引言：乌克兰战争、人权与加拿大的角色
在2024年美国总统大选前夕，唐纳德·特朗普曾反复强调他将在上任第一天结束俄乌战争。然而，如今已接近他第二个任期的开始，欧洲自第二次世界大战以来最大、最血腥的冲突仍在继续。成千上万的人丧生，似乎看不到尽头。那么，局势究竟如何？我们离和平协议还有多远？在多年的艰辛与损失之后，又是什么给了乌克兰人希望？
今天是“人权日”，我们将深入审视加拿大需要承担的责任。我们还将提出一个重要问题：与美国的“安全第三国协议”究竟是在帮助难民还是在辜负他们？欢迎收听《The Rundown》。
View/Hide Original English
In the lead up to the last US presidential election, Donald Trump kept repeating one thing he'd end the Russian war on Ukraine on day one. But here we are, almost a year into his second term and the biggest, bloodiest conflict Europe has seen since the Second World War rages on. Thousands have died and it can feel like there's no end in sight. So where do things actually stand? How close are we to a peace deal? And what's giving Ukrainians hope after years of hardship and loss? Then today is Human Rights Day, and we're taking a hard look at where Canada needs to step up. And we're asking a big question is the safe third country agreement with the US actually helping refugees or failing them? Welcome to The Rundown.
“交易性外交”的局限与人权的核心地位
奥列珊德拉·马特维丘克（Oleksandra Matviychuk）是“公民自由中心”（Centre for Civil Liberties）的主席，该组织曾在2022年获得诺贝尔和平奖。自俄罗斯入侵以来，她一直在提高人们对战争罪行和其他侵犯人权行为的认识。我与她进行了对话，讨论了民主、外交以及唐纳德·特朗普在和平谈判中所扮演的角色。奥列珊德拉，非常感谢您抽出宝贵时间。您今天感觉如何？
“我很好，谢谢您的邀请。”
“最近，我们看到了一系列旨在促成乌克兰与俄罗斯之间和平协议的外交努力。然而，您最近发表了一篇题为《交易性外交无法为乌克兰带来和平》的文章。您所说的‘交易性外交’是什么意思？”
“我的意思是，当你仅仅基于地缘政治利益来做政治决策时，即使短期内你可能受益，但从长远来看，我们都将面临灾难。因此，我们必须在决策时不仅考虑地缘政治利益，还要考虑人权和自由。”
“就目前正在进行的谈判而言，您认为如果不是交易性外交，那么它们缺少了什么？它们应该关注什么？”
“看看正在发生的事情。近几个月来，我们听到了很多关于‘自然矿产’（natural minerals）、俄罗斯的‘领土主张’（territorial claims）、‘地缘政治利益’（geopolitical interests），甚至关于泽连斯基‘年轻’（Zelensky's youth）的讨论。但我们没有听到关于‘人民’（people）的声音。这是不对的。我们仍然不知道将会发生什么，对于超过20,000名与家人分离并被非法驱逐到俄罗斯的乌克兰儿童；对于数千名被非法拘留的平民，无论男女，他们遭受着可怕的酷刑和性虐待；以及对于生活在俄罗斯占领区的人们。总的来说，我们谈论的是数百万生活在‘灰色地带’（grey zone）的人们。他们没有工具来捍卫自己的权利、自由、财产、生命、孩子和亲人。因此，我们必须将‘人的维度’（human dimension）带回谈判进程，因为没有人的维度，我们就永远找不到通往可持续和平的道路。”
View/Hide Original English
Oleksandra Matviychuk is chairwoman of the centre for Civil Liberties, the same group that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022. Since the Russian invasion, she's been raising awareness of war crimes and other human rights abuses. I sat down with her to talk about democracy, diplomacy and the role Donald Trump is playing in peace talks. Oleksandra, thank you so much for taking the time. How are you today? >> I'm fine. Thank you for your invitation. >> Recently, we have seen a flurry of diplomatic efforts to bring a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. Yet you recently wrote a piece titled Transactional Diplomacy cannot bring Peace to Ukraine. What do you mean by transactional diplomacy? >> I mean that when you based your political decision only on geopolitical interests, even if you benefit in the short term, we will all await for catastrophe in the long term. And that's why we must base our decision not only on geopolitical interests, but on human rights and freedom. >> In terms of the the negotiations that are happening right now. What do you think is missing from those if it's not transactional diplomacy? What should they be focusing on? >> Look what's going on. In recent months we heard a lot about natural minerals, Russia's territorial claims, geopolitical interests, even about Zelensky's youth. But we didn't hear about people. And it's not okay. We still have no idea what will be. With more than 20,000 Ukrainian children separated with their families and illegally deported to Russia. What will be with thousands and thousands illegally detained civilians, men and women, as well as prisoners of war, subjected to horrible torture and sexual abuse daily. And what will be with people in Russian occupation? In general? We speak about millions, millions of people who live in grey zone. They have no tools how to defend their rights, their freedom, their property, their life, their children and their loved ones. So we must return human dimension into negotiation process, because without human dimension, we will never find a path to sustainable peace.
