WHERE IS THE SAFETY IN THIS COUNTRY? What has become of our country? Human rights is supposed to be protected by our law. The police man had no right to threaten him and kill him. This is so sad and unfair. They did it for raising bribe money of 2 million baht that would just go into the police’s own pocket. This is a clear misuse of power and this is pure evil. This police man did WRONG, he is a murderer and he deserves punishment. This is certainly not the first time this has happened and we can’t keep letting these people get away with it. If the law does not punish him then what meaning does our law have? #ผู้กำกับโจ้ #alllivesmatter #อย่าบอกนะว่าจะไม่จับ #อย่าบอกนะว่าจะรอดไปได้อีก #อย่าบอกนะว่าตำรวจไทยจะไม่จัดการกับเรื่องนี้
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過23的網紅Charles Mok,也在其Youtube影片中提到,岑建勳支持 Charles 堅持的自由、民主、人權、法治,這是香港的核心價值 John Sham endorses Charles Mok and his core values 現在有很多人常把核心價值放在口中, 但是他們在說的又是我們意念中的核心價值嗎? Charles說的正就是 --- 自由...
「human rights meaning」的推薦目錄:
human rights meaning 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最佳貼文
【《紐約時報》投稿 —— Joshua Wong: Hong Kong Still Has Many Ways to Resist】
當下時勢,投稿到外媒,好像會被質疑玩命,但我仍想盡力發聲。
Ever since a new round of pro-democracy protests broke out in Hong Kong last year, journalists from both local and global media have exposed how freedoms are shrinking, human rights are deteriorating and police brutality is worsening in the city.
Now, with new sweeping powers under the national security law that China promulgated for Hong Kong on June 30, the news media themselves are in the Chinese government’s crosshairs.
The publisher Jimmy Lai, whose media company puts out the popular tabloid Apple Daily, has long been one of Beijing’s most vocal critics in HK. Mr.Lai was arrested on Monday morning under the recent law, for allegedly colluding with foreign forces.
The paper’s office was raided by dozens of police. Lai was released on bail late Tues night. A special unit has been created in the Immigration Department to vet visa applications that are deemed to be sensitive, including for foreign correspondents, according to The Standard.
The Hong Kong police now grants access to ground operations only to “trusted media outlets”: On Monday, reporters from Reuters, Agence France-Presse and The Associated Press, among others, reportedly were blocked from the scene of the raid at Apple Daily. Police cordoned off the headquarters of the tabloid Apple Daily after Lai’s arrest. Freedom of speech and of the press, both vital to the rule of law and the city’s vibrancy, are under attack.
China is extending to HK the regime of media regulation and repression that it applies on the mainland. Today, it’s the media. Yesterday, it was legislators, contenders to political office & activists: Recently, just after disqualifying pro-democracy candidates from running in elections scheduled for Sep, the HK authorities delayed by a year — paving the way, I think, for their being cancelled. Tmr, who knows who will be China’s next targets. But I do know that many HKers will respond then, too, by demonstrating our solidarity, creatively.
In a show of support for Mr. Lai and Apple Daily, people have been buying up shares of his media company: The stock’s price surged by 1,200 percent in less than two days. I began writing this Op-Ed on Monday evening. A few hours later I learned that Agnes Chow, a former colleague and ex-member of our political group Demosisto, was arrested, also for violating the national security law — also for allegedly “colluding with foreign forces.”
But Agnes had quit Demosisto on the morning of June 30, before the new law went into effect and its text was released, and she had ceased all activism; she even stopped updating her Twitter account. (She, too, was released on bail Tuesday night.) Before her arrest she had been tailed by unknown agents for days, she said. An infrared camera had been installed in front of the main entrance to her home, according to a neighbour. I fear that other dissenting voices in HK will also face this kind of surveillance, harassment & persecution.
On Tues, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing announced that in light of the delayed election, the term of HK’s current legislature would be extended for “no less than one year.” Carrie Lam expressed her “heartfelt gratitude” for that decision. No limit has been placed on the term of this interim legislative body, meaning that it could be endlessly extended, with no further elections — more or less as happened in Taiwan during the island’s authoritarian decades, between the late 1940s and the early 1990s.
And yet, in the face of this darkest new era of censorship and repression, HK’s spirit of resistance is unflagging. Many HKers lined up in the early hours of Tuesday to buy the day’s edition of Apple Daily. Some groups bought up stashes of the paper to distribute for free to passers-by. More than 500,000 copies had to be printed in total, five times the usual. Hong Kongers will keep finding ways, big and small, to resist.
---------------------
支持我向世界展現香港人頑強抵抗的意志:https://www.patreon.com/joshuawong
human rights meaning 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
Has Hong Kong Returned? (Lee Yee)
Last week I mentioned a visit by a wise young man, who posed several questions surrounding the time since the anti-ELAB movement. I answered one question in “The Silent Revolution”, now let me get to the rest.
Question: Would you use the word “Return” to describe the 1997 transfer of sovereignty?
