毋忘五大訴求 公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
(案件編號:DCCC 535/2020)
——————————————————
「毋忘初衷,活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘,即訂閱Patreon:
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————
胡法官雅文閣下:
2012年,我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」,述說對普選的盼望,批評公安惡法不義,並因公民抗命的緣故,甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說,如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除,惡法沒有消失,我依然會一如故我,公民抗命,並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日,普選仍然遙遙無期,我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判,但只是短短7年,已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命,反對暴政。今日,我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪,我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫,但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情,讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。
暴力之濫觴
在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際,我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中,但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行,幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭,抗議不義惡法,今日關於10月20日的案件,亦是如此。可能有人會問,政府已在6月暫緩修例,更在9月正式撤回修例,我等仍然繼續示威,豈非無理取鬧?我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」(Justice delayed is justice denied)這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭,和平表達不滿的時候,林鄭政府沒有理睬,反而獨行獨斷,粗暴踐踏港人的意願,結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗,甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後,所謂暫緩撤回,已經微不足道,我們只是更加清楚:沒有民主,就連基本人權都不會擁有!
在本案之中,雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為,但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件,相信在控方及法庭眼中,案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上,如此,我有必要問:如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉,人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律,試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢?如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦,那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢?如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗,那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言?真正且經常發生的暴力,是漠視人民訴求的暴力,是踐踏人民意見的暴力,是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力,痛恨暴力的人,不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗,又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責,那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢?
社會之病根
對於法庭而言,可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂,務必追究違法者個人責任。然而,治亂治其本源,醫病醫其病根,我雖然公民抗命,刻意違法,控方把我帶上法庭,但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情,並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成,社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身,而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理,但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法,就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後,2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。
如果不希望社會動亂,就必須正本清源,逐步落實「五大訴求」,從根本上改革,挽回民心。2019年反修例運動,其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已,縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起,但我必須澄清,兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選,人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中,接近300萬人投票,民主派大勝,奪得17個區議會主導權,這就是整個反修例運動的民意,民意就是反對政府決策,反對制度暴力,反對推行惡法,不容爭辯,不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀,多次提醒政府撤回修法,並從根本上改革制度,而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今,法庭對我們施加重刑,其實只不過是懲罰民意,將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內,甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中,窒礙表達自由。
堅持之重要
大運動過後的大鎮壓,使我們失去《蘋果日報》,失去教協,失去民陣,不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中,不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調,新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮,公民社會受到沈重打擊,我亦失去不少摯友,有感傷孤獨的時候,但我仍然相信,2019年香港人的信念,以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政,抵制惡法,展現我們眾志成城;我不會忘記人潮紅海,讓道救護車,展現我們文明精神;我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政,捨身成仁,展現我們膽色勇氣;我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人,展現我們彼此關懷;我不會忘記「五大訴求」,不會忘記2019年區議會選舉,展現我們有理有節。
法官閣下,我對於當日的所作所為,不感羞恥,毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路,與戰友同繫一獄,實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石,將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制,隨時變成政治工具掃除異見,因此爭取民主普選,建設真正法治,追求公平正義,仍然是我的理想。在這條路上,如有必要,我仍然會公民抗命,正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明(Lord Hoffmann)所言,發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統,歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望,曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念,在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷,活在愛和真實之中。
最後,如9年前一樣,我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說:「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力,來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量,來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧,我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律,因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧,我們仍然愛你們。」(We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.)
願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安,與我和我一家同在,與法官閣下同在,與香港人同在。沒有暴徒,只有暴政;五大訴求,缺一不可!願榮耀歸上帝,榮光歸人民!
第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日
Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)
Your Honour Judge Woodcock
In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.
The roots of violence
At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!
In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?
The roots of society's problems
From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.
If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.
The importance of persistence
As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.
Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.
Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."
Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!