普京的战争目标与追责机制的必要性
“您是否对美俄谈判未能与乌克兰达成协议感到惊讶？”
“毫不惊讶，因为普京不想要和平。普京发动大规模战争，不仅仅是为了占领乌克兰更多的土地。这不是一场为了阿夫迪伊夫卡（Avdiivka）或巴赫穆特（Bakhmut）的战争。大多数俄罗斯人甚至无法在地图上找到这些微小的乌克兰城市。普京发动大规模战争，是因为他想占领并摧毁整个乌克兰，然后继续前进。他视乌克兰为通往欧洲的‘桥梁’（breach to Europe）。他的逻辑是历史性的。他梦想着自己的‘遗产’（legacy）。他想武力恢复俄罗斯帝国。因此，要让普京停止，仅仅铺上红地毯是不够的。我们必须展示力量，让普京明白他不可能实现他的目标。”
“您曾参与一个名为‘普京法庭’（Tribunal for Putin）的倡议。这个倡议的目标是什么？它与‘公民自由中心’所做的其他工作有何不同？”
“我们是第一个派遣流动小组在2014年克里米亚和乌克兰东部地区进行战争罪行记录的人权组织。但当战争大规模爆发时，我们面临着海量的罪行。于是，我们建立了全国性的地方记录网络，覆盖了整个国家，包括被占领的领土。现在，在我们的‘普京法庭’倡议数据库中，我们有超过91,000起战争罪行的记录，这是一个巨大的数字，但仍然只是冰山一角。所有这些暴行之所以成为可能，仅仅是因为普京及其幕僚决定打破和平并发动这场血腥的战争。所以他们必须承担责任。这就是为什么我们倡导设立一个特别的‘侵略罪法庭’（special tribunal on aggression）。”
“您谈到追责，但已经有像‘国际法院’（International Court of Justice）这样的机构了。您也有‘欧洲联盟’（European Union）。为什么您认为我们需要这个法庭？”
“因为我们存在‘问责鸿沟’（accountability gap）。没有一个国际法庭能够起诉普京犯下的‘侵略罪’（crime of aggression）。但这不仅对乌克兰人重要。如果我们想防止未来的战争，我们必须惩罚那些在当下发动此类战争的国家和领导人。这听起来像是常识，但即使是海牙的‘国际刑事法院’（International Criminal Court）也没有管辖权来起诉侵略罪。在俄罗斯侵略乌克兰的局势下，我们必须填补这个空白，设立这样一个特别法庭，表明如果你未来发动战争，你将被惩罚。”
View/Hide Original English
>> Were you surprised that US-Russia talks were unable to secure a deal with Ukraine? >> No surprise, because Putin doesn't want peace. Putin started large scale war not just to occupy more part of Ukrainian land. It's not the war for Avdiivka or Bakhmut. Majority of Russians can't find this tiny Ukrainian cities in the map. Putin started large scale war because he want to occupy and destroy the whole Ukraine and move further. He see Ukraine as a breach to Europe. His logic is historical. He dreams about his legacy. He wants to forcibly restore Russian Empire. So in order to make Putin stop, it's not enough to roll in a red carpet. We must demonstrate strength to make Putin understand that it's impossible for him to achieve his goal. >> You were part of a group that started initiative called called tribunal for Putin. What is the objective and how is this different from sort of the other work that this centre for Civil Liberties has done? >> We was the first human rights organisation who sent mobile groups to work on documentation of war crimes in Crimea and eastern regions in Ukraine in 2014. But when large scale war started, we faced with enormous amount of crimes. So we built national network of local documentations and covered the whole country, including the occupied territories. And now in our database of tribunal for Putin initiative, we have more than 91,000 episodes of war crimes, which is a huge amount, but still just a tip of iceberg. And all this atrocities are possible only because Putin and his surrounding decided to break the peace and to start this bloody war. So they must be accountable. And that's why we are advocating to create a special tribunal on aggression. >> You speak of accountability, but there are institutions already the International Court of Justice. You have the European Union as well. Why do you feel we need this tribunal? >> Because we have accountability gap. There is no international court which can prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression. But it's not just important for Ukrainians. If you want to prevent wars in the future, we have to punish the states and the leaders who start such wars in present. It sounds like a common sense, but even International Criminal Court in The Hague has no jurisdiction to prosecute for the crime of aggression. In situation of Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. So we must to fill this gap and to create such special tribunal to, to to show that if you will start the war in the future, you will be punished.
