我城守護隊

真係嚇到戴當家鼻哥窿無肉！上次仲話估唔到判咁重，點知黃Ｃ假髮人，又來充當守護天使了！

雙學三子上訴得直恢復原審判決 更新：2018/02/06 20:40

雙學三子衝擊政總案終極裁決，終審法院五位法官一致裁定，黃之鋒、羅冠聰、周永康上訴得直，恢復原審判決，即是判社會服務令及緩刑。判詞指，認同上訴庭新判刑指引，涉及暴力應該判監，但他們犯案時未有指引，不應應用在他們身上，日後同類案件就根據新指引判刑。三人形容判決是香港民主運動輸了一仗，是糖衣包裝的嚴厲判決。
衝擊政總案至今三年多，終極裁決黃之鋒、羅冠聰及周永康，原本被上訴庭判監六至八個月，終極一役，全部上訴得直，維持原審判決，黃之鋒及羅冠聰判社會服務令，周永康判監三星期、緩刑一年。
終審法院判詞中指，不認同上訴庭所指原審裁判官量刑時原則上犯錯。因為原審裁判官是顯然知道判刑要具阻嚇性，涉案集結的大規模性質發生暴力衝突的風險，原審裁判官是有酌情權，考慮對三人的個人情況、動機、悔意，給予多少比重。她判刑當時是未有上訴庭新訂立的指引，社會服務令亦是這類案件常見的刑罰，所以判刑並非明顯不足。終審法院指，認同上訴庭制定的判刑原則，涉及暴力的非法集結是不會被寛容，將來亦有充分理由判即時監禁。但終審法院認為，這個指引並不適宜用在今次案件，他們干犯罪行時沒有個指引，所以要避免將新指引套用他們三人當時所做的行為上。
判詞又提到，上訴庭副庭長楊振權指，社會近年瀰漫一股歪風，有人包括有識之士鼓吹違法達義，對部份年輕人造成影響，楊振權似乎認為三人犯法、是受其他人鼓吹，因此要加刑，終審法院不同意這個量刑準則，因為其他人的罪責不應由他們來承擔。對於公民抗命的概念，終審法院指，香港是承認這個概念，但採取的行動必須是和平非暴力，今次涉案行為已違反刑事法和涉及暴力，所以在判刑時以公民抗命作為求情理由，應得的比重甚少。
至於黃之鋒在案發時未夠二十一歲的問題，終審法院認為，原審裁判官是顯然可以根據刑事訴訟程序條例第一百一零九條，考慮監楚以外的刑罰，上訴庭是錯誤地認為無須考慮其他判刑選擇。

