劉康是我很欣賞的年輕人,若他是在民主社會,他定必成為政壇成功之人,推動社會進步
可惜,香港正被獨裁的中共控制……
祝劉同學在英國生活愉快
新聞稿:劉康抵英尋政治庇護 | Press Release: Hong Kong Democratic Activist Honcques Laus Has Applied for Political Asylum in Great Britain
(Kindly please scroll down for English)
導言:
劉康今日公開透露,出於自己政治立場,面臨香港政府用中國國安惡法政治迫害,故六月尾已去到英國尋求政治庇護。他表示,自己早在讀中學時,已有高舉香港獨立標語向林鄭示威,而上年又曾到英美領事館請求制裁侵犯香港人自由的親中人士,亦在上年出版了主張香港獨立的書《輕論時政》。他提到,他在英國已獲鄭文傑成立的避風驛協助,亦獲英國政府支援。他呼籲,世界各國制裁香港政府同中國政府。
正文:
劉康透露,中國國安惡法實施前,他因知道自己會因政見,而受香港政府政治迫害,所以六月尾已抵達英國倫敦希思路機場申請政治庇護。劉康斥,中國國安惡法嚴重侵犯言論自由同人權。
劉康指,他過往已因政治立場而慘遭政府迫害,例如在2017年11月明報校園記者開學禮,與林鄭月娥合照期間,高舉香港獨立標語示威之後,就慘遭香港政府無理報復拘捕、控告及還押監獄,「反映自己一直被香港政府高度政治針對」。劉康又指,他上年7月公開到英美領事館請求英美制裁侵犯香港人自由的親中人士,他亦在上年8月出版主張香港獨立的政論集《輕論時政》,他認為「香港政府同中國政府會陰險地用中國國安惡法秋後算帳」。
劉康提及,抵達英國後,由鄭文傑成立的避風驛(Haven Assistance),一直協助他處理政治庇護程序,又免費為他安排了律師,亦解答他英國日常生活問題。劉康對鄭文傑及避風驛,表示非常感謝,亦建議流亡英國的香港抗爭者不妨尋找避風驛協助。
劉康亦非常感激,英國政府及國會議員以各種方式支持香港民主抗爭者。劉康表示,英國政府一直禮待他,包括妥善安排住宿,提供每日三餐。
劉康表示,在英國可以呼吸自由空氣,享受言論自由,不用再受到香港政府及中國政府迫害及恐嚇,但他對香港政府及中國政府損害香港人自由,仍然感到非常憤怒,「香港明明屬於香港人,但而家要走嘅人係香港人,而唔係班賣港賊。」
劉康呼籲,世界各國,包括英國、美國、歐盟、臺灣、日本及所有文明國家,制裁香港政府及中國政府,包括對侵犯人權者實行,禁止入境、凍結資產及貿易制裁。他解釋,制裁是為了捍衛香港人言論自由與人權,讓暴政者承受打壓自由的代價。加上,中國國安惡法冒犯了全球每個人,因為祇要勇於批評香港或中國政府垃圾政策,就會違反這個惡法。
他又指,最近香港政府用中國國安惡法迫害主張獨立的人士,明顯是踐踏言論自由、人道災難,而如果自己沒有及時去到英國,「今日香港政府就會拘捕我、迫害我。」
-相片由劉康攝影,可以自由使用。
查詢或訪問:
HoncquesParle@protonmail.com
*
Hong Kong Democratic Activist Honcques Laus Has Applied for Political Asylum in Great Britain
Lead:
Hong Kong democratic activist Honcques Laus (劉康) disclosed today that he had moved to Great Britain in late June for seeking political asylum, because he would face political persecution with China's National Security Law, by reason of his political opinion - he approved of Hong Kong independence (he publicly demonstrated against Carrie Lam with Hong Kong Independence slogan in 2017. And he published his book supporting Hong Kong independence last year), and he also approved of imposing sanctions on human rights violators in Hong Kong. He mentioned that he got support from Simon Cheng and Haven Assistance. He also got support from the UK government. He sincerely requested the international community to impose sanctions against the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government for violation of human rights.
