【新唐人2014年06月19日訊】「中國律師協會」醞釀出臺配合中共當局打壓律師的《律師執業行為規範》和《律師協會會員違規行為處分規則》，遭到各地律師強烈抗議。一批中國律師在網路發起聯署簽名，要求罷免律師協會會長王俊峰。
大陸媒體6月17號報導說，全國律師協會即將出臺的《律師執業行為規範》和《律師協會會員違規行為處分規則》草案規定，律師在案件審結前，擅自披露、散佈案件信息、訴訟文書、證據材料、辯護、代理意見，最高可給予中止會員權利一年的處分。
這兩份草案還對律師在網上的行為做了許多約束。《規則》草案第39條規定，列舉了大量律師所謂「不當運用互聯網等媒介」的情形。
這兩份草案被律師們認為，嚴重侵犯律師的合法權益。17號，中國各地律師在網路上發起一份聯署簽名信，抗議律師協會出臺配合當局打壓律師的「新規」，並且要求罷免律師協會會長王俊峰。
信中指出：鑒於「律協」無視律師基本作用，違背憲法法律，修改《規範》和《規則》，加入大量侵犯律師執業權利、公民權利和政治權利的條款，已經從律師權利保護者，淪為打壓律師正當權利的幫兇，「律協」會長王俊峰應當負有直接責任。所以會員將行使權利，提案全國律師會員代表大會及理事會，罷免王俊峰，並提前徵集附議者。
這份聯署簽名信得到眾多律師的響應，各地律師紛紛表示，這事關係到每一位律師的權益，作為律師一定要站出來發聲。
南京律師、「東南大學」法學院教授張讚寧指出，作為全國律師協會，它原本是保護律師的權力，而不是限制律師的權力，所以它沒有權力制定律師《規範》和《規則》。
南京「東南大學」法學院教授張讚寧：「憲法和法律都規定公民有言論自由，這是公民的基本權力，作為一個律師，連做公民的權力都要剝奪，那麼肯定是違犯人權的，違反法律的，也是違反憲法的，這個規則肯定是無效的。」
北京維權律師劉衛國指出：這兩份懲治律師的草案中，對維權律師所採取的手段是非法的。
北京維權律師劉衛國：「文件通過，那麼我們律師就繳械，就成了要赤手空拳跟強大的公、檢、法對抗，還有另外一個事情，他們現在竟然要求公、檢、法參與律協對律師的懲戒，公、檢、法認為這個律師有問題，律協就會對這名律師懲戒。」
劉衛國指出，律師協會本身代表私權力，跟公權力是抗衡的，但現在「律協」主動邀請公、檢、法來制裁律師，這個律協已經沒有存在的必要了。
劉衛國：「所以我們現在要求罷免律協會長，甚至要求律師直選，律師有權利選舉自己的律師協會的管理人員，服務人員，他們現在定位錯了，律協是為律師服務，而不是管理律師的」。
張讚寧支持罷免律協會長。他說，「中國律師協會」早就淪為當局打壓正義律師的幫兇。
張讚寧：「我們中國律師協會從來不是一個獨立的民間的機構，而是半官方的，有的甚至律師協會會長兼任了司法局、局法廳或司法部甚麼幹部，這種體制是很不正常的，我想我們在罷免律師會長的同時，應該彈劾司法部部長。」
今年初以來，中共當局任意拘留、關押維權律師，從黑龍江建三江警察毆打及拘捕律師事件，到「六四」期間大肆抓捕律師，再到17號江蘇徐州警方扣留會見當事人的律師——趙永林和陳建剛等，一再引發律師界強烈的不滿。
6月11號，中共黨媒《求是》轉發的一篇文章中，不但把維權律師稱作國內的民運分子，還把律師、公知、民運人士與邪教份子、恐怖份子相提並論。
採訪編輯/李韻 後製/孫寧
China Lawyers Association Proposes New Rules, Lawyers Request Director´s Resignation
The All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) has echoed
the Chinese Communist Party´s (CCP) suppression of lawyers
by introducing new bar regulations and disciplinary measures
within the association, provoking strong protest from lawyers.