摇摇欲坠的世界秩序与民主的“消费主义”
“您是否觉得这些机构让乌克兰人民失望了？我知道您提到了其中的差距，但就我刚才提到的这些机构而言……”
“这是一个普遍问题。我不知道未来的历史学家将如何称呼这个历史时期，但建立在《联合国宪章》（UN Charter）和国际法基础上的世界秩序，正在我们眼前崩溃。这个体系是在第二次世界大战后建立的，目的是防止战争和大规模暴力。但现在，我们只是在进行‘例行公事’（ritualistic movements），其原因显而易见。就连我的智能手机也有一个‘有效期’（expiration date）。这个体系从未进行过改革。现在，由于俄罗斯在‘安全理事会’（Security Council）的‘否决权’（veto power），它完全瘫痪了。”
“我想问您最近在一篇散文中写到的一件事。您写道：‘当代人从祖父母那里继承了民主。他们开始想当然地认为它。他们变成了民主的消费者。他们对自由的理解是，有机会在超市里选择不同的奶酪。’我们加拿大人所生活的现实，与乌克兰人现在所经历的截然不同。请帮助我们理解，想当然地认为民主的负面影响是什么？”
“直接影响是，在发达民主国家，当代人首先开始质疑《世界人权宣言》（Universal Declaration of Human Rights）。其次，他们开始为了‘民粹主义’（populist claim）的经济利益而牺牲自己的自由，最重要的是，为了自己的舒适。他们忘记了，你不可能一次性获得自由和人权，并永远保持下去。我们每天都在做出自己的选择。”
View/Hide Original English
>> Do you feel that these institutions have let Ukrainians down? I know you speak of the gaps there, but these institutions that I had mentioned. >> It's a general problem. I don't know how historians in future will call this historical period, but the world order, which is based on UN charter and international law, is collapsing before our eyes. This system was created after the Second World War to prevent wars and mass violence. But now we just stolen and reproducing ritualistic movements for the obvious reason. Even my smartphone has an expiration date. This system has never been reformed. Now it's totally paralysed with a veto power of Russia in Security Council. >> I'd like to ask you about something you wrote in a recent essay, and you write, current generations inherited democracy from their grandparents. They began to take it for granted. They've become consumers of democracy. Their understanding of freedom is the opportunity to choose between different cheeses. In the supermarket. We are living very different realities as Canadians compared to Ukrainians right now. Help us understand what is the downside of taking democracy for granted. >> The direct impact is that current generations in well-developed democracies, they first start to put into questions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And second, they start to exchange their freedoms for populist claim for economic benefits. And first and foremost, for their own comfort. They forget that you can't attain your freedom and human rights once and forever. We make our own choice every day.
困境中的希望：人权律师的视角
“尽管您的国家经历了这一切，是什么给了像您一样的乌克兰人希望？”
“我认为我们必须正确定义希望，因为希望不是一切都会好起来的信心。希望是一种深刻的理解，即我们所有的努力都具有巨大的意义。我从我作为一名人权律师的亲身经历中知道，在法律不起作用的情况下，当你无法依赖国际和平与安全体系时，你仍然可以依赖人民，而普通人可以成就非凡之事。”
“奥列珊德拉，我们就此打住。非常感谢您，祝您一切顺利。”
“非常感谢，我很享受这次谈话。”
View/Hide Original English
>> Despite everything that your country has gone through. What gives Ukrainians like you hope? >> I think we must define the hope properly, because hope is not a confidence that everything will be fine. Hope. It's a deep understanding that all our efforts have a huge meaning. And I know from my own experience being a human rights lawyer in situation when the law doesn't work, that when you can't rely on the international system of peace and security, you can still rely on people, and ordinary people can do extraordinary things. >> Aleksandra, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much and wishing you all the best. >> Thank you very much. >> I enjoyed the conversation.
