【咸魚翻丁】

仲記得上訴庭嘅丁權合憲判詞，郭卓堅作為非原居民"have no stake"，唔夠資格（no sufficient standing）對丁屋政策進行司法覆核，忽視丁權牽涉公眾利益嘅理據。而家終審又接納番牽涉公眾利益原則，仲「埋單」豁免保證金，香港嘅法律制度真係「來回又折返」，究竟上面「借刀」定真係咁好死？

//終院頒下判詞指，申請人郭卓堅的上訴理據涉及公眾重大利益，若法庭不批准其豁免保證金的申請，終院便不能夠就處理案中爭議正式展開審訊，做法是有違公眾利益的原則。再者，郭早前已破產，故終院決定行使酌情權，批准他豁免交付上訴保證金。//

香港經濟日報：【豁免保證金】就丁權案申上訴終院　郭卓堅獲批免付保證金 https://bit.ly/3wY1zCc

▍延伸閱讀：

【丁權司法覆核案】上訴庭判詞大點評
https://bit.ly/3wZSE35

明報 2020年1月1日 【丁屋政策爭議「留法院定奪」 英外交部批衛督不負責任】
https://bit.ly/35EGqls

【申請權 vs 建屋權】法官：政府能全權決定是否批准丁屋申請
https://bit.ly/2Dtd8eZ

【丁權司法覆核上訴前瞻】
https://www.facebook.com/localresearch/posts/3295688053860578/

端傳媒 深度 2019年2月19日 黃肇鴻【香港丁權案關鍵：「傳統權益」論述從何而來 ？ 】 https://bit.ly/2Q5EhaB
-
💪 研究有價　月捐撐起土地研究工作：https://liber-research.com/support-us/
FPS ID：5390547
HSBC PayMe 捐款支持：https://bit.ly/32aoOMn
戶口號碼：匯豐銀行 640-198305-001 (LIBER RESEARCH COMMUNITY (HK) COMPANY LIMITED)
義工招募：https://bit.ly/2SbbyT

Hong Kong Watch
香港監察聲明
《香港新聞自由被侵害 國際社會必須予以譴責並準備制裁措施》

香港警方今天再次闖入《蘋果日報》大樓並拘捕5名員工，並且凍結三間與《蘋果日報》有關的公司總值1800萬港元的資產。

香港監察贊助人奧爾頓勛爵認為：「這是無恥及可恥的暴行，是害怕面對媒體監督的懦夫行為。」

香港監察總裁羅傑斯評論指：「作為前記者的我對今天香港政府打壓媒體感到震驚。以《港區國安法》拘捕報導不利政權事實的記者和新聞工作者，反映出香港的極權統治。

這是香港警方在不到一年裡第二次以「勾結外國勢力」的虛假理由入侵蘋果日報大樓。這違背了政府早前作出將謹慎使用該法律，並不會干預新聞媒體的承諾。

國際社會必須譴責這種攻擊香港新聞自由的行為，並敦促香港當局釋放所有因國安法被捕的人士，以及準備好採取懲罰措施，包括使用馬格尼茨基法案制裁針對記者的官員。」

📜HKW FULL STATEMENT
https://www.hongkongwatch.org/all-posts/2021/6/17/todays-raid-on-apple-daily-newspaper-and-arrest-of-journalists-is-an-act-of-brazen-and-shameful-thuggery

🌟捐款支持我們/SUPPORT US：
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/hongkongwatch

Hong Kong Watch

【吳文遠十一遊行案法庭陳詞 — 中文譯本】

法官閣下：

從小我父母便教我要有同理心，要關顧社會上相對不幸的人。儘管在早年職業生涯上取得不俗成就，但我從來沒有意欲將追求個人財富視為人生目標。

當我在國外生活了多年後回到香港定居時，我為這個我自豪地稱之為家的城市，存在如此嚴重的社會不平等而感到困惑和擔憂。 令我震驚的是，社會如何漠視對窮人和少數族裔的歧視。既有的社會結構，有時甚至會鼓勵這種歧視繼續發生。同時，我們也無法一如其它地方，享有基本的民主權利和自由。