The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「justice has long arms」的推薦目錄:
- 關於justice has long arms 在 黃浩銘 Raphael Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於justice has long arms 在 歷史哥澄清唬 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於justice has long arms 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於justice has long arms 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於justice has long arms 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於justice has long arms 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
justice has long arms 在 歷史哥澄清唬 Facebook 的精選貼文
【澄清唬爆米花教室:被大內宣淹沒的美國總統署名投書】
先說這篇沒有圖,因為太重要不能亂放圖
在歷史上,從沒有美國總統親自投書到中華民國的報紙。但是在109年10月22日,美國總統參選人拜登以「More Prosperous Future For Our Families」(定稿中文標題:為我們家庭更繁榮的未來),以華人為主體,台灣人為核心訴求,投書聯合報系的世界日報,強調他願意與中國合作而非對抗,鄙棄川普的仇中獵巫,願意與華人聯手,但更重視台灣人的健保經驗,不願台灣人為美國火中取栗而是共同繁榮。
但在一片大奇特的大內宣中,美國總統參選人的投書竟然在台灣地區被忽視。且不說拜登明明在聲譽卓著的 IBD/TIPP民調持續領先,比起川普根本鼓吹台灣人火中取栗(你對抗,我賺軍火,去跟大陸人死嗑來增加我談判勒索本錢)。
拜登不只親自署名投書,還誠懇說明他對台灣/兩岸的四大重點,根本是史上最誠懇與重要的待遇。既然親綠親川普主流媒體不報,那福編來報。
★
一、拜登堅持稱台灣是 leading democracy (領導性的民主政體),表示其無意支持台獨立場(不稱國家)
二、拜登大篇幅強調川普仇中、卸責不科學的推卸問題給中國,造成亞裔的困擾與災難,而這不是美國總統應為。(打了那些整天喊支那賤畜以為自己就會成為高等美國人的台灣地區背祖中國人的臉)
三、拜登大談健保對一般百姓重要性,表示他珍視台灣的健保經驗,也是未來與台灣的合作重心。
四、與其獵巫與仇中,他更重視與中國的合作,希望聯盟對世界更有幫助(雖然舉例醫療與氣候,但也只是舉例) 表示願意以兩大強權的合作,謀取更多世界利益。
其他我 不多說,請看原文與譯文。
#拜登給中華民國台灣與聯合報系的面子真的太大了
#聯合報系真正展現實力
#美國總統投書首中華民國系報紙
#大內宣只在意把我們當馬前卒的喇叭川普
為我們家庭更繁榮的未來/前副總統喬瑟夫.拜登
時局多艱,我們國家處在十字路口,正面臨疾病大流行、經濟大衰退,和一場將決定我們未來很長一段時間的選舉。
今年 我們看到美國最好的一面
今年,我們看到美國最好的一面引領我們向前:英勇的醫師、護士、日常雜貨商、餐館業主、必要行業工作者 — 而其中,包括許許多多的亞裔美國人。
今年 我們也看到美國最糟情況
但我們也看到最糟的情況:亞裔美國人誤因新冠病毒遭仇視的行為比比皆是,某種程度上,是因為川普總統發布的仇恨言論所致。亞裔美國人被責備、被唾罵、被攻擊;家園、商家和汽車被侮辱性標記破壞;年幼的孩童被刺傷,還有一名89歲的奶奶,在不斷升級的仇恨文化中遭人火焚。
這不該是我們原本的樣子。
亞裔美國人 使我們國家變強大
近兩個世紀以來,亞裔美國人使我們的國家變得強大 — 從掘金礦工,到加速我們崛起的鐵路和工廠工人,再到推動我們向前邁進的科學家、建築師、藝術家和企業家們。多年來,他們的勇氣、犧牲和成功,為美國夢注入動力,也讓美國穩為自由的燈塔與世界的希望。
川普卻不懂 傷了移民國價值觀
川普總統不懂這些。他帶頭攻擊我們作為移民之國的價值觀,甚至在我們的邊境,拆散成千上萬的孩童與父母。即便在這場大流行到來之前,我們的仇恨犯罪就已達到16年以來的新高。而如今,為了轉移自己抗疫失敗、未能保護我們國家的過失,無論是否因此導致上千反亞裔的種族歧視事件,他仍堅持把新冠病毒稱作「中國病毒」。
作為總統 我捍衛每人的美國夢
措辭很重要,總統措辭更為重要。作為總統,我將捍衛每個人的美國夢,讓每一勤奮努力的家庭,享有通向繁榮和美好未來的公平機會。我將反對任何形式的種族歧視,指示司法部優先處理仇恨犯罪,以彌合仇恨與分裂的傷口,而非煽風點火。
