這真的令人瞠目結舌
葛特曼的律師2014年11月25日回函
回覆:您10月給葛特曼先生的信函
請諒解我們的回應時間,超過了您當初於十一月四號信中,我們所承諾的三週期限數日。
我們對於柯醫師的疑慮非常認真地看待,且我們已經詳閱所有書中相關頁面並檢視當時撰寫依據的面談紀錄與文件。
我們認為,在台灣媒體上全面性的誤解與魯莽的指控,是因為Gutmann書中的英文與相關頁面被翻譯成中文過後,因為語言與文化的差異所造成的理解問題。
我們相信所有的誤解都會在中文版的The Slaughter中被澄清,其中會包含未收錄在英文版中的序言,會直接回應柯文哲醫師的疑慮。
為了讓事情更明朗,我們必須要指出,對於書中225頁的理解,完全沒有英語語系的評論家,有著跟第一語言是華語的台灣讀者有著相同解釋。 在您給Gutmann先生的信件中,您對於255頁的敘述「所有器官都是來自於法輪功」有特別的疑慮。
這本書有透過三位專業讀者同儕審查,且經Prometheus冗長的內部編輯過程,不僅包含文字內容,更須檢視作者的筆記、訪談的錄音帶以及電子溝通。
沒有任何英語系的讀者會將標題或是文字內容解讀為,柯文哲可從類似私人「器官仲介」交易的形式取得法輪功器官,只會解讀為柯文哲醫師是被告知資訊的。
迄今沒有任何英語系讀者曾經將柯文哲醫師解讀為器官仲介者。
迄今也沒有任何英語系讀者相信,柯文哲醫師曾試圖自行購買器官或是以任何形式參與營利行為。
相反地,多數讀者讚揚柯醫師對於調查的貢獻。審查人員們均一致地如此回應,就像是觀眾們在華盛頓特區National Endowment for Democracy中舉辦的The Slaughter書本發表會的反應一樣。
我們相信語言、翻譯以及在台北市市長選舉中激昂的政治環境,會導致大家誤會作者的意思並讓事情變得更模糊。
然而我們將全力確保在中文版的The Slaughter會越準確越好。
總而言之,我們重申我們認為台灣媒體對於柯文哲醫師以及Gutmann先生的對待是不公平的。Gutmann先生相信且我們認為他的書所闡述的是,柯文哲醫師的舉止高尚,柯文哲醫師從來不曾執行器官仲介,他也從來不曾透過中國器官市場進行獲利,且他對於揭露目前仍在中國進行的醫療犯罪行為有著重大國際級的貢獻,柯文哲醫師的行為是令人驕傲的。
克萊夫 安世立
敬上
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Your Letter to Mr. Gutmann on October
Please excuse us for having exceeded by a few days the three week time period within which we had agreed to expand upon our earlier letter to you of November 4.
We take Dr. Ko's concerns very seriously and we have reviewed the relevant pages in his book together with our own records of interviews and notes on which those pages were based.
We have concluded that the entire misunderstanding and the reckless accusations which have appeared in the Taiwan media would appear to be based on language and cultural differences between the English in Mr. Gutmann's book, on the one hand, and the understanding of the relevant pages when the latter have been rendered into Chinese.
We believe that all misunderstandings will be clarified in the Chinese edition of The Slaughter, which will contain a special preface not included in the English edition. This preface will address Dr. Ko's concerns directly.
For greater clarity, we would like to point out that no English speaking reviewer of the book has understood page 255 in the way it has apparently been understood in Taiwan by readers whose first language is Chinese.
In your letter to Mr. Gutmann, you specifically mentioned the caption on page 255 reading "All the Organs will come from Falun Gong" as a particular concern.
This book was peer-reviewed by three expert readers and subjected to a lengthy internal editing process by Prometheus. This review included not only the text itself, but also the author's notes, interview tapes, and electronic communications.
No English-speaking reader has understood the caption or the text to mean anything other than that Dr. Ko was being given information, rather than making a statement about the availability of Falun Gong organs in some sort of personal "organ broker" deal.
No English-speaking reader to date has understood for one moment that Dr. Ko was acting as an "organ broker".