這些都是我參與社會運動以至參與政治的動機。我希望盡己所能，為被忽視的弱勢階層鼓與呼，替不能為自己發聲的人說話。

與許多人相比，我很幸運能夠接受良好教育，並擁有一定程度上的財務自由和社會地位。我們很幸運，能夠過上舒適生活，並有自由選擇我們的道路。我選擇為社會平等而奮鬥。其實這個法庭上許多人都差不多，我們都喜歡香港，這個稱為家的地方。或許我們在生活中選擇了不同的角色，但目標都是相同：為他人服務。

可悲的是，我擔心我們已經逐漸成為社會制度中的例外。當下許多香港人根本沒有那些機會，包括貧困長者，欠缺向上流動機會、被邊緣化的年輕人，還有犧牲所有時間但只能為家庭僅僅維持基本生活的工人。這些人再努力，生活中的選擇仍然局限於維持生計。對他們來說，「選擇」是負擔不起的奢侈品，更不用說如何決定自己的命運。

在生活壓力下，我們的視野通常很難超越自身的社交圈子，更難的是對陌生人展現同理心。兩極化的政治分歧產生越來越多裂痕，令我們有時候無法互相理解、和而不同，亦不願意試圖尋求某種程度的妥協。

我一直希望，一個較民主的制度能夠成為一道橋樑，彌合上述社會鴻溝，或者至少容讓我們選擇怎樣共同生活。

2019年的動盪，為整個社會帶來了沉重的打擊。無論政治立場如何，我敢肯定這個法庭上有許多人，都為此而傷心欲絕。整座城市都被不信任、仇恨和恐懼所淹沒。今天固然不是討論這個問題的合適地方，但我希望法庭能夠理解，僅靠司法機構並不能解決已經根深蒂固的社會政治鴻溝。

我們需要集體力量、勇氣、誠實和同理心來修補我們的家。看看幾位同案被告，他們在服務社會方面有著非凡的紀錄。比起囚禁在監獄，我相信他們能夠對社會作出更大貢獻。

為了追求全體香港人的權利，我的確違反了法律，並且已準備面對法院的判決。令人敬重的幾位同案被告，畢生捍衛法治，為民主而戰，為無聲者發聲，我十分榮幸能夠與他們並肩同行。

我相信終有一天，籠罩我們城市的烏雲將會消散，光明將會重臨，愛和同理心將會戰勝歸來。

吳文遠
2021年5月24日

Avery Ng Man Yuen’s Statement

Your Honour,

I was brought up by my parents to value the importance of empathy, to care and to feel for others in our community less fortunate. Although I enjoyed great success early in my career, I never had a desire to pursue personal wealth in the more traditional sense.

When I settled back in Hong Kong after years of living abroad, I was baffled and disturbed by how severe the social inequality existed in a city I am proud to call my home. I was struck at how discrimination against the poor and the minorities far too often goes ignored or can even at times is encouraged by the established social structure; and how we cannot have the basic democratic rights and freedoms that other places enjoy.

These were my motivations to join social activism and enter into politics. I chose to spend my energy to speak for the underprivileged, the disenchanted and often ignored segments of society. To offer a voice for those who could not speak for themselves.

Compared to many, I am privileged to have a great education and a certain level of financial freedom and social standing. We are fortunate enough to be able to lead comfortable lives and have the freedom to choose the path that we take. I chose to fight for social equality. Many of those in this court are not that much different. We all love Hong Kong, the place we call home. We chose our different roles in life but with the same aim: to serve others.

Sadly, I fear that many of us are increasingly the exception to the rule. Today far too many Hong Kong people do not have that chance, whether that is our elderly who live in poverty, marginalized youth with few opportunities for social mobility, or workers who give up all their time slaving away to provide the bare minimum for their families. These people all struggle to make ends meet with very limited options in life. “Choice” for them is a luxury that they cannot afford. Let alone having the gratification of being able to dictate their own destiny.

I recognise, with the pressures of life, it is often difficult for people to see beyond their own social bubble. It is harder still to acquire empathy for strangers. Polarized political division increasingly has driven a wedge between people, making it sometimes impossible for people to understand and empathise with one another, to disagree agreeably, and attempt to find some level of compromise.

It has always been my hope that a more democratic system could be the bridge that heals this social divide or at the very least allow us to choose how we can live together in our home.

I’m certain that none of us in this court wanted to see the turmoil in 2019, which has seen our whole society suffer regardless of political preference. Distrust, hatred, and fear has engulfed Hong Kong. Today is certainly not the right forum for this immense topic. However, I hope the court can understand that the Judiciary alone cannot resolve the deep-rooted socio-political divide which exist.

