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
·35个网评员对“这鸡蛋真难吃”的不同回答(转载加编辑加原创)
·Dissonance Strikes A Chord
·顺应历史潮流 实现律协直选——致全体北京律师、市司法局、市律协的呼吁
·但愿程序正义从杨佳案开始/滕彪 许志永
·维权的计算及其他
·我们对北京律协“严正声明”的回应
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(上)
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(下)
·Well-Known Human Rights Advocate Teng Biao Is Not Afraid
·法眼冷对三鹿门
·北京律师为自己维权风暴/亚洲周刊
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
·不只是问问而已
·甘锦华再判死刑 紧急公开信呼吁慎重
·就甘锦华案致最高人民法院死刑复核法官的紧急公开信
·我来推推推(之九)
·DON’T BE EVIL
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
[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