No English-speaking reader to date believes that Dr. Ko was trying to purchase organs himself or was in any way involved in any sort of profit-making venture.
On the contrary, most readers have praised Dr. Ko for his contribution to the investigation. Reviewers have responded similarly, as did the audience at the author's book launch at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC.
We believe that language, translation, and the heated environment of the political campaign for the mayoral race in Taipei may be playing a role in misconstruing the author's intentions and clouding the issue.
Nonetheless we are interested in ensuring that the Chinese edition of The Slaughter is as accurate as possible. In conclusion, we reiterate that we think the Taiwan media has been unfair in its treatment of both Dr. Ko and Mr. Gutmann. Mr. Gutmann believes, and we think his book demonstrates, that Dr. Ko has acted honourably, that he has never been an organ broker, that he has never sought profit through China's organ marketing, and that he has contributed significantly to the international effort to expose the medical crimes which continue to be perpetrated in China.
Yours Truly
Clive Ansley
reiterate中文 在 無待堂 Facebook 的精選貼文
【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》- 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】
(Please scroll down for English version.)
近日,各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議,舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制,更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所,民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今,政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由,企圖向校方施壓,大興文字獄,大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。
在中大校園內,有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律,只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異,校方便指鹿為馬,無理指控其內容違法,圖以法律之名打壓言論自由,更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會,直接指派保安人員拆下橫額,完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調,《基本法》性質類近憲法,而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力,政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此,政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名,禁止學生討論香港獨立。
其後,中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而,校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生,反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧,有違教育者之原則,再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。
除此以外,早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世,教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」,更指若該二人不是教大學生,則「放他上網」。翌日,相關閉路電視截圖流出,實在令人髮指。的確,大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當,然而,冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策,當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育,蔡若蓮為其一一護航,年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩,最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩,實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論,卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥,更有機會違反《個人資料(私隱)條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌,他日有學生批評校長,會否亦遭受類似報復?大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖,並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。
《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由,我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重,而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申,言論自由是天賦人權,是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況,堅守我們的自由與權利。
二零一七年九月十日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.
In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.
Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.
Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.
Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.
10 September 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
reiterate中文 在 盧斯達 Facebook 的精選貼文
【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》- 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】
(Please scroll down for English version.)
近日,各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議,舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制,更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所,民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今,政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由,企圖向校方施壓,大興文字獄,大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。
在中大校園內,有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律,只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異,校方便指鹿為馬,無理指控其內容違法,圖以法律之名打壓言論自由,更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會,直接指派保安人員拆下橫額,完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調,《基本法》性質類近憲法,而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力,政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此,政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名,禁止學生討論香港獨立。
其後,中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而,校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生,反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧,有違教育者之原則,再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。
除此以外,早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世,教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」,更指若該二人不是教大學生,則「放他上網」。翌日,相關閉路電視截圖流出,實在令人髮指。的確,大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當,然而,冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策,當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育,蔡若蓮為其一一護航,年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩,最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩,實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論,卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥,更有機會違反《個人資料(私隱)條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌,他日有學生批評校長,會否亦遭受類似報復?大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖,並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。
《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由,我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重,而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申,言論自由是天賦人權,是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況,堅守我們的自由與權利。
二零一七年九月十日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.
In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.
Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.
Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.
Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.
10 September 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
reiterate中文 在 reiterate 中文 - 查查在線詞典 的相關結果
vt. 反復,反復講;反復做;重申;重作。 ... <看更多>
reiterate中文 在 reiterate - Yahoo奇摩字典搜尋結果 的相關結果
reiterate. 反復地說,重申,反復地做. PyDict ; reiterated. reiterate的動詞過去式、過去分詞. Dr.eye 譯典通 ; reiterating. reiterate的動詞現在分詞、動名詞. Dr.eye 譯典 ... ... <看更多>
reiterate中文 在 reiterate中文(繁體)翻譯:劍橋詞典 的相關結果
reiterate 翻譯:反復地說,反復講;重申。 ... reiterate 在英語-中文(繁體)詞典中的翻譯 ... To reiterate, there is no gradual, developmental curve in the ... ... <看更多>