關於 direct democracy problem ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Barak Obama's statement on killing of George Floyd.

As millions of people across the country take to the streets and raise their voices in response to the killing of George Floyd and the ongoing problem of unequal justice, many people have reached out asking how we can sustain momentum to bring about real change.

Ultimately, it’s going to be up to a new generation of activists to shape strategies that best fit the times. But I believe there are some basic lessons to draw from past efforts that are worth remembering.

First, the waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States. The overwhelming majority of participants have been peaceful, courageous, responsible, and inspiring. They deserve our respect and support, not condemnation — something that police in cities like Camden and Flint have commendably understood.
On the other hand, the small minority of folks who’ve resorted to violence in various forms, whether out of genuine anger or mere opportunism, are putting innocent people at risk, compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are often already short on services and investment and detracting from the larger cause. I saw an elderly black woman being interviewed today in tears because the only grocery store in her neighborhood had been trashed. If history is any guide, that store may take years to come back. So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.

Second, I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness, to put a spotlight on injustice, and to make the powers that be uncomfortable; in fact, throughout American history, it’s often only been in response to protests and civil disobedience that the political system has even paid attention to marginalized communities. But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.
Moreover, it’s important for us to understand which levels of government have the biggest impact on our criminal justice system and police practices. When we think about politics, a lot of us focus only on the presidency and the federal government. And yes, we should be fighting to make sure that we have a president, a Congress, a U.S. Justice Department, and a federal judiciary that actually recognize the ongoing, corrosive role that racism plays in our society and want to do something about it. But the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels.
It’s mayors and county executives that appoint most police chiefs and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with police unions. It’s district attorneys and state’s attorneys that decide whether or not to investigate and ultimately charge those involved in police misconduct. Those are all elected positions. In some places, police review boards with the power to monitor police conduct are elected as well. Unfortunately, voter turnout in these local races is usually pitifully low, especially among young people — which makes no sense given the direct impact these offices have on social justice issues, not to mention the fact that who wins and who loses those seats is often determined by just a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes.

So the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.
Finally, the more specific we can make demands for criminal justice and police reform, the harder it will be for elected officials to just offer lip service to the cause and then fall back into business as usual once protests have gone away. The content of that reform agenda will be different for various communities. A big city may need one set of reforms; a rural community may need another. Some agencies will require wholesale rehabilitation; others should make minor improvements. Every law enforcement agency should have clear policies, including an independent body that conducts investigations of alleged misconduct. Tailoring reforms for each community will require local activists and organizations to do their research and educate fellow citizens in their community on what strategies work best.

But as a starting point, here’s a report and toolkit developed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and based on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing that I formed when I was in the White House. And if you’re interested in taking concrete action, we’ve also created a dedicated site at the Obama Foundation to aggregate and direct you to useful resources and organizations who’ve been fighting the good fight at the local and national levels for years.

I recognize that these past few months have been hard and dispiriting — that the fear, sorrow, uncertainty, and hardship of a pandemic have been compounded by tragic reminders that prejudice and inequality still shape so much of American life. But watching the heightened activism of young people in recent weeks, of every race and every station, makes me hopeful. If, going forward, we can channel our justifiable anger into peaceful, sustained, and effective action, then this moment can be a real turning point in our nation’s long journey to live up to our highest ideals.

Let’s get to work.

https://medium.com/@BarackObama/how-to-make-this-moment-the-turning-point-for-real-change-9fa209806067

根據計算，100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東；200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。

順道一提香港15～30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看，兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。

另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair，幾天內湧進40萬人次，照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。（http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg）

當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車，幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。

而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。

順道一提，因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現：

https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/

EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)

黃浩銘：

//法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！//

希望在於人民　改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書

陳法官仲衡閣下：

　　自2011年你審理只有23歲的我，追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下，我再次站在你面前，只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候，我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人，而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而，今天我不是尋求你的憐憫，而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動，公民抗命的緣由，讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。