In my articles, I usually refer to that as “transfer of sovereignty” and not “return” for the change in Hong Kong in 1997.
A country has three essential components: land, people, and sovereignty. Before 1997, Hong Kong was not a country, it was a British colony; land and sovereignty belonged to Britain, but the people could neither settle nor work in Britain. They did not have the same rights as British citizens. If Hong Kong was holistically “returned” to China in 1997, then land, people, and sovereignty should have all been returned; but the Basic Law stipulated that land is owned by the country only in the name, and the actual management, use, lease, and grant of land are all managed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, whose government takes income generated by the land, and therefore essentially owns the land. Moreover, the border delineating the lands of Hong Kong and China continues to exist after 1997, and entering and exiting form people on both sides would require identification. All this shows that the land has not been returned. As for the people, in these 23 years, China has always said that in Hong Kong, “people’s hearts have not returned”. The meaning of “people’s hearts have not returned” is that Hongkongers are still not accepting the fact that sovereignty is now controlled by China. China, on the other hand, also did not give Hongkongers any status as Chinese citizens including rights and duties. Therefore, while Hongkongers’ hearts have not returned, China has also not treated Hongkongers as Chinese people. The fact that the people have not returned is mutual.
Say, if two of the three elements of land, people, and sovereignty possessed by a political entity have not returned, then Hong Kong cannot be said to have returned. We can only call it “transfer of sovereignty”.
Western democracies believe in the notion that a country’s sovereignty rests with the people. In ancient China, the notion that “people are the foundation of the country, when the foundation is solid, the country is peaceful” and “the people at of the utmost importance, the state is secondary, and least is the ruler himself”. Both China and the world regarded the opinions and hearts of the people as the country’s priorities. Therefore the return of the heart of the people should be the most important element in a return; the people’s hearts have not returned, so it can only be a transfer of governance. As the ultimate crucial element of importance, the hearts still waver.
Question: Do you agree that Hong Kong independence is the only way out?
Not the “only”, but this is a proposition that can be discussed within the scope of freedom of speech. Over the years, I have been advocating that “Hongkongers have the freedom of speech to discuss Hong Kong’s independence or any way out.” I have written articles for over 60 years, and the most precious to me is freedom, especially freedom of speech. Historian Chen Yinke’s words on the tombstone of Wang Guowei have been my North Star for many years. The inscription reads: “A scholar learns and studies to break away from the shackles of the Conventional Truth, such that the Ultimate Truth can be carried forward. If there is no freedom of thought, one might as well be dead.” “Teacher’s writings may sometimes be incomprehensible; teacher’s teachings may sometimes be debatable; but the spirit of independence, the freedom of thoughts, is the most sacred of all and illuminates like the Three Lights.”
The Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) is the law of secular change in the Buddhist scriptures, which is different from the fixed Ultimate Truth (Paramattha Sacca); the “Three Lights” refers to the sun, the moon, and the stars.
“If there is no freedom of thought, one might as well be dead” means that even living, one would be like the walking dead. Freedom of thought is rooted in the spirit of independence. What is freedom? Hu Shi said, “freedom is relative to external restraints. If you get freedom but not independence, you are still a slave. Independence does not mean blindly following, not to be deceived, not to rely on status, not to rely on others. This is the spirit of independence.” Independent, its antonym is not unification, but dependent.
Political independence, under the one-party dictatorship of the “one country” full governance, its chances of success is nil, but the chance of being gifted democracy under the one-party dictatorship is probably minus one. Regardless of the political model, we learned over these years that the highest common factor for a way out for Hong Kong is autonomy. If the word “independence” is too sensitive for China, how about “non-dependence” or “autonomy” as the biggest aspirations of Hongkongers.
To equate self-determination with independence is conceptual befuddlement. Independence is a goal, self-determination is only a right stipulated in human rights conventions. Self-determination can lead to a variety of outcome, why must it be independence and not an ultimate unification under “One Country, One System? How uncanny!
human rights meaning 在 Charles Mok Youtube 的最佳解答
岑建勳支持 Charles 堅持的自由、民主、人權、法治,這是香港的核心價值
John Sham endorses Charles Mok and his core values
現在有很多人常把核心價值放在口中, 但是他們在說的又是我們意念中的核心價值嗎? Charles說的正就是 --- 自由, 民主, 人權, 法治. 這就是我理解的香港的核心價值。所以我希望Charles可以進入立法會, 為香港爭取及堅持我們真正的核心價值, 建設我愛的香港。
The term "core values" has been brought up a lot and abused by others recently, but are they really meaning what we believe in? Charles' "core values" are freedom, democracy, human rights and just law and they are what I believe as the true Hong Kong's "core values". Therefore, I endorse Charles and hope he can enter the Legislative Council to fight for our true "core values" of Hong Kong, to build the Hong Kong that I love.
選舉廣告 Election Advertisement
human rights meaning 在 Human rights Meaning - YouTube 的必吃
... <看更多>