１. 無喇無喇！既唔使坐十年八載冤獄，又無俾特衰政府酷刑侍候，呢次個和平獎見財化水喇！

２. 又，今次咁樣「技術上」打得甩，加上假法人咁講，係咪即係無先例無指引可援的個案，都可以獲得從寬處置呢？

３. 自己罪責自己孭，咁即係唔會有「罪不責眾」呢回事？
＊＊＊

回應獲提名諾貝爾和平獎 — 願榮譽歸於人民
2018/2/2 — 16:52

【文：羅冠聰、周永康、黃之鋒】
榮譽歸於人民，雨傘運動再展光茫。作為不過芸芸百萬名運動參與者中的其中三子，獲提名諾貝爾和平獎，我等與有榮焉。若有榮譽，當屬百多年來的中港民主運動參與者。
港人上承八九民運、諾貝爾和平獎得主劉曉波先生等人反官倒、爭民主的精神，下啟雨傘運動抗命不認命，命運自主爭普選的路向。一脈相承，力求改變，在於人類永恆地追求自由與平等，促使社會實踐民主與公義，以求彰顯愛與和平的價值。
在一國兩制被中方嚴重衝擊的時刻，政權動以言入罪，剝奪人民參選權、禠奪民選議員資格、大與牢獄懲罰異議者。危急關頭，我們更需要國際社會挽手共行，共同守護香港作為人類民主運動的橋頭堡，確立一國兩制下港人民主自治的精神及原則。
我們呼籲當局假若真如中國主席習近平所言，展望「人類命運共同體」的意識，就理應接納人民要求和平改革，撤回八三一決議，建立民主香港及民主中國的願景，方能確立真正和平的世界格局，展現應有風範。當局亦應該立刻釋放諾貝爾和平狀得主劉曉波的遺孀劉霞、709大抓捕的人權律師及諸位人權異議人士，並向八九民運死難者家屬道歉，深刻檢討中國當局執政以來六十年的是非過錯，促進中國和平地進行民主轉型。
權力與金錢永遠也不能權作真理，平等、自由、博愛才是一個具良知的社會應有的領航方向。權力歸於人民，民主根於自治。我們有幸曾參與為世界及人類社會留下重要印記的雨傘運動，而當中的自主自治精神將繼續引領我們幾代人奮勇向前，在生命中展現勇氣，於未來繼續追求自由、平等和民主等為人類歌頌的價值。 雨傘運動，不屈不撓。

４. 「港人上承八九民運、諾貝爾和平獎得主劉曉波先生等人反官倒、爭民主的精神，下啟雨傘運動抗命不認命，命運自主爭普選的路向。」做乜又拉埋劉波波嚟講？當年班黃Ｃ有搵過波波嚟做代言人？唔覺。波波當年有為過佔窿發聲？無印象。
５. 「危急關頭，我們更需要國際社會挽手共行，共同守護香港作為人類民主運動的橋頭堡」咁個橋頭堡即係喺邊？國際社會唔識我城方言，你痴瘋仔可以幫手帶路嗎？
６. 咩叫「大『與』牢獄懲罰異議者」、「『展望』『人類命運共同體』」的意識」？「展望」完之後，點解就「理應」接納人民要求和平改革，撤回八三一決議？因果關係何在？
７. 咩叫「權力歸於人民」？選舉權和被選舉權？斷估都唔係行政立法司法的「權力」掛！

＊＊＊

信報　2018年2月5日
金箴 金針集
美帝串通諾先生何足懼
多名「美帝」國會議員日前去信諾貝爾委員會，提名雨傘運動的「雙學」三子、香港眾志黃之鋒、羅冠聰和學聯前秘書長周永康角逐本年度諾貝爾和平獎，結果引起建制派及特區政府強烈反彈。政務司司張建宗及特首林鄭月娥先後批評「美帝議員」們不熟悉香港情況，借獎項之名行政治干預之實。民建聯主席李慧琼表示對提名感到匪夷所思，一眾「愛國陣營」人士亦爭先出來狠批一番，左一句「道德淪亡」，右一句「漢奸」，罵聲此起彼落。
最出位的莫過於民建聯立法會議員陳恒鑌，提名消息一出，馬上搶先在Facebook留言指是對諾貝爾的侮辱，「如果諾先生還在生，一定會被激至噴血並即時取消和平獎！」訊息一出，馬上被網民訕笑在替歷史人物改名，更揶揄問道，「米高積遜是否姓米？甘迺迪是否姓甘？」弄得陳恒鑌要急急拍片補鑊，頓時失焦，獎還沒有頒，自己倒反成笑柄。建制派開足火力，相反民主派這邊卻水盡鵝飛，對消息近乎「零反應」。畢竟現在只不過提名，並非獲獎，與其費神打口水戰，倒不如專心應對3月11日補選，把議席贏回來更實際。何況，三子的所謂「貢獻」跟其他和平獎得主確是有一大段距離，級數天與地。不要說南非曼德拉或緬甸昂山素姬，即使跟已故諾貝爾和平獎得主劉曉波也無法比肩。始終三子是基於抗爭手法被判罪，而不是因為其追求民主的政治理念，前大律師公會主席石永泰便曾經形容，三子既主張公民抗命，「食皇家飯」乃求仁得仁。三子說獎項應屬港人所有的說法，在許多香港人眼中絕非謙虛客套，而是事實陳述。話時話，若不是建制派這般高調喊打喊殺，社會對三子獲提名的新聞根本沒太大感覺，大加韃伐後，或多或少激起有聲音同情提名諾獎的做法。不管建制派是真情流露，還是按指令辦事，往往弄巧反拙幫倒忙。從梁振英管治到林鄭上場，對政府最大的教訓來自處理問題，必須理性務實，盡量大事化小，小事化無，而非老想着什麼十倍奉還，以眼還眼，徒令矛盾對立不斷升級。當年激進派發動「五區公投」，特區政府冷處理，完全無視，最後投票率僅得18%，不單無法構成任何壓力，更令激進派「露底」，「示威變示弱」，顏面盡失。但CY年代事事計較去到盡，佔領中環原本無甚聲勢，偏偏特區長官及建制派奉陪鬥一番，先來個反佔中大行動，把抗爭氣氛炒熱，又出動大批警察，擺出一副殺無赦態度，最後出動催淚彈，才激起大批市民聲援學生。
多一事不如少一事，表個態就可以了，緊咬不放隨時惹起反彈，麻煩更大，對這些有姿勢無實際的「美帝議員」，何必太認真？一認真你便輸了。

