#睡前故事:【CHILDREN CITY】
“Who knows, maybe COVID19 only leaves our children left on Earth.If so, don’t worry, because nights would look like this…” he said.
西班牙視覺設計師 Marc Guardiola說,如果在這場疫症之後,世界上只剩下小孩,那麼他們都能開心且自在地在星空下跳舞。
「為什麼你會覺得這個世界很壞?」
「因為有太多壞人。」
「所以,如果這個世界沒有壞人就會變好?」
「我相信是。」
「但你怎樣界定誰是壞人誰是好人?」
「比我壞的人就是壞人囉。」
「那麼你算是好人嗎?」
「我也不知道,但比我更壞的就肯定不是好人。」
「我就覺得每個人長大後,或多或少都會變壞。」
「所以,沒有大人,只有小孩存在的世界,對你來說就是最好的了?」
「是的。而且就像PETER PAN那樣,在那個世界裡,小孩都不會長大,他們永遠都只是小孩。」
「那樣的世界存在嗎?」
「嗯,而且不遠。它就存在於我們每個人的心內。」
很喜歡這幾年周國賢的歌,尤其是由小克填詞的歌曲,都另有深意。最經典的莫過於〈有時〉、〈重逢〉與〈星塵〉這三首歌,以時空的角度重新抒寫情愛關係人生哲學,開拓出一個嶄新的高度與境界。但其實還有一首由藍奕邦填詞的〈CHILDREN SONG〉,以INNER CHILD為主題,講我們生活在這個紛亂惡俗的塵世裡,反而更渴望能像「內在小孩」般,堅持善良、真摯、率性、誠實。我不時都會翻聽這首歌,它總能提醒到我,這份赤子之心,在這個世代其實是多麼的真貴。
因為所謂的成長,某程度就是將自己續漸變成一個合乎各種社會規範的人。簡單來說就是有很多想說的話不能再說,很多想做的事不能再做;是非黑白不再絕對分明,大家都要學習在灰色的地帶中做一個灰色的人,所以你必須抑壓那個真正的自己,戴上一個稱作「大人」的面具,變得跟所有人都一樣,才能成功地,在一場名為「社會」的舞會裡翩翩起舞。而你明知這場舞會正一點一點變壞,但你卻不能出聲,因為這樣便會破壞了這場舞會的和諧。
現實往往並不像童話故事。
王子與公主到最後未必都能共諧連理,而那個揭穿國王新衣的小孩,在現實裡很有可能不會得到世人的認同,反而更會遭到口誅筆伐,甚至要公開道歉,在悔過書上寫下「能」和「明白」,再打上朱紅色的手指模以茲確認。是的,雖然一場疫情基本上已拆穿了這個世界的荒謬,但面對強權凌虐,假消息假新聞接踵而來的當下,大多數人都選擇把這個誠實的小孩趕走,然後祈禱疫情自己會過去,而且從此不會再有新的病毒爆發,能重新過上昔日的生活⋯⋯
當然我們都知道,病毒並不會挑人,任何人都有機會染病,但如果將來會出現一種病毒,能夠專門殺死所有虛偽、懦弱、貪婪、傲慢的「大人」,讓大家的內在小孩重新覺醒出來,或許這個世界才能向好的方向慢慢前進吧。
Storyteller:方恨小
Animation by Marc Guardiola
Music from MERCURY movement (Gustav Holst - The Planets SUITE)
👉🏻重溫動畫師 Marc Guardiola 專訪故事:https://bit.ly/3buRSRB
#沒有你的故事也是你的故事
_______________________
Subscribe our newsletter: https://bit.ly/2YWEwYs
〖SUBMIT APRIL CHALLENGE:https://bit.ly/3bDXvg7〗
關於創作企劃邀請/品牌推廣/慈善活動推廣/合作伙伴,可以電郵到 info@story-teller.com.hk ,我們會盡快回覆。
#EveryoneIsStoryteller
同時也有12部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過15萬的網紅Gina music,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Don't forget to turn on the bell icon for future uploads 🔔✔️ 西洋音樂愛好者✨這裡不會有冗長的介紹文卻是個讓你挖歌的好地方😎 追蹤Gina music社群挖掘更多音樂🌹 facebook👉 https://www.facebook.com...
「submit過去分詞」的推薦目錄:
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 StoryTeller 說故事 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 LilKrake小章章 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 葉漢浩 Alex Ip Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 Gina music Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 Gina music Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 Gina music Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 Re: [題目] 現在分詞VS 過去分詞- 看板TOEIC - 批踢踢實業坊 的評價
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 submit過去式2022-精選在臉書/Facebook/Dcard上的焦點新聞 ... 的評價
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 submit過去式2022-精選在臉書/Facebook/Dcard上的焦點新聞 ... 的評價
- 關於submit過去分詞 在 submission動詞的推薦與評價,YOUTUBE和網紅們這樣回答 的評價
submit過去分詞 在 LilKrake小章章 Facebook 的最佳貼文
JUST BARS MV的歌詞是刻意做比較不明顯 不想蓋掉畫面 重複看了幾個higher brothers的MV字幕就打算用成這樣了哈哈
對歌詞意思有興趣的朋友可以看看這篇文
這是清楚的雙語翻譯版本歌詞:
-
一直拿著手機 講著不一樣的口氣
Always holding my phone, speaking in different tones
人格分裂
Split personality
我像是二十四個比利
Feel like I'm The Minds of Billy Milligan
追著風影
Chase the wind and clutch at shadows
和穎做事要求黃金比例
Request myself doing things like the Golden Ratio
要有做大事的脾氣
Need the guts to do it big
家人朋友全都忘記
Fams and friends all be forgotten
告訴你 惱人的思緒 擾人的憂鬱
Telling you the annoying thoughts, disturbing depression
永遠只會憋在心裡
Always stay in the mind
沒有分享和心得 真的和軀殼
No sharing and feelings, real and differences
一線之隔在於誰關心你
Just a fine line between who cares you
My place is lack of peace, time to seize
內心無法平復 是時候該抓住
Whatever I seek for
不管我在尋求什麼
The sky is no light out there holding me
天空將沒有光芒擁護我
Too many of us are now so woefully survive
現在有太多人在可悲地活著
做自己還要擔心出頭地
Have to worry about success when doing me
Sick people getting rich when I tryna be practical
當我在試著變得實際些 有病的人卻變得富有
Poor you and me we only act like cynical
可憐的你我只得裝作憤世嫉俗
No more middle class always stay in medio
中產階級不再只是平庸
When Death giving me a trial I'll bring on my soul
當死神審判我時 我將獻上我的靈魂
將心臟秤在上頭 我將問心無愧
Put my heart on the scale I'll have no regrets
清算我造的孽 死神宣判我無罪
After the reckoning of sins, the Death sentences me not guilty
I can't take no more
再也無法承受
Friends go different way
朋友都離去了
I want the real talk
我想聽真實的話
The fake stay fake
虛偽的還是虛偽
How to reach that goal
如何達成目標
Pay my living pay
交付我的生活費
I just wanna be raw
只想回歸最初
I ain't going back
我絕不回頭
20個年頭還算平穩得過 有時我也想放棄過
Almost fine in these 20 years, sometimes I have thought about giving up
從小愛素描愛音樂的我 也很想埋頭地做
Love sketching and music since young, also wanted to immerse myself in it
台灣的教育制度讓我不能馬虎 得要讓課業先顧
Taiwan's education wasn't letting me go, must study hard first
從來都一個人來 不搞噱頭和表面作秀
Always by myself with no gimmicks and publicity stunt
我不被接受
I am not accepted
國二取了筆名 lil Krake
Name the pen name lil Krake in the 2nd grade of junior high
Thought it was making me different
以為讓自己與眾不同
Cool like lil jon and lil wayne
像lil jon和lil wayne一樣酷
現在爛大街的 lil 字輩
Now there are a bunch of "lil" names on the streets
從來都不需要太多的我 走上了獨木舟 仍全力以赴
Always don't need too much, go alone by a canoe, I'm till make an all-out
錯怪我做事偷雞摸狗的對手 嫉妒我早已奠定基礎
The rivals who blame me for tricky, envy my foundation has been established
根本就不需要模仿著 Migos 你還當我新手
No need to imitate Migos, you think I'm still a newbie
All these critical comments against me, don't need to prove
這些對我的批評 也不需用去證明
默默無名變成曇花一現
Anonymity becomes a flash in the pan
I got no fame to lose my fans
我沒有足夠的名氣去失去粉絲
Looking at the ATM
看著提款機
Filling my bowl with the sand
用沙子填滿我的碗
Just bars
只是一些詞
There's no charts
沒有計畫
If you heard this, you know I ain't gonna stop
如果你聽到這個 你知道我不會停下
Drop tops
敞篷車
Fuck non!