加美“安全第三国协议”：难民保护的困境
“根据联邦政府的说法，‘安全第三国协议’（Safe Third Country Agreement）旨在帮助加拿大和美国更好地管理两国难民系统的准入。这是政府的说法，但它实际是如何运作的呢？TVO Today 的制片人阿迪特·迪克西（Adit Dixit）对此进行了深入研究。”
“在加拿大和美国之间，存在一项‘默契规则’（quiet rule），它决定了一个逃离危险的人必须在哪个国家寻求安全。这项协议被称为‘安全第三国协议’。但它究竟是什么？”
“它旨在限制寻求庇护者在穿越美国后，向加拿大申请庇护的能力。”
“这意味着，如果某人抵达加拿大-美国边境，他们首先经过的国家将负责处理他们的保护申请，除非他们符合某项例外情况。所以，如果某人首先抵达加拿大，加拿大就负责听取他们的申请。但如果他们首先抵达美国，那么美国就负责听取他们的申请。”
“在很多方面，这是一项由加拿大推动的协议，旨在减缓从美国进入加拿大的人数。”
“该协议于2004年生效，即使在当时也备受争议。”
“‘安全第三国协议’可能吸引政策制定者和政治家的一些原因，是他们担心加拿大‘庇护系统’（asylum system）不堪重负。与主要难民接收国相比，加拿大抵达的人数相对较少。它实际上是基于这样一个理念：难民可以在签署该协议的两个国家，即加拿大和美国，获得公平、平等的待遇和保护。如果任何一个国家对难民变得敌对，那么协议的原则将完全被破坏。这就是一些难民团体现在所说的，在特朗普执政下正在发生的事情。”
“加拿大和美国拥有截然不同的难民认定系统，我们确实看到了这种情况在特朗普政府下加速。但不仅是美国，它根本不能被真正视为一个对难民‘安全’（safe country）的国家。他们的保护水平要低得多。他们成为难民的障碍要多得多。因此，美国和加拿大的系统实际上并不具有可比性。”
“加拿大签署《难民公约》（Refugee Convention）的原因是，它认识到帮助有需要的人、帮助那些因国家迫害、内战或其他流离失所原因而逃离家园的人，是一种‘道义上的责任’（moral imperative）。所以，‘加拿大可能不堪重负’（Canada could be overwhelmed）这个想法的反面是，‘为什么我们不投入更多资源来确保我们的系统运作得更好呢？’”
View/Hide Original English
>> According to the feds, the safe third country agreement is supposed to help Canada and the United States better manage access to each country's refugee system. That's the government messaging. But how does it actually work? TVO Today producer Adit Dixit digs in to the fine print. >> There's a quiet rule between Canada, the US that decides what country a person fleeing danger has to ask for safety in. It's called the Safe Third Country Agreement. But what is it exactly? >> It's supposed to limit the ability of asylum seekers to claim asylum in Canada if they've passed through the United States. >> It meant that if someone reached the Canada-US border, the first country that they came through would be the country that would take on their protection claim unless they qualified for an exception. So if someone arrives in Canada first, Canada is responsible for hearing that claim. But if they arrive in the US first, then the US is responsible for hearing that claim. >> This was in many ways a Canadian driven agreement seeking to slow the number of people coming from the United States to Canada. >> The agreement came into force in 2004 and it was controversial even then. >> The reasons why something like the safe Third Country agreement may have appealed to policy makers and politicians was because of concerns about the overwhelming of Canada's asylum system. The number of arrivals in Canada is fairly minor compared to that of a major refugee accepting states. It really is premised on the idea that refugees can get fair and equal treatment and access to protection in both countries which signed that agreement, which is to say, Canada and the United States. >> If either countries were to become hostile to refugees, it would defeat the principle of the agreement entirely. That's what some refugee groups are saying is happening right now under Trump. >> Canada and the United States have very different refugee determination systems, and we're really seeing the acceleration of this under the Trump administration. But not only the United States cannot genuinely be considered a safe country for refugees. Their level of protections are much lower. They have many more barriers to becoming a refugee. And so the US and the Canadian system are not really that comparable.
