加拿大国家邮报( National Post) 10月16日刊登了一条新闻：“前外交官将于上诉失败后被驱逐出境：索马里大使对政府侵犯人权负有‘共同责任’”。索马里前军政府驻美国纽约总领事、驻吉布提(Djibouti)大使 A. F. Shirdon，因为是“从事系统而严重地侵犯人权”的前索马里政府高级官员，被加拿大移民局宣布驱逐出境，因为加拿大移民法认为，有侵犯人权记录的独裁政府高级官员就是共犯，虽然他们本人并没有直接犯下侵犯人权的罪行。

    报导说，三名移民局官员在作出驱逐A. F. Shirdon 的决定时认为：“大使是他的国家在国外的最高代表。一个(诸如默哈莫德·巴赫的)独裁政权的大使，可能不得不为其政权的人权记录进行辩护，也可能辞职，因为他的良知将使他不可能遵从其政府的指示。的确，这要做道德的选择……Shirdon先生在道德上不是清白的。”大概A. F. Shirdon 清楚法律的界定和自己的所作所为，他没有在许可的15天时效内提出上诉。

    所有的中国政府驻外使节都应该从A. F. Shirdon 的案例吸取教训，特别是在镇压法轮功的问题上放弃良知，唯利是图，对邪恶势力唯命是从，在海外蓄意诋毁法轮功不遗余力的那些人，更应该清醒地认识到：国际社会已经清楚地看清了江泽民操纵的中国政府，完全变成了镇压良善的工具，正在对千千万万努力修炼“真、善、忍”的和平公民进行着人类历史上最恶毒的人性迫害，而你的“奉命行事”则是明显的助纣为虐，正如A. F. Shirdon 的情况一样，将作为独裁政权高级官员而对迫害人权的罪行负有不可推卸的责任。

    不要辩解配合国内镇压法轮功是你的工作职责，你首先要做一个有良知的人。一方面，在镇压法轮功之前，你已经了解法轮功，你本人、家属、亲戚或朋友修炼法轮功的实践，使你对于法轮功利国利民的作用是完全清楚的；另一方面，镇压法轮功会给中国政府和人民带来什么严重的后果，你是清清楚楚的：那就是道德更加沦丧、罪恶横行、丧尽民心、社会失稳。而且你也清楚镇压法轮功的根本原因，就是江泽民偏执的权利私欲和对“真、善、忍”莫名的恐惧。可是你为了区区个人利益，竟然置国家民族于不顾，视道德良心如无物，追风逐浪，与善良为敌，走到人民的对立面。 即便你能以“职责”为由逃避自己良心的谴责，但是世人对你的评判和历史对你们的定论，依据的却是公认的道德标准。

    不要认为你不会沦落到A. F. Shirdon 的地步，堕落下去也许你会比他还要可悲。A. F. Shirdon 因为“了解其独裁政府处理异见者和许多其它敏感问题的秘密”，但是没有按人的良知而拒绝为其人权记录进行辩护，即得到了道德和法律的审判。与此相比，你走得就更远了。你不但为江泽民镇压善良的人民百般辩护，更将对“真、善、忍”的肆意诋毁扩大到海外，在全世界反对强权镇压、敦促和平解决法轮功问题的一片呼声中，竟然拒绝倾听善良者感天动地的和平诉求，执意地与江泽民一起把中国政府变成迫害亿万民众人权的邪恶工具。如还不及时悬崖勒马，你的结果必定要比A. F. Shirdon 更糟，因为你所拼命迫害和诋毁的，不仅是人类赖以存在的道德，而且是人神共守的天法。

    更不要以为邪恶可以长久，其实人间败类的灭尽就在眼前。对法轮功镇压的不断升级，你们非常清楚其真实的原因：江泽民对“真、善、忍”的极端恐惧和对人们坚信宇宙真理的无能为力。邪恶对真理的迫害，能让人更加认识到真理的可贵，所有强加给法轮功的罪名，都是邪恶之徒遭到历史淘汰时无可辩驳的罪证。越来越多的人们，因为江泽民及其帮凶的恶毒表演，已经认清其只认强权、无视道德良心和民意、誓与“真、善、忍”对抗到底的邪恶本质。人心都在向善，邪恶何以久存？更何况，天理昭昭，疏而不漏。始皇帝的残忍和暴虐，带来的是其个人的不得善终和国破家亡，不是明证吗？

    为了你个人，为了中华民族，也为了人类的未来，希望你能用良心代替奴性，多行善，少作恶。你不相信“善有善报”倒也无妨，可是等到“恶有恶报”的时候，一切不就晚了吗？

    真诚地希望你能好自为之。

    一法轮功学员
    二○○○年十月二十日

附件：前外交官将于上诉失败后被驱逐出境：
索马里大使对政府侵犯人权负有“共同责任”
【2000年10月16日National Post 网络版】范芭·欧·瑞利

    加拿大移民难民署申诉局支持针对前索马里默哈莫德·巴赫独裁政权高级外交官的驱逐令。

    在八十年代末期，亚当·法哈·谢登曾任索马里驻纽约总领事和驻吉布提大使，于1997年因为是“涉及系统而严重侵犯人权”的政府高级官员而遭驱逐。

    亚当·法哈·谢登先生1991年来到加拿大，并于三年之后获得难民身份。据信他住在多伦多索马里人社区里。

    根据加拿大移民法，具有侵犯人权记录的政权的高级官员，即使他本人并没有犯下人权的罪行，也可看作共犯。

    在谢登先生的案件中，没有提到特定的罪行或虐待，但是法庭文件说明，移民难民署的决定“体现了涉及严重侵犯人权的政府成员或高级官员应负共同责任的理念。”