川普失敗 他讓我們的經濟崩盤
唐納德·川普早在今年1月就已知道新冠病毒的致命性,卻未採取任何行動。現在,超過22萬美國人因此失去生命,約3000萬人失去工作、工時和薪水,五分之一的小商家關門。川普失敗的領導力讓我們的經濟崩盤 — 他總統當得愈久,得以完全回歸正軌的時間也愈久。
我會控制疫情 讓我們重回生機
八個月過去了,川普仍然沒有(抗疫)計畫。而我有。
首先要擔起責任,努力控制疫情,讓我們重回生機。我將執行早在3月就擬定的計畫,擊敗新冠病毒。我將聽取科學家、專家的意見;保護我們的家庭;讓新冠檢測、治療, #以及最終的疫苗免費,並對所有人開放。
我會重建經濟 實質救助小商家
我將馬上開始重建更好的經濟,為數百萬遭受重創的小商家提供實質救助。他們是我們社區的生命線 — 但川普腐敗的復甦作法棄他們於不顧,只把紓困資金匯集到大公司手中。75%的亞裔小企業主,未能獲得任何首輪紓困金。這是錯誤的,我已要求確保員工在50人以下的小企業獲得紓困金,我也將增加他們獲得優惠和資金的長遠渠道,減輕阻礙移民業主的語言障礙。
我不會對年收40萬元以下者加稅
質言之,我的經濟復甦計畫將回報以工作,而不只是財富,將創造未來數百萬優薪工作。(信評機構)穆迪的獨立經濟學者發現,比起川普總統的作法,我的計畫會創造多出700萬的工作,以及超過1兆元的經濟增長。我也不會對任何年收入40萬元以下者加稅 —別懷疑。相反地,我還將確保超級富豪和大公司最終支付本應承擔的份額。
讓父母能付學費 讓醫保更平價
我一路走來,都在為工薪和中產家庭而戰;他們之中有許多勤勉奮鬥的移民,來到美國是為更好的生活。我將幫助父母有能力支付子女的優質教育、提高教師薪酬,並讓絕大多數家庭免費就讀公立學院。我將讓照顧年邁父母變得更容易,讓醫療保險更平價。川普現在要通過法院,廢除「可負擔健保法」,在一場致命大流行之中,剝奪數千萬人的醫療保險,這毫無道理。
與盟友並肩 深化與台灣的關係
同時,新冠病毒證明美國不能自外於世界。從重建我們最親近夥伴的關係開始,我們必須與其他國家攜手合作,應對影響我們所有人的國際挑戰。我們是一個太平洋強國,將與盟友並肩,增進我們在亞太地區共享的繁榮、安全與價值。這其中就包括深化與台灣這個居領先地位的民主政體、主要經濟體,以及科技重鎮的關係。台灣也是開放社會可以有效控制新冠病毒的閃亮典範。
更新領導力 符合美利益與中合作
我們應對中國的方式,會聚焦增強美國競爭力,再興國內優勢,並更新我們在海外的聯盟與領導力。我們將在符合美國利益的領域與中國合作,包括公共衛生和氣候變遷。
讓家庭團聚 修復破碎的移民系統
美國向來不只靠強大的國力,而是用身為榜樣的實力領導世界。要切實重現此景,我們也必須修復破碎的移民系統,讓家庭團聚,確保美國繼續吸引全球最出色與最聰明的人。
我將會傾聽 重塑我們熱愛的國魂
我競選是為讓美國更好的重建,重建美國作為一個充滿機會,團結和有全新開始的國家;一個由數代移民讓其強大的地方;一個所有人都能發聲、每張選票都有價值的地方。我將引領這些議題,更重要的是,我會傾聽。所以,請確保你今天將選票投出。
讓我們一起,重塑我們熱愛的國魂。
(世界日報華盛頓記者羅曉媛/譯)
More Prosperous Future For Our Families
by Former Vice President Joseph Biden for World Journal
These are tough times. Our country is at a crossroads, facing a pandemic, a recession, and an election that will decide our futures for a very long time.
This year, we've seen the best of America carry us forward: heroic doctors, nurses, grocers, restaurant owners, essential workers–including so many Asian Americans.
But we've also seen the worst: acts of hate against Asian Americans wrongly blamed for COVID-19, spurred on, in part, by hateful rhetoric from President Trump. They've been screamed at, spit on, and assaulted. Homes, businesses, and cars vandalized with slurs. Small children stabbed. An 89-year-old grandmother set on fire amid this rising culture of hate.