沒有
I just quit my job in case I wanna see around
辭掉了工作以防我只是想四處逛逛
Bars
Bars Bars
Everyday since trapping in the thoughts
從陷入的思緒中開啟每一天
Bars
Bars Bars
Scars on my heart
在我心上的疤痕
It's so raw
才剛劃下
I ain't the middle man bro, don't ask me
嘿 我不是中間人別來問我
Cause I also trapped in the world
因為我也同樣深陷於這個世間
Now look at the mirror, this guy standing
現在看向鏡子 站了一個傢伙
But he ain't a hero
但他不是英雄
Submit my resume everyday, I can't open my eyes
每天投出履歷 我無法睜眼看清
Seeing what I stand for
我到底是為了什麼
I want it postponed, no more phone call
想推遲掉這些事 別再有電話聲響起
Awaking me from wonderland
將我從夢境中給喚醒
So many wanderings and I can't recall any word
徘徊了許久我卻記不住任何一句
That I wanna say
我想說的話
I saw people not be seen what they doing good
我看到人們因為做好事不被看到
So they doing bad
所以他們就做壞事
How can they doing nothing when they down
當他們失落時 他們怎能什麼都不做
Just praying for god's sake
就只是向上帝祈求
And some don't play empathy to the person involved
還有一些人不會同情他人
Cause they haven't felt the pain
只因為他們還沒痛過
那麼多 那麼多 在腦邊的囉哩八嗦 我想耳根清靜
Too much noise around me, I just want peace of mind
跟誰說都差不多 只想慢慢走過 我可能搞不定
It's no difference between who I talking to, I wanna pass it through but I may not handle it
說真的 現在誰保持理性 誰寫了深的根本沒人想聽
Matter of fact who's rational and who's writing deep, no one cares
找個 Free beat 寫了幾句重複的話語 砸錢拍個 MV
Find some free beats, write the same words, money for the music video
這是社會行情 就像是 不一樣的屎 裝在紙裝的袋子
This is social market, it's like putting different shits into different paper bags
萬人皆醉 我保持清醒
Staying sober while everyone else is drinking
不搞牌子 拿著筷子 Still Oversize
No brands, with chopsticks, I'm still oversize
我看著窮酸 沒人想攀 但我涵養比你大一號
I look poor, no one wants to be close to me, but my inside is bigger than you
我從不求讚 獨自處在 與你不相交的平交道
Never beg for the likes, I'm alone at the level crossing that not intersect with you
I can't take no more
再也無法承受
Friends go different way
朋友都離去了
I want the real talk
我想聽真實的話
The fake stay fake
虛偽的還是虛偽
How to reach that goal
如何達成目標
Pay my living pay
交付我的生活費
I just wanna be raw
只想回歸最初
I ain't going back
我絕不回頭
我不滿這世界 不接受 心中的那股赤焰
I'm dissatisfied with the world that doesn't accept the flame of my heart
我被逼著妥協 只得遷就 每夜出現的夢魘
I was forced to compromise, I have to
accommodate the nightmare that appears every night
Let bygones be bygones, It would never go back
讓過去成為過去 時間不會回溯
習慣了敗仗的拜訪 但我從不退卻
Get used to the defeat's visit, but I never retreat
Just bars
只是一些詞
There's no charts
沒有計畫
If you heard this, you know I ain't gonna stop
如果你聽到這個 你知道我不會停下
Drop tops
敞篷車
Fuck non!
沒有
I just quit my job in case I wanna see around
辭掉了工作以防我只是想四處逛逛
Bars
Bars Bars
Everyday since trapping in the thoughts
從陷入的思緒中開啟每一天
Bars
Bars Bars
Scars on my heart
在我心上的疤痕
It's so raw
才剛劃下
#kaohsiung #lilKrake #justbars #lyrics #english #chinese #music #song
submit過去分詞 在 葉漢浩 Alex Ip Facebook 的最讚貼文
戴耀廷的結案陳詞
公民抗命的精神
首先,這是一宗公民抗命的案子。
我站在這裏,就是為了公民抗命。陳健民教授、朱耀明牧師與我一起發起的「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」,是一場公民抗命的運動。在以前,少有香港人聽過公民抗命,但現在公民抗命這意念在香港已是家傳戶曉。
終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35採納了約翰羅爾斯在《正義論》中為公民抗命所下的定義。公民抗命是「一項公開、非暴力、真誠的政治行為,通常是爲了導致法律上或社會上的改變,所作出的違法行爲。」
在律政司對黃之鋒案,賀輔明勳爵是終審法院的非常任法官。在此案,終審法院引述了賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136的說法:「出於真誠理由的公民抗命在這國家有源遠流長及光榮的歷史。」終審法院認同公民抗命的概念是同樣適用於其他尊重個人權利的法制如香港。但為何公民抗命是光榮和文明呢?終審法院沒有進一步解釋。
約翰羅爾斯的定義大體只能說出公民抗命的行為部分。 在馬丁路德金博士非常有名關於公民抗命的著作《從伯明罕市監獄發出的信》中,他道出更多公民抗命的意圖部分或公民抗命的精神。這信函是他在 1963年4 月16日,因在亞拉巴馬州伯明罕市參與示威爭取民權後被判入獄時寫的。
在信函中他說:「一個人若不遵守不公義的法律,必須要公開,充滿愛心和願意接受懲罰。個人因為其良心指出某法律是不公義的,而且甘心接受懲處,是要喚起社會的良知,關注到那中間的不公義,這樣其實是對法律表達了最大的敬意。」
馬丁路德金博士認為有時法律在表面上是公義的,但實行時卻變得不公義。他說:「我未得准許而遊行,並因而被捕,現在的確有一條法例,要求遊行須得准許,但這條法例如果是用了來…否定公民運用和平集會和抗議的權利,則會變成不公義。」
他還說:「 面對一個經常拒絕談判的社區,非暴力的直接行動正是為了營造一次危機,以及加強一種具創造力的張力,逼使對方面對問題,也使問題戲劇地呈現出來,讓其不能再被忽略。」
馬丁路德金博士對我啟發良多,我們也把這精神栽種在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」中。緊隨馬丁路德金博士在公民抗命之路的腳步,我們努力去開啟人心中那份自我犧牲的愛及平靜安穩,而非煽惑憤怒與仇恨。
終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案進一步引述賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) 的說法:「違法者與執法者都有一些規則要遵守。示威者的行為要合乎比例,並不會導致過量的破壞或不便。以証明他們的真誠信念,他們應接受法律的懲處。」
雖然終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案沒有引述這部分,賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) 還說:「另一方面,警察與檢控官的行為也要有所節制,並法官在判刑時應考慮示威者的真誠動機。」這些有關公民抗命的規則應也適用,終審法院應不會反對。
公民抗命的目的並不是要妨擾公眾,而是要喚起公眾關注社會的不公義,並贏取人們認同社會運動的目標。若一個人被確立了是在進行公民抗命,那他就不可能會意圖造成不合理的阻礙,因那是與公民抗命背道而馳,即使最後因他的行動造成的阻礙是超出了他所能預見的。
非暴力是「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」的指導原則。公民抗命的行為,就是佔領中環,是運動的最後一步。進行公民抗命時,示威者會坐在馬路上,手扣手,等候警察拘捕,不作反抗。我們計劃及希望達到的佔領程度是合乎比例的。我們相信所會造成的阻礙是合理的。
