学者和记者关于阿克毛的对话

haohao2046_2

相关链接：

1）丛日云：也谈阿克毛事件中英国人的“双重标准”
2）选举网：要是让你表态你会说什么？
3）丛日云：何时不再听到喊杀声？
4）匿名教授：谈谈阿克毛，马克思和布朗首相

匿名记者回复匿名教授的评论：


　　亲爱的教授：
　　感谢您为我们提供如此有理有节的评论。我对这次事件的讨论很感兴趣，无论是中文还是英文媒体上的，我都一直在关注（这四十多年来，我一半时间生活在中国，一半在美国，所以这两种语言我都驾轻就熟）。提到"双重标准"，我不禁感到一种认识不协调，因为中英文媒体对这一事件的报道，以及网上就此发表的讨论，实在是大相径庭。
　　作为一名记者，我在中国已经工作很长时间了。根据过往的经验，由于我没有到现场调查第一手资料（我估计，很多人都是没调查就下笔评论），我实在是不敢妄加评论。所以，在这里我只想强调一点，也是在英文媒体中被强调最多的，那就是对他精神健康的质疑--据报道，法警看到他出庭时稀奇古怪的样子，不禁笑出了声；这恰好吻合他所陈述的双相障碍症状--而且，中国的法律允许在这种情况下进行精神检查，但是法院拒绝了这项动议。
　　我怎么也不明白，为什么那么多评论员--包括纽约的那位学者和你--都宣称他的精神完全正常，而且说起他的动机来就跟他们都有读心术似的。显然，我们都没有亲历现场，而且法庭也不允许独立观察者去旁听，所以我们的结论都仅仅是推测，我相信您肯定认同这点。我不能断定这个人的精神状况是否有问题，因为没有调查就没有发言权。我只是想说，中国法律明明允许医学专家为犯人提供心理评估，但是因为某种原因，在这一案件中没有进行评估。
　　为什么邓玉娇就能以神志不清为由被判无罪，但是不允许对阿克毛进行心理评估呢？这难道不是双重标准么？
　　如果一定要提鸦片战争，那咱们就再说说这段历史。这位教授指出，是中国人自己在抽鸦片。对此，我表示欣赏。但我还想提醒他，那些瘾君子是从中国人而非外国人那里买鸦片，况且各国对于中国鸦片战争这段历史，一直是众说纷纭，说不好哪里就有纰漏或者歪曲。不过，虽然公说公有理，婆说婆有理，但总有一方是对的。我只能说，对于历史，我们不能人为地挑挑拣拣--哪个是正史？哪个是野史？哪个是伪史？这不是单靠一个人说了算的。所以，你不能一边援引鸦片战争时期英国采取的双重标准以支持自己的观点；另一边只要别人一提起鸦片战争之后，乃至不久以前中国采取的双重标准时，你就严加斥责。
　　对了，我还想再大胆说一句：我觉得如果这个人不是巴基斯坦裔，而是白人的话，可能他就不会被剥夺接受精神检查的权利，更不会被如此仓促地处决。在中国生活了这么多年，这是经验告诉我的另一个双重标准，尽管我希望这不是真的。
　　我们不能因为政治上的原因，或者为了彰显爱国，就采取双重标准。无论何时何地，双重标准都应该受到谴责。
　　感谢您能读到这里。
多保重。