This is not who we are.
For nearly two centuries, Asian Americans have made our country strong–from the gold miners and railroad and factory workers who helped to power our rise; to the scientists, architects, artists, and entrepreneurs who are helping to drive us forward now. For years, their courage, sacrifices, and success have powered the American Dream and helped America stand as a beacon of freedom and hope to the world.
President Trump doesn't get that. He has led an assault on our values as a nation of immigrants, even tearing thousands of children from their parents' arms at our border. Hate crimes against people are at a 16-year-high, even before this pandemic. And now, to deflect blame for his failure to protect our nation from this crisis, he insists on calling COVID-19 the "China virus," no matter how many thousands of reported racist incidents against Asian Americans it encourages.
Words matter – and a president's words matter even more. As President, I'll defend the American Dream for everyone, so every hardworking family has the same fair shot at prosperity and a better future. I'll stand against racism in every form, directing the Justice Department to prioritize hate crimes, and working to heal the wounds of hatred and division, not fan the flames.
Donald Trump knew how deadly COVID-19 was back in January and did nothing to stop it. Now, more than 220,000 Americans are dead. Some 30 million have lost jobs, hours, wages. One in five small businesses have shut down. Trump's failed leadership has tanked our economy – and the longer he's president, the longer it'll take to get it fully up and running again.
We're eight months in, but Trump still has no plan. I do.
It starts with taking responsibility and doing the hard work to control this pandemic and get our lives back. I'll implement the plan I've laid out since March to beat COVID-19. I'll listen to scientists and experts; protect our families; and make testing, treatment, and any eventual vaccine free and available to everyone.
I'll get right to work building our economy back better – getting real relief out to millions of hard-hit small businesses. They're the lifeblood of our communities – but Trump's corrupt recovery passed them by, funneling funds to big corporations instead. Some 75% of Asian-owned small businesses weren't expected to get any first-round stimulus funds at all. It's wrong. I've called for ensuring small businesses with less than 50 employees get new relief funds. And I'll boost their long-term access to credit and capital, and work to ease the language barriers that can hold back immigrant entrepreneurs.
Through it all, my economic recovery plan will reward work, not just wealth, creating millions of good paying jobs of the future. Independent economists at Moody's found that my plan creates 7 million more jobs – and $1 trillion more in economic growth – than President Trump's would. And I won't raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 a year – period. Instead, I'll make sure the super wealthy and big corporations finally pay their fair share.
I've fought my whole career for working and middle class families – so many of them hard-working immigrants who came to America in search of a better life. I'll help parents afford a quality education for their kids, boosting teacher pay and making public college free for most families. I'll make it easier to care for aging parents, and make health care more affordable. Trump is in court right now trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, stripping tens of millions of people of health coverage in the middle of a deadly pandemic. It makes no sense.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 is proof that the United States can't isolate itself from the world. We have to work with other nations to meet global challenges that impact us all, starting by rebuilding our relationships with our closest partners. We're a Pacific power, and we'll stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security, and values in the Asia-Pacific region. That includes deepening our ties with Taiwan, a leading democracy, major economy, technology powerhouse – and a shining example of how an open society can effectively contain COVID-19. And our approach to China will focus on boosting American competitiveness, revitalizing our strengths at home, and renewing our alliances and leadership abroad. We'll work to collaborate with China when it's in our interest, including on public health and climate change.
America has always led the world not only with the example of our power, but the power of our example. To truly do that again, we also have to fix our broken immigration system, keeping families together and ensuring the United States continues to draw the world's best and brightest.
I'm running to build America back better, as a country of opportunity, unity, and new beginnings. A place made strong by generations of immigrants. A place where everyone has a voice and every vote counts. I'll lead on these issues, and more importantly, I'll listen. So please make sure you get your vote in today. Together we'll restore the soul of this nation we love.
