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
with a view to用法 在 Re: [問題] 一個關於英文to的問題- 看板SENIORHIGH - 批踢踢 ... 的推薦與評價
※ 引述《g898 (一代風流美男)》之銘言：
: 為什麼以前國中老師都說
: to後面要加原型動詞
: 但是卻有一些例外耶
: 像是be accustomed to V-ing
: 或是adapt oneself to N/V-ing
: 這些例外要一個一個背起來嗎?
: 好討厭吽
到底何時是to VR還是to Ving，很多參考書都有整理，並且列出來
這裡我就不贅述了，只是想跟大家聊聊其背後或許「可能」的原因(也就是說，臆測居多)
(會有一些術語，大家參考參考)
原文底下的推文有提到可用是否能加上(代)名詞來測
確實是個相當不錯的檢驗法
例如你很難說
(1) *In order to it, I... (所以這裡是 to-infinitive沒錯)
但對學習者來說，要用來全面解釋其他類似的，卻可能會有一些困難
(2) With an eye to it, I... (疑惑：同樣跟in order to一樣表目的，為何可加it?)
這時候若只能說「因為語感這樣告訴我」，那就又得回到背背背的時間
------------------------------------------
我們先把這種所謂的 to Ving 分一下類，發現大致可分成：
A. 方向類
contribute to Ving
give rise to Ving
the key to Ving
the road to Ving
commit oneself to Ving
-->[-mit 是來自拉丁文mittere，也就是to send之意，所以也可視為一種方向]
object to Ving
-->[-ject 來自 jacere，是to throw，所以也可視為一種方向]
(同時也很有趣的，可注意到用throw和用主動之間可能的關聯)
oppose Ving
be opposed to Ving
-->[-pose 表 to put，所以是被放到遠離某物的位置，可當一種「反」方向]
B. 「習慣」類
take to Ving (開始養成做...的習慣)
be used to Ving
be accustomed to Ving
-->[custom最早可追溯自拉丁文的consuescere，表示to make someone used to...]
be adapted to Ving
-->[apt == fit]
*be addicted to Ving(若把上癮想成一種習慣)
C. 「感官」類 (為何會這樣稱呼？這就是本篇想分享的點)
"look" forward to Ving
with a "view" to Ving
with an "eye" to Ving
be "addicted" to Ving
-->[-dict 表 to say，被別人「說」可想成是一種你在「聽」的過程，所以是感官]
be "devoted" to Ving
be "dedicated" to Ving
-->[-vote 表 to promise，-dic 也表 to say，都是被動版「說」，主動「聽」]
*be addicted to Ving
第一大類A其實相當好理解，就是完完全全照著to的本意去走
to 的本意就是 通往一個terminus/goal 的概念
所以 to 後方應該要接這個terminus，是名詞的概念
to這裡是一個preposition
若是動詞，就會要被改成gerund，也就是動名詞
這部份也都符合前面推文所提的「用名詞來代入的檢驗法」
這種邏輯的推演，有一個很重要的觀念：
那就是被名詞化的動詞已失去它在時間軸上的意義
也就是說我們不會去關注它的事件是發生在何時
第二、三大類B和C就不太好解決了
姑且可以大致說這類動詞都可能也跟方向扯上一點關係
例如你要說be dedicated to 也是有一種「被投入去...」的方向概念
但重點在於，後方動作事件的actualization是否應當強調
這裡我們引了語言學家 Duffley 的解釋：
Duffley, P. J. 2003. The Gerund and the to-Infinitive as Subject. Journal
of english linguistics, 31(4), 324-352.
Duffley 認為 英文所謂的 to-infinitive
其實應該是
to[preposition/particle] + bare infinitive
(也就是說，to-infinitive只是比bare infinitive多了一個to)
(而這個to就是本意preposition的用法，表示到一個terminus)
(此terminus有一個bare infinitive，而bare infinitive可以用來)
(表示此動作事件已經做了出來，完整結束 → 最後演變成「表目的」)
什麼是 bare infinitive？就是我們俗稱很多時候都要加的「原形」
例如(3.a)
↓ bare infinitive
(3) a. I saw him walk across the square.
b. I saw him walking across the square.