８. 魔術師又學下黃Ｃ話齋，最「心痛」的是，你班建制派成日抽水變出醜。好似「扯衡賓」咁，連「諾先生」都講得出，做小小事都可以倒瀉籮蟹，完全係 not doing his job。呢啲廢柴都係早啲退下來，俾阿瞬、高佬賢、同琳琳姐上位罷喇。

＊＊＊

The Nobel Peace Prize was always a joke; now it's a total circus
Saturday, 03 February, 2018, 11:05pm

Yonden Lhatoo questions the credibility and importance of the Nobel Peace Prize, with China-baiting US politicians nominating three Hong Kong student leaders for the award
If you look past all that hype, the Nobel Peace Prize has long been a laughing stock, but it has now, to all intents and purposes, been reduced to a total political circus, with none of the gravitas still commanded by its sister awards for scientific and academic advancement.
When realpolitik power-broker Henry Kissinger won it in 1973, the celebrated American satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer famously quipped that the award had just about rendered political satire obsolete.
That was because the world beyond the Norwegian Nobel Committee was calling Kissinger a war criminal for his culpability in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s and '70s.
There have been other highly undeserving winners over the years since, and even more ludicrous nominations as well.
Which is why I'm not overly incredulous that a bunch of China-hating, Beijing-baiting US politicians are seeking to make Nobel laureates this year of Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang – student leaders of the 2014 Occupy protests and darlings of the Western media.
In a hyperbole-filled sales pitch to Oslo, the congressional nominators painted the trio, who are now the youthful faces of anti-Beijing politics in this city, as “champions of peace and freedom and Hong Kong's entire pro-democracy movement”.
“The government can lock up our bodies but they cannot lock up our minds!” they admiringly quoted Wong as declaring, unabashedly aggrandising the student activist to the lofty level of Mahatma Gandhi, the global symbol of non-violent struggle whom he borrowed and adapted those famous words from.
How ironic that the Nobel committee, which rejected India's independence icon and giant of history no less than five times for the peace prize, is now being asked to award it to a political pygmy by comparison.
When will people looking at and judging Hong Kong from the outside realise that we have no martyrs for democracy here, only muppets masquerading as them.
The only champions of peace and freedom in this city are the people of Hong Kong themselves who demand and enjoy it every day. Sure, we could use some more democracy and electoral reform, but we're nothing like the oppressed, rights-starved masses that we're regularly portrayed as by the Western narrative.
It's quite obvious that there are no noble intentions behind this Nobel nomination – only a cynical attempt to troll China – but let's also question the significance and relevance of the award itself these days.
At the end of the day, the peace prize is a political tool for spreading the Scandinavian brand of cultural imperialism, a sadly diminished honour bandied about once a year by a largely insignificant country with little to zero other means to seek relevance on the global stage.
Why are we still giving the time of day to a cabal of purported intellectuals huddled together in Oslo to spread their confused vision of a better world in such a questionable manner?
It's high time we had an untainted alternative for this part of the planet – and I'm glad to see the Shaw Prize and Lui Che Woo Prize laying the preliminary groundwork for such a future.
In his will, Alfred Nobel envisioned his peace prize would be awarded to those “who have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
You know who would be a worthy recipient in that context? The nuclear bomb itself. God knows it's done more for world peace than anyone else as a grim deterrent against the apocalypse.
We're all watching an annual freak show anyway.
Yonden Lhatoo is the chief news editor at the Post.