#福編編譯? (編譯個鬼,是世界日報了不起! 大內宣與遍地綠媒鬼遮眼)
justice has long arms 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的精選貼文
My recent article😎😎😎
https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…
Opinion | LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung may be liable for malicious prosecution
HK Current
2020.08.24 16:41
By Athena Kung
In June 2020, Magistrate Lam Tsz Kan sitting in Eastern Court allowed LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") to press ahead with 2 firearm-related counts, including "discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for other's safety" and "dealing with arms in a way likely to injure or endanger other's safety". Maximum sentence for both of the above firearm-related offences is 7 years imprisonment. In addition, another count of shooting with intent which is an offence punishable by life imprisonment was added to the case.
Hui's such legal action was initiated by private prosecution, which was against the police officer who opened fire during a riot in Sai Wan Ho on 11th of November 2019. At common law, like prosecuting authorities, all citizens have the same right to institute proceedings. As time goes by, subject to certain restrictions, private prosecution continues to enjoy a respectable position in modern schemes of criminal justice. In any event, the right of private prosecution is not absolute. A private prosecutor has 2 hurdles to surmount. Firstly, he must persuade a magistrate to issue a summons. Thereafter, so long as he wishes to retain control of the case, he may have to persuade the Department of Justice not to take it over.
When deciding whether to issue a summons, the magistrate who has a discretion should consider at least the following factors:
(1) whether the allegation is of the offence known to law, and if so, whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present;
(2) that the time limits have been complied with;
(3) that the court has jurisdiction;
(4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute;
(5) whether the allegation is vexatious.
Once the summons has been issued, like the case initiated by Hui, it is open to the Secretary of Justice to intervene, which may be with a view to continuing or terminating such private prosecution. To prevent the abuse of private prosecution, it is thus necessary to seek to achieve a balance between the citizen's right to prosecute and the responsibility of the Secretary for Justice so as to ensure that unworthy prosecutions do not proceed. Under section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, Laws of Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice enjoys wide power of intervention and "may at any stage of the proceedings before the magistrate intervene and assume the conduct of the proceedings."
What has really happened on the day of incident on 11th of November 2019? According to "The footage of the shooting" which was a broadcast live in the Facebook by a bystander, an officer drew his sidearm in the district of Sai Wan Ho while trying to detain a masked man at a blockaded junction. Then, another masked man attempted to liberate the other, appearing to take a swipe at the officer's pistol before being shot in the midriff. After all, police could successfully detain both men onto the ground. The first man had a pool of blood next to him. His body limped as police officers moved him around. Apparently, the officers tried to tie his hands. The second man appeared to be conscious.
No doubt, according to the above footage, Hui's private prosecution is misconceived. Hui has completely turned a blind eye to the imminent danger confronted by the officer at the particular moment. With ulterior motives, Hui intentionally and wrongfully misled both the court and public by alleging that the police officer's such dedication and discharging his duty to maintain law and order during the riots amounted to abusing of police power and police brutality.
Obviously, Hui's private prosecution should have no prospect whatsoever of success. On the contrary, Hui's such an action even constituted an abuse of prosecution process. Justice can only be achieved by the Secretary of Justice's termination of Hui's private prosecution. It explains why the Department of Justice has applied to the court to intervene the case. A hearing date between 24th to 28th of August 2020 has been applied for the Department's making formal application to terminate the case in open court. Indeed, according to Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.
May the police officer wrongfully prosecuted by Hui seek any legal remedy? Historically, the tort of "malicious prosecution" in English law refers to an unreasonable criminal prosecution. All along, malicious prosecution has been generally brought as an aftermath of unsuccessful criminal proceedings.
In Hong Kong, in the decisive authority of Pathak Ravi Dutt v Sanjeev Maheshwari [2015] HKCA 595, the Court of Appeal had summarized that in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 4 essential elements:
(1) The Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant, that is to say, the law was set in motion against the Plaintiff by the Defendant on a criminal charge ;
(2) The prosecution was determined in the Plaintiff's favour ;
(3) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause ; and
(4) The prosecution was malicious.
On the facts of the Hui's private prosecution case, following the intervention of the Department of Justice at the end of August 2020, it will be a case terminated by the Secretary for Justice instead of being ruled by the court with a verdict in favour of the police officer. Thus, it is advisable for the police officer to commence a tort of malicious prosecution action against Hui once the male shot by the police officer has been found guilty by the court. Then, the police officer may rely upon the male's conviction to support the assertion that his shooting under the particular circumstances was necessary and secure his civil claim against Hui.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責任編輯:CK Li
編輯:Whon