Birdy - Hang Tung 鄒幸彤
本文章以中文版為準，英文翻譯版請往下查閲
( The Chinese version of article shall prevail. Pleases scroll down for the English translation. )
陳情文——鄒幸彤
1. 206頁判詞，講嚟講去就係追求民主有罪。
2. 我唔認為任何政黨可以將國家嘅主權私相授受，自己話自己就係人民嘅選擇，自己話自己就係唯一嘅領導，然後仲要話每個人都有法律上嘅義務去擁護佢呢個自封嘅王位，咁嘅所謂法律，只係暴政嘅同義詞。
3. 相信專政係錯，民主係啱，呢樣嘢唔係信念又係乜呢? 就算法庭同政府不停唸咒，咁話我地唔係審判緊信念，都改變唔到係呢份判決之下，相信「結束一黨專政」呢個理念嘅人再無掟企嘅事實，係咁嘅「法律」眼中，我地有呢個思想就已經係違憲，係非法，係原罪，就算我地只係做緊一件完全正當嘅事比如係悼念六四，都會因為我地本身思想上嘅「不正確」變成犯罪。
4. 但法律係控制唔到任何人嘅思想嘅。 唔單只控制唔到，當法律執意要同良知作對，輸嘅只會係法律，失去認受性嘅亦只會係法律。
5. 做人要有底線，法律一樣要有。而民主同專政之辨，就係其中最重要嘅一條底線，因為專政之下無法治。當法庭完全抽空哂「結束一黨專政」呢個訴求之所以出現嘅事實原因同是非對錯只盲目咁去強調政權嘅意志, 同所謂守法嘅義務，其實就等同於話活係納綷德國之下就有義務去屠盡猶太人一般荒謬咁嘅做法，只會令法律失去佢彰顯公平嘅靈魂，淪為任由權力驅使嘅傀儡。
6. 造成納綷治下，極權治下一次又一次嘅慘劇嘅，正係呢種不問是非，只問服從嘅態度。 而宜家嘅法庭又好，國家又好，正係行緊同一條危險嘅老路。 甚至乎，隨住科技嘅進步同國家力量嘅提升，隨住國家成為公認嘅「大國」，宜家嘅危險只有比當年更甚。
7. 作為國民，我地有責任將國家權力韞返入民主嘅牢籠入面，盡我地作為國家主人嘅義務去控制佢、監察佢，咁做除咗係要為過去嘅傷害尋一個公道，亦係為咗防止更大嘅災難再次來臨。 一味以國家安全之名養肥一部我地控制唔到嘅國家機器，蠶食人性同良知，發生悲劇係遲早嘅事。
8. 因此，結束一黨專政，係我地呢一代嘅香港人又好，中國人又好，無可迴避嘅責任。呢件事，必須由我地自己去完成，只能由我地自己去完成，無任何外面嘅人可以去代勞。
9. 呢個係我真誠嘅想法同信念，而且更唔止係我一個人嘅信念——維園30年嘅燭光已經證明咗呢一點，「結束一黨專政」，係人民嘅底線，係普世嘅訴求，當法律係要不自量力咁去挑戰佢，只會自取其辱。
10. 法庭假裝問題唔係傳播思想而係所謂散播敵意，但「結束一黨專政」嘅信念，從來就唔駛靠咩敵我思維，咩煽動仇恨去維繫。我地只需要靠講道理、講事實，就已足以得到所有明事理嘅人嘅支持。
11. 因為專政本身就已經係一種最大、最明顯嘅不公義，佢無視每個人嘅平等同自主，硬塞一套無道理可講嘅統治秩序落嚟，將自由嘅公民通通貶低為無得揀嘅奴隸。 結束一黨專政，只係爭取返人之為人應有嘅尊嚴而已，而呢個道理，任何唔係扮瞓嘅人都應該睇得明白。
12. 只有講唔通道理嘅人，先至成日要靠仇恨動員，而我地根本就唔需要，只有亳無自信嘅人，先至會睇乜都見到敵意，而我地亦根本就唔會咁樣去睇世界。 我地對我地所相信嘅，所堅持嘅，有絶對嘅信心。 只因為專政係靠仇恨去維持佢嘅統治，唔等於人人都要用佢果套，唔等於個世界就真係圍繞住仇恨去運轉。 對平等同正義嘅信念，對人性同真相嘅尊重，從來都係比仇恨更強大，更持久嘅力量。
13. 信念係無法去計算，無法去交易嘅存在。 為自己所相信嘅一切去求情、去道歉，係最虛偽嘅一件事，亦係侮辱緊持有同樣信念嘅所有人。 所以我唔會咁樣做，唔能夠咁樣做，連屠城嘅劊子手都未出嚟道歉，幾時輪得到我地呢？！即使世道顛倒，我地亦唔應該為政權所做唔啱嘅事道歉，令自己都成為咗顛倒嘅一部份。
14. 對於過去嘅一切，我拒絶用犯罪嘅語言同概念去分析我地做嘅嘢有幾嚴重或唔嚴重。 如果法庭真係想要咩參考，可以去問共產黨領導嘅國安公署，佢地就真係識得點樣用犯罪嘅眼光去睇爭取民主同人權嘅努力啦。仲一直亳不避諱咁話本案就係性質嚴重，就係必須嚴懲，完全唔覺得自己係干預緊司法獨立。無論如何，如果法庭最後真係判我地屬「情節嚴重」，我會當成係對我地嘅讚美，因為咁表示我地真係有做到嘢嘛。
15. 能夠搵得到自己相信嘅使命，搵得到可以並肩作戰嘅伙伴，係人生最幸福嘅事，所以對於我同支聯會、同香港人一齊行過嘅路，我一啲都唔後悔，只係辛苦咗我嘅屋企人同愛我嘅人，我唯一要請求原諒嘅對象，亦只有佢哋。
16. 而對於將來，無論係獄中獄外，我都會繼續為釋放民運人士、平反八九民運、追究屠城責任，結束一黨專政、建設民主香港與中國而去努力、去學習、去充實自己、去做各種嘅嘗試，直到民主到來嘅果日。呢個係我公開作出過無數次嘅承諾。係我喺燭海之中對死難者許下嘅莊嚴誓言，而我唔打算做個無口齒嘅人。
17. 如果咁樣做會令我成為永遠嘅罪犯，如果法律真係容不下我地嘅信念，咁我寧願做一個罪犯，都唔要做一個背叛良知嘅人。我會同所有唔認命嘅香港人一齊，繼續行呢條未完嘅民主路。
18. 燭光如海
粉身拍岸
不平不休
*** 本作品著作權歸作者所有，任何單位或個人未經授權，不得用於商業用途。轉載文章或相片作非商業用途請註明出處😊🙏🏼😊 https://www.patreon.com/c/chowhangtung
- 完 -