Body:
Honcques revealed that he had applied for political asylum at London Heathrow Airport in late June. He explained, "China's Evil National Security Law is a blatant violation of freedom of speech and human rights", and he would face political persecution by reason of his political opinion in Hong Kong.
Honcques said he had been already politically persecuted by the Hong Kong government. In November 2017, he was a secondary school student, and first grabbed headline when he demonstrated against Carrie Lam with Hong Kong Independence slogan during a photography opportunity. After that, he was subject to politically motivated arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment by the Hong Kong government. He concluded that he had been highly politically targeted by the Hong Kong government.
Honcques said, in July last year, he went to the UK Consulate and the US Consulate to request the UK and the US to impose sanctions against some pro-China politicians who violated the freedom of Hongkongers. In August last year, he published his book 輕論時政, approving of Hong Kong independence, and criticising the Hong Kong government. He discerned, he would be politically persecuted by the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government, with China's Evil National Security Law.
Honcques mentioned that Simon Cheng and Haven Assistance had been assisting him in the political asylum process, arranging a solicitor for him and answering his questions about daily life in the UK. He said he was grateful to Simon Cheng and Haven Assistance. He suggested, Hong Kong protesters in exile in Great Britain seek assistance from Haven Assistance.
Honcques said he was very appreciative of all the support the UK government and Members of Parliament had given the Hong Kong democratic protesters. Honcques also described that the UK government had been treating him excellently, including arranging for him to stay in an accommodation and offering three good meals a day to him free of charge as well.
Honcques stated, he could breathe free air and enjoy the freedom of speech in Great Britain. And in Great Britain, he would not be persecuted and threatened by the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government any longer. However, he was really angry that the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government violating the freedom of Hongkongers. "Hong Kong obviously belongs to Hongkongers, not China's communist bandits. Unfortunately, China's communist bandits still occupy Hong Kong, and Hongkongers have to leave their homeland." Honcques said.
Honcques sincerely requested all the countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, Taiwan, Japan and all civilized nations, to impose sanctions against human rights violators of the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government, including immigration bans, asset freezes and trade sanctions. He explained that the sanctions could defend the freedom of speech and human rights of Hongkongers and to make tyrants pay the price for oppression. "China's Evil National Security Law, moreover, offends everyone around the globe, as it is probably applied to anyone, who is courageous to criticise the bad policy of Hong Kong or China." Honcques also clarified.
Honcques also pointed out that the recent Hong Kong government's use of China's national security laws to persecute independents in Hong Kong is distinctly a violation of freedom of speech and a humanitarian disaster. "If I haven't moved to the UK promptly, then I would be politically arrested and persecuted by the Hong Kong government today." Honcques said.
-The photo was taken by Honcques Laus and could be used freely.
Enquiry or Interview:
HoncquesParle@protonmail.com
hong kong freedom from britain 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
Has Hong Kong Returned? (Lee Yee)
Last week I mentioned a visit by a wise young man, who posed several questions surrounding the time since the anti-ELAB movement. I answered one question in “The Silent Revolution”, now let me get to the rest.
Question: Would you use the word “Return” to describe the 1997 transfer of sovereignty?
In my articles, I usually refer to that as “transfer of sovereignty” and not “return” for the change in Hong Kong in 1997.
A country has three essential components: land, people, and sovereignty. Before 1997, Hong Kong was not a country, it was a British colony; land and sovereignty belonged to Britain, but the people could neither settle nor work in Britain. They did not have the same rights as British citizens. If Hong Kong was holistically “returned” to China in 1997, then land, people, and sovereignty should have all been returned; but the Basic Law stipulated that land is owned by the country only in the name, and the actual management, use, lease, and grant of land are all managed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, whose government takes income generated by the land, and therefore essentially owns the land. Moreover, the border delineating the lands of Hong Kong and China continues to exist after 1997, and entering and exiting form people on both sides would require identification. All this shows that the land has not been returned. As for the people, in these 23 years, China has always said that in Hong Kong, “people’s hearts have not returned”. The meaning of “people’s hearts have not returned” is that Hongkongers are still not accepting the fact that sovereignty is now controlled by China. China, on the other hand, also did not give Hongkongers any status as Chinese citizens including rights and duties. Therefore, while Hongkongers’ hearts have not returned, China has also not treated Hongkongers as Chinese people. The fact that the people have not returned is mutual.
