【10.20集結案】
//2019 年 10 月 20 日九龍遊行案,前民陣召集人陳皓桓、民主黨前主席何俊仁、社民連前立法會議員梁國雄等 7 人,被指煽惑他人參與未經批准集結、組織未經批准集結等。7 人早前承認控罪,法官胡雅文今(1 日)在區域法院判 7 人監禁 11 至 16 個月。除了黃浩銘,其餘被告的刑期與早前 8.18、8.31、10.1 未經批准集結案刑期同期執行。//
以下是文遠的感言:
【吳文遠 - 10.20九龍遊行案件感言】
這是一宗政治案件,所以我認為這篇陳詞適合放在政治脈絡下開展。
我們生活在急劇轉變及充滿挑戰的時代。基於政府所謂「安全」的理由,記者、報館、網台主持、學者、教師、學生、藝人、歌手、工會人、社運人、民意代表以及許多市民,都一一被迫沉默,以至逐個被拘捕、檢控、囚禁。
尤有甚者,「安全」的定義還在不斷挪移及擴大。昨日出版的一篇報紙文章、一次演講、一種主張、一個標語,今天都可能被視為對「安全」的威脅。
短短數年前那些通常被判罰款或社區服務令的行動,現在會被判監禁。這裡曾經存在和而不同及真誠辯論觀點的言論空間,但現在只剩下觸目驚心的紅線。
每天都帶來法規的重新演繹,每天都突破荒謬的下限。有他們的眼中,現在甚至連兒童繪本都成為了對「安全」的威脅。
問題無可避免地浮現:究竟這些法規是要保護誰的「安全」?是公民的自由,抑或是實際上已經非常有權力的人的權力?
我們追求怎樣的秩序?這些法規的設計,是為了所有公民能夠享有法治、自由、公平競爭及繁榮的機會嗎?還是旨在引領我們進入一個政府不受挑戰及不受限制的時代?
我們發現自身正處於一個這樣的時代,人們需要作出看似簡單卻極為困難的選擇——就如哈維爾所指——我們要活在真實中,還是要服從於謊言及荒謬?
在我追求的真實生活中,我們只是像《國王的新衣》中的小孩那樣呼喊:「喂,國王根本冇著衫喎!」
—————-
【Avery Ng: On October 20 Kowloon Rally】
This is a political case, so I think it is appropriate to frame my remarks within the political context of this matter.
We live in rapidly changing and challenging times. Journalists, newspaper publishers, broadcasters, academics, teachers, students, artists, singers, trade unionists, political activists, democratically elected representatives, and many other citizens are being silenced, arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned by the Hong Kong government for supposed reasons relating to “security”.
What’s more, the definition of this “security” is constantly shifting and expanding. A newspaper article published yesterday, a speech, an opinion, a slogan--even a gesture may be treated as a threat to security today.
Actions that would have previously and sometimes rightly merited community service or fines just a few short years ago, now lead to the possibility of jail. Where once there was the space to disagree agreeably and debate ideas honestly. Now there is intolerance.
Every day brings a new re-interpretation of the rules. Every day we reach a new level of absurdity. Even children’s cartoon books have now reached the status that they are seen by some as a threat to “security”.
The inevitable question arises: Whose security is being protected--the liberty of citizens? Or are these laws in fact protecting and securing the power of the already-powerful?
What kind of order are we seeking? Are these laws designed to uphold the rule of law, ensure freedom, a level playing field, and the chance of prosperity for all citizens? Or are they meant to usher in an era in which the government can rule unchallenged and unchecked?
In the times that we find ourselves in, one needs to make a choice that is at once simple yet immensely difficult. As Vaclav Havel writes: Do we live in the truth? Or conform to lies and absurdity?
In my pursuit to live in the truth, we are merely the kid who yelled “hey, the Emperor wears no clothes.”
———————————
文遠交低話大家記住一定要撐 #文遠Patreon 呀!
⭐️支持文遠⭐️請訂閱Patreon⭐️
⭐️Please show your support by subscribing to Avery’s Patreon ⭐️
www.patreon.com/AveryNg
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,...
「appropriate definition」的推薦目錄:
- 關於appropriate definition 在 吳文遠 Avery Ng Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於appropriate definition 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於appropriate definition 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於appropriate definition 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於appropriate definition 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於appropriate definition 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於appropriate definition 在 Appropriate Meaning - YouTube 的評價
- 關於appropriate definition 在 Appropriate meaning - Positive Words Dictionary - Pinterest 的評價
appropriate definition 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的精選貼文
【PRC夠了啦~ Let Taiwan Help】
當全世界都知道,中方的惡意阻擋是「世界衛生組織」(WHO)未能將台灣完整納入技術性討論的主要障礙,BUT,中華人民共和國外交部居然說:「已經對台灣參與全球衛生事務做出妥善安排」(讓我翻個白眼先),這凸顯中國政府公然說謊、誤導國際社會,不斷打壓台灣人民的健康人權。
「一中原則」作為阻止台灣貢獻國際的說法已是陳腔濫調,中國持續將政治凌駕於健康人權的霸道行徑,外交部對此予以強烈譴責。
只有台灣的民選政府才能在「世界衛生組織」及其他國際組織代表台灣2,350萬人民;台灣人民的健康人權由我國政府來守護,中國無權、也無能力代勞。
台灣有能力也有意願協助全世界,以台灣成功的防疫經驗,參與WHO,一定能做出更多貢獻。
#LetTaiwanHelp
.
.
