關於 being ignored中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【吳文遠十一遊行案法庭陳詞 — 中文譯本】

法官閣下：

從小我父母便教我要有同理心，要關顧社會上相對不幸的人。儘管在早年職業生涯上取得不俗成就，但我從來沒有意欲將追求個人財富視為人生目標。

當我在國外生活了多年後回到香港定居時，我為這個我自豪地稱之為家的城市，存在如此嚴重的社會不平等而感到困惑和擔憂。 令我震驚的是，社會如何漠視對窮人和少數族裔的歧視。既有的社會結構，有時甚至會鼓勵這種歧視繼續發生。同時，我們也無法一如其它地方，享有基本的民主權利和自由。

這些都是我參與社會運動以至參與政治的動機。我希望盡己所能，為被忽視的弱勢階層鼓與呼，替不能為自己發聲的人說話。

與許多人相比，我很幸運能夠接受良好教育，並擁有一定程度上的財務自由和社會地位。我們很幸運，能夠過上舒適生活，並有自由選擇我們的道路。我選擇為社會平等而奮鬥。其實這個法庭上許多人都差不多，我們都喜歡香港，這個稱為家的地方。或許我們在生活中選擇了不同的角色，但目標都是相同：為他人服務。

可悲的是，我擔心我們已經逐漸成為社會制度中的例外。當下許多香港人根本沒有那些機會，包括貧困長者，欠缺向上流動機會、被邊緣化的年輕人，還有犧牲所有時間但只能為家庭僅僅維持基本生活的工人。這些人再努力，生活中的選擇仍然局限於維持生計。對他們來說，「選擇」是負擔不起的奢侈品，更不用說如何決定自己的命運。

在生活壓力下，我們的視野通常很難超越自身的社交圈子，更難的是對陌生人展現同理心。兩極化的政治分歧產生越來越多裂痕，令我們有時候無法互相理解、和而不同，亦不願意試圖尋求某種程度的妥協。

我一直希望，一個較民主的制度能夠成為一道橋樑，彌合上述社會鴻溝，或者至少容讓我們選擇怎樣共同生活。

2019年的動盪，為整個社會帶來了沉重的打擊。無論政治立場如何，我敢肯定這個法庭上有許多人，都為此而傷心欲絕。整座城市都被不信任、仇恨和恐懼所淹沒。今天固然不是討論這個問題的合適地方，但我希望法庭能夠理解，僅靠司法機構並不能解決已經根深蒂固的社會政治鴻溝。

我們需要集體力量、勇氣、誠實和同理心來修補我們的家。看看幾位同案被告，他們在服務社會方面有著非凡的紀錄。比起囚禁在監獄，我相信他們能夠對社會作出更大貢獻。

為了追求全體香港人的權利，我的確違反了法律，並且已準備面對法院的判決。令人敬重的幾位同案被告，畢生捍衛法治，為民主而戰，為無聲者發聲，我十分榮幸能夠與他們並肩同行。

我相信終有一天，籠罩我們城市的烏雲將會消散，光明將會重臨，愛和同理心將會戰勝歸來。

吳文遠
2021年5月24日

Avery Ng Man Yuen’s Statement

Your Honour,

I was brought up by my parents to value the importance of empathy, to care and to feel for others in our community less fortunate. Although I enjoyed great success early in my career, I never had a desire to pursue personal wealth in the more traditional sense.

When I settled back in Hong Kong after years of living abroad, I was baffled and disturbed by how severe the social inequality existed in a city I am proud to call my home. I was struck at how discrimination against the poor and the minorities far too often goes ignored or can even at times is encouraged by the established social structure; and how we cannot have the basic democratic rights and freedoms that other places enjoy.

These were my motivations to join social activism and enter into politics. I chose to spend my energy to speak for the underprivileged, the disenchanted and often ignored segments of society. To offer a voice for those who could not speak for themselves.