　　8年以來，我們的崗位稍有轉變，但香港的變化更大，充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成，更多旅客走訪社區，似是一片繁華景象，但同時，更多窮人住在劏房，更多群眾走上街頭，亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事，都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻，我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸，亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法，更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外，還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定，甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。

爭取民主的本意

　　民主只是口號嗎？當年，我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益，卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權，並要求設立全民退休保障，廢除強積金，因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日，香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口，超過30萬貧窮長者，貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年，我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪，懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年，我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作，現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情？為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政？歸根結柢，就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇，喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力！

　　所謂民主，就是人民當家作主。任何施政，應當由人民倡議監督，公義分配，改善公共服務，使得貧者脫貧，富者節約。今日香港，顧全大陸，官商勾結，貧富懸殊，耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來，但當遇見護士猝死，教師自殺，老人下跪，政府政策就只有小修小補，小恩小惠，試問如何服眾？由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價，乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動，甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行，無不是因政權專政，政策傾斜，分配不公，引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點，亦是如此。

　　多年來，港人爭取民主，為求有公義分配，有尊嚴生活，有自主空間，但我們得到的是甚麼？1984年，中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕，前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港，普選特首」的訴求，清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時，不少港人信以為真，誤以為回歸之後可得民主，但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後，中共圖窮匕現，在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序，並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此，完全不民主的中國立法機關－全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉，人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張，命令香港法庭跟從，打壓香港的民主和法治。

　　2014年8月31日，是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸，中共仍以6月的＜一國兩制白皮書＞為基礎，展示全面管治權的氣派，包括法官閣下在內，都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後，中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目，其時，我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。

公民抗命的起點

　　違法就是罪惡嗎？我們違法，稱之為「公民抗命」，就是公民憑良心為公眾利益，以非暴力形式不服從法律命令，以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明（Leonard Hoffmann）勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出：「發自良知的公民抗命，有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人，歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威，是文明社會的印記。」

　　終審法院在最近的公民廣場案（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35）亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定（該案判詞第70至72段）。因此，亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年，無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代，皆無顯著改進，今日以更進步主張，公民抗命爭取民主，正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權，實在無可厚非。誠然，堵塞主要幹道，影響民眾上班下課，實非我所願，但回想過來，中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路，妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會？

　　如果我是公民抗命，又何以不認罪承擔刑責？2014年12月，警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月，警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題：「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」，無獨有偶，前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及：「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力，除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制，否則可被不當使用。」如今看來，所言非虛。

　　今我遭控二罪，必定據理力爭，冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義，但法庭定讞，我自當承擔刑責，絕無怨言，以成全公民抗命之道。

試問誰還未覺醒

　　我是刻意求刑標榜自己，讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎？我反覆推敲這個問題。然而，我的答案是，正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄，我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權，惡法將至，烏雲密佈，我依然一如既往，毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者，理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利，讓他們能自立成長，辨明是非，而非家長式管控思想，讓下一代淪為生財工具，朝廷鷹犬。

　　主耶穌基督說：「我確確實實地告訴你們：一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去，它仍然是一粒；如果死了，就結出很多子粒來。（《約翰福音》第12章24節）」沒有犧牲，沒有收穫。故然，我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路，承受牢獄之苦，但我請教所有智慧之士，既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效，公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策？若非偌大群眾運動，梁振英豈不仍安坐其位？

　　刑罰於我而言，無情可求，唯一我心中所想，就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高，望以非監禁方式處之，讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）在1968年論及公民抗命時（On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience），不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰，甚至應不予起訴。事實上，終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日，即雨傘運動尾聲（已發生大規模堵路多日），佔中三子自首之後一日，接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』，抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」，更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪，應該從輕發落，認為這是傳統，因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」，由此，我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。

　　法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！

　　願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！

社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日

Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement

Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,

It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.

Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.

The Original Intention

Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.

In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.

What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.

For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.

31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.

The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience

Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?

If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...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.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.

Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.

Who has not yet awoken?

I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.

My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.

I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.

Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.

“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!

May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!

Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case

Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019