Say, if two of the three elements of land, people, and sovereignty possessed by a political entity have not returned, then Hong Kong cannot be said to have returned. We can only call it “transfer of sovereignty”.
Western democracies believe in the notion that a country’s sovereignty rests with the people. In ancient China, the notion that “people are the foundation of the country, when the foundation is solid, the country is peaceful” and “the people at of the utmost importance, the state is secondary, and least is the ruler himself”. Both China and the world regarded the opinions and hearts of the people as the country’s priorities. Therefore the return of the heart of the people should be the most important element in a return; the people’s hearts have not returned, so it can only be a transfer of governance. As the ultimate crucial element of importance, the hearts still waver.
Question: Do you agree that Hong Kong independence is the only way out?
Not the “only”, but this is a proposition that can be discussed within the scope of freedom of speech. Over the years, I have been advocating that “Hongkongers have the freedom of speech to discuss Hong Kong’s independence or any way out.” I have written articles for over 60 years, and the most precious to me is freedom, especially freedom of speech. Historian Chen Yinke’s words on the tombstone of Wang Guowei have been my North Star for many years. The inscription reads: “A scholar learns and studies to break away from the shackles of the Conventional Truth, such that the Ultimate Truth can be carried forward. If there is no freedom of thought, one might as well be dead.” “Teacher’s writings may sometimes be incomprehensible; teacher’s teachings may sometimes be debatable; but the spirit of independence, the freedom of thoughts, is the most sacred of all and illuminates like the Three Lights.”
The Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) is the law of secular change in the Buddhist scriptures, which is different from the fixed Ultimate Truth (Paramattha Sacca); the “Three Lights” refers to the sun, the moon, and the stars.
“If there is no freedom of thought, one might as well be dead” means that even living, one would be like the walking dead. Freedom of thought is rooted in the spirit of independence. What is freedom? Hu Shi said, “freedom is relative to external restraints. If you get freedom but not independence, you are still a slave. Independence does not mean blindly following, not to be deceived, not to rely on status, not to rely on others. This is the spirit of independence.” Independent, its antonym is not unification, but dependent.
Political independence, under the one-party dictatorship of the “one country” full governance, its chances of success is nil, but the chance of being gifted democracy under the one-party dictatorship is probably minus one. Regardless of the political model, we learned over these years that the highest common factor for a way out for Hong Kong is autonomy. If the word “independence” is too sensitive for China, how about “non-dependence” or “autonomy” as the biggest aspirations of Hongkongers.
To equate self-determination with independence is conceptual befuddlement. Independence is a goal, self-determination is only a right stipulated in human rights conventions. Self-determination can lead to a variety of outcome, why must it be independence and not an ultimate unification under “One Country, One System? How uncanny!
hong kong freedom from britain 在 On8 Channel - 岸仔 頻道 Facebook 的最佳解答
The President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization
Issued on: July 14, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-393), the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-76), the Hong Kong Autonomy Act of 2020, signed into law July 14, 2020, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, determine, pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) is no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) under the particular United States laws and provisions thereof set out in this order. In late May 2020, the National People’s Congress of China announced its intention to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. This announcement was merely China’s latest salvo in a series of actions that have increasingly denied autonomy and freedoms that China promised to the people of Hong Kong under the 1984 Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (Joint Declaration). As a result, on May 27, 2020, the Secretary of State announced that the PRC had fundamentally undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and certified and reported to the Congress, pursuant to sections 205 and 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended, respectively, that Hong Kong no longer warrants treatment under United States law in the same manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997. On May 29, 2020, I directed the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions under United States law that give Hong Kong differential treatment in relation to China.
China has since followed through on its threat to impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. Under this law, the people of Hong Kong may face life in prison for what China considers to be acts of secession or subversion of state power –- which may include acts like last year’s widespread anti-government protests. The right to trial by jury may be suspended. Proceedings may be conducted in secret. China has given itself broad power to initiate and control the prosecutions of the people of Hong Kong through the new Office for Safeguarding National Security. At the same time, the law allows foreigners to be expelled if China merely suspects them of violating the law, potentially making it harder for journalists, human rights organizations, and other outside groups to hold the PRC accountable for its treatment of the people of Hong Kong.