The Chinese version of article shall prevail. Pleases scroll down for the English translation
HCCC 155/2022 Mitigation (Oral)
Chow Hang Tung
The 206-page judgment, after all, boils down to saying that pursuing democracy is a crime.
I find it entirely unpalatable that any political party can barter away a nation’s sovereignty, claim to represent the will of the people, appoint itself as the sole authority, and then insist that citizens are legally bound to uphold its self-fashioned throne. A law of this nature is nothing more than a euphemism for tyranny.
Believing that dictatorship is wrong and democracy is right – if that isn't a belief, then what is? Even if the courts and the government attempt to claim, like a chanted mantra, that they are not judging beliefs, they cannot change the reality: under this judgment, anyone who believes in the principle of ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ has nowhere left to stand. In the eyes of this brand of ‘law’, holding such a thought inherently contravenes the Constitution – rendering it unlawful, an original sin. Even when we engage in entirely legitimate acts, such as commemorating June 4th, it becomes a crime simply because of the perceived ‘impropriety’ of our thoughts.
Yet the law cannot govern what a person thinks. Not only is it incapable of doing so, but when it openly defies the human conscience, it is the law itself that ultimately suffers - forfeiting its very legitimacy.
People must draw a line somewhere, and the law must do the same. This marks one of the most fundamental distinctions between a democracy and an autocracy: genuine rule of law simply cannot survive under a dictatorship. When the Court completely disregard the underlying facts and the boundaries between right and wrong in the face of demands to ‘end one-party dictatorship’, choosing instead to blindly enforce the will of the regime and a supposed duty to obey, its conduct become as absurd as claiming a duty to execute Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Such an approach strips the law of its essential pursuit of justice, reducing it to little more than an instrument of political expediency.