Some lawyers jointly launched an online signatory campaign
calling on Wang Junfeng, director of ACLA, to step down.
On June 17, Chinese media reported that the ACLA
issued draft rules.
The draft indicates that before a case closes,
any lawyer who leaks relevant case information
is likely to receive heavy punishment –
the revocation of their attorney license for one year.
The drafts call for the restriction of lawyers´ freedom
of speech on the Internet.
Article 39 of the draft also details scenarios of lawyers
“improper use” of social networks.
Lawyers believe that the draft rules severely violate
lawyer´s rights.
On June 17, lawyers in each city launched
an online signatory petition.
They protested the ACLA´s assisting of the regime´s
suppression of lawyers in the draft regulations.
Thus, they called for the removal of ACLA´s
director Wang Junfeng.
The petition states that the ACLA ignores lawyers´
fundamental role and goes against constitutional law.
Contents have been added to the draft rules regarding the
abuse of lawyers´ rights, citizen rights and political rights.
The ACLA has downgraded itself from lawyers´ protector
to accomplice in the suppression of lawyers´ rights.
Wang Junfeng should be held directly responsible.
Thus members will exercise their rights by writing
to the upper-level to call for the resignation of Wang Junfeng.
Lawyers are also soliciting more support.
Many lawyers responded to the petition letter by saying
that this issue involves the rights of every lawyer.
Lawyers must stand up and speak out.
Nanjing lawyer Zhang Zanning says that the ACLA´s function
is to protect lawyers´ rights, not limit lawyers´ rights.
Thus, the ACLA is not qualified to draft regulations.
Zhang Zanning: “The Constitution and the law state
that citizens have freedom of expression.
It is a basic right of lawyers and citizens.
Our rights to be citizens has been deprived;
it is certainly against human rights and against the law.
It is also against the constitution,
ACLA´s proposed regulations are surely invalid.”
Beijing activist lawyer Liu Weiguo says that the methods
of the draft rules, which aim at lawyers, are illegal.
Liu Weiguo: “If the regulations are approved,
we are defeated.
We more or less fight the vicious public security,
prosecutors and courts empty handed.
Another issue is they now involve public security,
prosecutors and the court in punishing lawyers.
If public security, prosecutors and courts believe a lawyer
has breached the rules, ACLA will punish this lawyer.”
Liu Weiguo says that normally ACLA represents private
rights, which oppose the public authority.
However, the ACLA has now invited public security,
prosecutors and courts to sanction lawyers.
The ACLA is no longer necessary.
Liu Weiguo: “So we requested the removal
of the ACLA director.
We suggested that lawyers elect their director, that lawyers
be given rights to choose ACLA´s managers and staff.
The stance of the current ACLA is wrong.
ACLA should serve lawyers rather than restrict lawyers.”
Zhang Zanning supports the dismissal of the ACLA´s
current director.
Zhang said that ACLA has already downgraded itself
to an accomplice in the suppression of upright lawyers.
Zhang Zanning: “ACLA has never been an independent
non-governmental organization. It is semi-official.
Some directors of lawyers´ associations also served
in the Bureau of Justice, Bureau of Law or Ministry of Justice.
It is very abnormal.
I think we requested the dismissal of the director of ACLA,
meanwhile, the Minister of Justice should also be removed.”
Since the beginning of this year, the regime
arbitrarily detained human rights lawyers.
The beating and arrest of lawyers by the Jiansanjiang police,
the large-scale arrest of lawyers on June 4, and the June 17
detention of lawyers who were meeting clients has sparked
discontentment across the legal profession.
On June 11, the state-run Qiushi magazine circulated
an article that not only labeled human rights lawyers
as democrats but also said lawyers, public intellectuals,
and democrats are linked to cult activists and terrorists.
Interview & Edit/Li Yun Post-Production/SunNing