熱門Ptt文章

[爆卦]Factually是什麼？優點缺點精華區懶人包

雖然這篇Factually鄉民發文沒有被收入到精華區：在Factually這個話題中，我們另外找到其它相關的精選爆讚文章

在 factually產品中有18篇Facebook貼文，粉絲數超過8萬的網紅本土研究社 Liber Research Community，也在其Facebook貼文中提到， 【震驚英國外交部的丁屋問題】 丁權司法覆核上訴聆訊，丁屋政策是否屬基本法第40條的「合法傳統權益」之一，成了聆訊焦點。政府及鄉議局認為，既然丁屋政策屬「合法傳統權益」，那麼就算丁屋政策歧視非原居民及女性，都不會不合法。但若基本法第40條真的包括丁屋政策，會否令其與「反歧視」條文基本法第39條(公民...

　同時也有10000部Youtube影片，追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル，也在其Youtube影片中提到，...

「factually」的推薦目錄

factually 在 A PASSIONATE FOODIE Instagram 的最讚貼文

2020-08-21 19:34:53

Food is subjective and for every dish, all of us have our own ideas of what qualifies a rendition by a restaurant/stall/chef/cook as “the best”. Or to...

  • 本土研究社 Liber Research Community

    factually 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook 的最讚貼文

    2020-08-14 23:44:08
    有 816 人按讚

    【震驚英國外交部的丁屋問題】

    丁權司法覆核上訴聆訊，丁屋政策是否屬基本法第40條的「合法傳統權益」之一，成了聆訊焦點。政府及鄉議局認為，既然丁屋政策屬「合法傳統權益」，那麼就算丁屋政策歧視非原居民及女性，都不會不合法。但若基本法第40條真的包括丁屋政策，會否令其與「反歧視」條文基本法第39條(公民權利和政治權利國際公約，即ICCPR)矛盾？這點須由法庭決定。

    為何丁屋政策實行近半世紀，竟沒人處理如此明顯的憲法矛盾？最新解密檔案揭示，30年前港府與英政府曾就相同矛盾激辯過，英政府曾一度咬著新界土地特權不放，要求港府交代丁屋政策如何合乎人權，但衛奕信對此左閃右避，指事情應由將來的法庭定奪【註】。要是當年了斷了丁屋政策，今天的丁權司法覆核案就不用發生。

    －衛奕信為保丁屋 不惜與外相罵戰及假傳聖旨－

    六四事件後，港英政府希望盡快通過《香港人權法案條例草案》（《條例草案》），將ICCPR法律成文化(codify)，為97後港人人權提供防護網。由於《條例草案》有凌駕性，港府的法例和政策不能與其有衝突，丁屋政策歧視女性及非原居民，極有可能違法。衛奕信坦承，新界土地特權的差別待遇(differentiation in treatment)屬歧視，但這些歧視「保存新界鄉村文化」，所以仍然「合理和客觀」(reasonable and objective)。衞奕信或許心知丁屋政策或未能在法理上站得住腳，亦「戴頭盔」指這個潛在的憲法矛盾未有權威的法律解釋(no authoritative interpretation yet)。即便如此，衛奕信建議一動不如一靜，不取消丁屋政策。

    時任英外交部法律顧問Paul Fifoot 十分驚訝，指港府作為丁屋政策始作俑者，竟沒有思考國際人權公約責任，是不負責任(It is irresponsible for an Administration to legislate in such a manner that they are unprepared to say what they believe the consequences are)；外相韓達德(Douglas Hurd)甚至直指不能信服(not convinced)。想不到的是，衛奕信竟為此與外交部展開「罵戰」。外交部繼續要求衛奕信正視問題，認為終有一天港府要被迫澄清歧視性的新界土地政策如何不違反人權(....you came under pressure to clarify the relationship between NT policies and the ICCPR)。衛奕信對此甚為不悅，將外交部的告誡形容為「如同法官般的語調」（surprised by the admonitory and magisterial tone），韓達德也不客氣，直指就衛奕信對外交部認真而詳細的建議如此輕蔑(dismissive response)，感到氣餒。

