpetrated on public transport. It was because the Communist Party is wary of any organisation it does not control. The five feminists were entirely peaceful, and they were not advocating anything subversive like democracy. But they were organised and demonstrating in public, and that made them seem dangerous. After a month in detention they were released on bail, but they remain under police surveillance and could still be hauled back to face elastic charges such as "picking quarrels and provoking trouble". Such are the hazards of working for a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in China.

 

Now the party proposes to squeeze NGOs even harder, particularly those with foreign connections. A new draft law bars any Chinese NGO from receiving foreign funding (see article). It also sets out strict rules for foreign NGOs operating in China. These rules, according to the minister for public security, are intended to "protect the legitimate rights and interests of foreign NGOs" in the country. Really?

 

Under the new law, all foreign NGOs would have to find an official sponsor and register with the ministry of public security (rather than the less fearsome ministry of civil affairs, which previously dealt with such matters). Those that cannot find a sponsor will have to leave. Charities that look after sick children and steer clear of politics will doubtless be all right—and may even find the red tape a little easier. Those that venture onto controversial turf—agitating for human rights, for example, or pushing for legal reform—may have to close.

 

Vague laws empower bullies

The draft law's wording is so broad and vague that it could apply even to foreign trade associations (the American Chamber of Commerce in China has expressed alarm). Any non-profit group that wants to visit China would also require a sponsor. In theory, a student exchange or a tour by an American college orchestra could be cancelled because a pro-Tibet group once spoke on their campus back home. The law allows the police to burst into the offices of a foreign NGO at any time and go through their papers to make sure they are not doing anything that undermines national security, public order or "morality". This is a licence to intimidate anyone the party—or a local official—does not like.

 

The new draft law would be more oppressive than the legal uncertainty that preceded it. Previously, although overtly political NGOs were banned, many groups operated in a grey area, pushing for such things as the rule of law or greater transparency without being shut down. Currently about 1,000 foreign NGOs have offices and staff in China, and many domestic ones receive funding from abroad. The work that such groups do is now at risk.

 

Cracking down on NGOs is fashionable just now. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has signed a law banning "undesirable" organisations, which allows those who work for such groups to be jailed for six years and even threatens those who are "involved" with them. Russian human-rights groups that receive money from the West have been labelled "foreign agents" and face closure. Meanwhile in Uganda, an oversight body whose members are appointed by the interior minister may soon be able to refuse to register an NGO for any reason it deems relevant. The idea that foreign-funded NGOs are a fifth column is one that autocrats find wonderfully convenient.

 

Yet it is not merely outrageous to suppress NGOs like this; it is also a mistake. Although some NGOs are wrong-headed and many are tiresome for a busy bureaucrat to deal with, collectively they make society better off. They see gaps in public services and fill them, whether that means visiting lonely old folk or counselling drug addicts. They draw attention to problems that the government may not have noticed—and as the explosion at a chemicals warehouse in Tianjin last week tragically showed, there are plenty of problems the Chinese government overlooks (see article). The growth of civil society makes a nation more stable, and fosters the social harmony the Communist Party says it wants. Xi Jinping, China's president, messes with the little platoons at his own peril.

2015年8月11日星期二

姚遥:每一代环境运动都曾经激进的不被理解

圣雄甘地有一句名言:You must be the change you wish to see in the world.(在这个世界上,你必须成为你希望看到的改变。)

对所有行动者而言,这句话不仅励志,也是座右铭。越要试图改变一个世界,就越要挑战相当的世俗与传统,忍受不解与白眼,在自己认定的道路上,一条路走到黑。

在冷战的背景下的1971年,12名年轻人乘着小船去阻止美国的核试验。对当时的主流社会而言,他们不是爱国者,而是荒唐的疯子,反对更优秀的核武器不是拯救人类,而是对苏联扩张的投降。但十年后,美苏两国开始磋商销毁核武器计划。1987128日,美国总统里根和苏联领导人戈尔巴乔夫在白宫东厅签署了全部销毁两国中程和中短程核导弹条约。当年那群疯子所在的绿色和平,已经世界知名。

阻止核武器的结果,并不归功于绿色和平,却符合绿色和平努力地方向。虽然从核武器发明的那一天起,就有人忧虑核武器的未来。但需要承认,绿色和平的高调亮相,拉开了反对核工业的公共抗议浪潮。在一个多元博弈的社会中,并没有理性的神确定什么样的发展路径是最为科学和符合人类共同利益,现实中不同人群的利益也总是充满高度矛盾,只有不同的声音都能尽力的发出,全力地博弈。在冷战的背景下,对核武器的疯狂追求有强大的政治机器支持,但如果缺乏对核武器的极端反对做出另一种的平衡,没有激进的反对行动来推动公众对核战略的反思,缺乏足够民意影响的发展轨迹将不可避免的偏向对核武器的追逐。社会的发展方向最终方向,也就在这样的尖锐矛盾中寻找折中。从不同群体的意见表达,再到观点的公共讨论,以及游说集团的活动,最终抵达政策制定的变革,分别属于不同群体的不同任务。对于任何和一个个人或者组织而言,它不需要扮演全部的角色,但需要扮演好自己所设定的角色,明确改变世界的方向。