我相信我們已做了公民抗命中違法者所當做的,我們期望其他人也會做得到他們所當做的。
追求民主
在一宗公民抗命的案件,公民抗命的方法是否合乎比例,不能抽空地談,必須考慮進行那行動的目的。
這是一宗關乎一群深愛香港的香港人的案件,他們相信只有透過引入真普選,才能開啟化解香港深層次矛盾之門。
我就是他們其中一人。與那些一起追尋同一民主夢的人,為了我們的憲法權利,我們已等了超過三十年。當我還在大學讀法律時,我已參與香港的民主運動。現在,我的兒子也剛大學畢業了,香港還未有民主。
馬丁路德金博士在信函中還說:「壓迫者從不自願施予自由,自由是被壓迫者爭取得來的。…如同我們出色的法學家所說,延誤公義,就是否定公義。」我們在追求公義,但對當權者來說,我們計劃的行動誠然是妨擾。
《基本法》第45 條規定行政長官的產生辦法最終達至由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生的目標。《公民及政治權利國際公約》第 25 條規定:「凡屬公民,無分第二條所列之任何區別,不受無理限制,均應有權利及機會:…(乙)在真正、定期之選舉中投票及被選。選舉權必須普及而平等,選舉應以無記名投票法行之,以保證選民意志之自由表現 …」
聯合國人權委員會在《第25號一般性意見》,為《公民及政治權利國際公約》第 25 (乙) 條中的 「普及而平等」,提供了它的理解和要求。第15段說:「有效落實競選擔任經選舉產生的職位的權利和機會有助於確保享有投票權的人自由挑選候選人。」第17段說:「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」
全國人民代表大會常務委員會在2004年就《基本法》附件一及附件二作出的解釋,實質改變了修改行政長官選舉辦法的憲法程序。在行政長官向立法會提出修改產生辦法的法案前,額外加了兩步。行政長官就是否需要進行修改,須向全國人民代表大會常務委員會提出報告。全國人民代表大會常務委員會根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則作出確定。相關法案須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數 通過,行政長官同意,並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會批准或者備案。
在2014年8月31日,全國人民代表大會常務委員會完成了憲法修改程序的第二步,作出了有關行政長官產生辦法的決定。全國人民代表大會常務委員會除決定行政長官可由普選產生外,就普選行政長官的產生辦法設下了具體及嚴厲的規定。
提名委員會的人數、構成和委員產生辦法都得按照第四任行政長官選舉委員會的人數、構成和委員產生辦法而規定。提名委員會按民主程序只可提名產生二至三名行政長官候選人。每名候選人均須獲得提名委員會全體委員半數以上的支持。
按著全國人民代表大會常務委員會自行設定的程序,全國人民代表大會常務委員會應只有權決定是否批准或不批准行政長官提交的報告,而不能就提名委員會的組成及提名程序,設下詳細的規定。全國人民代表大會常務委員會連自己設定的程序也沒有遵守。
若按著全國人民代表大會常務委員會設下的嚴厲條件去選舉產生行政長官,香港的選民就候選人不會有真正的選擇,因所有不受歡迎的人都會被篩選掉。這與普選的意思是不相符的。
這些香港人進行公民抗命,是要喚起香港社會及世界的關注,中國政府不公義地違背了憲法的承諾,也破壞了它的憲法責任。我們所作的,是為了維護我們及所有香港人的憲法權利,包括了反對我們的行動的人;是為了要我們的主權國履行承諾;是為了爭取香港憲制進行根本改革;及為香港的未來帶來更多公義。
和平示威的權利
這案件是關乎和平示威自由及言論自由的權利。
根據「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」的原先計劃,舉行公眾集會的地方是遮打道行人專用區、遮打花園及皇后像廣場,時間是由2014年 10月1 日下午三時正開始,最長也不會超過2014年 10月5 日。我們期望會有三類人來到。
第一類人已決定了會參與公民抗命。他們會在過了合法的時限後,繼續坐在遮打道上。他們是那些在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」意向書上選了第二或第三個選項的人。第二類人決定不會參與公民抗命,而只是來支援第一類人。過了合法的時限後,他們會離開遮打道,去到遮打花園或皇后像廣場。他們是那些在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」意向書上選了第一個選項的人。第三類人還未決定是否參與公民抗命的行動。他們可以到合法時限快要過去的最後一刻,才決定是否留在遮打道上。
我們相信警方會有足夠時間把所有參與佔領中環公民抗命的示威者移走。估計會有數千人參與。我們要求參與者要嚴守非暴力的紀律。我們採用了詳細的方法去確保大部分即使不是所有參與者都會跟從。
我們是在行使受《基本法》第27 條保障的和平示威自由的憲法權利。這也與同受《基本法》第27 條保障的言論自由有緊密關係。透過《基本法》第39條,言論自由、表達自由、和平集會的自由受《香港人權法》第16 及17條的憲法保障,而這些條文與《公民及政治權利國際公約》第19 及21是一樣的,是《公民及政治權利國際公約》適用於香港的部分。
若原訂計劃真的執行,那可能會觸犯《公安條例》一些關於組織未經批准集結的規定,但我們相信那會舉行的公眾集會是不會對公眾構成不合理的阻礙的。會被佔領的空間,包括了馬路,是公眾在公眾假期可自由使用的。計劃佔領的時期,首兩天是公眾假期,最後兩天是周末。
當公眾集會的地方轉到政府總部外的添美路、立法會道及龍匯道的行人路及馬路的範圍(下稱「示威區域」),雖然集會的主題、領導、組織及參加者的組成已改變了,但精神卻沒有。在2014年9 月27 和 28日,人們是被邀請來示威區域參加集會的。這仍然是公民在行使和平示威自由及言論自由的權利。
相類似的公眾集會也曾在2012年9 月3至 8日,在反國民教育運動中在示威區域內舉行。除卻公民在那時候還可以進入公民廣場(政府總部東翼前地),在2012年9月在反國民教育運動的佔領空間,與示威者在2014年9 月27 和 28日在警方封鎖所有通往示威區域通道前所佔領的空間是很相近的。
自2012年的反國民教育運動後,這示威區域已被普遍認同,是可以用來組織有大量公眾參與,反對香港特別行政區政府的大型公眾集會的公共空間。換句話說,公眾都認知示威區域是一個重要場地,讓香港公民聚集去一起行使和平示威自由的權利。
根據此我們也抱有的公眾認知,當我在2014年9 月28日凌晨宣布提前佔領中環的時候,我們只可能意圖叫人來到示威區域而不會是任何其他地方。要佔領示威區域以外的地方,沒可能是當時我們所能想到的。沒有人會如此想的。
在梁國雄對香港特別行政區案Leung Kwok-hung v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229, 終審法院指出: 「和平集會權利涉及一項政府(即行政當局)所須承擔的積極責任,那就是採取合理和適當的措施,使合法的集會能夠和平地進行。然而,這並非一項絕對責任,因為政府不能保證合法的集會定會和平地進行,而政府在選擇採取何等措施方面享有廣泛的酌情權。至於甚麼是合理和適當的措施,則須視乎個別個案中的所有情況而定。」
如控方証人黃基偉高級警司 (PW2) 在作供時所說,當有太多的示威者聚集在鄰接的行人路,警方為了示威者的安全,就會封鎖示威區域內的馬路。能有一個公共空間讓反對政府的人士和平集會以宣洩他們對香港特別行政區政府的不滿,對香港社會來說,那是一項公共利益。即使在示威區域長期舉行集會是違反《公安條例》,但這不會對公眾構成共同傷害。受影響的部分公眾只是很少,而造成的不便相對來說也是輕微。
終審法院常任法官包致金在楊美雲對香港特別行政區案Yeung May-wan v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137中說:「《基本法》第二十七條下的保障,不會純粹因為集會、遊行或示威對公路上的自由通行造成某種干擾而被撤回。本席認為,除非所造成的干擾屬不合理,即超出可合理地預期公眾可容忍的程度,否則集會、遊行或示威不會失去這項保障。關於這一點,本席認為,大型甚或大規模集會、遊行或示威的參加者往往有理由指出,只有如此大規模的活動才能協助有效地表達他們的意見。除此之外,本席認為最明顯的相關考慮因素是干擾的嚴重程度和干擾為時多久。不過,也可能有其他的相關考慮因素,本席認為包括以下一項:在有關的干擾發生之前,是否有人曾一度或數度作出一項或多項干擾行為?可合理地預期公眾能容許甚麼,乃屬事實和程度的問題,但在回答這個問題時,法庭務須謹記,毫無保留地保存相關自由,正是合理性的定義,而非僅是用作決定是否合理的因素之一。」
參與示威區域的公眾集會的示威者並不能構成阻礙,因示威區域的馬路是由警方封鎖的。警方封鎖示威區域的馬路是為了保障示威者的安全 ,讓他們可以安全地及和平地行使和平集會的權利。就算在示威區域是造成了一定程度的阻礙,考慮到示威者是在行使他們的和平示威自由的憲法權利,那阻礙也不能是不合理的。
即使當示威者在2014年9 月28日走到分域碼頭街及夏慤道,人們只是被邀請來到示威區域而不是留在那些道路上。警方被要求開放通向示威區域的通路,好讓人們能去到示威區域與示威者們一起。若非通往示威區域的通路被警方封鎖了,大部份人即使不是所有人,應都會進入示威區域,而那些道路就不會被佔領。催淚彈也就沒有需要發放。
警方應有責任去促使公民能在示威區域舉行公眾集會,但警方卻把示威區域封鎖了,阻礙人們來到示威區域參與公眾集會。示威區域內的示威者不可能意圖或造成任何在示威區域以外所出現的阻礙,因他們只是邀請人們來到示威區域與他們一起。
當警方見到已有大量人群在示威區域外意圖進入示威區域,警方仍不負責任地拒絕開放通向示威區域的通路。警方必須為示威區域外所造成的阻礙及之後發生的所有事負上責任。