加拿大在全球人权领域的表现评估
“我们离《世界人权宣言》所设想的世界还有多远？这是亚历克斯·内夫（Alex Neve）在他的新书《普遍性：在分裂的世界中更新人权》（Universal Renewing Human Rights in a Fractured World）中探讨的问题。他是前‘国际特赦组织加拿大’（Amnesty International Canada）的秘书长。我与他谈论了加拿大在促进全球和国内人权方面是否做得足够，以及为什么他认为‘安全第三国协议’应该被废除。为了开始，当我们谈论‘普遍人权’（universal human rights）时，我们是否都在使用相同的定义？”
“我们可能并不都使用相同的定义，但我们绝对可以也应该使用相同的定义，因为有一个可以参照的‘高峰’（mount），那就是，很多人可能听说过，‘世界人权宣言’。这可以追溯到1948年联合国。想想那个历史时刻。那是一个相当‘原始’（raw）、‘动荡’（turbulent）、‘充满恐惧’（fearful）的时期。我们刚刚经历了第二次世界大战的‘残骸’（carnage），我们试图理解和应对‘大屠杀’（Holocaust）的‘绝对’（absolute）、‘彻底’（utter）的‘恐怖’（horror）。各国政府走到一起，首先建立了‘联合国’（United Nations），并将其宗旨之一，以及其他一些宗旨，定为‘保护和尊重人权’（protecting and respecting human rights），这是这个新世界机构前所未有的全球性目标。然后几年后，在1948年，起草并通过了《世界人权宣言》。我认为，正如我们凭直觉所想象的那样，‘普遍性’（universal）这个词的意思就是如此。它是‘为你我’（for you and for me）的，是‘为我们所有人’（for all of us）、‘为每个人’（for everyone）、‘在任何地方’（everywhere）的。‘无论如何’（no matter what），‘任何时候’（at all times）。这就是普遍性的含义，它是一种‘超越性’（transcendent）的存在，适用于每个人、每个地方、永远重要。”
“在您的书中，您写道‘这不是普遍性的‘黄金时代’（finest hour）。为什么您这么说？”
“每次我说这句话，大家通常都会点头。我认为人们明白我们周围的世界是‘破碎’（broken）、‘分裂’（fractured）的。当然，‘大规模暴行’（mass atrocities）似乎在‘加速’（picking up pace），我们看到‘加沙地带’（Gaza）正在发生‘种族灭绝’（genocide），我们有俄罗斯‘非法’（illegal）、‘不合法’（unlawful）入侵乌克兰，苏丹内战造成了‘毁灭性’（devastating）的‘人道主义’（humanitarian）和‘人权危机’（human rights crisis）。还有阿富汗、‘罗兴亚人危机’（Rohingya crisis）、委内瑞拉等等。还有‘气候危机’（climate crisis），我认为‘普遍性不是黄金时代’的紧迫性从未如此之高。因为我们面临着挑战我们‘生存本身’（very survival）、我们‘地球的生存’（planet's very survival）的事物。我们看到‘仇恨’（hate）、‘虚假信息’（disinformation）、‘谎言’（lies）、‘分裂’（divisiveness）、‘两极分化’（polarisation）的‘抬头’（rise），它渗透到我们的政治中，渗透到社会中。我认为在很多方面，我们似乎变得‘互相恐惧’（fearful of one another）。我们不知道如何‘互相交流’（talk to one another）。这对普遍性意味着什么？这个列表还可以继续，但这只是当前世界多么分裂的一种感觉。”
“亚历克斯，您担任‘国际特赦组织加拿大’秘书长长达20年。您将如何回应那些此刻，鉴于您举出的例子，对人权组织能多大程度上‘推动改变’（move the needle）表示怀疑的人？”
“首先，我想说，所有有疑虑的人都有充分的理由感到怀疑和迟疑。看看我们周围吧。当然，我们面临着如此多的人权挑战和危机。我们所有人，包括我们这些‘人权活动家’（human rights activists），难道不应该感到‘不堪重负’（filled up with that）吗？我当然希望人们能够得到‘保证’（assured），也许让我们以1948年至今作为我们的‘时间跨度’（time span）。我们这个世界已经发生了‘巨大的进步’（enormous progress）。我的意思是，我们正聚焦于这个‘破碎’（fractured）、‘恶化’（deteriorating）的世界以及‘基于规则的国际秩序’（international rules-based order）的‘崩溃’（collapse）等等，但从1948年到2025年，我们这个世界在人权方面发生了‘巨大的变化’（immense human rights change）。我们不能保护这一点，即使从最基本的‘妇女平等权利’（equality rights of women）开始，想象一下1948年和2025年我们在世界各地，尤其是在加拿大，情况有多么不同。‘LGBTQ+社群’（LGBTQ+ community）的平等权利，取得了巨大的进步，这些进步被有意义地‘载入宪法和法律’（enshrined human rights meaningfully and constitutions and laws）。所有这些进步，一直很重要的一点是，都来自于‘人民’（people）、‘社区’（communities）、‘斗争’（struggle）、‘权利持有者’（rights holders）的推动。我们之所以仍然有这种‘失败感’（sense of failure），是因为我们从未真正‘拥抱’（embraced）普遍性意味着什么。这是《世界人权宣言》中的第一个词，‘普遍’（Universal）。它本应完全关于这一点。但我们并未在世界上拥抱普遍性。我不是仅仅‘指责’（pointing my finger at）政府、企业和权力精英，我确实指责他们，但我不仅仅指责他们。这关乎我们所有人，以各种不同的方式。我们随波逐流。也许我们在自己的生活中，非常‘刻意地’（deliberately）做出了选择和决定，我们‘排斥’（excluded），我们‘视而不见’（looked away）他人的权利。而这正是第一件必须改变的事情。但第二件事也可以改变，而且可能出于一个非常根本的原因。它触及了我们所有人内在的东西，即使在一个充满‘暴力’（violence）、‘残忍’（cruelty）和‘剥削’（exploitation）的世界里，我们也都拥有‘共同人性’（common humanity）的意识。”
“我想把焦点放在我们国家——加拿大。多年来，我们在TVO上进行了很多关于加拿大在世界地位的讨论。有一种日益增长的观点认为，加拿大作为一个‘中等强国’（middle power），未能‘发挥超常水平’（punch above its weight）。如果给加拿大打分，您认为我们在人权方面做得怎么样？”
