關於 persuade英文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【Joshua Wong speaking to the Italian Senate】#意大利國會研討會演說 —— 呼籲世界在大學保衛戰一週年後與香港人站在同一陣線

中文、意大利文演說全文：https://www.patreon.com/posts/44167118

感謝開創未來基金會（Fondazione Farefuturo）邀請，讓我透過視像方式在意大利國會裡舉辦的研討會發言，呼籲世界繼續關注香港，與香港人站在同一陣線。

意大利作為絕無僅有參與一帶一路發展的國家，理應對中共打壓有更全面的理解，如今正值大學保衛戰一週年，以致大搜捕的時刻，當打壓更為嚴峻，香港更需要世界與我們同行。

為了讓各地朋友也能更了解香港狀況，我已在Patreon發佈當天演說的中文、英文和意大利文發言稿，盼望在如此困難的時勢裡，繼續讓世界知道我們未曾心息的反抗意志。

【The Value of Freedom: Burning Questions for Hong Kongers】

Good morning. I have the privilege today to share some of my thoughts and reflections about freedom, after taking part in social activism for eight years in Hong Kong. A movement calling for the withdrawal of the extradition law starting from last year had escalated into a demand for democracy and freedom. This city used to be prestigious for being the world’s most liberal economy, but now the infamous authoritarian government took away our freedom to election, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and ideas.

Sometimes, we cannot avoid questioning the cause we are fighting for, the value of freedom. Despite a rather bleak prospect, why do we have to continue in this struggle? Why do we have to cherish freedom? What can we do to safeguard freedom at home and stay alert to attacks on freedom? In answering these questions, I hope to walk through three episodes in the previous year.

Turning to 2020, protests are not seen as frequently as they used to be on the media lens, partly because of the pandemic, but more importantly for the authoritarian rule. While the world is busy fighting the pandemic, our government took advantage of the virus to exert a tighter grip over our freedom. Putting the emergency laws in place, public assemblies in Hong Kong were banned. Most recently, a rally to support press freedom organized by journalists was also forbidden. While many people may ask if it is the end of street activism, ahead of us in the fight for freedom is another battleground: the court and the prison.

Freedom Fighters in Courtrooms and in Jail

Part of the huge cost incurred in the fight for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong is the increasing judicial casualties. As of today, more than 10 thousand people have been arrested since the movement broke out, more than a hundred of them are already locked up in prison. Among the 2,300 protestors who are prosecuted, 700 of them may be sentenced up to ten years for rioting charges.

Putting these figures into context, I wish to tell you what life is like, as a youngster in today’s Hong Kong. I was humbled by a lot of younger protestors and students whose exceptional maturity are demonstrated in courtrooms and in prison. What is thought to be normal university life is completely out of the question because very likely the neighbour next door or the roommate who cooked you lunch today will be thrown to jail on the next.

I do prison visits a few times a month to talk to activists who are facing criminal charges or serving sentences for their involvement in the movement. It is not just a routine of my political work, but it becomes my life as an activist. Since the movement, prison visits has also become the daily lives of many families.

But it is always an unpleasant experience passing through the iron gates one after one to enter the visitors’ room, speaking to someone who is deprived of liberty, for a selflessly noble cause. As an activist serving three brief jail terms, I understand that the banality of the four walls is not the most difficult to endure in jail. What is more unbearable is the control of thought and ideas in every single part of our daily routine enforced by the prison system. It will diminish your ability to think critically and the worst of it will persuade you to give up on what you are fighting for, if you have not prepared it well. Three years ago when I wrote on the first page of prison letters, which later turned into a publication called the ‘Unfree Speech’, I was alarmed at the environment of the prison cell. Those letters were written in a state in which freedom was deprived of and in which censorship was obvious. It brings us to question ourselves: other than physical constraints like prison bars, what makes us continue in the fight for freedom and democracy?

Mutual Support to activists behind-the-scene

The support for this movement is undiminished over these 17 months. There are many beautiful parts in the movement that continue to revitalise the ways we contribute to this city, instead of making money on our own in the so-called global financial centre. In particular, it is the fraternity, the mutual assistance among protestors that I cherished the most.