It will take our collective strength, courage, honesty, and empathy to mend our home. Looking at my fellow defendants with their extraordinary history in serving this society, I believe they can do far greater good among us in society than being locked in prison.

In pursuit of the rights of all Hong Kong people, I have broken the law. I am prepared to face the court’s judgement. I am proud to be in the company of my esteemed fellows who have spent their lives championing the rule of law, fighting for the democracy and voicing for the voiceless.

I believe the storm-clouds that currently reside over our home will one day lift, and make way for a bright and clear day. I believe love and empathy will eventually prevail.
————————————
文遠交低話大家記住一定要撐 #文遠Patreon 呀！

⭐️支持文遠⭐️請訂閱Patreon⭐️
www.patreon.com/AveryNg

去年那時，今年此刻。

發布影片的這個時間，
正是我們去年抵達立法院外的時間。

永遠不會忘記一起淋的那場雨，
不會忘記我們是如何在立法院前爭取。
待結果定案，陽光彷彿透過雨水，映照在每一張期盼的臉上。


對於平權，我們還有許多要努力的事。

性平教育、子女親權、跨國婚姻，
好多好多的事，等著我們繼續前進。

這是一段很長的旅程，
但雨過總能綻放彩虹，
黑夜也會迎接曙光來臨。


願我們都能好好的，好好的看那些日子的到來。

僅以現場影片鼓勵大家，
我們都在，
都在前進的路上。



Same time same place, exactly a year ago.

We were standing in front of the Legislative Yuan,
at this exact time last year
as we release this video.

We were standing, together, in the rain.
There is no forgetting how we fought for our rights.
Once the results were out, we saw rays of sun shining onto us through the rain.


There’s a lot more to equity.

Gender equity education, guardianship rights, same-sex marriage right of foreigners.
We will come to them, one by one.


This is a long, long journey.
Yet this is one where rainbow accompanies rain,
and light follows darkness.


In the days to come, may we welcome the arrival of our rights with a smile.

This is a humble video of us same day last year.
We are still here,
let’s carry on.



This is an acknowledgement of the source of the photo at the end of this video:
謝謝影片裡最後的照片來自：Joker影像。喬客叔叔

#婚姻平權 #同婚週年 #夫夫之道

無條件基本收入是什麼？不工作也能拿錢，國庫不會虧空嗎？常見的質疑，基本收入政策的倡議者Guy Standing 都在這本書裡回答了。這套策略真的可行嗎？ #冏說書 #政治
《寫給每個人的基本收入讀本》博客來介紹 https://goo.gl/6R21tU

加入「冏說書」專頁
https://www.facebook.com/kyonbook/
👉 只發佈跟「書」有關的內容


支持我的頻道運作，你可以：

贊助支持囧說書
若覺得內容不錯，願意支持冏說書這個沒有任何業配盈利的節目，點下面連結小額打賞一下，敝人深感榮幸

■ 綠界 EcPay → https://p.ecpay.com.tw/83yhc
■ 歐付寶 Opay (信用卡可) → https://goo.gl/bsJ2su
■ PayPal → https://goo.gl/qEdZU7

__

更多的囧說書
▶ 播放清單 → https://goo.gl/y59GO9
更多的囧知識
▶ 播放清單 → https://goo.gl/Fmuvvb



__

關於著作權『合理使用』的法條聲明
All videos on my channel are only used for commentary.

【美國法律】
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

【中華民國法律】
民國十七年（1928年）首次制訂。現行中華民國《著作權法》第四十四條至第六十五條規定了著作財產權的限制，除了第六十五條規定合理使用的判斷標準外，第六十五條前各條規定需在合理範圍內得使用，而著作財產權人之權利受限制的各種狀況，是屬於廣義範圍中的合理使用概念。
第52條
為報導、評論、教學、研究或其他正當目的之必要，在合理範圍內，得引用已公開發表之著作。

上個月有對那些在留言版公開辱罵我的人提告，這幾天傳票收到了，順便分享一下傳票是用什麼方式寄送的。。。。等等相關問題，感謝支持（白同學DIY教）的同學們，希望正義是站在白同學這一邊，。。。。
Last month, those who in the message version of the public insult I told these days, the summons received, by the way to share the subpoena is what way to send. The The The And so on related issues, thanks for support (white students DIY teaching) students, hope that justice is standing on the side of white students.