“我目前给加拿大打‘C’，甚至可能是‘C-minus’。我带着‘悲伤和沮丧’（sadness and dismay）的心情说出这句话，因为过去曾有过一些时候，我会给加拿大打‘B-plus’或‘A-minus’，因为我认为加拿大在国际舞台上做出了一些‘显著贡献’（notable contributions）。回想一下，例如在90年代末、2000年初，加拿大在‘禁止地雷’（banning landmines）、‘保护儿童兵’（protecting child soldiers）、‘建立国际刑事法院’（establishing the International Criminal Court）方面发挥了领导作用。这些都是巨大的突破，其‘遗产’（legacy）至今仍在。但你真的要追溯到很久以前。那些‘黄金时刻’（golden moments）已经是25年多前了。所以，是的，我们现在的影响力……也许在那些日子里，我们还能‘发挥超常水平’，但我会说，我们现在是‘发挥不足’（punching below our weight）。我很难指出加拿大在人权方面为世界舞台带来的任何值得我们感到骄傲的事情。我们参与讨论，我们在联合国就许多决议‘投赞成票’（vote the right way）。并非总是如此。我们没有‘引领潮流’（leading the charge）。我们没有利用我们的‘政治和外交资本’（political and diplomatic capital）来推动一项‘大胆的新人权倡议’（bold new human rights initiative），而我们现在正是极度需要这种倡议的时候。我们可以做到，过去也做到过。还有其他国家，那些没有加拿大那么‘份量和影响力’（heft and influence）的国家。人们经常谈论挪威在‘全球人权和人道主义领域’（global human rights and humanitarian spaces）所做的事情，但它的人口大约只有加拿大的十分之一。爱尔兰、西班牙……很多人注意到这些国家以及其他国家在‘公开谈论加沙种族灭绝’（speaking out about genocide in Gaza）等问题上的‘勇气和决心’（courage and conviction），而我们却‘胆怯’（timid），‘束手无策’（tie ourselves up in knots），不敢使用那个词。我们‘弃权’（abstain）投票，而不是支持。这还不够好。它从来都不够好。但现在，当普遍性如此‘脆弱’（frayed）并需要‘支持者’（support）和‘倡导者’（champions）时，加拿大需要挺身而出。”
View/Hide Original English
>> I want to put a little focus on us here as a nation. Canada. We have a lot of discussions at TVO over the years about Canada's place in the world. There's been a growing sentiment that Canada, as a middle power, fails to punch above its weight. If you were to grade us, how are we doing in human rights? >> I would give us a C right now, maybe even a C-minus. And I say that with a sense of sadness and dismay, because there are times in the past when I would have given us a B-plus or an A-minus, because I think Canada has had some notable contributions to the world stage. You think back to the the late '90s, early 2000, for instance, when Canada led in banning landmines, in protecting child soldiers, in establishing the International Criminal Court. You know, huge breakthroughs that the legacy of which are still with us today. But you really have to look that far back. That's what, 25-plus years now for those golden moments. And so, yes, we are now punching if maybe back in in those days we were punching a bit above our weight, I would say we're now punching below our weight. I'm hard pressed to point to something that Canada is bringing to the world stage when it comes to human rights, that we should all feel a sense of pride about. We're there, we're in discussions. You know, we we vote the right way on numbers of resolutions at the United Nations. Not always. We're not leading the charge. We're not using our political and diplomatic capital to advance, you know, a bold new human rights initiative at a time when we are desperately in need of such. And and we can be that we have been that in the past. And there are other countries, countries that don't have the heft and influence that Canada does. You know, people talk a lot about what Norway does in sort of global human rights and humanitarian spaces with, I don't know, about a 10th the population of Canada, Ireland, Spain. You know, a lot of people have been noticing the courage and conviction of of those countries and others, for instance, in speaking out about genocide in Gaza, for instance, whereas we get timid and tie ourselves up in knots, won't use the language. We abstain from resolutions rather than supporting them. That's not good enough. It's never been good enough. But right now, when universality is so frayed and needs not just support but champions, Canada needs to be there.