Compared to many, I am privileged to have a great education and a certain level of financial freedom and social standing. We are fortunate enough to be able to lead comfortable lives and have the freedom to choose the path that we take. I chose to fight for social equality. Many of those in this court are not that much different. We all love Hong Kong, the place we call home. We chose our different roles in life but with the same aim: to serve others.

Sadly, I fear that many of us are increasingly the exception to the rule. Today far too many Hong Kong people do not have that chance, whether that is our elderly who live in poverty, marginalized youth with few opportunities for social mobility, or workers who give up all their time slaving away to provide the bare minimum for their families. These people all struggle to make ends meet with very limited options in life. “Choice” for them is a luxury that they cannot afford. Let alone having the gratification of being able to dictate their own destiny.

I recognise, with the pressures of life, it is often difficult for people to see beyond their own social bubble. It is harder still to acquire empathy for strangers. Polarized political division increasingly has driven a wedge between people, making it sometimes impossible for people to understand and empathise with one another, to disagree agreeably, and attempt to find some level of compromise.

It has always been my hope that a more democratic system could be the bridge that heals this social divide or at the very least allow us to choose how we can live together in our home.

I’m certain that none of us in this court wanted to see the turmoil in 2019, which has seen our whole society suffer regardless of political preference. Distrust, hatred, and fear has engulfed Hong Kong. Today is certainly not the right forum for this immense topic. However, I hope the court can understand that the Judiciary alone cannot resolve the deep-rooted socio-political divide which exist.

It will take our collective strength, courage, honesty, and empathy to mend our home. Looking at my fellow defendants with their extraordinary history in serving this society, I believe they can do far greater good among us in society than being locked in prison.

In pursuit of the rights of all Hong Kong people, I have broken the law. I am prepared to face the court’s judgement. I am proud to be in the company of my esteemed fellows who have spent their lives championing the rule of law, fighting for the democracy and voicing for the voiceless.

I believe the storm-clouds that currently reside over our home will one day lift, and make way for a bright and clear day. I believe love and empathy will eventually prevail.
————————————
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⭐️
www.patreon.com/AveryNg

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

//佛朗士在《諸神渴了》中寫道：「當政府違反人民權利時，反抗乃為人民責任中最神聖、最不可缺少的。」//

【百戰沙場碎鐵衣 獨領殘兵千騎歸】— 大專學界就港共政權清算抗爭者告全港市民書

香港市民：

二零一六年農曆新年，政府一改慣例，將小販趕盡殺絕。港人因而聲援旺角新年小販，支持本土文化。豈料警方突然暴力清場，更向天鳴槍，終引發大規模警民衝突。港共政權以暴動罪起訴抗爭者，清算異己。過去兩年已陸續有抗爭者因暴動罪被判刑，抗爭者為爭取公義卻失去了數以年計的光陰，大專學界對抗爭者的遭遇表示痛心，並譴責港共政府無恥之舉。

昨天盧建民和梁天琦竟被分別判囚七年和六年，日前亦有抗爭者被判以數年計的監禁。大專學界認為近日判刑過為苛刻。香港法例早已變得因陋守舊。《公安條例》對暴動罪中「破壞社會安寧」並無清晰界定，而「非法集會」和「暴動」的定義亦無明確分野，兩者卻存在差天共地的量刑標準，讓法例淪為政權打壓抗爭者的工具。聯合國亦曾兩度批評現時《公安條例》並未能為市民集會自由提供足夠保障，唯香港仍然固步自封，迴避檢討《公安條例》。學界促請檢討現行法例，確保港人權利在維持社會秩序中亦有所保障。學界亦認為裁決和量刑考慮中，社會現況和抗爭者的動機意圖都是不可忽視的公共政策因素。若被告行動的意圖或動機是真誠追求社會利益而非個人利益，法律亦應予以考慮。

