毋忘五大訴求 公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
(案件編號:DCCC 535/2020)
——————————————————
「毋忘初衷,活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘,即訂閱Patreon:
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————
胡法官雅文閣下:
2012年,我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」,述說對普選的盼望,批評公安惡法不義,並因公民抗命的緣故,甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說,如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除,惡法沒有消失,我依然會一如故我,公民抗命,並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日,普選仍然遙遙無期,我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判,但只是短短7年,已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命,反對暴政。今日,我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪,我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫,但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情,讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。
暴力之濫觴
在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際,我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中,但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行,幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭,抗議不義惡法,今日關於10月20日的案件,亦是如此。可能有人會問,政府已在6月暫緩修例,更在9月正式撤回修例,我等仍然繼續示威,豈非無理取鬧?我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」(Justice delayed is justice denied)這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭,和平表達不滿的時候,林鄭政府沒有理睬,反而獨行獨斷,粗暴踐踏港人的意願,結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗,甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後,所謂暫緩撤回,已經微不足道,我們只是更加清楚:沒有民主,就連基本人權都不會擁有!
在本案之中,雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為,但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件,相信在控方及法庭眼中,案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上,如此,我有必要問:如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉,人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律,試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢?如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦,那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢?如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗,那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言?真正且經常發生的暴力,是漠視人民訴求的暴力,是踐踏人民意見的暴力,是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力,痛恨暴力的人,不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗,又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責,那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢?
社會之病根
對於法庭而言,可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂,務必追究違法者個人責任。然而,治亂治其本源,醫病醫其病根,我雖然公民抗命,刻意違法,控方把我帶上法庭,但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情,並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成,社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身,而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理,但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法,就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後,2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。
如果不希望社會動亂,就必須正本清源,逐步落實「五大訴求」,從根本上改革,挽回民心。2019年反修例運動,其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已,縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起,但我必須澄清,兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選,人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中,接近300萬人投票,民主派大勝,奪得17個區議會主導權,這就是整個反修例運動的民意,民意就是反對政府決策,反對制度暴力,反對推行惡法,不容爭辯,不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀,多次提醒政府撤回修法,並從根本上改革制度,而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今,法庭對我們施加重刑,其實只不過是懲罰民意,將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內,甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中,窒礙表達自由。
堅持之重要
大運動過後的大鎮壓,使我們失去《蘋果日報》,失去教協,失去民陣,不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中,不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調,新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮,公民社會受到沈重打擊,我亦失去不少摯友,有感傷孤獨的時候,但我仍然相信,2019年香港人的信念,以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政,抵制惡法,展現我們眾志成城;我不會忘記人潮紅海,讓道救護車,展現我們文明精神;我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政,捨身成仁,展現我們膽色勇氣;我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人,展現我們彼此關懷;我不會忘記「五大訴求」,不會忘記2019年區議會選舉,展現我們有理有節。
法官閣下,我對於當日的所作所為,不感羞恥,毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路,與戰友同繫一獄,實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石,將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制,隨時變成政治工具掃除異見,因此爭取民主普選,建設真正法治,追求公平正義,仍然是我的理想。在這條路上,如有必要,我仍然會公民抗命,正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明(Lord Hoffmann)所言,發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統,歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望,曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念,在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷,活在愛和真實之中。
最後,如9年前一樣,我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說:「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力,來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量,來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧,我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律,因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧,我們仍然愛你們。」(We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.)
願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安,與我和我一家同在,與法官閣下同在,與香港人同在。沒有暴徒,只有暴政;五大訴求,缺一不可!願榮耀歸上帝,榮光歸人民!
第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日
Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)
Your Honour Judge Woodcock
In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.
The roots of violence
At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!
In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?
The roots of society's problems
From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.
If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.
The importance of persistence
As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.
Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.
Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."
Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!