匿名教授回复匿名记者的评论：


　　亲爱的先生/女士：
　　感谢你对我这一家之言的回复。我接下来的回复可能多少有些火药味，甚至带点讽刺意味，我希望你能谅解，因为如果让我看完什么当即就回复的话，我写起东西就会变成这个样子。你的文章自成一格，下笔严谨，对此我表示尊重，否则我压根儿就不会回复。在相同时间内，我估计这篇回复已经是我能写得最长的了。毕竟我时间有限。
　　看起来，你质疑我的两个观点。首先是关于鸦片战争。你说，我认识到是中国人自己抽烟片，没人逼他们，这值得表扬；但我没有提到是中国人而非外国人把鸦片卖给中国人，这值得批评。问题是，这么显而易见的事，我有必要说么？在鸦片战争以前，中国境内根本不允许外国人卖东西。但你觉得，究竟是中国人不远万里到印度把鸦片扛回来的，还是英国人把鸦片运到中国的？谁拥有鸦片？谁才是鸦片批发商？今天，与走私商把鸦片贩卖到中国这件事相比，更让中国人感到愤怒的是英国政府的态度：鸦片贸易已经对中国人民造成了伤害，英国政府却还要在伤口上再撒把盐--不但对这种非法行径大加鼓励，还以"文明"的名义对中国发动战争。这次英国政府又来了这么一手。谁都说这家伙有罪，是个罪犯。难道因为伦敦当局企图以人权为名庇护其公民，中国的人权就可以被妥协，已经被判刑的英国罪犯就该受到保护？我觉得这不大公平。
　　我不是精神问题方面的专家。不过看起来，拿罪犯的精神状况说事似乎是目前的惯用伎俩。请让我总结一下我所了解到的ＢＢＣ的读者评论，其中大部份都是英国人自己的留言。第一，如果他有精神问题，为什么没有病史档案？他都５３岁了。很多人都说，既然他的家人知道他精神有问题，就不该让他出去旅行，而不是在他出事以后担惊受怕，痛哭流涕。第二，双相障碍可能会使人的精神状态时而高昂时而低落，却几乎不会对是非判断产生影响。一些患有该疾病的留言者称，这种借口是对他们的侮辱。有人甚至说，一想到以后大家可能再也不愿和我们这些病号打交道了，他就不寒而栗。很多人认为，一个患有这种症状的人，还能从英国那么远跑到乌鲁木齐去，这实在是不大可能。第三，他被关了好几个月，等待他的十有八九是死刑的命运，大部分正常人估计在被处决之前就已经发疯了。最后，中国其实对他进行了精神检查，但是认为他的精神没有问题。英国方面要求由英方自己检查，但是遭到了拒绝。
　　对此我还要多说一句。你提到中国人看到他在法庭的表现不禁笑出了声。嗯，不久之前，一个美国教授来到中国，一不小心打了个喷嚏，然后说"excuse me"(请原谅)。我和我的同学觉得这习惯挺有趣。后来我们谁要是打了喷嚏，就一边笑一边学他说"excuse me"，从而在宿舍里构建起这种高级文明。不过，我不认为我们傻笑这件事能被用于证明美国教授精神有问题。
　　弗洛伊德认为，我们都在发疯，只不过在方式、程度上有所不同。如果他是正确的，那么我写这篇回复时，我正在发疯。我应该把更多的时间花在教学和科研上，或者多休息一会儿。所以，当人们犯罪时，把他们的精神状况定性为不正常甚至疯狂，那简直是万无一失。
　　最后，我的这个观点可能更具争议性：精神问题凭什么能成为挡箭牌？作为人类，我们都是平等的。为什么有精神问题的人就能享有豁免权？更何况他还侵犯了别人的权利。要想伪造出精神病的假象，简直是轻而易举，不是吗？如果这要是开了先例，我们干吗不都去看看医生，在医院留个底？这样，将来万一出事了，就能以精神问题为名，请求法院宽宏处理，法外开恩。
　　其实在历史上，无论是哪个国家，对待精神病人的方式都不怎么光彩。即便是在今天，我敢说大部分国家在这方面都还是老样子。现在一部分国家已经可以弹冠相庆，祝贺他们自己步入文明国家行列。这是否意味着他们的祖先都不文明呢？如果真是这样，那我觉得也太刻薄了，简直是忘恩负义。尊重人权是有代价的，如果人权真能达到理想状态，我们负担得起吗？不错，富裕国家可以在一定程度上承受这种代价，但是能承受多久？你是否觉得，现在这个世界已经如此之美好，哪怕是来生与之相比都显得污秽不堪？多少人还生活在水深火热之中？为什么我们要把那么多时间跟精力都花费在一个罪犯的人权上？你真觉得一个罪犯会在监狱里享受人权？难道我们不该珍惜自由？
　　所有的司法系统都存在两种错误。第一种是量刑过重。可能有些人明明是无辜的，但是被错判了。另一种是量刑过轻。很多作奸犯科的人都被以各种各样的原因宽恕了。这两种系统各有千秋，并没有高下之分。哪个好，哪个坏，全看个人偏好。我宁愿生活在第一种司法系统下，只要它能保证执法过程中不存在专断独行，而且法律面前人人平等。我希望能生活在一个安全的环境里，并且为我自己的全部行为负责。如果我被无辜牵连到某个案件里，然后被错判了，我觉得这就是"时运不济"。不过我估计，被错判死刑的几率肯定要比被车撞死的几率低得多。很多英国读者哀叹道，他们的司法系统实在是太仁慈了，而且运行起来成本太高。整个社会一片混乱，甚至是险象环生。有些人推测，布朗本想借此机会为下次大选捞选票。不过他们指出，这次英国政府实际上站到了群众的对立面。
　　我就不多唠叨了。周末快乐！