重塑普遍人权：呼唤行动与共同人性
“我想谈谈关系。加拿大一直在重新审视与我们南方邻居的关系。我们是否有机会回到过去的那些日子？或许可以为自己的人权开辟一条道路？”
“显然，在特朗普政府时期，我们不是人权方面的‘伙伴’（partner）。恰恰相反。我们有一个长期的盟友，它现在可能在很多方面比世界上任何其他国家都更能‘摧毁’（contributing to the decimation）‘人权承诺是普遍的’（human rights promise is universal）这一理念，正在剥夺数百万美国人的权利，并在世界舞台上‘侵蚀’（eviscerating）普遍人权承诺。而我们对此保持‘沉默’（staying silent）。我们显然非常‘专注于’（preoccupied with）我们的经济关系，我对此并不‘低估’（underestimate）。我知道这有多么重要。这当然是我们现在需要‘接触’（reach out to）其他伙伴、新伙伴的时候，不仅仅是为了增加我们的贸易关系，而是要共同努力，确保我们能够成为‘普遍人权承诺的堡垒’（bulwark for the universal human rights promise），在这个它正在‘瓦解’（coming undone）的时代。”
“您谈到了‘安全第三国协议’。对于不熟悉的人来说，这是什么？为什么您说它需要被废除？”
“‘安全第三国协议’涉及‘难民保护’（refugee protection），这是加拿大和美国在20多年前签署的一项协议。它经历过几个不同的阶段，但基本上，它或多或少地‘关闭了’（shut down）那些穿越美国后试图越过加美陆地边境来加拿大申请难民保护的难民的‘准入’（access）。该协议的前提是，加拿大和美国都有符合‘国际标准’（international standards）的难民保护系统。我一直不同意这一点，尤其是在美国方面，甚至在唐纳德·特朗普出现之前。但尽管如此，其理念是，为了有一个‘负责任’（responsible）、‘公平’（equitable）、‘公正’（equitable）的难民保护方法，难民应该被期望在他们首先经过的国家提出申请。在‘难民保护’方面，有过许多许多‘有问题’（problematic）的章节，即使是在乔治·布什（George Bush）时期，即使是在巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）时期，即使是在乔·拜登（Joe Biden）时期，关于美国是否真正符合这些国际标准。但现在我们进入了一个阶段，可以说，没有其他方式可以表达了。唐纳德·特朗普已经宣布对美国难民和移民的权利‘全面开战’（full-out war），而我们却保持沉默。我们对在美国难民和移民身上发生的事情‘不发一语’（do not raise a whisper of concern），并且我们‘官方坚持’（continue to maintain the line officially）这一立场。内阁部长们对记者说，美国难民保护的‘基本原则’（fundamentals）仍然存在。因此，没有必要重新审视，更不用说废除这项协议了。这是‘不可容忍的’（unconscionable）。我认为，在我看来，这是最明显的例子，说明我们可以采取一个‘立即的步骤’（immediate step），至少能表明我们在当前这个‘非常令人担忧的时期’（very troubling time）在人权方面‘有点骨气’（some backbone）。但我们却保持沉默。这是一种‘耻辱’（disgrace）。”
View/Hide Original English
>> Something that you talk about safe third country agreement for people who aren't familiar with that, what is that and why is that something that you say needs to go? >> So the safe Third Country Agreement deals with refugee protection, and it's an agreement that Canada and the United States entered into over 20 years ago. And it's had various different phases to it, but essentially it has more or less shut down access to refugee protection in Canada for refugees who pass through the United States and then try to cross the Canada-US land border to be able to make a refugee claim here. The agreement's premise is that Canada and the US both have refugee protection systems that meet international standards. I've always disagreed with that when it comes to the United States long before Donald Trump, but nonetheless, that's the premise such that in order for there to be a responsible, equitable, equitable approach to refugee protection, refugees should be expected to make their claim in the first country that they pass through. There have been many, many problematic chapters, you know, even under George Bush, even under Barack Obama, even under Joe Biden, when it comes to refugee protection in the United States. And whether it truly does meet those international standards. But now we're in a stage where essentially there's no other way to say it. Donald Trump has declared a full-out war on the rights of refugees and migrants in the United States, and we stay silent. We do not raise a whisper of concern about what is happening to to refugees and migrants in the United States, and we continue to maintain the line officially. Cabinet ministers say this to journalists that the fundamentals of refugee protection in the United States are still in place. Therefore, there is no need to revisit, let alone to scrap, this agreement. That is unconscionable. It is. It is, I think, in my mind, the most obvious example of where we could take an immediate step that at least demonstrates that we have some backbone when it comes to human rights in this very troubling time. But we're staying silent. That's a disgrace.
