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

【 Squat 該翻成「深蹲」還是「蹲舉」？】

翻譯時有時候會卡在一段話，因為看不懂，或是太確定作者要表達什麼，或是討論的主題太陌生，要重讀很多遍或查了許多資料後作者的意思才會慢慢滲到意識裡，此時中文的意思就會浮現，這都是花時間和精神就可以解決的事（至於譯得好不好就是另外一回事了）。但我覺得最難的還是術語。有些術語很簡單，字典一查就有答案，甚至簡單到直覺就可以譯出來，像是「Squat 到底該譯成深蹲還是蹲舉」這個問題讓我掙扎了超過一年，來來回回改了幾次，其實還是不太能下定決心。

目前大家習慣把「Squat」譯成「深蹲」，之前也沒有細想，很直覺地就跟著一起用「深蹲」來譯「Squat」，但這次在翻譯《The System》時，發現似乎不太妥，因為有很多「Squat」並不「深」，像是：

● Quater Squat（四分之一蹲）：一點都不深。
● Half Squat（半蹲）：比較深一點，但離最深還有點距離。
● Complete Squat（全蹲）：應該是指最深的下蹲姿勢。
● Deep Squat（深蹲）：中英文之間最名符其實的譯法。

就這幾個原文而言，單把「Squat」譯為「深蹲」就讓我難受，因為「深蹲」應該要配「Deep Squat」，而「Quater Squat」一點都不深，所以把「Squat」譯為「深蹲」就很奇怪。

因此我後來全改譯成「蹲舉」。例如「Front Squat」都用「前蹲舉」；「Back Squat」都用「後蹲舉」，所以「Squat」譯成蹲舉應該比較適合。但又有一個問題是，很多時候練的是徒手Squat，並沒有「舉」起什麼，前蹲舉和後蹲舉因為是在描述重量「在前」或「在後」，有一個重量讓它舉，所以譯成蹲舉很合理，不過有不少蹲的動作是徒手的。所以要把「Squat」統一譯成「蹲舉」似乎還是不恰當。

只譯成「蹲」或「下蹲」？

「Squat」就是蹲下再起站起來的一種動作，像「Single-Leg Squat」譯成「單腿蹲」就很順，那譯成「蹲」好了，但譯成一個字在很多句子讀起來會很不順啊……像是這句：「There is little debate about the importance of the squat as a critical fundamental human movement pattern. 」

譯成「把『深蹲』當作人類最基本的動作模式應該沒什麼爭議」或「把『下蹲』當作人類最基本的動作模式應該沒什麼爭議」其實都可以，但譯成「蹲」讀起來就不順，譯成「蹲舉」也奇怪，像剛學會站的小嬰兒每天都在做Squat，但其實他／她沒在舉什麼。

從一開始直覺地譯成「深蹲」，到後來看到書中「Deep Squat」這個詞才發覺不對，那還是譯成「蹲舉」好了，但自己在教初學者或熱身時其實都是徒手在練，沒有「舉」東西，統一譯成「蹲舉」會有問題。而且「深蹲」比較多人用，翻譯的其中一項原則是這個中文詞是否已經很多人在用了，如果沒有大錯，其實應該延用大多數人的用法，所以譯成「深蹲」是最保險的……但是很多「Squat」一點都不深這點還是讓我無法直接把書中大部分的「Squat」譯為「深蹲」……就這樣經過了一年的掙扎，慢慢說服自己的方式是：

● 確定是徒手的部分譯為「深蹲」
● 確定有外加重量時譯為「蹲舉」
● 不確定是徒手或負重，在通用情況且讀起來不會不順時譯為「蹲」或「下蹲」，例如「Squatting Motion」譯為「下蹲動作」，而不譯為「蹲舉動作」或「深蹲動作」。
● 特定動作先以約定俗成的名稱為主，不強套上面的規定，例如：
* Back Squat→背蹲舉
* Front Squat→前蹲舉
* Wall Squats→靠牆蹲
* Overhead Squat→過頭蹲，確定有加重量→「單腿蹲舉」
* Single-leg Squat→單腿蹲，確定有加重量→「單腿蹲舉」
* Goblet Squat→高腳杯深蹲，雖然有重量，但幾乎沒有人用「高腳杯蹲舉」，所以這裡應該會延用，還是有人會覺得要統一譯成「高腳杯蹲舉」比較好？因為有不少人重量在前時是蹲不下去的，他們實際上做不到高腳杯「深」蹲，只是在做微幅的下「蹲」與「舉」起。

以上只是把翻譯「Squat」時碰到的困擾和目前的想法整理出來，礙於個人能力，暫時只能先這樣做。關於「Squat」的各種譯法，若大家有什麼意見或想法的話，也麻煩再提供我一些意見，感謝！
--

題外話，跟 RunningQuotient 合作的 [跑者關鍵力量訓練線上系列課程- 第三期」 08/8 要開課了，疫情這段時間比較少練跑想重新打好力量基礎的人可以來一起跟我們練，共五堂課，每週一次上課訓練+一次團練，有興趣的跑者可以參考課程詳情：https://fb.me/e/1icnApegR

"The fundamental question is, are we going to follow the law?"
「拗咩吖，大家仲信唔信法律制度先？」

繼上次問到Twitter老細口啞之後，美國參議員Ted Cruz接受《Fox News》Sean Hannity訪問，評論大選兩邊嘅爭拗同輿論偏頗嘅情況，再提出一個跨黨派政見立場，值得所有人反思嘅問題，到底大家仲信唔信法律制度先？還是靠响social media打嘴炮或者記者講就得㗎？

"The fundamental question is, are we going to follow the law?"

"The way the system works is, you follow the law...You know, one of the frustrating things as a citizen, you see all these tweets going back and forth, you see allegations of this happened, that happened. It's hard to know, it's hard for anyone to know, all right, is this true, what's true?"
（行之有效嘅制度就係法律制度，作為一個國民，最失望就係睇見啲Tweets你來我往，呢個話見到乜乜，嗰個就講物物，根本無人知，亦唔會知真定假，點知咩真相呀？）

"The only way to know is, we have a legal process -- we have state courts, we have federal courts that can hear legal claims."
（要知道真相嘅唯一方法，就係經過法律程序，我地有各級法院去審理呢啲法律上嘅指控。）

"And right now, it is incumbent on the Trump Campaign's lawyers to go in and prove their case in court -- to lay out evidence -- to lay out evidence of illegally cast votes, lay out evidence of what was done right and what was done wrong. And when the process is over, we're going to know the result..."
（去到呢一步，在任總統嘅律師團咪要去法庭去闡述自己嘅理據囉，用證據解釋咩做啱或者乜嘢做錯。當個法律程序完成，大家咪知道結果囉，拗咩呢？）

"Now, the fact that you or I might say that or someone might tweet that -- that's not conclusive evidence. That needs to be determined in a court of law."
（依家我可以响Twitter講呢樣，佢又講另一樣，呢啲唔係可信嘅證據黎㗎，可信與否係要靠法庭決定嘅。）

"It's amazing that reporters are running around screaming, no, no, no, we can't resolve any of these legal matters."
（最「奇妙」就係啲記者四周圍同人講「No, no, no，呢啲問題係唔可以用法律解決㗎」）

其實Ted Cruz提出呢個概念，去到呢刻到底仲有幾多人明白呢？還是為咗個人政見、立場或者喜惡，而忘記咗？

美國國內係咁，國外就更加...

#選皇帝

Photo Source：FoxNews
訪問原片：
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1326264919529025538?s=20