《紐約時報》:台灣原住民狩獵文化—在千年傳統與現代法律之間?
「狩獵文化無罪、法律規定違憲!」
多個原住民團體在司法院 (Judicial Yuan) 前施放狼煙、高喊口號。主角是布農族男子王光祿以及卑南族男子潘志強,2人都因為用獵槍獵捕了山羌等保育類動物 (protected species) 帶回部落(tribe) 被判刑(sentence)。
原住民的狩獵行為和野生動物保育 (wildlife animal conservation)、槍枝使用安全 (gun safety) 等議題在司法院進行釋憲案 (interpretation)的言詞辯論庭(debate court);對於原住民主張的「傳統文化價值」,你覺得應該和現代法律之間如何共存?
—————————————————————
📰 俐媽新聞英文—狩獵文化篇:
* Bunun 布農族
* Puyuma 卑南族
* contend (v.) 為了...鬥爭
* taboo (n.) 禁忌
* trial (n.) 審判
* indigenous (a.) = aboriginal 原住民的
* circumscribe (v.) 在周圍畫線;限制
—> circum-: around/ -scrib: write
* damp (a.) 潮濕的
* weave (v.) 迂迴行進,穿行
* thicket (n.) 灌林叢;雜木林
* clutch (v.) 抓住
* rifle (n.) 來福槍,步槍
* headlamp (n.) 礦工頭上所戴的小型燈
* prey (n.) = game 獵物
—> fall prey to N 成為⋯的獵物
* skin (v.) 剝...的皮
* boar (n.) 野山豬
* antler (n.) 鹿角
* skull (n.) 頭蓋骨
* coarse (a.) 粗糙的
* bristle (n.) 短而硬的毛
* cradle (v.) 把...擱在支架上
* colonial (a.) 殖民的
* settler (n.) 移居者;殖民者;開拓者
* curtail (v.) 縮減
* assimilate (v.) 使民族、語言等同化
—> sin/sim/syn/sym-: the same
* social marginalization 社會邊緣化
* carve out (ph.) 開拓
* tribe (n.) 部落;種族
c.f. troop (n.) 部隊
* ailing (a.) 生病的
* appeal (v.) 上訴
* constitutional interpretation 釋憲文
* nestle (v.) 舒適地安頓下來
* omen (n.) 徵兆
* Seediq 賽德克族
* Truku 太魯閣族
* destine (v.) 命定,注定
* bar (v.) 在...上飾以條紋
* absurd (a.) 不合理的
* ruinous (a.) 毀滅性的
* curb (n.)(v.) 約束,控制
* stride (v.) 邁大步走
* feast (n.) 盛宴,筵席
* chant (v.) 歌頌,吟詠
🗞 新聞來源:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/world/asia/taiwan-Indigenous-hunters.html
————————————————————
這篇分享紐約時報駐台記者 (dispatch) 的專題報導,探討的議題很有趣,有些用字較深,同學們當作課外讀物輕鬆閱讀即可。
以上感謝欒為學長提供,指考在即,學長還陸續為大家整理更多時事英文,真的揪甘心🙏🏻
大家敬請期待,一起學習👍🏼
.
#俐媽新聞英文
#俐媽新聞英文狩獵文化篇
#俐媽英文教室動物保育篇
#俐媽英文教室原住民文化篇
#台大明明讓你跟上時事同時精進英文
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過3萬的網紅Vivi Lin,也在其Youtube影片中提到,* 需要中文字幕請記得打開CC字幕喔!* 【平權公投 Taiwan Equal Rights Referendum】 每一個人,都擁有平等愛人及被愛的權利。 性別,也不該是用二分法就能解釋的概念。 從大法官釋憲後,彩虹終於開始像雨後初晴般地逐漸閃耀。 就差最後一哩路了! #同性婚姻 ,#性平教育,...
「constitutional interpretation」的推薦目錄:
- 關於constitutional interpretation 在 辣媽英文天后 林俐 Carol Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於constitutional interpretation 在 堅離地城:沈旭暉國際生活台 Simon's Glos World Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於constitutional interpretation 在 口訣王 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於constitutional interpretation 在 Vivi Lin Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於constitutional interpretation 在 Constitutional Interpretation | PrincetonX on edX.org - YouTube 的評價
constitutional interpretation 在 堅離地城:沈旭暉國際生活台 Simon's Glos World Facebook 的最讚貼文
【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿,但國際線十分重要,不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻,願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機:
While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.
After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.
This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.
The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws
Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.
The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.
Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”
In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.
Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.
Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates
An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?
The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”
If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.
Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.
Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”
Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.
Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship
Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.
In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.
Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.
The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.
These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.
▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ
constitutional interpretation 在 口訣王 Facebook 的最佳解答
部份大法官解釋使用的斷句與文言文語法
似乎都有點違反語言應表達清楚讓人易理
解的宗旨。
讓一般人讀來感覺像是天書,反而看相關
報導像看故事,秒懂。
https://www.twreporter.org/a/drug-injury-antibiotic-amikin-case-constitutional-interpretation-767
constitutional interpretation 在 Vivi Lin Youtube 的最讚貼文
* 需要中文字幕請記得打開CC字幕喔!*
【平權公投 Taiwan Equal Rights Referendum】
每一個人,都擁有平等愛人及被愛的權利。
性別,也不該是用二分法就能解釋的概念。
從大法官釋憲後,彩虹終於開始像雨後初晴般地逐漸閃耀。
就差最後一哩路了!
#同性婚姻 ,#性平教育,是我們都需要共同理解的議題。
#讓愛沒有局外人,我們一起努力。
Everyone should have the right to love and be loved and gender binary is no longer enough to explain the modern gender concept. Finally, after the constitutional interpretation on same-sex marriage, the rainbow which acts as the bridge between people’s love and pride shines ever so brightly. The finish line for equal rights is just in sight and we need everyone’s support!
#SameSexMarriage #GenderEquityEducation #LGBTQ
Let’s work together to create a future where love excludes nobody.
公投 14, 15案,請投同意。
10, 11, 12案,請投不同意。
兩好三壞,年滿18歲,即可投票!
11月24號,大家一起,回家投票吧!
——
此部影片是由英國愛丁堡大學的台灣學生主動發起,目的在於跟當地的學生群體交流對婚姻平權及性平教育的看法。同時也將來自世界各地學生對本次公投的聲援,紀錄下來。
雖然適逢期末考期間,留學生無法返鄉投票,但仍希望能盡其所能,為平權努力!
This video was a campaign initiated by Taiwanese students studying at the University of Edinburgh. The purpose of this campaign was to provide a platform for education and exchange of opinions on the topic of Taiwan equal rights referendum. Meanwhile, the video was recorded to convey the supports on Taiwan equal right referendum from students worldwide.
Special Thanks to:
Leena Hoppula
Dzaui Jansen
Solly Peng
Estelle Heng
——
相關網頁:
平權前夕·彩虹起義:https://www.facebook.com/Vote4LGBT/
公投怎麼投:https://nofear.equallove.tw/
Equal Rights Referendum:https://nofear.equallove.tw/en
—
👧🏻 更多Vivi相關資訊 More Vivi 👧🏻
➪ Blog: http://vivilin.me
➪ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vivilinwei/
➪ Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/vivilin0510
➪ Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/viviofficialchannel
➪ E-mail: viviofficialchannel@gmail.com (Business Inquiries ONLY 工作邀約專用)
⚠️強力募集 中英字幕小幫手⚠️
Vivi應該算是個超愛講話語速又超快的YouTuber,大家敲碗字幕的心聲我都有聽到啊啊啊~~~
所以即刻強力徵求❣️字幕小幫手❣️
如果你願意幫Vi上這支影片的字幕,請簡單兩步驟,即刻行動🙌🏻
1.寄信到viviofficialchannel@gmail.com
2.信裡面告訴Vivi你的youtube帳號與希望幫忙的影片名稱
成功加入字幕後,Vivi會從愛丁堡寄送手寫明信片加小禮物表達對小幫手萬分的感謝❤️
* 本支影片字幕感謝Alice Lin的大力協助!!!*
-
Heyyyyyyyy!!!!
非常謝謝大家的收看!!!
你們的每一則留言每一次點讚都是我最大的原動力!
謝謝每一位點進來的朋友們,也謝謝一直以來陪伴著我走在這趟旅程裡的你們。
有任何想跟Vivi說的話或是想問的問題都可以在下面留言喔!
希望你們會喜歡這支影片 ❤️
Heyyyyyyy!!!
Thank you for watching the video and all your support!!! Each of your comments and likes on my videos and channel has been the most important part of this incredible journey!!!
Hope you all enjoy the video~~~~~
Kisses and huggies, love you guys as always♥︎
FTC: This video is not sponsored.
![post-title](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4NAi-SAeoY0/hqdefault.jpg)
constitutional interpretation 在 Constitutional Interpretation | PrincetonX on edX.org - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>