    默哈莫德.巴赫1969年经军事行动获得政权，1992年被武装叛乱推翻后逃离索马里。在他的强权之下，反对派遭到压制，或者在胆敢形成反抗运动时受到系统的镇压。

    据“非洲观察组织”当时的报导：“被政府军直接射杀、空袭和炮击造成的死亡以及战争中的伤残者将近50,000到60,000人。”

    在做出(驱逐谢登的)决定时，移民难民署的三名官员写到：“大使是他的国家在国外的最高代表。一个(诸如默哈莫德.巴赫的)独裁政权的大使，可能不得不为其政权的人权记录进行辩护，也可能辞职，因为他的良知将使他不可能遵从其政府的指示。的确，这要做道德的选择……谢登先生在道德上不是清白的。”

    根据法庭文件，在默哈莫德·巴赫统治期间，吉布提是个重要的外交阵地，因为“它是其独裁政权关注反抗运动的哨所。”

    资料表明，在吉布提的三年里，作为大使谢登先生“知道其独裁政权处理异见者和许多其它敏感问题的秘密。”

    在九十年代初期巴赫倒台之后，索马里陷入暴力和无政府状态，谢登先生逃亡美国。

    法庭文件表明，谢登而后来到加拿大并获得难民身份，但他的妻子阿米娜芬栏路谢登则被拒绝，现与其5个孩子住在美国。

    谢登一家现居何处无从得知，但是，因为谢登先生如被遣送回索马里可能面临迫害，他很可能去美国与其家人会合，此案代表移民部长的律师洁瑞米亚·依斯特曼说。

    谢登先生的律师密歇尔·柯莱恩昨天说，他还没有得到其委托人的授权谈论案情。如果谢登先生在15天内对移民难民署的决定提出上诉，他可将其案件提交联邦法院。但是，依斯特曼先生说，在必要的时间内，(谢登先生)没有申请。

    [National Post Online]
    Page URL:   http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20001016/430734.html
    October 16, 2000

    Former diplomat to be deported after appeal fails
    Somali ambassador: Bears 'collective responsibility' for regime's rights abuses

    Finbarr O'ReillyNational Post

    The Appeal Division of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board has upheld the deportation order of a former high-ranking Somali diplomat who served as an ambassador during the regime of the former dictator, Mohammed Siad Barre.

    Aden Farah Shirdon, who served as Somalia's consulate-general in New York and as the Somali ambassador to Djibouti during the late 1980s, was ordered deported in 1997 on the grounds that he was a senior member of a government that was "engaged in systematic or gross violations of human rights."

    Mr. Shirdon, who is thought to be living among Toronto's large Somali community, came to Canada in 1991 and was granted refugee status three years later.

    Under Canadian immigration law, senior officials of a regime with a record of human rights violations can be found to be complicit even if they did not commit crimes against humanity themselves.

    In Mr. Shirdon's case, no specific crimes or abuses are mentioned, but the board's decision "embodies the notion of collective responsibility for senior officials or members of a regime that engaged in gross human rights abuses," court documents say.

    Under the heavy-handed rule of Mr. Siad Barre, who took power in a military coup in 1969 and who later fled Somalia in 1992 after being driven from office by armed rebels, rival clans were pitted against each other or systematically repressed when they dared to form opposition movements.

    "The number of people killed by government forces, shot pointblank, or killed as a result of aerial bombardment and artillery shelling and war-related wounds is in the vicinity of 50,000 to 60,000," reported Africa Watch at the time.

    "An ambassador is the highest representative of his country abroad," wrote three IRB members in reaching their recent decision. "An ambassador of a regime [such as Mr. Siad Barre's] would have to defend the regime's human rights record against criticism from foreign governments or quit because his conscience would not allow him to follow instructions from the regime. Indeed, there is a moral choice to be made ... [Mr. Shirdon] is not morally blameless."

    During Mr. Barre's rule, Djibouti was an important diplomatic posting, according to court documents, because "it was the listening post of the regime on the opposition movements."

    Mr. Shirdon served as an ambassador in Djibouti for three years, the documents reveal, indicating that "he had the confidence of the regime to deal with dissidents and other sensitive matters."

    After Mr. Siad Barre's downfall in the early 1990s, Somalia descended into violence and anarchy and Mr. Shirdon fled to the United States.

    While he subsequently came to Canada and was granted refugee status, his wife, Amina Egal Shirdon, was rejected and now lives in the United States with Mr. Shirdon's five children, court documents say.

    The family's whereabouts were not known, but since Mr. Shirdon could now face persecution if deported to Somalia, he is more likely to join his family in the United States, said Jeremiah Eastman, the lawyer who represented the Minister of Immigration in the case.

    Michael Crane, Mr. Shirdon's lawyer, said yesterday that he did not have his client's permission to discuss the case. Mr. Shirdon could have taken his case to the Federal Court if he had applied for a judicial review within 15 days of the IRB decision. However, Mr. Eastman said that no application had been filed within the necessary time frame.

     [End]

    (2000年10月27日报导)