英文原文：

1、Dear Professor:
Thank you for your calm and reasoned comments. I have been following
this debate, in both English and Chinese (I have lived half of my
four-plus decades in China and half in the U.S., so am equally
comfortable in both languages), with great interest. Regarding
"double standards," what I am experiencing is cognitive dissonance
because of the dramatically divergent coverage of this incident in
the Chinese and English-language media and on Chinese and
English-language listservs.
As a reporter with long experience in China, I am hesitant to state
anything with strong conviction because I have not investigated this
case first-hand (nor, I assume, has anyone else writing on this
list). So the only point I will highlight is the one that has been
most emphasized in the English-language media, specifically that
there was a legitimate question of this man's mental health--as
evidenced by the court officers' reported laughing at his bizarre
initial court appearances, consistent with his stated condition of
bipolar disorder--and that Chinese law provides for mental evaluation
in such circumstances but the court denied this motion.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many
commentators--including Sun Yan and this Chinese-American
professor--profess certainty of this man's mental competence and
portray his motives as if they can read his mind. I trust you will
concede that since none of us is on the scene and independent
observers have not been allowed into the courtroom our conclusions
are pure speculation. I do not state knowledge of the man's mental
competence because that is impossible to possess from this remove.
All I state is that Chinese law provides for a medical expert's
psychological evaluation, but for some reason it was denied in this
case.
Why declare Deng Yujiao not guilty by reason of insanity but not
allow this man to be psychologically evaluated? Is this not a double
standard?
If we must rehash the history of the Opium Wars, so be it. I praise
the Chinese-American professor for pointing out that it was Chinese
smoking opium, but remind him that it was also Chinese selling opium
to the Chinese smoking it, and there is much distortion and
disingenuity regarding the recounting of the historical circumstances
surrounding the Opium Wars in China. But this is neither here nor
there. All I can say is that one cannot pick and choose what history
is legitimate to rehash and what is not. So you cannot, for example,
simultaneously reserve the right to cite the Opium Wars when
convenient and then chastise any mention of more recent, less
favorable examples of exploitation and double standards in China that
do not involve foreigners.
I will also stick my neck out and state that I do not think that this
man would have been denied mental evaluation and executed so
precipitously if he had been Caucasian and not of Pakistani-descent.
This is another double standard that I wish were not true but my long
experience persuades me otherwise.
Double standards are to be denounced wherever they occur, not picked
and chosen for political and patriotic expediency.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Duo bao zhong.