在警方發放87催淚彈及使用過度武力後,一切都改變了。如此發放催淚彈是沒有人能預見的,事情再不是我們所能掌控。到了那時候,我們覺得最重要的事,就是帶領參加運動的人平安回家。
在發放催淚彈後的無數個日與夜,我們竭力用不同方法去盡快結束佔領。我們幫助促使學生領袖與政府主要官員對話。我們與各方商討能否接受以變相公投為退場機制。我們籌組了廣場投票。即使我們這些工作的大部分最後都沒有成效,但我們真的是盡了力及用盡能想到的方法去達到這目標。最後,我們在2014年12 月3日向警方自首。金鐘範圍的佔領在2014年12 月11日也結束了。
不恰當檢控
這是關乎不恰當地以公眾妨擾罪作為罪名起訴的案件。
如賀輔明勳爵in R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出,檢控官也有公民抗命的規則要遵守的,他們的行為要有所節制。
在 “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, 一文,J. R. Spencer 看到:「近年差不多所有以公眾妨擾罪來起訴的案件,都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個: 一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律,通常懲罰是輕微的,檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他; 二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的,檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他。」兵咸勳爵在 R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 採納了J. R. Spencer 對檢控官在控訴公眾妨擾罪時暗藏的動機的批評。
若有一適當的成文罪行能涵蓋一宗公民抗命案件中的違法行為,我們可以合理地質問為何要以公眾妨擾罪來起訴?即使這不構成濫用程序,但這案件的檢控官一定已違反了賀輔明勳爵在 R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出適用於他的公民抗命的規則,因他並沒有節制行為。
這是關乎不恰當地以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴的案件。
同樣地,在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件,以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴,那是過度的。在串謀的控罪,控方提出的証據是我們的公開發言。按定義,公民抗命一定是一項公開的行為。若這些公開發言可以用於檢控,那會把所有的公民抗命都扼殺於萌芽階段。那麼說公民抗命是一些光榮之事就變得毫無意義,因公民抗命根本就不可能出現。更惡劣的後果是,社會出現寒蟬效應,很多合理的言論都會被噤聲。對言論自由的限制必然是不合乎比例。
在香港普通法是否有煽惑人煽惑這罪名仍存爭議,但即使真有這罪行,在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件,以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴,那是過度地、不合理地及不必要地擴展過失責任。
因主罪行是那惹人猜疑的公眾妨擾罪,以煽惑人煽惑去構成公眾妨擾罪來起訴,那更會把過失責任擴展至明顯不合理的程度。若檢控官的行為不是那麼過度和不合理,起訴的罪名是恰當的,我們是不會抗辯的。無論如何,當控罪相信是過度及不合理,我們提出抗辯不應被視為拒絕接受法律的懲處,違反了違法者的公民抗命規則。
有些問題是我這位置難以解答的。若檢控官違反了賀輔明勳爵在 R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出的公民抗命的規則,那會有甚麼後果呢?由誰來糾正這錯誤呢?
守護法治
歸根究底,這是一宗關乎香港法治與高度自治的案件。
作為香港法治及憲法的學者,我相信單純依靠司法獨立是不足以維護香港的法治。 缺乏一個真正的民主制度,政府權力會被濫用,公民的基利不會得到充分的保障。沒有民主,要抵抗越來越厲害對「一國兩制」下香港的高度自由的侵害,會是困難的。在「雨傘運動」後,還有很長的路才能到達香港民主之旅的終點。
終審法院常任法官鄧國楨在退休前法庭儀式上致辭說:「雖然法官決意維護法治,讓其在香港的價值及運用恒久不變,但關鍵在於社會對法官予以由衷的支持。那應是何等形式的支持?我認為,應是全面而徹底的支持。如果法官受到不公的抨擊,請緊守立場並支持他們。可是,不要只因爲某些事件才對他們表示支持。那並不足夠,也可能已經太遲。大家應致力在社會上培養有利於法治的氛圍。我們在香港擁有新聞自由及選舉自由,必須努力發聲,讓你的選票發揮作用。請相信我,自由的代價是要時刻保持警覺。更重要的是,永遠不要放棄或低估自己的力量。如果我們整體社會堅持維護法治,無人可以輕易把它奪走。千萬不要讓此事變得輕而易舉。」
我們都有責任去守護香港的法治和高度自治。我在這裹,是因我用了生命中很多的年月,直至此時此刻,去守護香港的法治,那亦是香港的高度自治不可或缺的部份。我永不會放棄,也必會繼續爭取香港的民主。
我相信法治能為公民抗命提供理據。公民抗命與法治有共同的目標,就是追求公義。公民抗命是有效的方法去確保這共同目標能達成,至少從長遠來說,公民抗命能創造一個氛圍,讓其他方法可被用來達成那目標。
若我們真是有罪,那麼我們的罪名就是在香港這艱難的時刻仍敢於去散播希望。入獄,我不懼怕,也不羞愧。若這苦杯是不能挪開,我會無悔地飲下。
DCCC 480/2017
Closing Submission of Tai Yiu-ting (D1)
1. First, this is a case of civil disobedience.
2. Here, I am standing up for civil disobedience.
3. The Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement, initiated by Professor Chan Kin-man, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and I, was a movement of civil disobedience.
4. Civil disobedience, known little by Hong Kong people in the past, is now a household idea in Hong Kong.
5. The Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at paragraph 70 endorsed the definition of civil disobedience put forward by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition, 1999) at p. 320.
6. Civil disobedience is “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.”
7. In Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, the Court of Final Appeal with Lord Hoffmann as the non-permanent judge repeated at paragraph 72 what Lord Hoffmann had said in R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 at paragraph 89, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country.” The Court of Final Appeal accepted that the concept of civil disobedience is equally recognisable in a jurisdiction respecting individual rights, like Hong Kong.
8. However, it was not explained why civil disobedience is honourable and civilised.
9. John Rawls’ definition spells out more the actus reus of civil disobedience.
10. In his very famous work on civil disobedience, Letter from a Birmingham Jail reproduced in The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 71, No. 1/4 (Winter - Autumn, 1986), pp. 38-44, Dr Martin Luther King Jr. provided more the mens rea of civil disobedience or the spirit of civil disobedience. The Letter was written by him on 16 April 1963 while in jail serving a sentence for participating in civil rights demonstration in Birmingham, Alabama.