#Taiwan does not belong to the PRC, and any claim to the contrary is a shameless lie, as the whole world is doubtless already aware. Nor did the PRC make any "appropriate arrangement" for Taiwan to avail of global public health mechanisms in the midst of the pandemic. This too is a shameless lie. Taiwan's pandemic management is being run by the Taiwan government and on principles, such as #democracy, #freedom #transparency and concern for #HumanRights, that are incompatible with the authoritarian rule in the PRC!
Using the anachronistic cliche that is the "One China Principle" as a way to prevent Taiwan from contributing to global public health is putting politics head of health and human rights. The 23.5 million people of Taiwan should have representation in an organization like the WHO that claims to #LeaveNoOneBehind.
It's hard to find a more appropriate definition for "shameless lie" than these claims by the PRC.
appropriate definition 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
Battle between Freedom and Equality | Lee Yee
A netizen left a comment under my article from a couple of days ago, and said that if Trump is re-elected, he would turn “dictatorial”, and pursue “Trump thinking as mainstream”. He said that he “divides the United States and gave birth to racism, white nationalism, and xenophobia”, which is disastrous to human civilization, etc.
Under the constitutional system of the United States, one will have to step down after one re-election, and there is no way to bring about a dictatorship. Moreover, just look at all the stormy attacks mainstream media throws towards him, how is one to become a dictator? In a multicultural America, how could any almighty notion exist? As for racism and xenophobia, the cited example is him crowning the novel coronavirus “Chinese virus”, and the media claimed that this has caused a sharp increase in anti-Chinese speech online. But the virus did originate in China, did it not?
Other than the infiltration of Chinese interests that drove the U.S. media’s anti-Trump campaign, it has also been the “leftard” ideologies that have dominated academia and the press. How does one define “leftard”? Something that So Keng-chit said a few days ago was very appropriate, "the definition of “leftard” is that they replace strong and weak with “wrong and “right”; strong must be “wrong”, and weak must be “right”. Leftards uplift the weak by putting down the bullies to attain moral high grounds. The leftards must oppose the United States, for the see the United States as strong. The leftards sympathize with Saddam Hussein, because compared with the United States, Saddam Hussein is weak. They cannot see that Saddam Hussein is strong compared with the Iraqis. Hence the ‘tard’ in leftard.”
It is not that they cannot see, they are just intentionally not seeing. The mainstream media reports about Iraq after Saddam Hussein had fallen were that there was no longer a stronghold of a government, which led to the loss of societal management. Bombs were exploding daily, and blood flooded the land of the country. People lost homes and livelihoods. However, data showed that in the later phase of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq’s population was 26 million, and the per capita GDP was only US$625, not to mention that the inflation rate was high in the three digits. After the United States attacked Iraq and introduced the democratic system, the Iraqi population has risen to 35 million, the per capita GDP has increased to US$4,600, and the inflation rate has dropped to 6%. Despite the global economic slowdown, the Iraqi economy has grown by an average of 9.9% per year for more than a decade.
In addition, the mainstream media rarely reported the substantial progress in Afghanistan’s economy and people’s livelihood after the United States eradicated the Taliban regime before establishing a democratic system in Afghanistan. It is rarely reported that after South Africa got rid of the white regime, social security was horrifying. It is because such truthful reporting is not politically correct.
Shouldn’t the motto of news publishing be “all news worth reporting”? When political correctness overrides this creed, there is no longer press freedom.
The so-called political correctness stems from anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination means upholding the concept that “all men are born equal”, and to protect vulnerable groups. Anti-discrimination used to be a kind of progress, since the starting point is not the interests of the majority of society, but the moral and spiritual demands. But when this kind of protection gradually develops into a disregard towards differences and the diversity of human life, it becomes leftards who wave around the banner of political correctness. If the welfare of new immigrants is treated the same as that of local residents, how is that different from obliterating the long-term tax payment of local residents? Using Black Lives Matter to rationalize violence and chaos, you get Black Lives Better, and ignore the fundamental problems of the root causes of issues such as the Black community’s slighting of education; with the police worrying that law enforcement will cause them trouble, the crime in the Black areas will increase. Anti-discrimination has developed into a state where even praising women for being beautiful is discrimination. Obama once praised the Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris as the most beautiful State Attorney General in the United States, and was then accused of discrimination by feminists. He was forced to apologize. To protect LGBT, many American college toilets no longer distinguish between men and women, making women fearful.
“All men are born equal” is a false proposition. Some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and others are born in the slums of Africa. How are they born equal? American conservative Russel Kirk said that we must pay attention to diversity and differences. Only before God and a fair court can there be true quality; all other attempts to achieve equality will inevitably lead to societal stagnation. If the balance of natural differences and conventions is tipped in order to pursue equality for all, then it will not be long before tyrants or despicable oligarchs start to create new inequalities.
Socialism waves around the banner of equality, and has been breeding tyranny for a whole century. Modern leftards is another form of pursuit of equality, one that is destroying the freedom of human society. Freedom is more important than equality. If there is no freedom, there will be no equality among people who are not free.
This U.S. general election may as well be regarded as a battle between freedom and equality.
appropriate definition 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
appropriate definition 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
appropriate definition 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
appropriate definition 在 Appropriate meaning - Positive Words Dictionary - Pinterest 的推薦與評價
Jan 26, 2021 - Appropriate definition. Find out the meaning of Appropriate and the meaning of many other positive words at positivewordsdictionary.com. ... <看更多>
appropriate definition 在 Appropriate Meaning - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>