The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「although but用法」的推薦目錄:
- 關於although but用法 在 黃浩銘 Raphael Wong Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於although but用法 在 EZ Talk Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於although but用法 在 Alexander Wang 王梓沅英文 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於although but用法 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於although but用法 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於although but用法 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於although but用法 在 [題目] although用法- 看板TOEIC - 批踢踢實業坊 的評價
- 關於although but用法 在 Although & But 的用法 的評價
- 關於although but用法 在 急救英文 的評價
- 關於although but用法 在 If although 用法在PTT/Dcard完整相關資訊 - 愛情#小三#出軌 ... 的評價
- 關於although but用法 在 If although 用法在PTT/Dcard完整相關資訊 - 愛情#小三#出軌 ... 的評價
- 關於although but用法 在 although but分别的蘋果、安卓和微軟相關APP,PTT 的評價
although but用法 在 EZ Talk Facebook 的精選貼文
#EZTalk #你不知道的美國大小事 #新專欄上線
📌The Electoral College📌
🇺🇸美國選舉制度:選舉人團
If you want to know how politics works in the U.S., it’s important to understand the Electoral College. 如果你想了解美國的政治,首先你要知道什麼是選舉人團制👈
In 2016, for example, exit polls—polls taken as voters exit polling stations—showed that Hillary Clinton was on her way to winning the popular vote. But she still lost the election to Donald Trump. This is because Trump won the Electoral College.
Although the Electoral College is called a “college,” it’s actually the group of 538 electors that decides the winner in a U.S. presidential election. Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to its number of senators and representatives in Congress. States with large populations have more representatives, and thus more electors. But because all states have two senators, states with small populations have more power in an election than they would otherwise.
This is why it’s possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote but still win the election. While Trump lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes, he won the election with 304 electoral votes.
【✍關鍵單字】
1. electoral college:「選舉人團」,美國總統大選先經過全民普選之後,再由各州選舉人團根據該州在全民普選中投票結果來投出選舉人票,最後以各州選舉人票加總來決定。
2. exit poll:「出口民調」,選民投完票離開投票所時,調查人員立刻進行的調查訪問。此時選民所表達的政策偏好,會比選前民調更具參考價值。
3. popular vote:「全民普選票」,相對於electoral vote「選舉人團票」而言。
4. senator:「參議員」代表州在聯邦政府中的利益,每州推派兩名代表,任期6年。
5. representative:「眾議員」代表民眾權益,各州席次依人口比例調整,任期2年。
6. Congress:「(美國)國會」,大寫時代表美國國會,由參議院與眾議院兩院組成。
【📕中譯】
如果你想了解美國的政治,首先你要知道什麼是選舉人團制。舉例來說,2016年的出口民調(指在投票所出口訪問投票人投票意向的民意調查)顯示,希拉蕊即將贏得全民普選。不過她最終還是輸給了川普。原因是川普在選舉人團中勝出。
雖然選舉人團用到了『college』(此處當『團、社團』之意)一字,不過它其實是由538名可以決定美國總統人選的選舉人團成員所組成。每州的選舉人票數等於該州的國會代表(參議員及眾議員)總數。人口較多的州擁有更多眾議員,意味有更多選舉人票。不過各州都有2名參議員,也就是2張選舉人票,因此小型州在選舉上有超出的影響力。
這也說明,總統候選人即使在全民普選時落敗,也有可能贏得總統大選。即使川普的全民普選票落後將近三百萬票,他還是以304張選舉人票贏得總統大選。
🔔 按下「搶先看」,不錯過任何最新的美國大小事與道地英文用法!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
圖片取自:shutterstock.com
【你不知道的美國大小事】每週五由Judd編審分享最即時的美國新鮮事!
想知道更多美國道地文化,請看 👉 http://bit.ly/EZTalk嚴選
although but用法 在 Alexander Wang 王梓沅英文 Facebook 的精選貼文
【了解、突破英文學習「瓶頸」,你只需要這樣做】
∙ 為什麼在美國住了20年的台灣人,還是講 Thanks for your feedbacks. 誤把 feedback 加上 s 呢 ?
∙ 為什麼在 Stanford Univ. 教了三十年要退休的中國教授,還是戒不了 Although...but 的中式用法呢?
∙ 為什麼老師講了幾百次的 news 不可數,我們還是忍不住地用出 That's a great news! 呢?
