反對政府 = 犯罪 ？

難怪２３條咁得人驚

今日學社青年人上

遞信保安司抗議警方威嚇以言入罪

堅守Johannesburg Principles的一役

新澳門學社發表聲明 

質疑司警威嚇以言入罪 

1. 澳門特別行政區司法警察之職能是預防犯罪行為，進行犯罪調查及協助司法當局，而不應淪為政治審查的特務機關，更不具備向市民扣上「反政府」標籤的權力。

2. 現行刑法典和各項單行刑事法例，均沒有對所謂「反政府言論」進行標籤定義，更絕無把「反政府言論」當作犯罪。特區政府司法警察局應有此基本常識。

3. 基於不以言入罪的原則，任何既非使用暴力，亦非以威脅使用暴力的方式對社會事務發表意見、諷剌時弊，甚至探討改變國體或政體的意見發表，均不應被視作犯罪。為避免濫用惡法，以言入罪，關於國家安全的法制，須參照經國際法學者深入探討立法保障國家安全與防止濫用惡法剝奪基本人權之間取得平衡的約翰內斯堡原則，特別是當中的第六條：要以威脅國家安全為理由懲罰某項意見發表，有關政府必須能夠證明該項意見發表跟可引致之暴力行為有直接及緊貼的關聯。

4. 我們要求司法警察局對於「反政府言論是更嚴重的罪行」之宣示，作出檢討及向公眾作出交代。

An New Macau Association Announcement 

Questioning J.P. for Incriminate by Speech

 Earlier this May, the Judiciary Police arrested and prosecuted a citizen for the alleged online speech of “snatching the Torch” during the local Olympic Flame relay. The authority also claimed anti-government speech to be “a more serious crime”, jeopardizing our cherished freedom of speech. New Macau Association believes that such a breach of civic rights sets a very bad example, and would like to make the following announcement.

1. The duties of the Judiciary Police of Macau SAR include prevention and investigation of crime, and to assist the judiciary. Carrying out political censorship has never been one of its jobs, nor could it label citizens for being “anti-government”. 

2. There is no definition of the so-called “anti-government speech” in current laws, let alone making it a crime. We expected our professional law enforcement to be literate to this. 

3. No one should be incriminated by speech. Mere expression of opinion should never be considered an act of sedition, as long as it does not imply the use of violence or incite turmoil or disorder. On this basis, discussion of public issues, even like suggestion of change in the form of government, should be tolerated. To prevent abuse of law, the Johannesburg Principles, elaborated by experts of international law national security, and human rights worldwide, should be taken into reference when it comes to balance between national security and freedom of speech. According to Article 6, expression may not be punished unless there is “a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence”.  

4. We demand the J.P. to review its claim that “anti-government speech is a more serious crime” and to make a public clarification.