11. He said (p. 41), “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”
12. To Dr King, a law could be just on its face but unjust in its application. He said in the Letter (p. 40-41), “I was arrested…on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to …deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust.”
13. He also said (p. 39), “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatise the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
14. I was inspired very much by Dr King, and this is the same spirit we have implanted in the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement. Following Dr King’s steps closely in the path of civil disobedience, we strive to inspire self-sacrificing love and peacefulness but not to incite anger and hatred.
15. The Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung further cited what Lord Hoffmann had said in R v Jones (Margaret), “[T]here are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other. The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law.”
16. Though the Court of Final Appeal did not quote this part of the judgment in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret) also said, “The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account.” These other conventions of civil disobedience should also apply, and it is not likely that the Court of Final Appeal would object.
17. The purpose of civil disobedience is not to obstruct the public but to arouse public concern to the injustice in society and to win sympathy from the public on the cause of the social movement.
18. If it is found that a person is committing an act of civil disobedience, he could not have intended to cause unreasonable obstruction as it will defeat the whole purpose of civil disobedience itself even if his action might at the end have caused a degree of obstruction more than he could have known.
19. Non-violence was the overarching principle of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement. The act of civil disobedience, i.e. occupy Central, was the last resort of the movement. The manner of civil disobedience by the protesters was to sit down together on the street with arms locked and wait to be arrested by the police without struggling. The scale of occupation was planned and intended to be proportionate. We believe that the obstruction must be reasonable.
20. I believe we have done our part as the law-breaker in civil disobedience. We expect the others will do their parts.
21. In a case of civil disobedience, whether the means of civil disobedience is proportionate; contextually, the end must be considered.
22. This is a case about some Hong Kong people who love Hong Kong very much and believe that only through the introduction of genuine universal suffrage could a door be opened to resolving the deep-seated conflicts in Hong Kong.
23. I am one of those Hong Kong people. With all people who share the same democratic dream, we have waited for more than thirty years for our constitutional rights. Since the time I was a law student at the University, I had been involved in Hong Kong’s Democratic Movement. Now, my son has just graduated from the University, democracy is still nowhere in Hong Kong.
24. Also said by Dr King in the Letter (p. 292), “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed…We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”
25. In seeking for justice, our planned action in the eyes of the powerholders may indeed be a nuisance.
26. According to Article 45 of the Basic Law the ultimate aim of the selection of the Chief Executive (“CE”) is by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.
27. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: … (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors…”
28. The United Nations Human Rights Committee gave its understanding and requirements of universal and equal suffrage under Article 25 of the ICCPR in its General Comment No. 25 adopted on 12 July 1996. (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7).
29. Paragraph 15 provides that, “The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates.”
30. Paragraph 17 provides that, “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”
31. Through its Interpretation of Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law in 2004, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) in effect changed the constitutional procedures to amend the election methods of the CE.
32. Before the CE can put forward bills on the amendments to the election methods to the Legislative Council (“LegCo”), two more steps are added. The CE is required to make a report to the NPCSC as regards whether there is a need to make an amendment and the NPCSC must make a determination in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Such bills need to have the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo and the consent of the CE, and they shall be reported to the NPCSC.
33. On 31 August 2014, the NPCSC completed the second step of the constitutional reform process by issuing a decision on the election method of the CE. The NPCSC laid down specific and stringent requirements on the election method of the CE by universal suffrage in addition to the determination that starting from 2017 the selection of the CE may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage.
34. The number of members, composition and formation of the Nomination Committee (“NC”) have to be made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the 4th CE. The NC can only nominate two to three candidates for the office of CE in accordance with democratic procedures. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee.
35. In accordance with the procedure added by itself, the NPCSC should only have the power to make a determination of approving or not approving the CE’s report but not providing detailed requirements on the composition and nomination procedures of the NC. The NPCSC has failed to follow the procedures set by itself.
36. If the requirements set by the NPCSC on the election method of the CE were to be followed, electors in Hong Kong would not have a genuine choice of candidates in the election as all unwelcome candidates would be screened out. This is not compatible with the meaning of universal suffrage.
37. These Hong Kong people resorted to civil disobedience to arouse more concern in the community and the world that the Chinese Government had unjustly broken its constitutional promise and breached its constitutional obligation.
38. We did all we had done to protect our constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of all Hong Kong people including those who disagreed with our action, to demand a constitutional promise to be honored by our sovereign, to strive for a fundamental reform in the constitutional system of Hong Kong, and to bring more justice to the future of Hong Kong.
39. This is also a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration and the right to freedom of speech.
40. According to the original plan of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement, the public meeting to be organised was to be held at the Chater Road Pedestrian Precinct, the Chater Garden, and the Statue Square, from 3:00 pm on 1 October 2014 to the latest on 5 October 2014.
41. We expected that there would be three groups of people coming. The first group of people decided to commit the act of civil disobedience. They would continue to sit on the Chater Road after the notified time expired. They would be the people who had chosen the second or the third option in the letter of intent of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement.
42. The second group of people decided not to commit the act of civil disobedience but just came to support the first group of people. They would leave the Chater Road after the notified time expired and move to the Chater Garden or the Statue Square. They would be the people who had chosen the first option in the letter of intent of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement.
43. The third group of people might not have made up their mind yet on whether they would join the action of civil disobedience. They could decide at the very last moment when the notified time expired by choosing where to stay.
44. We believed that the police would have sufficient time to remove all the protesters joining the act of civil disobedience of occupy Central; estimated to be a few thousands.
45. We asked all participants to observe the discipline of non-violence strictly. We adopted specific measures to ensure most if not all participants would follow.
46. We were exercising our constitutional right to the freedom of peaceful demonstration protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. It is also closely associated with the right to freedom of speech also protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. By Article 39 of the Basic Law, constitutional protection is also given to freedom of opinion, of expression and of peaceful assembly as provided for in Articles 16 and 17 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, those articles being the equivalents of Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR and representing part of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong.
47. If the original plan were to be carried out, it might breach some requirements under the Public Order Ordinance concerning the organisation of unauthorised assembly. However, we believed that the public meeting to be held would not cause unreasonable obstruction to the public.
48. The space to be occupied, including the carriageway, can be freely used by every citizen on public holidays.
49. The first two days of the planned occupation were public holidays and the last two days were the weekend.
50. When the venue of the public meeting was moved to the area outside the Central Government Offices including the pavements and carriageways at Tim Mei Avenue, Legislative Council Road and Lung Hui Road (“the Demonstration Area”), though the public meeting’s themes, leadership, organization and composition of participants had changed, the spirit had not.
51. People were asked to join the public meeting in the Demonstration Area on 27 and 28 September 2014. It was still an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech by Hong Kong citizens.
52. Similar public meetings had been held in the Demonstration Area during the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign from 3-9 September 2012. Citizens at that time could have access to the Civic Square, i.e. the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices. Other than that, the space being occupied by protesters during the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign in September 2012 was very similar to the space that was being occupied by protesters on 27 and 28 September 2014 before the police cordoned all access to the Demonstration Area.
53. Since the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign in 2012, the Demonstration Area has been generally recognised to be the public space that can be used for organising big public meetings with a large number of people participating to protest against the Government of the HKSAR. In another word, the Demonstration Area is known to the public to be an important venue for citizens of Hong Kong to gather and to exercise their right to peaceful demonstration together.
54. On the basis of this public knowledge that we share, at the time when I announced the early beginning of the Occupy Central in the small hours on 28 September 2014, we could only be intending to ask people to come to the Demonstration Area but no other place. Occupying places outside the Demonstration Area could not have been in the thought of us at that time. No one could have intended that.
55. The Court of Final Appeal in Leung Kwok-hung v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229 at paragraph 22 pointed out that, “…the right of peaceful assembly involves a positive duty on the part of the Government, that is the executive authorities, to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful assemblies to take place peacefully.”
56. As senior superintendent Wong Key-wai (PW2) said in his evidence, the police closed the carriageways in the Demonstration Area for the safety of the protesters when there were too many protesters on the adjacent pavements.