5/23 的談論英語學習現象的文章如實破百留言,今天兌現承諾,來談談有關「學習瓶頸」這件事。
在哥倫比亞大學唸第二個碩士時,當時的指導教授諄諄告誡雖然大家都不喜歡談 failure of learning,因為感覺政治不正確。但了解「為什麼學習沒有發生」和「為什麼努力和收穫沒有成正比?」更可以讓我們更了解在學習中,如何提高自己的學習意識、有沒有什麼東西要調整、甚至知道有沒有什麼「好習慣」可以培養、壞習慣要戒除 (例:只注意「意思」不注意「語言形式」的習慣)。
要理解「語言學習瓶頸」或「語言要怎麼學」,可以從幾個領域來了解。不是外國語文學、也不是應用英語。建議大家從「第二語言習得 second language acquisition」、「心理語言學 psycholinguistics」、、「神經語言學 neurolinguistics」和「認知語言學 cognitive linguistics」和稍稍可以幫助的「認知心理學 cognitive psychology」5 個大方向下手。
今天就直接從各領域幫大家整理出來是那些原因,造成我們的學習瓶頸。這些原因不是學者個人的「看法」、不是「學習經驗談」、更不是「直覺」,而是基於嚴密的實證研究 (empirical research) 所得到的。
∙ 缺乏 feedback 或缺乏對 feedback 的深度處理
∙ 對於基本溝通需求的滿足 (satisfaction of communicative needs) (Note: 有些東西錯了,不會對於溝通造成太大的影響,我們就懶得講好、講道地了)
∙ 母語的影響 (L1 influence)
∙ 學習英文的起始點太晚 (age; maturational
constraints)
∙ 沒有辦法注意到自己聽到母語人士用的英文和自己的 output 的差異性 (Inability to notice input-output discrepancies)
∙ 自己身邊的 input 也都是錯的 (quality of input) (Note: 可能周邊的同事、朋友也都狂講 Thank you for your feedbacks.)
∙ 對於語言的敏感度不佳 (Lack of sensitivity to input)
∙ 在理解英文時 (聽力、閱讀) 都是用技巧、策略、圖片、背景知識、大方向的東西幫助自己理解 (Use top-down processes in comprehension)
(Note: 用 bottom-up 的方式理解每一個動詞、子句、乃至於冠詞、介系詞的功能,比較會幫助我們將聽讀能力轉換成說和寫的能力。
∙ 過度簡化語言規則 (oversimplification)
∙ 錯誤用法自動化 (false automatization)
例如 Although...but 這樣不好的口說習慣已經「自動化」,不好戒除
∙ 喜歡注意「內容」,不喜歡注意「語言形式」的習慣 (Natural tendency to focus on content, not on form)
∙ 該用法本身的複雜性 (language complexity)
∙ 缺乏語言分析能力 (Lack of verbal analytic skills)
一長串負面原因的轟炸,稍微可以理解大家說談論failure of learning 的相對政治不正確性了。但是要記得,上述的原因,除了 age / maturational constraints 之外,「全部都是可以改善的」。
例如我常常在看漂亮的文章時,我都會去思考「同一個概念,我會怎樣表達?我的比較好還他的比較好?如果他的比較好,我可以怎樣學習?」
我也會常常提醒學生,學習要有效率,就要去觀察自己每次拿到的feedback,有沒有什麼 tendencies,因為更正系統性錯誤的學習效率是比較高的。
文長了,先講到這。祝福大家都能用對的方式學習、戒除不好的學習習慣,用最有效果、有效率、有成就感的方式學習英文喔!
although but用法 在 急救英文 的推薦與評價
【but though 不相助】 大家記住,中文就有「拔刀相助」,但英文but同though係唔可以同時出現喺同一句句子咖! although 或though 用於引導從句, ... ... <看更多>
although but用法 在 [題目] although用法- 看板TOEIC - 批踢踢實業坊 的推薦與評價
題目:
Although he is in his fifties,________all his younger competitors.
A. but he beat
B. that he beat
C. and he beat
D. he beat
答案為B
疑問:
知道although與but不可以合用
但想請問為什麼要用that~~~~
謝謝 ><
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.114.225.34
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/TOEIC/M.1476763543.A.0C8.html
※ 編輯: teemfu (140.114.225.34), 10/18/2016 12:07:31
... <看更多>