橫眉冷對千夫指，俯首甘為孺子牛~這二句是來自魯迅詩作《自嘲》的詩句經常被引用，看Tai Yiu Ting, 戴耀廷臉書9月3日, 就看到這二句詩的photo 附他這二句感言:"越益能感受到這兩句說話的力量，但也更深體會到這是絕不容易活出來。"
STAND TALL AND STAY STRONG !
How many ears must one man have, before he can hear people cry? The answer is blowing in the wind.
盧冠庭說the answer is Love, Love, Love.
My answer is a Healthy and Justice Wind that you all have been blowing. Let's not give up...
KM Law 大家係心水清, 香港人爭取民主不停被壓迫, 很感謝你一直勇敢站在大家前面. 願主保佑你及你的親人! We shall overcome！
Paat Chan 努力加油
Hazel Liang 戴教授，支持你，加油！
這等 「貪腐舉措」始終是要被喝停和制止的！ 看看澳門吧！
「十九大｣ 一開，什麼張德江，劉雲山、張高麗等等便會 ｢墜馬｣ 跌落他們的「自食其果」中！
戴耀廷的論述和主張完全在言論和學術自由的範圍之內，何君堯之流卻因他的言論而要求港大把他解僱，顯然抵觸了《基本法》保障的言論自由和學術自由。他們罷免戴耀廷的理由，只剩下一樣，便是把大學生視作未成年小孩，而“和平佔中”這類公民抗命思想有如洪水猛獸， 兒童不宜，所以絕不能讓戴耀廷再接觸學生。這種想法，是把教育眨為洗腦，既預設老師居心叵測，也假定學生蠢鈍不堪，不懂思考，因此必須剔除他們眼中離經叛道的老師。再推而廣之，市民亦屬昏庸失智之輩，任人擺布，因此任何他們認定是宣揚異端邪說者，都必須嚴刑峻法。再進一步，當他們把胡思亂想當作行動根據，戴耀廷既然是惡貫滿盈，他們也就不怕越過核心價值的底線，肆意踐踏學術自由，總之要把他鬥垮鬥臭為止，便不難理解了。 https://goo.gl/QGkgN1
一地兩檢 割地喪權 千里之堤 潰於蟻穴 ~ 反對割地 聯署做起！ goo.gl/LTcDmP
On appeal by the government, the Court of Appeal recently handed down heavier punishments in a row for two groups of young social activists, totaling 16, changing their sentences from suspended imprisonment and community service to immediate imprisonment for variously between six and thirteen months. We think the matter is very serious and are deeply disturbed. The following is our joint statement to set the record straight:
- Sentencing must take account of the social activists’ motives
Most of the 16 social activists who received prison sentences actively participated in social movements, in the hope of reforming society through direct actions. From protests against development plans for north-eastern New Territories to the re-occupation of the Civic Square, even without necessarily agreeing with the tactics or objectives involved, one cannot but see the activists’ goal in reforming society, not in self-seeking or bringing harm to others. Thus, while their acts might have breached the law, from the point of motives, they are in no way comparable to common criminals. When the court considers sentencing, it should take account of this and opt for more lenient sentences, especially regarding young first-time offenders who proactively acknowledge responsibility, and not treat them as violent criminals. As a matter of fact, the trial magistrate did take this into account and sentenced the defendants to community service or a suspended sentence and the defendants had all already served their sentence. The Secretary for Justice nonetheless relentlessly pursued these young activists, asking for the stiffest punishments for them and yet took no similar action in cases with longer and even more serious ramifications, this can have little credence among the public.
- Beware of the arrival of authoritarian rule in the SAR
In imprisoning the 16 social activists, the Appeal Court made it clear the sentences were aimed at a deterrent effect. We worry this might be a portent of the SAR government moving to authoritarian rule and draconian laws and punishment, that is, make people act within the laws through more severe court punishments. When court sentences fail to deter, the authorities can strengthen the deterrence. However, deterring-type punishments only suppress dissidents with power, they do not win over people with reason and therefore do not resolve social conflicts or facilitate consensus-building. Unfortunately, the recent Appeal Court ruling to increase the penalties not only manifests the line of draconian laws and punishments mentioned above but also clearly shows that the Appeal Court would of its own accord act in tandem with the SAR government.
- Draconian laws and punishments encroach upon human rights and civil society
Under draconian laws and punishments, the first to suffer are not only those social activists put behind bars, but also human rights and civil society. Following the Appeal Court’s ruling, the 16 activists were immediately imprisoned, civil society is weakened, there are more risks to political participation, those imprisoned are deprived of their right to stand in elections while citizens’ choices of representatives are narrowed. On the other hand, the court’s ruling renders the political high wall even more solid. The government can use more severe punishments to block dissenters’ channels of expression, but government-society dialogue will only become even more ineffectual, and social harmony can only be false harmony with people subjected to official whims.