57. Having a public space for the public opposing the Government of the HKSAR to gather and vent their dissatisfaction against the Government peacefully is a public benefit to the society of Hong Kong. No common injury to the public can be caused even if a public meeting is being held in the Demonstration Area in contravention with the Public Order Ordinance for a prolonged period. The section of the public that will be affected is very small and the inconvenience caused is comparatively insignificant.
58. Mr Justice Bokhary PJ said in Yeung May-wan v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137 at paragraph 144, “The mere fact that an assembly, a procession or a demonstration causes some interference with free passage along a highway does not take away its protection under art. 27 of the Basic Law. In my view, it would not lose such protection unless the interference caused is unreasonable in the sense of exceeding what the public can reasonably be expected to tolerate. As to that, I think that the participants in a large or even massive assembly, procession or demonstration will often be able to say with justification that their point could not be nearly as effectively made by anything on a smaller scale. Subject to this, the most obviously relevant considerations are, I think, how substantial the interference is and how long it lasts. But other considerations can be relevant, too. These include, I think, whether the interference concerned had been recently preceded by another act or other acts of interference on another occasion or other occasions. What the public can reasonably be expected to tolerate is a question of fact and degree. But when answering this question, a court must always remember that preservation of the freedom in full measure defines reasonableness and is not merely a factor in deciding what is reasonable.”
59. No obstruction can be caused by the protesters participating in a public meeting in the Demonstration Area as all carriageways in the Demonstration Area were closed by the police. The police closed the carriageways in the Demonstration Area to ensure the protesters there can exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly safely and peacefully. Even if there were to be some degree of obstruction in the Demonstration Area, the obstruction could not be unreasonable in light of the constitutional right to freedom of peaceful demonstration of the protesters.
60. Even after protesters walked into the carriageways of Fenwick Pier Street and Harcourt Road on 28 September 2014, people were continuing to be asked to come to the Demonstration Area but not to stay on those roads. The police were demanded to reopen the access to the Demonstration Area so that people could come and join the protesters in the Demonstration Area. If the access to the Demonstration Area were not blocked by the police, most if not all of the people out there would have entered the Demonstration Area and those roads would not have been occupied. No tear gas would need to be fired.
61. It should be the duty of the police to facilitate the holding of a public meeting in the Demonstration Area by citizens. However, the police had cordoned the Demonstration Area and prevented people from joining the public meeting in the Demonstration Area. Any obstruction outside the Demonstration Area could not be intended or caused by the protesters gathering in the Demonstration Area who were just inviting other people to join them in the Demonstration Area.
62. The police irresponsibly refused to reopen the access to the Demonstration Area even after the police saw that a large number of people were gathering outside the Demonstration Area intending to enter the Demonstration Area. The police must be responsible for the obstruction outside the Demonstration Area and what happened afterwards.
63. Everything changed after the firing of the 87 canisters of tear gas and excessive force had been used by the police.
64. The firing of tear gas in such a way was something that no one could have known. Matters were no longer in our control. By then, the most important thing we wanted to do was to bring everyone home safe.
65. In the many days and nights following the firing of the tear gas, we had tried to use different methods to bring an earlier end of the occupation. We helped arrange a dialogue between the student leaders and senior government officials. We tried to convince others to accept an arrangement of de facto referendum as a mechanism to retreat. We organised a plaza voting. Even though most of the things we had done came to be futile, we did work very hard and exhausted all methods we could think of to achieve this goal. In the end, we surrendered to the police on 3 December 2014. The occupation at the Admiralty area ended on 11 December 2014.
66. This is a case about the improperness of laying charges relating to public nuisance.
67. As asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret), prosecutors also have conventions to follow in a case of civil disobedience. They should behave with restraint.
68. In “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, at p. 77, J. R. Spencer observed that, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.”
69. Lord Bingham in R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 at paragraph 37 endorsed the criticisms of J. R. Spencer concerning the ulterior motive of a prosecutor laying a charge of public nuisance.
70. If there is an appropriate statutory offence to cover the unlawful act in a case of civil disobedience, one would rightly ask why laying the charges of public nuisance? Even though it might not be an abuse of process, the prosecutor in this case must have breached the convention of civil disobedience applicable to him as asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret) for failing to behave with restraint.
71. This is a case about the improperness of laying charges of conspiracy and incitement to incite.
72. Similarly, laying charges of conspiracy and incitement to incite is excessive in a case of civil disobedience and a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration.
73. Pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the conspiracy charge were public statements made by us. Civil disobedience by definition must be a public act. If these public statements can be used to support the prosecution, all civil disobedience at its formation stage will be suppressed. It is meaningless to talk about civil disobedience as something honourable as no civil disobedience would have happened. Even worse, a chilling effect will be generated in society, and many legitimate speeches will be silenced. The restriction on the right to freedom of speech must be disproportionate.
74. Whether there can be an offence of incitement to incite under the Hong Kong common law is still disputable. Even if there is such an offence, laying charges of incitement to incite in a case of civil disobedience and a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration must have extended culpability excessively, unreasonably and unnecessarily.
75. Since the substantial offence is the questionable offence of public nuisance, laying a charge of incitement to incite public nuisance must have extended culpability to even a manifestly unreasonable degree.
76. If the prosecutor has not acted in such an excessive and unreasonable manner and proper charges were laid, we would not have filed a defence.
77. Nonetheless, filing a defence against charges believed to be excessive and unreasonable should not be considered to be failing to comply with the conventions of civil disobedience on the part of the law-breakers as not accepting the penalties imposed by the law.
78. There are some questions that I am not in the position to answer. If the prosecutor fails to comply with the convention of civil disobedience asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret), what will be the consequence? Who is responsible for rectifying the wrongs?
79. At the end, this is a case about Hong Kong’s rule of law and high degree of autonomy.
80. As a scholar of the rule of law and the constitutional law of Hong Kong, I believe that merely having judicial independence is not sufficient to maintain the rule of law in Hong Kong.
81. Without a genuinely democratic system, powers of the government can still be exercised arbitrarily, and the fundamental rights of citizens will not be adequately protected. Also, without democracy, it will be difficult to withstand the more and more severe encroachment on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy under the policy of “One Country Two Systems”. After the Umbrella Movement, there is still a long way before we can reach the destination of Hong Kong’s journey to democracy.
82. Mr Justice Tang, PJ at his Farewell Sitting (2018) 21 HKCFAR 530 at paragraphs 17-19 said, “…although judges are prepared to uphold the rule of law as it has always been understood and applied in Hong Kong, the community must be willing to support them. In what form the support should take? I think the support should be all-embracing. If the judiciary is unfairly attacked, you should hold firm and stand up for them. But, support should not only be events driven. That is not enough. It may be too late. You should endeavour to nurture an atmosphere friendly to the rule of law. We have a free press and free elections in Hong Kong. Make your voice heard and your vote count. Believe me, the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance. Above all else, do not give up or underestimate your strength. If we as a community insist on the rule of law, it cannot be taken from us easily. Do not make it easy.”
83. We all have our duty to defend the rule of law and the high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong.
84. I am here because I have used many years of my life and up to this very moment to defend the rule of law of Hong Kong, an integral part of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. I will also never give up on striving for Hong Kong’s democracy.
85. I believe that civil disobedience can be justified by the rule of law. Civil disobedience and the rule of law share the same goal in pursuing justice. Civil disobedience is an effective way of securing the attainment of this common goal at least in the long run by creating the climate within which other means can be used to achieve that goal. (See Benny Yiu-ting Tai, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law,” in Ng, M. H. (Ed.), Wong, J. D. (Ed.). (2017). Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong. London: Routledge. At pp. 141-162.)
86. If we were to be guilty, we will be guilty for daring to share hope at this difficult time in Hong Kong.
87. I am not afraid or ashamed of going to prison. If this is the cup I must take, I will drink with no regret.
List of Authorities
1. Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35, paragraphs 70 and 72.
2. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition, 1999), p. 320.
3. Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 71, No. 1/4 (Winter - Autumn, 1986), pp. 38-44.
4. R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136, paragraph 89.
5. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 25 adopted on 12 July 1996 (on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, paragraph 15 and 17.