今天抗爭者身陷囹圄，我們更要去食存信，把抗爭者為我城鞠躬盡瘁的精神銘諸心腑。在當今專制政權之下，大專學界誓必與港人同行，以追求自由為志，銘記同儕犧牲，思考我城前路。佛朗士在《諸神渴了》中寫道：「當政府違反人民權利時，反抗乃為人民責任中最神聖、最不可缺少的。」赤化風暴從未止息，我城前路憂堪：一地兩檢、國歌法本地立法和廿三條立法等危機接踵而來。此刻我們決不可如槁木死灰，更不可視若無睹。作為香港人，我們不能把拯救我城的責任假手於人，也不應對我城未來失去希望。希望愈渺茫，我們愈要捉緊；唯有堅持，我們才有機會把握我城命運。

學界相信，跛鱉千里，正義終會戰勝歸來：
「百戰沙場碎鐵衣，城南已合數重圍，突營射殺呼延將，獨領殘兵千騎歸」
— 李白《從軍行》

香港城市大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會臨時行政小組
香港珠海學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港理工大學學生會
香港大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

二零一八年六月十二日

A Lost Battle Is A Battle One Thinks One Has Lost - A Letter to All Citizens of Hong Kong from Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions

Dear Hong Kong Citizens,

During the Lunar New Year of 2016, the government changed its usual practice and forbidden the hawkers to make their own living ruthlessly. Thus, in order to defend the local culture, Hong Kong people stood up and supported the hawkers in Mong Kok. Yet, the police suddenly arrived at the scene and evicted the protesters in violence. Worst still, they even fired bullets amidst the crowd. The clampdown eventually led to a large-scale conflict between police and protesters. In the past two years, there have been protesters prosecuted by the government and sent to prison for crimes such as riots. The Students’ Unions of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong would like to express our utter sadness towards the hardship suffered by the convicted and accused protesters in the Mong Kok Cases. Moreover, we hereby condemn the shameful act of the regime.

Apart from the seven-year and six-year imprisonments suffered by Lo Kin-man and Edward Leung, several protesters have also been sent to jail for years. The Students’ Union of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong would like to express our concern and discontent towards the oppressive and unreasonable sentences recently. In fact, the laws in Hong Kong have already become obsolete. In "Public Security Ordinance”, the meaning of "leading to a breach of the peace" is not clearly defined. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between the definitions of “Unlawful assembly" and "Riot”, but the criterions for imposing penalty are completely different for these two crimes. Such loopholes allow the regime to use laws as means to suppress the protesters. The United Nations has twice criticised that the current “Public Security Ordinance” does not provide citizens with sufficient protection to enjoy their freedom of assembly. However, the Hong Kong government evades reviewing the current "Public Security Ordinance”. We then urge for a review of the current laws to ensure that the rights of Hong Kong people are safeguarded while maintaining social order. We also believe that the current situation in the society, as well as the intention of the protesters, are public policy factors that cannot be ignored. Such intention should also be considered If the defendant strives to pursue social interests instead of self interests.

Today, protesters were imprisoned as they were prosecuted by the regime. We shall keep our faith despite the adversities, engraving the protesters’ spirit of sacrificing themselves for our city on our mind. Under the dictatorial regime, the Students’ Union of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong pledge to walk along with all citizens throughout the journey of pursuing freedom. We shall bear in mind the sacrifices of the predecessors and ponder over the future of our city. In “The Gods Are Athirst”, Anatole France wrote: “When the Government violates the Rights of the people, insurrection is for the people the most sacred and the most indispensable of duties.” Hong Kong has never escaped from the increasing control of the communist party, and its future is disconcerting as human rights and rule of law are being devastated. When various crises such as the co-location arrangement together with legislations of national anthem law and Article 23 come around incessantly, we shall never let our voice die down nor allow the regime to trample on us. It is only the Hong Kong people who bear the responsibility of saving our city. We shall never lose hope of the future of Hong Kong, as only through perseverance and assertiveness can we take control of the destiny of our home.

Jean-Paul Sartre once said, “a lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost.” Shall we fight and struggle with persistence, Justice will return gloriously.

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students’ Union
Interim Executive Committee of The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Students' Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong

12th June 2018