I therefore determine that the situation with respect to Hong Kong, including recent actions taken by the PRC to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat.
In light of the foregoing, I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. It shall be the policy of the United States to suspend or eliminate different and preferential treatment for Hong Kong to the extent permitted by law and in the national security, foreign policy, and economic interest of the United States.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5722), I hereby suspend the application of section 201(a) of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended (22 U.S.C. 5721(a)), to the following statutes:
(a) section 103 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1152 note);
(b) sections 203(c), 212(l), and 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1153(c), 1182(l), and 1201(c), respectively);
(c) the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
(d) section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565(m));
(e) the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.); and
(f) section 1304 of title 19, United States Code.
Sec. 3. Within 15 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies shall commence all appropriate actions to further the purposes of this order, consistent with applicable law, including, to:
(a) amend any regulations implementing those provisions specified in section 2 of this order, and, consistent with applicable law and executive orders, under IEEPA, which provide different treatment for Hong Kong as compared to China;
(b) amend the regulation at 8 CFR 212.4(i) to eliminate the preference for Hong Kong passport holders as compared to PRC passport holders;
(c) revoke license exceptions for exports to Hong Kong, reexports to Hong Kong, and transfers (in-country) within Hong Kong of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, that provide differential treatment compared to those license exceptions applicable to exports to China, reexports to China, and transfers (in-country) within China;
(d) consistent with section 902(b)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-246), terminate the export licensing suspensions under section 902(a)(3) of such Act insofar as such suspensions apply to exports of defense articles to Hong Kong persons who are physically located outside of Hong Kong and the PRC and who were authorized to receive defense articles prior to the date of this order;
(e) give notice of intent to suspend the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders (TIAS 98-121);
(f) give notice of intent to terminate the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (TIAS 99-418);
(g) take steps to end the provision of training to members of the Hong Kong Police Force or other Hong Kong security services at the Department of State’s International Law Enforcement Academies;
(h) suspend continued cooperation undertaken consistent with the now-expired Protocol Between the U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America and Institute of Space and Earth Information Science of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Earth Sciences (TIAS 09-1109);
(i) take steps to terminate the Fulbright exchange program with regard to China and Hong Kong with respect to future exchanges for participants traveling both from and to China or Hong Kong;
(j) give notice of intent to terminate the agreement for the reciprocal exemption with respect to taxes on income from the international operation of ships effected by the Exchange of Notes Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong (TIAS 11892);
(k) reallocate admissions within the refugee ceiling set by the annual Presidential Determination to residents of Hong Kong based on humanitarian concerns, to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law; and
(l) propose for my consideration any further actions deemed necessary and prudent to end special conditions and preferential treatment for Hong Kong.
Sec. 4. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(a) Any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to be or have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning of individuals under the authority of, or to be or have been responsible for or involved in developing, adopting, or implementing, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Administrative Region;
(ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Hong Kong;
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or autonomy of Hong Kong;
(C) censorship or other activities with respect to Hong Kong that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Hong Kong, or that limit access to free and independent print, online or broadcast media; or
(D) the extrajudicial rendition, arbitrary detention, or torture of any person in Hong Kong or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or serious human rights abuse in Hong Kong;
(iii) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(A) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a)(i), (a)(ii)(A), (a)(ii)
(B), or (a)(ii)(C) of this section; or
(B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section;
(v) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or
(vi) to be a member of the board of directors or a senior executive officer of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.
Sec. 5. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 4 of this order.
Sec. 6. The prohibitions in section 4(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 7. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 4(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, such aliens, would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility of implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.
Sec. 8. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 9. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 10. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) The term “immediate family member” means spouses and children of any age.
Sec. 11. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 4 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 4 of this order.
Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 13. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 15. If, based on consideration of the terms, obligations, and expectations expressed in the Joint Declaration, I determine that changes in China’s actions ensure that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the PRC under United States law, I will reconsider the determinations made and actions taken and directed under this order.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 14, 2020.