6. Leung Kwok-hung v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229, paragraph 22.
7. Yeung May-wan v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137, paragraph 144.
8. J. R. Spencer, “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, p. 77.
9. R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469, paragraph 37.
10. Farewell Sitting for the Honourable Mr Justice Tang PJ (2018) 21 HKCFAR 530, Tang PJ, paragraphs 17-19.
11. Benny Yiu-ting Tai, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law” in Ng, M. H. (Ed.), Wong, J. D. (Ed.). (2017). Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong. London: Routledge. At pp. 141-162.
submit過去分詞 在 Gina music Youtube 的精選貼文
Don't forget to turn on the bell icon for future uploads 🔔✔️
西洋音樂愛好者✨這裡不會有冗長的介紹文卻是個讓你挖歌的好地方😎
追蹤Gina music社群挖掘更多音樂🌹
facebook👉 https://www.facebook.com/Ginamusicland
instagram👉https://www.instagram.com/ginamusic_yujia/
spotify 歌單👉https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2EfPjFfdqN8NzUwj1XNoZC
🌺贊助GINA讓頻道走得更長久•̀.̫•́✧👉https://p.opay.tw/WSwM8
Donate and support my channel (PayPal) 👉https://paypal.me/ginamusic?locale.x=zh_TW
想讓更多人認識你的聲音嗎?歡迎投稿😎
Submit your music 👉ginamusictaiwan@gmail.com
For business inquiries about copyright issues, photos and song submissions,
please contact👉 https://www.facebook.com/Ginamusicland
____________________________________________________
Social Media:
▶ Download / Stream link : https://fanlink.to/fBZs
👑Fly By Midnight
https://www.flybymidnight.com/
https://www.instagram.com/flybymidnight/
https://www.facebook.com/FlyByMidnightMusic
https://twitter.com/flybymidnight
___________________________________________________
Lyrics:
lt's a cold world
這是一個寒冷的世界
But l'm all right
但是我感覺沒什麼
I got you
因為我有你呀
I got you
我有你
To keep me warm like
來讓我保持溫暖
Ah
Like a long drag
像吸完了
Off the last hit
那最後一口
If you're the new pack
如果你是那新的一包
Then I just can't quit
我無法戒掉你
Ah
Yeah I spend too much time
我花費了太多時間
Yeah all my time
我所有的時間
Worrying about yesterday and
都在為昨日擔憂
l've spent all my life
我這一生
Hoping things would stay the same
都希望事情可以停滯不前
Baby everything could change
親愛的 所有事情都會變化
In the middle of the night so
午夜時分
If we make it through today
如果我們能挺過今天
Say you'll stay with me tomorrow
告訴我你明天也會伴我左右
Knowing you could slip away
知道你會悄悄離去
ls the hardest pill to swallow
這讓我如鯁在喉
If we make it through today
所以如果我們能挺過今天
Say you'll stay with me tomorrow
告訴我你明日也會伴我左右
Tomorrow
明日
It's that old car
是那輛老舊的汽車
lt's that dark drive
是那黑暗的車道
Looking back
回顧過去
Back on you
我看著你
You're the street lights
你是那一盞盞街燈
Ah
And if the hands turn
如果雙手轉動
If they don't wait
如果它們沒有等待
Tell me this won't burn out
告訴我在月光隱沒的時候
When the moon fades
燈光不會燃盡
Ah
Yeah I spend too much time
花費了太多的時間
Yeah all my time
我所有的時間
Worrying about yesterday and
都在擔憂昨日
l've spent all my life
我這一生
Hoping things would stay the same
都希望事情保持原狀
Baby everything could change
親愛的所有事情都會變化
In the middle of the night so
午夜時分
If we make it through today
如果我們能挺過今天
Say you'll stay with me tomorrow
告訴我你明日仍會伴我左右
Knowing you could slip away
知道你會悄悄離去
ls the hardest pill to swallow
這讓我如鯁在喉
if we make it through today
所以如果我們能挺過今天
Say you'll stay with me tomorrow
告訴我明日你仍會伴我左右
Tomorrow
明日
歌詞翻譯:LYH
#FlyByMidnight #Tomorrow #Lyrics #西洋歌曲推薦
submit過去分詞 在 Gina music Youtube 的最佳貼文
Don't forget to turn on the bell icon for future uploads 🔔✔️
西洋音樂愛好者✨這裡不會有冗長的介紹文卻是個讓你挖歌的好地方😎
追蹤Gina music社群挖掘更多音樂🌹
facebook👉 https://www.facebook.com/Ginamusicland
instagram👉https://www.instagram.com/ginamusic_yujia/
spotify 歌單👉https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2EfPjFfdqN8NzUwj1XNoZC
🌺贊助GINA讓頻道走得更長久•̀.̫•́✧👉https://p.opay.tw/WSwM8
Donate and support my channel (PayPal) 👉https://paypal.me/ginamusic?locale.x=zh_TW
🌸本影片與 Secret Signals 合作宣傳🌸
想讓更多人認識你的聲音嗎?歡迎投稿😎
Submit your music 👉ginamusictaiwan@gmail.com
For business inquiries about copyright issues, photos and song submissions,
please contact👉 https://www.facebook.com/Ginamusicland
____________________________________________________
Social Media:
Watch the official video for "Yesterday" by Virginia To Vegas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WemTZcIe9c
👑Virginia To Vegas:
https://instagram.com/virginiatovegas
https://twitter.com/virginiatovegas
https://www.facebook.com/virginiatovegasofficial
____________________________________________________
Lyrics:
So
所以
Some say you can't get hurt by
有人曾說過 你不會被
What you don't know
你所不知道的東西傷害
That's when you and I hurt each other the most
傷人最深的反而是你我之間的感情
We bring the worst out of each other
我們迎來了最糟糕的情況
And I'm so tired waiting for destruction
我已經厭倦了暴風雨之前的冷戰
Every hour makes it harder
每一分每一秒都是如此難熬
We can't take this any further
我們不能再繼續這樣下去了
And I'm so tired waiting for destruction
我已經厭倦了暴風雨之前的冷戰
Yesterday
昨天
Ended it yesterday
昨天已然過去
So we could stay friends
我們仍然還是朋友
Til today
直到今天過後
Now we fucked up real great
我們之間結束的如此徹底
I don't want to do this no more
我不想再繼續這段感情了
Usually I never slam doors
通常我不會這麼乾脆離去
Nanana this can't wait
但我已不能再忍受了
Now we fucked up real great
我們結束的如此徹底
Wish we ended it yesterday
希望明天我們都能有個新的開始
So
所以
When life goes up and then down
生活總是伴隨著起起落落
Like you and I know
這一點你我早知道了
We had it so good in start but now we're just ghosts
一開始我們做得很好 現在我們卻搞砸了
Faded pictures and I’m just god damn tired being so nostalgic
這些褪色的照片讓我對往事感到厭倦
Every hour makes it harder
每一分每一秒都是如此難熬
We can't take this any further
我們不能再繼續這樣下去了
And I'm so tired waiting for destruction
我已經厭倦了暴風雨之前的冷戰
Yesterday
昨天
Ended it yesterday
昨天已然過去
So we could stay friends
我們仍然還是朋友
Til today
直到今天過後
Now we fucked up real great
我們之間結束的如此徹底
I don't want to do this no more
我不想再繼續這段感情了
Usually I never slam doors
通常我不會這麼乾脆離去