安大略省的挑战：原住民权利与无家可归问题
“在我们国内，有呼吁安大略省政府撤销‘保护安大略，释放我们经济法案’（Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act），即‘法案五’（Bill 5）。我们从哪里开始着手处理这类事情？”
“我将点出两个特别具有安大略省独特共鸣的问题。绝对是‘法案五’。以及更广泛地说，我们对待‘原住民权利’（rights of indigenous peoples）在我们‘决策’（decision making）、‘立法’（lawmaking）、‘资源开发’（resource development）、‘投资决策’（investment decisions）中的‘极其不力’（absolutely lacklustre），用‘有问题’（problematic）来形容都算客气了。而‘法案五’正是其中的一个完美例子。在联邦层面，我们至少采取了‘采纳‘联合国原住民权利宣言’（UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples）并将其纳入联邦法律’（adopting the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into federal law）的步骤。这在不列颠哥伦比亚省的一个省也已实现。安大略省也应该采取这一步骤，将这一文书‘国内化’（bring that instrument domestically），直接纳入安大略省的省级法律，然后确保像‘法案五’这样的法案受到其约束。这绝对是一件至关重要的事情。另一个我想强调的问题是‘无家可归’（homelessness），这在任何方面都是一个‘人权问题’（human rights issue）。从一开始，‘国际人权规范’（international human rights norms），《世界人权宣言》就谈到了‘适足住房的基本权利’（essential right to adequate housing）。我们显然在加拿大各地，乃至全世界，都‘远远不够’（falling dramatically short），但在安大略省尤其如此。而人权保护的一个直接体现，就是我们如何处理‘无家可归者营地’（homeless encampments）中人们的问题。特鲁多省政府以及省内许多市政当局的言论，一直让我感到非常不安，那就是他们愿意‘完全不顾’（run roughshod over）住在营地中的无家可归者的权利，而使用《权利宪章》中臭名昭著的‘但不溯及条款’（notwithstanding clause），这本质上是政府在侵犯人权方面的‘‘免费通行证’（get out of jail free card）。这些就是我们需要改变的事情。”
View/Hide Original English
>> Closer to home, there are calls on the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill five, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act. Where do we begin or start with something like that? >> So I'll just name two issues in particular that I think have a real Ontario specific resonance. Absolutely. Bill 5. And and with that more broadly, are still absolutely lacklustre. Would be generous but problematic approach to where we situate the rights of indigenous peoples in our decision making, in our lawmaking, in our in our resource development, in our investment decisions. And Bill 5 is a perfect example of that. Federally, we have at least taken the step of of adopting the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into federal law that has happened provincially in one province in British Columbia. Ontario should take that step as well to bring that instrument domestically, directly into Ontario's provincial laws, and then ensure that things like Bill 5 bill are being are being governed by that. That absolutely would be a crucial thing to do. Another issue that I want to highlight is is homelessness, which is in every way imaginable a human rights issue. You know, from the very beginning, international human rights norms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks about the essential right to adequate housing. We obviously are falling dramatically short everywhere across Canada and around the world, in fact, but very much so in Ontario. And one of the places this comes up in a very direct way around human rights protection is, is how we handle the issue of of people living in homeless encampments. And one of the things that's been so troubling to hear from Premier Ford's government and from a number of municipal governments across the province, is their willingness to just completely run roughshod over the rights of homeless people living in encampments by using the notorious notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights, which is essentially the the get out of jail free card for governments when it comes to human rights violations. Those are the kinds of things we need to change.
呼吁行动：加拿大人如何倡导人权
“亚历克斯，我们现在能采取哪三个具体行动来倡导更好的人权？”
“在联邦层面，现在是时候废除我们与美国之间那项‘可耻的’（disgraceful）‘安全第三国协议’了，这项协议建立在一个‘虚构’（fiction）的基础上，即认为美国现在对难民和移民一切都好。其次，在安大略省，撤销‘法案五’，这是对这个国家、这个省原住民权利的‘攻击’（assault），绝不应作为法律通过。第三，我认为这是非常具体的：今天就和你的朋友、同事、邻居、公交车上的陌生人聊一聊，谈谈‘普遍人权’。问一个关于‘普遍人权’的问题。让某人明白你关心‘普遍人权’，并鼓励他们也这样做。”
“亚历克斯，我们就此打住。非常感谢您给我们带来希望。”
“非常感谢。我很享受这次谈话。”
View/Hide Original English
>> All right, Alex, what are three concrete actions Canadians can take right now to advocate for better universal human rights. >> At the federal level? It is absolutely time to scrap the disgraceful, safe third country agreement that we maintain with the United States that is built on the fiction, that somehow all is okay for refugees and migrants in the United States right now. Secondly, here in Ontario, withdraw Bill 5, which is an assault on the rights of indigenous peoples in this country, in this province, and and simply should not go forward as law. And then, number three, I think this is very concrete. Have a conversation today with a friend, a co-worker, a neighbour, a stranger on the bus and mention universal human rights. Ask a question about universal human rights. Make it clear to someone that you care about universal human rights and encourage them to do the same. >> Alex, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much for giving us hope. >> Thanks very much. I enjoyed the conversation.