顏純鈎：浩氣貫天，足銘青史——讀黃浩銘的「法庭陳情書」（附…陳情書）

朋友轉來黃浩銘不久前在法庭宣讀的「陳情書」，如果香港曾有「驚天地泣鬼神」的警世文，那就是了，它不但彰顯黃浩銘本人的人格，也彰顯香港人的文化品格。

黃浩銘通過這篇文章，全面闡述香港人政治抗爭的心路歷程，表達他對獨裁暴政的立場和態度。面對牢獄之災，他不但沒有求饒，更泰然承受命運加諸自身的苦難。他這篇陳情書，不但代表他自己，我相信也代表了現在獄中「服刑」的眾多民主義士，不管是年長的社會知名人士，還是默默無聞的熱血青年。

如果歷史將某種責任加諸在我們身上，那我們就把它扛起來，為了後代，為了人類的未來。黃浩銘告訴我們的，就是這樣的意思。

「沒有民主，就連基本人權也不會擁有！」「如果我需要承擔和平示威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?」「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。」「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，活在愛與真實之中。」

這些話擲地作金石之聲，令人生出無比的激情與勇氣。

黃浩銘在長毛入獄之後，基本上是社民連的領軍人物，即使在國安法之下，我們仍時常看到他帶領社民連戰友參與街頭的宣傳鼓動工作。通過這篇陳情書，我們終於明白他們正義力量的來源，他們先有堅定的信念，然後才有勇敢的行動。

拜讀這篇陳情書，我不禁又聯想到教協。我並非要對教協求全責備，而是面對巨大政治壓力，有兩種截然相反的態度：一種是據理堅持，一種是主動放棄，一種是堅守氣節，一種是委屈求全，一種是始終企定，一種是步步後退。

如果必有災難臨頭，那你力爭是災難，放棄也是災難；如果痛苦不可免，那你持守是痛苦，忍讓也是痛苦；如果打擊一定要來，那你企定受打擊，後退也受打擊。

教協主動解散後，鄧炳強即聲稱，主動解散不代表不必追責，證明獨裁者從來不會因為你的軟弱而手下留情，你的軟弱只是幫助獨裁者更方便做事而已。香港至今仍有結社自由，政府除非修法，否則無法強迫教協解散，中共若想強行解散教協，還要大費周章。對政府來說，沒有比教協自動解散更稱心如意的了。

發動一點輿論戰，制造一點聲勢，施加一點壓力，「不戰而屈人之兵」，這是中共最便宜的事。最近律師會選舉，中共又重施故技，看來又達到他們的目的。

最近又有一個叫盧文端的福建人（很抱歉我也是福建人)，寫文章威脅民主黨不可不參加未來的立法會選舉——你看，連不參選都有罪了！那民主黨要不要因為這個盧文端說了這麼一句話，就趕緊去參選呢?香港人什麼時候，連不參選的權利都沒有了？如果一個三腳貓，隨便說一句話，我們都要腿軟的話，那我們還談什麼抗爭?還談什麼普世價值?

民主黨內鼓吹參選的大有人在，我不知道李永達出走，是不是與他無法力挽狂瀾有關，我們且看看民主黨會不會屈服在盧文端的筆下。

民陣在烏雲壓城之下，針對要不要解散的問題開了會，結論是沒有結論——民陣企定了！從前做的事已抹煞不了，今後怎麼做再從長計議，但那與要不要解散有什麼關係?能做的事就做，不能做的事就不做，今日不能做今日不做，明日能做了明日才做，以前做了什麼事，該如何承擔便去承擔，今後避免自動送頭，這樣不就可以了嗎?

說句不好聽的，如果真的不得不解散，那坐等政府以專政暴力來解散，也好過自動解散那麼難看。反正解散不解散，專政暴力都不會手下留情，那不如像黃浩銘那樣，自在企定，據理力爭，保持政治氣節，從容面對歷史，至少維持最低限度的自尊。

我仍然希望教協收回解散的決定，或讓解散這件事無疾而終，不要再開什麼「勞什子」的特別會員大會，不要修改會章去遷就解散的決定，就做回會員的權益和福利的事，能做多少就做多少，能堅持多久就堅持多久。至少，你們都像黃浩銘那樣，如果真的需要上法庭，也寫一篇自己的陳情書，給香港人一點精神上的激勵。

我的年紀至少比黃浩銘大一輩，對他的堅毅和豁達深感欽敬，藉這篇文章，向他表達由衷的敬意，我願以老朽之身﹑欲秃之筆追隨他。讓我們每個人，都以自己微薄的力量，為香港做一點事，不管那點事有多大作用，只管做就是。

——作者脸书

【10‧20 九龍遊行】7 人認罪　黃浩銘還押候判　陳情書：能與戰友同繫一獄　是莫大榮幸

立场报道 20210820

2019 年 10 月 20 日九龍遊行案，前民陣召集人陳皓桓、民主黨前主席何俊仁、社民連前立法會議員梁國雄、社民連前主席黃浩銘等 7 人，被指煽惑他人參與未經批准集結、組織未經批准集結等， 7 人早前改為認罪（另見報道）。7 名被告於今日求情，案中原獲保釋的黃浩銘今日向法庭提交陳情書。求情之後，法官胡雅文裁定，黃須即時還押候判。

前民陣召集人陳皓桓、民主黨前主席何俊仁、社民連前立法會議員梁國雄等 7 人日前承認控罪，今（20日）在區域法院求情，強調他們並無意圖鼓勵使用或使用暴力，相反從他們在記者會上的言論，可見他們強調和平、理性、非暴力遊行，惟法官胡雅文屢質疑 7 人明知遊行有暴力風險，仍繼續遊行。

代表梁國雄以及吳文遠的辯方讀出由曾在香港工作，被僱主虐待的印傭 Erwiana 的求情信，Erwiana 指幸得梁國雄和吳文遠協助，支持她追求公義，讚揚二人致力為外籍傭工爭取權益，對社會有巨大貢獻，（另見報道）

9.1 判刑   黃浩銘：毫無悔意

法官押後至 9 月 1 日判刑，黃浩銘需還押。黃浩銘步入被告欄時向公眾席大叫：「大家頂住，唔洗驚！」黃浩銘今親自求情，指承認違反「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，明言「不打算尋求法庭的憐憫」。

黃浩銘講述對 2019 年示威的看法，直言對於當日的所作所為，「不感羞恥，毫無悔意」，表明爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是他的理想，「在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命」。黃浩銘陳詞期間，有旁聽人士抽泣。他陳詞後，旁聽人士紛紛拍手。當法官胡雅文問他有沒有個人背景、家庭資料可提供時，黃浩銘搖頭回應：「喺（呢場）運動裏面，無我呢個個人」。

黃浩銘在陳情書中提到，自己不打算尋求「法庭的憐憫」，「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。」

黃浩銘陳情書全文：

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我曾經站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評惡法不義，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

15:50

(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