2、Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks for responding to my message, which was based on my personal
opinions. My response to yours may sound argumentative or even bit
sarcastic, and that is my style when I offer a prompt response. I
respect the spirit and style of your message. Otherwise I would not
respond. I doubt that I will respond any more given the time limitation.
It seems that you questioned two of my points. First is about the Opium
War. You praised me for saying that the Chinese used the opium, but
chided me for not mentioning that the Chinese sold it. Why should I
state the obvious? Foreigners were not allowed to sell things in China
before the war. Which was true? The Chinese went all the way to India or
the British took opium to places in or near China? Who owned the opium
and who were wholesalers? What angered the Chinese today was less that
some smugglers tried to sell opium to China, rather that the British
government added insult to injury, encouraging illegal activities and
launching a war against China in the name of civilization. This time,
the British government did again. Nobody said that this guy was not
guilty, and he was a criminal. London used human rights to seek
privilege for its own citizen. So the Chinese human rights can be
compromised, but a convicted British criminal should be protected? I do
not think this is fair.
I am not an expert on mental problems. It seems a common practice to
take a criminal’s mental situation into account now. Let me summarize
what I have learned from the BBC readers’ comments, and most were made
by the British. First, if he had mental problem, why did not he have a
medical record? He was 53-year-old. Many said that his caring and
grieving family should not allow him to travel if they knew his mental

problem. Second, bipolar disorder may make people feel up and down, but
barely affects people’s judgment of right and wrong. Some commentators
with such disease called the excuse an insult to them. One even
shuddered at the prospect that people would not want to be associated
with them in the future. Many thought that it is unlikely for a person
with such a disease to manage to travel all the way to Urumuchi. Third,
have been staying in a prison for many months, and facing an almost
certain prospect of capital punishment, most normal person might go
crazy before the execution. Finally, the Chinese did evaluate him but
did not think that he was mentally ill. British requested to test him
themselves, but were denied.
Here is my addition to this issue. You mentioned that the Chinese
laughed at his style in the court. Well, a while ago, when one American
professor said, "excuse me," after he sneezed in China, my classmates
and I found this amusing, and even laughingly imitated the high level of
civilization in our dorm. I do not think that our silly laugh should be
used to prove that the American professor suffered mental problems.
If Freud has a point, we are all crazy in different forms or to
different degrees. While writing this response, I am crazy. I should
spend more time on my teaching, research, or just relaxing. When people
commit crime, it is rather safe to define their mental situations as
abnormal, if not crazy.
Finally, I will get even more controversial here. Why should mental
problems allow people to get away with many things? We humans are equal.
Why should a person with a mental problem enjoy privileges, especially
when he violates other’s rights? It is very easy to fake a mental
problem, is not it? Should not we go to see a doctor and leave a medical
record there and then use our mental problems to seek leniency or
exoneration in the future?
All humans had treated people with mental problems very nastily up until
very recently. Even today, I would say it is very much same in most
countries. Now some countries can congratulate themselves that they
become civilized. Does that imply that their ancestors were uncivilized?
I think that is harsh and ungrateful. Can we really afford to respect
human rights as we wish? The rich countries can do so to a certain
degree, but for how long? Do you think that this world is so nice that
the afterworld is so nasty? How many billions of people are living in
miserable situations? Why should we spend so much time and energy on
human rights of a criminal? Do you genuinely think that a criminal would
enjoy human rights in a jail? Should not we cherish freedom?
There are two types of errors in all judicial systems. One is to err on
the side of harshness. A handful people may be innocent but are wrongly
convicted. The other is to err on the side of leniency. Many
perpetrators are set free for all kinds of reasons. Neither system is
better, since each has its own advantages and disadvantage. It depends
on personal preference. I prefer to live in the first system, as long as
the law is not arbitrary and all are equal before it. I cherish a safe
environment, and take responsibly for all my actions. If I am wrongly
implicated and convicted, I would say “bad luck.” It is far more likely
that we will be killed in a car accident than that we will wrongly
receive capital punishment. Many British readers bemoaned that their
system is too lenient and costly. The society becomes too chaotic and
even dangerous. Several speculated that Brown tried to use this incident
to win votes for the next election, and pointed that on this issue the
government actually was not in agreement with public opinions in Britain.
Let me stop rambling here. Have a nice weekend!
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)