As more protestors are arrested, people offer help and assistance wholeheartedly -- we sit in court hearings even if we don’t know each other, and do frequent prison visits and write letters to protesters in detention. In major festivals and holidays, people gathered outside the prison to chant slogans so that they won’t feel alone and disconnected. This is the most touching part to me for I also experienced life in jail.

The cohesion, the connection and bonding among protestors are the cornerstone to the movement. At the same time, these virtues gave so much empowerment to the mass public who might not be able to fight bravely in the escalating protests. These scenes are not able to be captured by cameras, but I’m sure it is some of the most important parts of Hong Kong’s movement that I hope the world will remember.

I believe this mutual support transcends nationality or territory because the value of freedom does not alter in different places. More recently, Twelve Hongkong activists, all involved in the movement last year, were kidnapped by China’s coastal guard when fleeing to Taiwan for political refugee in late-August. All of them are now detained secretly in China, with the youngest aged only 16. We suspect they are under torture during detention and we call for help on the international level, putting up #SAVE12 campaign on twitter. In fact, how surprising it is to see people all over the world standing with the dozen detained protestors for the same cause. I’m moved by activists in Italy, who barely knew these Hong Kong activists, even took part in a hunger strike last month calling for immediate release of them. This form of interconnectivity keeps us in spirit and to continue our struggle to freedom and democracy.

Understanding Value of freedom in the university battle
A year ago on this day, Hong Kong was embroiled in burning clashes as the police besieged the Polytechnic University. It was a day we will not forget and this wound is still bleeding in the hearts of many Hong Kongers. A journalist stationed in the university at that time once told me that being at the scene could only remind him of the Tiananmen Square Massacre 31 years ago in Beijing. There was basically no exit except going for the dangerous sewage drains.

That day, thousands of people, old or young, flocked to districts close to the university before dawn, trying to rescue protestors trapped inside the campus. The reinforcements faced grave danger too, for police raided every corner of the small streets and alleys, arresting a lot of them. Among the 800+ arrested on a single day, 213 people were charged with rioting. For sure these people know there will be repercussions. It is the conscience driving them to take to the streets regardless of the danger, the conscience that we should stand up to brutality and authoritarianism, and ultimately to fight for freedoms that are guaranteed in our constitution. As my dear friend, Brian Leung once said, ‘’Hong Kong Belongs to Everyone Who Shares Its Pain’’. I believe the value of freedom is exemplified through our compassion to whom we love, so much that we are willing to sacrifice the freedom of our own.

Defending freedom behind the bars

No doubt there is a terrible price to pay in standing up to the Beijing and Hong Kong government. But after serving a few brief jail sentences and facing the continuing threat of harassment, I learnt to cherish the freedom I have for now, and I shall devote every bit what I have to strive for the freedom of those who have been ruthlessly denied.

The three episodes I shared with you today -- the courtroom, visiting prisoners and the battle of university continue to remind me of the fact that the fight for freedom has not ended yet. In the coming months, I will be facing a maximum of 5 years in jail for unauthorized assembly and up to one ridiculous year for wearing a mask in protest. But prison bars would never stop me from activism and thinking critically.

I only wish that during my absence, you can continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong, by following closely to the development, no matter the ill-fated election, the large-scale arrest under National Security Law or the twelve activists in China. To defy the greatest human rights abusers is the essential way to restore democracy of our generation, and the generation following us.

．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．
💪小額支持我的獨家分析及文章：https://bit.ly/joshuawonghk
╭────────────────╮
╞🌐https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf
╞📷https://www.instagram.com/joshua1013
╞📧joshua@joshuawongcf.com
╞💬https://t.me/joshuawonghk
╰────────────────╯

【Podcast關鍵字】EP9. Weird Habits That Are Actually Relatable

英語島「全英文Podcast」上線了！
害怕有些單字聽不懂嗎？沒問題，本集的重點單字都幫你整理好了，熟悉英文聽力更簡單！

relatable (adj.) 相關的；容易產生連結的
hit the sack (phr.) 睡覺
peer pressure (n.) 同儕壓力

邊聽邊看：http://sc.piee.pw/SRLTK

【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿，但國際線十分重要，不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻，願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機：

While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.

After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.

This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.

The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws

Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.

The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.

Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”

In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.

Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.

Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates

An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?

The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”

If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.

Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.

Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”

Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.

Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship

Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.

In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.

Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.

The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.

These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.

▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