滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Is the ABA Afraid of the Chinese Government?]
滕彪文集
·孙志刚事件:知识、媒介与权力
·司法的归司法,舆论的归舆论?—从张金柱案到黄静案
·谁能阻止一个人心底的眼泪—日记16则,纪念父亲
·生活是维权运动的源头活水
·虚构的故事
·体制的边界
临沂计划生育调查手记
·蒙河边的抗争—临沂计划生育调查手记之一
·“我家亲戚被抓了22口”—临沂计划生育调查手记之二
·她的眼里没有泪水—临沂计划生育调查手记之三
·到办公室上课去!—临沂计划生育调查手记之四
·不扎也得扎!—临沂计划生育调查手记之五
·学习班—临沂计划生育调查手记之六
·向人性宣战—临沂计划生育调查手记之七
·“盯关跟主义”—临沂计划生育调查手记之八
·人性不曾屈服—临沂计划生育调查手记之九
·野蛮是如何炼成的?—临沂计划生育调查手记之十
·后记:
·有谁战胜过真相
·法治中国需要中国法律人的良知及责任—致世界法律大会中国代表的公开信
·从上书到公开信
·是谁在“严重威胁社会秩序”?—关于游行示威权利的行政复议申请书
·致陈光诚的一封信
·用微笑来面对那些制造恐惧的人——和高智晟在一起的一个下午
·2+2=4的自由
·推倒「新闻柏林围墙」——透视中国新闻自由的前景
·恢复收容遣送制度等于开历史倒车
·陈光诚案凸显中国法治的困局
·暗夜里的光明之舞
·中国维权运动往何处去?
·陈光诚是如何被定罪的?(补充版)
·Crusader in a legal wilderness
·China’s blind Justice
·China's Political Courts
·以公民的姿态挺身而出/闵家桥
·“最可贵的是她有健康的公民意识”——关于公民王淑荣的对话
·“阳光宪政”的护卫者/民主与法制杂志
·要让好人走到一起,才能合力纠错——奥美定事件亲历者访谈录/南方周末
·李卫平: 被迫走出书斋的维权者——著名维权律师滕彪访谈录
·太阳城:写在第三期“名家说法”被命令取消之后
·滕彪印象/法制日报
·Rule of Law requires our consciousness and responsibility
·临沂野蛮计生与陈光诚事件维权大事记(2006-11-7)
·耻为盛世添顺骨
·中国时报专访:盼与政府互动 和平维权
·滕彪博士:精神家园的守望者/刘爽
·司法改良和公民维权——学而思沙龙的网谈
·学术、政治与生活——2006年12月17日做客沧海论坛在线交流记录
·黎明前的见证
·看看我们的朋友——致受难中的高智晟和他的妻子和孩子
·临沂警匪暴行录
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(五——七)
·中国当代宪政主义者的困境和选择/林泽波
·通过汉语改变中国
·茶人滕彪/萧瀚
·崔英杰案:“慎杀时代”的第一个考验
·死刑、司法与中国人权
·废除死刑的中国语境——在第三届世界反死刑大会上的发言
·司法独立,和谐中国——2007年“两会”之际的公民呼吁/许志永 滕彪
·彻底改革司法才能避免滥用死刑
·崔英杰案,在多重反思中寻找契机
·从“两会”看赎回选票运动
·关于尽快将青岛市四方区政府违法拆迁行为纳入法制轨道的法律意见书
·青岛野蛮拆迁:袁薪玉被控放火和妨害公务案一审的当庭辩护意见
·维权书简·戴脚镣的舞者
·被遗忘的谎言——就《成都晚报》事件致中宣部长和教育部长的一封信
·滕彪:可怕的“冤案递增律”
·不是我不明白
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
·专访滕彪律师:《律师法》2007修订与维权/RFA张敏
·The Real China before the Olympics/Teng Biao,Hu jia
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
·关于审查和改变《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》部分不适当条款的建议
·胡佳的大爱与大勇
·后极权时代的公民美德与公民责任
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Is the ABA Afraid of the Chinese Government?

   https://bol.bna.com/is-the-aba-afraid-of-the-chinese-government/
   
   BLOOMBERG
   
   April 18, 2016


   
   The American Bar Association retracted an offer to publish the book of a well-known Chinese human rights lawyer last year, Foreign Policy reported on Friday.
   
   In a January 2015 email to human rights lawyer and author Teng Biao, one ABA employee said the book was being killed because of the “risk of upsetting the Chinese government,” according to the article in Foreign Policy. A reporter for the magazine said Teng only forwarded the ABA’s email to his publication last week.
   
   The ABA has since said that wasn’t the real reason for spiking the book’s publication. Teng, now a visiting scholar at New York University’s U.S.-Asia Law Institute, did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
   
   The book, which remains unpublished, is tentatively titled “Darkness Before the Dawn.” Reportedly, it draws upon Teng’s experience working as a human rights advocate in China for 11 years and also looks at the human rights legal community in China, which has long been at odds with the ruling Communist party. Since last summer, there have been numerous reports that Chinese authorities arrested and detained dozens of prominent human rights lawyers as part of a crackdown.
   
   According to the Foreign Policy report, the ABA’s publishing arm offered to publish his book in late 2014, but Teng said he received an email from an ABA employee in January 2015 saying the offer had been rescinded.
   
   The email cited political reasons for not publishing the book: “Apparently, there is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese government by publishing your book, and because we have ABA commissions working in China there is fear that we would put them and their work at risk,” the employee, whom Teng chose to keep anonymous, wrote.
   
   The ABA affirmed the authenticity of the email, but said the employee who wrote it was mistaken. In a statement, Robert Rupp, who heads the ABA’s publishing wing, said:
   
   The 2014 decision not to proceed with publication of the book Darkness Before Dawn was made for purely economic reasons, based on market research and sales forecasting conducted by the association’s publishing group. Unfortunately, the reasons resulting in the decision were miscommunicated to Mr. Teng. We regret that Mr. Teng received erroneous information that did not reflect the views of the association or the process followed in evaluating his proposal. We sincerely apologize to Mr. Teng for this situation and are taking steps to ensure that it cannot occur again.
   
   This isn’t the first time the ABA has been in the news for its stance on the Chinese legal community. Last summer, after China arrested a number of human rights lawyers, the ABA issued a statement encouraging the Chinese government to “permit lawyers to discharge their professional duty.”
   
   Jerome Cohen, a professor at NYU Law School who has represented Chinese activists, including Chen Guangcheng, wrote on his blog that the ABA letter was “timid,” and didn’t go far enough. Others called for the ABA to withdraw the statement and issue a stronger one.
   
   Several experts we spoke to praised a letter issued by the New York City Bar Association, which was longer, and more gravely worded, than the ABA’s.
   
   On Monday, Cohen posted another entry on his blog, citing the Foreign Policy story and criticizing the ABA’s belated explanation.
   
   “Reasonable people could argue about the ABA’s discouragingly timid statement last August about the oppression of China’s human rights lawyers,” Cohen wrote, “but what can one say about the Teng Biao incident other than that it is a pathetic chapter in the history of the world’s leading bar association?”
   
   An ABA spokesman declined to comment in response to Cohen’s remarks.
   
   In February, Terence Halliday, a research professor with the American Bar Foundation, said the actions of bar associations and law firms do have an effect on Chinese government policy. Halliday was a co-author of a January letter published in the Guardian newspaper condemning China’s treatment of lawyers.
   
   “The government is very sensitive to even a small number of people, like these human rights lawyers who signed the letter, and the effect they can have on domestic and international public opinion,” he said. “They need all the good will from international business they can get.”
(2016/04/30 发表)
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场