A philosophical message from the grave for Hong Kong

龙血树

A philosophical message from the grave for Hong Kong
The late conservative British philosopher Roger Scruton has much to teach us about democracy and youthful rebellion
Alex Lo
Published: 9:00pm, 17 Jan, 2020

Several British friends introduced me to the writings of Sir Roger Scruton, the philosopher and conservative provocateur who sadly died on Sunday aged 75.

Unexpectedly, I find his views on Western democracy, youthful rebellion and social revolution entirely agreeable. This is especially so after witnessing seven months of senseless protest violence in Hong Kong as it is being celebrated and glorified around the world.
I have often been accused of being anti-Western, anti-American and even racist against white people – not guilty, guilty up to a point, not guilty. I suppose if I didn’t have a Chinese last name but a British-sounding one, I would merely be considered an eccentric conservative.
Here’s what the young Scruton said about the French students’ rebellion in 1968 as he watched them occupy university campuses, throw ancient cobblestones at police and shout “Marxist gobbledegook”. “I suddenly realised that I was on the other side,” he said. “What I saw was an unruly mob of self-indulgent middle-class hooligans. I was disgusted.”
I could have said the same thing about young rebels in Hong Kong, so ridiculously glorified by our pan-democratic politicians and so-called public intellectuals who ought to know better. On democracy, Scruton once compared people’s unexamined faith in it as a “contagion … now raging so wildly that it is possible to mistake its high flush of fever for the light of health”.

Many of our young people in Hong Kong are ready to hurt people with a different opinion and destroy our institutions of higher learning to achieve “democracy”, whatever that means, to the cheers of so many.
In an infamous essay, “Is Democracy Overrated?”, published in 2013, Scruton criticises Western governments that speak of “democracy, freedom and human rights” in one breath when they are “three different things”. Sometimes they go together; other times they don’t.

Yet, like true religious believers, most democrats refuse to examine circumstances when they come together and when they fall apart. It’s generally assumed, he wrote, “democracy is the solution to political conflict … a single, one-size-fits-all solution”. But is it? In some cases, it was. In others, such as the Arab spring, it wasn’t.
Here’s what I take from Scruton’s conservatism. It’s to conserve what is good and great that we have inherited from the past, rather than risking all that for an imaginary ideal in a future that no one can anticipate.
RIP, Sir Roger.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Philosophical message from grave for HK

indy

前两天看到梁特首贴的一个香港大法官的说法与此类似，回头找找贴来看看

indy

(找到啦)

馬道立大法官對自由和權利的界定

近年社會上不斷有人將「言論自由，結社、集會、遊行和示威的自由」無限演譯，無限擴張，似乎自由就等於可以為所欲為。且看大法官在星期一的法律年度開啟典禮是怎樣詮釋法律對自由和權利的限制：

「《基本法》及得到《基本法》給予憲制確認的《人權法案》列明的權利包括：言論自由，結社、集會、遊行和示威的自由。過去七個月，我們看到許多行使這些自由的情況。然而，為使社會上其他人的權利和自由不會受到不可接受的影響，行使這些權利需要有限制。明白這一點是重要的；我過往稱這為對他人權利的尊重。
　　
　　「因此，法律對權利的行使有明確限制。享用或堅持個人權利，舉例說，不能成為損害他人人身安全或財產，或使用暴力的藉口。有關的限制從我們的刑事法可見一斑。法院在案件的情況有需要時，會全面及合適地執行此等刑事法。
　　
　　「言論自由（《人權法案》稱為意見和發表的自由）的條文清楚說明相關的權利附有特別的責任及義務。因此，有必要時可對此等權利的行使予以規限，例如為了尊重他人的權利和名譽的緣故。和平集會的權利在得到確認的同時，也與言論自由一樣受到限制。結社自由亦然。
　　
　　「由此可見，享用權利及自由亦同時附有責任，而認為他人的權利－－甚或整體社會的權利－－總不及個人權利重要這個想法並不正確。認同上述權利及責任是我稱為公義的概念的重點所在。」

大法官上述的講話，清楚不過，也合理不過。我希望教協和記協可以發給它們的會員，希望警察公共關係科可以天天講，日日講。

#自由
#教協
#記協
#警察公共關係科