Nanana this can't wait
但我已不能再忍受了
Now we fucked up real great
我們結束的如此徹底
Wish we ended it yesterday
希望明天我們都能有個新的開始
Yesterday
往事已去
Yesterday
往事已去
Wish we ended it yesterday
希望明天我們都能有個新的開始
歌詞翻譯: Ginko
#Yesterday #VirginiaToVegas #Lyrics #西洋歌曲推薦 #英文歌
submit過去分詞 在 Gina music Youtube 的精選貼文
Don't forget to turn on the bell icon for future uploads 🔔✔️
西洋音樂愛好者✨這裡不會有冗長的介紹文卻是個讓你挖歌的好地方😎
追蹤Gina music社群挖掘更多音樂🌹
facebook👉 https://www.facebook.com/Ginamusicland
instagram👉https://www.instagram.com/ginamusic_yujia/
spotify 歌單👉https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2EfPjFfdqN8NzUwj1XNoZC
🌺贊助GINA讓頻道走得更長久•̀.̫•́✧👉https://p.opay.tw/WSwM8
Donate and support my channel (PayPal) 👉https://paypal.me/ginamusic?locale.x=zh_TW
想讓更多人認識你的聲音嗎?歡迎投稿😎
Submit your music 👉ginamusictaiwan@gmail.com
For business inquiries about copyright issues, photos and song submissions,
please contact👉 https://www.facebook.com/Ginamusicland
____________________________________________________
Social Media:
▶ Download / Stream link : https://ellavos.lnk.to/stilldreaming
👑Ella Vos
https://ellavos.lnk.to/IGYD
https://ellavos.lnk.to/TWYD
https://ellavos.lnk.to/FBYD
https://www.ellavos.com
👑Mokita
https://www.facebook.com/thisismokita
https://www.instagram.com/thisismokita
https://twitter.com/thisismokita
___________________________________________________
Lyrics:
Woke up early, when our room grew cold
早早醒來 在房間逐漸冰冷之際
Found the answer, time was moving slow
尋覓謎底 時間緩慢推移
Oh with all the windows closed
窗戶緊閉
Always coasting, been on cruise control
心緒縹緲 悠揚巡迴
Flipping quarters, never sure when to go
光陰飛逝 不知何時離去
Oh afraid of what I know
憂心著已知的種種
I know where you’re at, nowhere left to run
我知道你在何方 已經無處可逃
Wasted all our youth, scared of being young
荒廢青春 卻忌憚年少時分
It’s like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Looking for the rain, when the sun is out
在豔陽天期待著下雨
Missing yesterday, instead of living now
念念不忘於過往而非活在當下
It’s like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Growing restless
年歲漸長 跌跌撞撞
Growing up too fast
成長來得猝不及防
But I can’t help it
但我無能為力
All I know is the past
我所眼見的一切都是過去
Oh, and all I can’t get back
而我無法重回往昔
I know where you’re at, nowhere left to run
我知道你在何方 已經無處可逃
Wasted all our youth, scared of being young
荒廢青春 卻忌憚年少時分
It’s like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Looking for the rain, when the sun is out
在豔陽天期待著下雨
Missing yesterday, instead of living now
念念不忘於過往而非活在當下
It’s like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Always chasing, never make it
追逐不息 從未奮力一搏
No tomorrow, tryna fake it
欺騙自己 而非展望未來
Waiting, waiting, troubles all around me now
等待著 等來的卻是煩惱
I know where you’re at, nowhere left to run
我知道你在何方 已經無處可逃
Wasted all our youth, scared of being young
荒廢青春 卻忌憚年少時分
It’s like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Looking for the rain, when the sun is out
在豔陽天期待著下雨
Missing yesterday, instead of living now
念念不忘於過往而非活在當下
It’s like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
Like dreaming, backwards
像做夢一樣 倒退回以前光景
歌詞翻譯: 林郁北
#Dreamingbackwards #EllaVos #Mokita #Lyrics
submit過去分詞 在 submit過去式2022-精選在臉書/Facebook/Dcard上的焦點新聞 ... 的推薦與評價
submit 提交,呈遞[(+to)] He submitted his proposal for urban development to the city ... 大量翻譯例句關于”過去式” – 中英詞典以及8百萬條英語 ... ... <看更多>
submit過去分詞 在 submit過去式2022-精選在臉書/Facebook/Dcard上的焦點新聞 ... 的推薦與評價
submit 提交,呈遞[(+to)] He submitted his proposal for urban development to the city ... 大量翻譯例句關于”過去式” – 中英詞典以及8百萬條英語 ... ... <看更多>
submit過去分詞 在 Re: [題目] 現在分詞VS 過去分詞- 看板TOEIC - 批踢踢實業坊 的推薦與評價
關於分詞的考題 確實在多益考試中會令人有些小困擾
先說說你的問題
第一題
由 which is accompanied by...省略了which is 而來
在考試的實務上 若是分詞後面有 by 或 with 等介係詞 通常會選"過去分詞"
另外 你的推論 "如果是現在分詞時 後面應該會接受詞"並不太正確
應該說 由及物動詞來的現在分詞 後面會接受詞
第二題
也是關係子句簡化為分詞片語
因為是主動的概念 所以用現在分詞
第三題
submitted their _____ quarterly reports
submit是動詞 reports是名詞 quarterly是形容詞(少數ly結尾是當作為形容詞的)
文法上 空格可以是形容詞修飾reports
或是副詞修飾 quarterly(不過句意上 想不出好的副詞修飾)
好在選項只有動詞 形容詞及名詞
先排除動詞及名詞的選項
就只剩 revising 及revised
revised 本就是由分詞而來的形容詞(可查字典)
revising 是分詞 但並不能當形容詞
所以這一題 實際上是在考形容詞 並不是在考分詞
修飾名詞可以用現在分詞及過去分詞
但不是每個現在分詞或過去分詞都適合用來修飾名詞
當然你會想 我哪知道這個分詞可不可以來修飾名詞
這當然就是要多看文章或多做題目(短時間速成)
才有那個feel
而且就這題題意來看
revised 用過去分詞有"已經"修訂好 已完成的含意
會比revising 現在分詞 有"正在"修訂中的含意
要來的好
多益考試的文法多是常見的用法
很少有過於艱深的文法
所以分詞的題目雖然有點小複雜
不過應該多做點題目 查一下字典或文法書
就可以理出個頭緒
另外這裡打個廣告
我手上有字神課程的折價券 價值4000
可廉價出售 有興趣的同學歡迎來洽詢
感謝
※ 引述《s4101845 (非凡)》之銘言:
: 書名:黃金認證(雙書裝)
: 頁數:TEST2 PAR5 P34
: 題目:A snowstorm ____ by freezing rain has been forcast in the Midwest
: on Sunday evening.
: A)accompanied B)accompanying C)to accompany D)will accompany
: 疑問:答案是(A)
: 小弟有爬過版上的文章 發現這類的題型在測驗的時候 我還是無法分辨
: 這題依照答案詳解來說 是說修飾 A snowstorm 的分詞 所以選項A B都有可能是正解
: 由於後面是非受詞 by 因此表示被動語態的過去分詞 所以選擇 選項A
: 所以我推得 如果是現在分詞時 後面應該會接受詞(這應該沒錯吧?)
: 但是 我依照這樣的推論 去解同本書別題時
: 頁數:test4 part5 p93
: 題目:THE GH Association honored NexElec as the best semiconductor distributor
: at the electronics fair in Paris,_____ its iternational status as the #1
: source of quality electronic components.
: A)reconfirms B)reconfirmed C)reconfirming D)be reconfirmed
: 這題我是答對的 因為詳解寫到能夠將its international status 充當受詞的是
: 現在分詞(C)
: 所以我上面的導出的結果 應該是沒有錯誤
: 再來怪事發生了 同一頁的考題
: 頁數:TEST4 PAR5 P93
: 題目:Managers who have not submitted their _____ quarterly reports need to
: attach them to an e-mail and send them to Mr.Hopkins by noon today.
: A)revise B)revised C)revising D)revision
: 疑問:答案是(B)
: 我用上面推到的結果 現在分詞後面應有受詞 選擇了 答案C
: 而詳解是這樣說的 修飾名詞有現在分詞和過去分詞 所以B C皆有可能
: 但是它又說了 revise(修正)和report(報告)搭配起來,將以被動語態形式表示
: 所以選 過去分詞 答案B
: 以quarterly reports 為受詞 不是應該選擇選項C嗎?? 搞得現在很混亂
: 不知道版上各位神手們有沒有辦法 幫我釐清這些觀念
: 我一直沒有辦法了解題目一出來 它想考的考點(選擇現在分詞OR過去分詞) 究竟是什麼??
: 所以煩請各位大大 幫我個忙 THX
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.137.55.220
... <看更多>