這兩個句子的差異相信大家國中都有學過，(3-a)表示看到全程(已結束)，(3-b)表示看到
一瞬間，表正在進行之意，同時也多了強調此動作事件正在發生、尚未結束
若Duffley的說法正確，則我們可以用(3-b)來解釋第三類C的情況：
為什麼 with an eye to 是表目的？
因為它是指「能『有』眼睛移動到terminus，而眼睛在那「看到」某動作『正在』作」
with a view to 也是如此
同樣也是後面用 Ving，如(3-b)一樣，表示有看到否畫面是某動作正在進行
因為有with和to，而因此最後也演變成跟in order to一樣的意思：「表目的」
那為何in order to 後方不接Ving？因為 in order 未隱含感官之意
所以不會有(3-b)的用法當作借鏡
同樣道理，為何look forward to 是表期待？
因為它是指「當你往前看向terminus時，會看到某動作『正在』作」
而你為何要往前看？因為你在期待。
那be addicted to Ving 呢？
當然就是「聽到」terminus，有某動作『正在』作了
這樣看來好像第三類的通通可以這樣解釋
不過有一點很可惜的仍待克服
那就是明明(3-a)也告訴我們感官動詞可以接 bare infinitive
那為何第三類的不可以呢？
這邊我們有兩種可能的解釋：
1. 因為語意上的需要
可能是這類語意會傾向希望能強調後方此事件「正在」發生
而不是要強調這個動作「已完成」
2. 因為這只是削弱語言演變的速度
事實上我們的確聽到 有人會講 look forward to V 的這種可能性
雖然它的出現遠遠不如Ving的用法
但這推斷是因為感官容許兩種用法，所以另外一種用法會降低變換成另外一種的速度
所以in order 後方現在就是直接加 to VR了
但有感官的 with an eye 卻是仍有 to Ving 的趨勢
當然這兩種解釋都還是不夠美好，反正作語言學的就是喜歡這樣
期待以後語言的演變是否跟我們推測的是否一致
最後我們來到了具有爭議性的第二類：「習慣類」
我們可以說它剛好是介在 第一類 和 第三類 之間
如果你要解釋成它 就跟 第一類 一樣
那你會說是因為所謂的「習慣...」，就是已經失去動詞意義，
不在乎發生時間為何時的一種可能
如果你要解釋成它 就跟 第三類 一樣
那你可以做些延伸，例如所謂的「習慣...」，就是「看到」某動作「正在」作時，
不感到驚訝，所以就也成了一種感官啦
------------------------------------------------
以上講得挺零零碎碎的
實在是因為要把原本用英文當報告寫的東西，轉成中文，還真...XD
在此做個小總結，希望還是能多少幫上考生們：
這種 to Ving 的片語，大都還是建議同學直接背誦，因為高中會考的不多，遠比to V的少
。而在背誦時，可以多加注意到它的「特色」，而幫助你更快掌握它們：
其特色有：
1. 可能具有「方向」性，例如 the road to Ving...
2. 可能表示「習慣」之意，例如 take to/ be used/adapted/accustomed to...
3. 可能其組成裡隱含「感官」之意，表示「觀察」到某動作「正在進行(故用Ving)」
，例如： with an EYE to Ving/ LOOK forward to Ving ...
一點淺見
語言學真的很好玩
--
每次分享語言學相關的文章，好像都沒什麼人想看耶...
那還是來發參考書推薦文好了！
(!?)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 61.230.197.70
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/SENIORHIGH/M.1422829758.A.D3E.html
※ 編輯: stu60912 (61.230.197.70), 02/02/2015 06:35:25
※ 編輯: stu60912 (114.37.108.198), 08/16/2015 01:54:48
... <看更多>