It was precisely this unthinking obedience, devoid of the judgement of right or wrong, that brought about repeated horrors under Nazi rule and other totalitarian regimes. Today, both the judiciary and the state risk treading that exact same dangerous path. Indeed, given rapid technological advances and the expansion of state power as the nation asserts itself as a recognised ‘major power’, the present threat is greater still than that of the past.
As citizens, we have the responsibility to hold state power to account within a democratic framework, exercising our duty, as the master of the nation, to scrutinise and curb its excesses. This is vital not only to secure justice for past grievances, but to prevent even greater catastrophes in the future. Surrendering unchecked authority to the state apparatus under the banner of national security – at the expense of basic humanity and conscience – invites inevitable tragedy.
Ending one-party dictatorship is therefore an inescapable responsibility for our generation of Hongkongers and mainland Chinese alike. This is a task that we must achieve for ourselves – indeed, we are the only ones who can; no outside force can do it for us.
This is my sincere belief, and it is far from mine alone – as three decades of candlelight in Victoria Park have already proven. ‘Ending one-party dictatorship’ is the people’s bottom line; it is a universal demand. When the law presumes to challenge it, it serves only to bring about its own humiliation.
The Court pretends the issue is not about sharing ideas, but rather the so-called sowing of hostility. Yet, the belief in ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ has never relied on an us-versus-them mentality or the incitement of hatred to sustain itself. We need rely only on reason and facts – that alone is enough to win the support of all reasonable people.
A one-party dictatorship is the most blatant injustice of all: it disregards the equality and autonomy of every individual, imposes a system of rule that defies all logic, and reduces free citizens to subjects with no choice in the matter. Ending a one-party dictatorship is simply about reclaiming the dignity that is the birthright of every human being – a principle that anyone not wilfully turning a blind eye should easily understand.
Only those stripped of any rational argument must continually rely on hatred for mobilisation - and we simply refuse to do so. Only the profoundly insecure see hostility at every turn, and we certainly do not view the world in such terms. We hold unshakeable confidence in what we believe and what we stand for. That a dictatorship depends on hatred to maintain its grip does not mean we must dance to its tune, nor does it mean the world revolves around hatred. A belief in equality and justice, anchored in respect for humanity and truth, has always been a more potent and enduring force than hatred.
Belief is something that cannot be calculated or traded. To plead or apologise for everything you believe in is the most hypocritical thing imaginable, and it is an insult to everyone who shares those beliefs. That is why I will not do it – and why I cannot. The executioner who slaughtered a city has not even come forward to apologise; when on earth will it be our turn? Even when the world is turned upside down, we must not apologise for the wrongs committed by the regime, lest we become part of that inversion ourselves.
As for everything that has happened in the past, I refuse to use criminal terminology and concepts to assess the gravity, if exists, of what we have done. If the Court truly wants a point of reference, it can ask the Office for Safeguarding National Security, led by the Communist Party – they know full well how to view efforts to fight for democracy and human rights through a criminal lens. They have consistently and unabashedly insisted that this case is serious in nature and must be severely punished, without the slightest sense that they are interfering with judicial independence. In any event, if the Court ultimately does find our case to be ‘serious in circumstances’, I shall take it as a compliment, as it demonstrates that we have actually achieved something.
Being able to find a mission in which one believes, and partners to fight alongside, is the greatest joy in life. Thus, I have no regrets about the path I have walked with the Hong Kong Alliance and the people of Hong Kong. I have only my family and those who love me to thank for enduring such hardship, and it is only their forgiveness I must seek.
As for the future, whether inside or outside prison, I will persistently strive to release pro-democracy activists, vindicate the 1989 Democracy Movement, hold those responsible for the Massacre to account, end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic Hong Kong and China. I will learn, improve myself, and try all manner of things until the day democracy arrives. This is a promise I have made publicly countless times. It is the solemn vow I made to the departed in the sea of candles, and I have no intention of breaking my word.
If doing so makes me a criminal for life – if the law truly cannot accommodate our beliefs – then I would rather be a criminal than a person who betrays their conscience. I will stand with all the people of Hong Kong who refuse to give up, and we will continue on this unfinished path to democracy.
Upon a sea of candlelight,
The waves of human hearts surge high,
Unbowed and shattered wide, storming the shores,
Until the dawn of justice wakes.
– END –
*** All rights reserved. Unauthorized commercial use is strictly prohibited. For non-commercial reposts, please credit the source. 😊🙏🏼 😊 https://www.patreon.com/chowhangtung
没有评论:
发表评论