    最後衛奕信搬出「聖旨」，指早於1976年英國通過ICCPR並在適用於香港時，英政府已考慮新界土地政策與ICCPR的兼容性(at the time, HMG gave a view on the compatibility of existing New Territories land policies)。外交部對此甚為愕然，因當年主理相關事宜的外交官也對此無印象。結果英政府花了五個月時間翻查檔案，才證實衛奕信「假傳聖旨」(there is no record of HMG having given a view...no indication that any department in London had raised the question, nor that Hong Kong had explicitly done so)。檔案顯示，衛奕信於1990年7月12日開始與外相展開罵戰，4天後「假傳聖旨」，而外交部在同年11月才搞清楚衛奕信「講大話」。翻查立法時序，《條例草案》在7月20日刊憲，同月26日已送往立法局首讀，顯示衛奕信一邊混淆外交部以爭取時間，一邊匆匆將《條例草案》送往立法程序。

    衛奕信有意無意透過假傳聖旨「過骨」放生丁屋政策，令時任外交部法律顧問Jill Barrett甚為懊惱，除了於檔案內指出衛奕信對丁屋政策的看法沒法律基礎，更直指他事實上誤導了行政局及英政府(factually misleading)。檔案顯示，英政府無再就此事追究衛奕信，將爛攤子留給今天的法庭處理。

    －違反人權 將是丁屋政策死穴－

    從檔案可見，衛奕信曾嘗試辯護丁屋歧視的正當性，但在是次丁權司法覆核案聆訊中，政府已全面「轉軚」，不再為此辯護，只謂基本法第40條有其權威，法庭不必去研究丁屋政策的歧視是否正當(justified)或合乎比例(proportional)。顯示詳細研究後，政府或許都「心知肚明」丁屋是不能在ICCPR的國際人權準則下證明正當合理的。這點或許可從原審法官周家明的判詞中看到－若參考根據以往與人權相關案例，丁屋政策的差別待遇顯然不能被證明正當（In my view, it is clear that the preferential treatment….cannot be justified under the justification tests...，判詞第24段），丁屋政策的歧視性在法律層面上似乎已有定論，這份密檔或會成為終結丁屋政策的「利器」。

    －－－－－
    【註】明報2020年1月1日 丁屋政策爭議「留法院定奪」 英外交部批衛督不負責任
    http://bit.ly/39x2ONV

    【原審判詞】 HCAL260/2015 ; [2019] HKCFI 867 Date: 08/04/2019
    KWOK CHEUK KIN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND OTHERS; Reported in: [2020] 1 HKLRD 988 https://bit.ly/3gY4sM2

    【參考資料】
    FCO40/3112 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Part D)
    FCO40/3113 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Part E)
    FCO40/3114 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Part F)
    －－－－－
    延伸閱讀

    【申請權 vs 建屋權】法官：政府能全權決定是否批准丁屋申請
    https://bit.ly/2Dtd8eZ

    香港丁權案關鍵：「傳統權益」論述從何而來？
    https://bit.ly/2Q5EhaB

    －－－－－
    未來民間土地研究工作將會愈益艱難，希望一起守護研究底線，支持我們的研究工作：
    自訂金額支持香港土地研究
    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr…
    Follow我地：
    📸 IG: https://www.instagram.com/liberresearch/
    🖨 TG: t.me/liberinfo
    🎥 Youtube: https://bit.ly/2WOIKTk
    🧠 研究義工報名申請表
    https://bit.ly/2SbbyT3

  • 蕭叔叔英式英文學會 Uncle Siu's British English Club

    factually 在 蕭叔叔英式英文學會 Uncle Siu's British English Club Facebook 的最佳解答

    2020-08-13 21:49:26
    有 5,754 人按讚

    【#蕭叔叔的語言偽術課】

    如何屌9人「指白為黑」而不得罪老細

    We regret the US decision to require all products made in Hong Kong to be labelled “Made in China”.

    Such labels, while factually and geopolitically accurate (after all Hong Kong IS a part of China), are not indicative of the differences in manufacturing practices, customs, and legal requirements.

    This is not, I must stress, a matter of us distancing ourselves from mainland China - the excellent quality of Chinese products is well known across the world and is something that Hong Kong aspires to. But it is with a view to honest communication and helping our trading partners make informed decisions, that we insist Hong Kong products be labelled “Made in Hong Kong”.