更多的时候,什么样的发展才是最合适的发展,需要数代人的试错才最终领悟。每一项挑战旧有惯性的变革,产生的过程都是痛苦的。保育运动产生以后,在1860年,印度当局禁止了毁林轮垦的耕作方式。反污染运动产生以后,第一部大型现代环境法案也就是英国的碱业法,在1863年被制定。在今天看来,保护滥伐森林和禁止直接排放气体盐酸几乎是理所应当的被支持。而在环境运动出现的早期,工业文明才刚刚开始发展,对于当时的集体理性而言,为了保护森林而去挑战殖民地广大农民的利益,或者为了减少废气排放而增加工业生产的成本,阻碍帝国争霸的进程,似乎都太超前于时代的发展。直到1987年气候变化议题进入大众视野以后,森林保护的重要性终于上到了另一个台阶。将近90年以后的1952年,英国遭遇烟雾事件的挑战,并真正尝到环境破坏导致的严重恶果,终于开始加快环境污染立法的步伐。此时的英国人,还在艰难的讨论是否需要保留传统但高污染的英国壁炉。

环境运动的出现与发展,无时无刻不与工业文明的发展相对应,每一次工业文明的演进,也催生出环境运动的一次裂变,诞生出与之相对应的新型环境运动。

上世纪七十年代开始的激进环境运动,来自于一些人们对变革的最新期望,在传统的环境运动中得不到满足,而以追求政权为目标的共产主义运动陷入低谷,左翼人士与环境运动在历史的十字路口相遇并且拥抱在了一起,从而诞生了目前的激进环境运动。

而纵观整个的环境运动,恰是一代又一代人在变革中积累而形成的多元竞争局面。美国主要环境组织的发起时间轴,就是典型的美国环境运动发展的年轮。

注:会员人数(千人)

1971

1981

1992

1997

2004

塞拉俱乐部 (1892)

124

246

615

569

736

奥杜邦学会(1905)

115

400

600

550

550

国家公园保育协会(1919)

49

27

230

375

375

艾萨克沃尔顿联盟(1922)

54

48

51

42

45

荒野协会(1935)

62

52

365

237

225

国家野生生物联盟(1936)

540

818

997

650

650

野生动物保护者(1947)

13

50

77

215

463

美国大自然保护协会(1951)

22

80

545

865

972

美国世界自然基金会 (1961)

n.a.

n.a.

970

1,200

1,200

美国环保协会(1967)

20

46

175

300

350

美国地球之友(1969)

7

25

30

20

35

自然资源保护委员会(1970)

5

40

170

260

450

美国绿色和平 (1972)

n.a.

n.a.

2,225

400

250

不同时间发起的环保机构,带有深深地时代烙印和鲜明的行动策略,也大致等于历史上激进的边界。而美国人也可以根据他们的喜好支持不同类型的机构,互相朝着不同的方向努力。在环境运动的完整光谱上,最善于吸引眼球的绿色和平距离激进又遥远了,在它的前面还有地球万岁、地球解放阵线等组织,直接被列为了恐怖组织行列。无论外部如何评价,光谱上的每一家都对应着不同人群的审美,除了积极违法的机构要面对政府的管控外,大众用脚和美元对不同机构的发展做了更至关重要的投票。

面对生存的压力,为了激进而激进的活动只能是无本之木。不同机构每一个具体行动策略的背后,都代表了一个支持的群体,他们因为共同的哲学而聚集,或者相近的文化而认同,也可能是一致的需求。在同一个地球上,城里人开始减肥了,而农村人还在增重;有人爱狗,有人爱狗肉;有人不认为大闸蟹能因为产地而导致口味的区别,而还有人坚信柴火炖的土鸡味道更好;工业化的进程力推统一与标准化,而环境运动在竭力维系多元化的世界。越来越让人看不懂的地球上,唯有正直、回应具体问题的行动,是环境运动生生不息的源泉。

环保运动并不一定代表人类福祉和公共利益,只是在过去的发展中证明了环境运动对工业文明发展及时的进行了纠偏。而随着工业文明的发展,环境运动也将不断地发展和裂变,继续牵制着另一种极端的出现。曾经激进的绿色和平,已经比不上更为激进的环境正义运动。2004年的后环保主义者,又喊出环保已死的口号,寄希望于对环境运动再做一次升级。

环保主义者点燃了一把火,不一定获得了光明,而是与其他人群一起,共同寻找通往未来的路。