    抽水叔叔

    #只談語言不論政治
    #請自行配上蕭叔的chok聲
    #求翻譯成見得人的中文

  • Arisa Chow

    factually 在 Arisa Chow Facebook 的最佳貼文

    2020-03-03 13:02:52
    有 12 人按讚


    Update: I appreciate all the support I’ve been getting and I’m glad that this issue has sparked a debate about racism. Many people recognise that racism exists in any form/colour. Racism exists in every country. Demonising a certain group of people because of their nationality/race/skin colour even in this case is unacceptable and only furthers the problem. There have been different kinds of comments on this post. Some comments made with well-intentions, others with less. I will be limiting comments to this post, and removing the details relating to the incident for the police to carry out their invesitigations unhindered. But the discussion relating to racism remains. Talk to someone about racism— discuss how racism might arise in your society and how we can tackle such a senseless issue. I hope we can move forward to be better people for the future!

    Original post: (without details of incident)

    The spread of coronavirus has resulted in panic across the world — with people debating as to the severity of the situation: is this a deadly virus that we should all be afraid of? Or is it just similar to the common flu? It is without doubt that the medical effects of the COVID-19 has taken the front stage in issues across the world (and rightfully so). However, when we have been focusing solely on the health effects of the coronavirus, we fail to see the social effects that has surfaced from the spread of this virus— where racism has found yet another excuse to rear its ugly head.

    I’ve always believed that racism was grounded in stupidity— that people who actually believed one’s ‘racial group’ or ‘nationality’ defines an individual must surely be so ignorant that they deserve my pity. Surely, an ethnic Chinese cannot be ‘British’ or a white-skinned person cannot be Chinese? What makes us ‘Chinese’, ‘Indian’, ‘Malay’ or some other race? Most of us have ancestors of different races. What should we make of a Singaporean who has an English father and a Chinese mother? Is she Chinese or English? What then, should we make of an individual with bloodlines tracing from many different places? How should we classify an individual who has ancestors hailing from Africa, China, England and Italy? Racists argue that people are a certain way because of their race. But how can this argument hold when we realise that race is such a malleable concept? I have believed for long that racism is grounded in stupidity, but I realise today that to say so, is not only being kind to racists, but also gives them an excuse.

    Racism is not stupidity — racism is hate. Racists constantly find excuses to expound their hatred— and in this current backdrop of the coronavirus, they’ve found yet another excuse. From refusing service to a Chinese-looking person to racially-motivated hate crimes, every single one of these acts are based on racism. People dismiss racism with statements such as ‘it’s not all of us — only a minority are racists and this does not reflect on a city/country’. While factually true, not only it does not change the fact that this is an ugly problem that has plagued humanity for a very long time, but also it belittles this problem we have. Racism has changed it form and shape through the years and it is once again rearing its ugly head in light of the COVID-19 crisis.

    Why should anyone, simply because of the colour of their skin, be subjected to abuse, in any form, verbal or physical? Why should anyone keep quiet when someone makes a racist remark towards them?

    *(See: https://edition.cnn.com/…/coronavirus-racist-at…/index.html…)

    Disclaimer update:

    - This post is intended to bring people together and not divide us based on arbitrary things such as skin colour. Comments demonising a group of a certain skin colour (white or black etc) completely defeats the purpose! Even a Chinese can be racist towards a Chinese, and while it is confusing, the point remains that the demonising of a certain assumed race of my attackers only serve to further the message of the racists. It only seeks to divide us even further and it is unfair towards the billions of white/black-skinned people who are defined by their individuality- who are so much more than their skin colour! Demonising a certain group of people because of their skin colour is racist in itself and its completely unacceptable.

    - PLEASE, do not use this post as a platform to continue to propagate racist tendencies- humanity has suffered enough. People of any skin colour can and have suffered racism at some point in our lives and the main point is to realise this is an issue, try to BE THE CHANGE, instead of contributing to racism.

    - If you have reached here, thank you so much for reading till the end of this post. I just want to say I hope we can all work together to stamp out racism in this world (regardless of whom it is against) and build a better future!

  • コバにゃんチャンネル

    factually 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文

    2021-10-01 13:19:08

    post-title
  • 大象中醫

    factually 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文

    2021-10-01 13:10:45

    post-title
  • 大象中醫

    factually 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文

    2021-10-01 13:09:56

    post-title

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關網站