９. If you look past all that hype, the Nobel Peace Prize has long been a laughing stock, but it has now, to all intents and purposes, been reduced to a total political circus, with none of the gravitas still commanded by its sister awards for scientific and academic advancement.
死喇！一睇見 circus，就諗起新版《小丑回魂（IT）》 — 寫緊，拖住先！
問題係，炸藥和平獎嗰啲 sister awards for scientific and academic advancement，例如物理學獎、化學獎、生理學或醫學獎，都係可以被客觀量化同評審，而偏偏就係和平獎同文學獎呢啲比較主觀，各花入各眼的獎項最易惹爭議，亦最容易被有心人利用作政治攻訐。
１０. How ironic that the Nobel committee, which rejected India's independence icon and giant of history no less than five times for the peace prize, is now being asked to award it to a political pygmy by comparison.
呢句真係笑咗！
１１. Why are we still giving the time of day to a cabal of purported intellectuals huddled together in Oslo to spread their confused vision of a better world in such a questionable manner?
同班頑童一樣，炸藥獎委員會又係出來撩交打， attention seeking 的：你愈理佢佢就愈得戚囉。
１２. 同埋，點解痴瘋仔條片係講我城方言嘅？魔術師仲以為佢會講英文，仲諗住耳恭聽添！
＊＊＊
伸延閱讀：

Joshua Wong and other Occupy leaders nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by US congressmen
01 February, 2018

In a first for Hong Kong, Wong and fellow activists Nathan Law and Alex Chow have their names put forward to committee in Oslo for their ‘peaceful efforts to bring political reform and self-determination' to city
A US congressional group known for its criticism of China has nominated Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung and two allies who led the 2014 Occupy protests for the Nobel Peace Prize, in a highly controversial move likely to annoy Beijing.
The names of Wong, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang, as well as the entire campaign popularly known as the “umbrella movement”, were put forward to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo by a group of 12 US congressmen.
This is the first time there has been a nominee from Hong Kong.
But the news is likely to ruffle feathers in Beijing, which sees the West's support of the Hong Kong democracy movement as interference in China's domestic affairs.
The submission was made “in recognition of [the trio's] peaceful efforts to bring political reform and self-determination to Hong Kong and protect the autonomy and freedom guaranteed Hong Kong in the Sino-British Joint Declaration”, according to a letter by the congressmen to the committee.
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, qualified nominators include members of national assemblies and national governments, university professors and rectors, as well as former peace prize winners.
If selected, Wong, 21, could become the second youngest Nobel laureate; Law, 24, the third; and Chow, 27, the fifth. Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014 at the age of 17, is the youngest to have received the award.
In their letter dated January 31 – the last day of the nomination period – the congressmen highlighted the trio's “leadership roles” in the Occupy campaign through which “other pro-democracy politicians and supporters … took part in the largest pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong's history”.
The three activists were also praised for their demonstration of “civic courage, extraordinary leadership and an unwavering commitment to a free and prosperous Hong Kong that upholds the rule of law, political freedoms and human rights”.
The 2014 mass sit-ins saw major roads in downtown Hong Kong blocked by tens of thousands of protesters voicing opposition to Beijing's restrictive framework on a plan for Hongkongers to elect the city's leader.
Umbrellas became an icon of the campaign as they were used by protesters to shield themselves against pepper spray by police. The campaign however ended up going nowhere and was dissolved after 79 days. Subsequently, some of the key Occupy activists, including Wong, Law and Chow, were charged and jailed for various offences.
The congressmen said in their letter: “Wong, Law and Chow and the entire ‘umbrella movement' embody the peaceful aspirations of the people of Hong Kong who yearn to see their autonomy and way of life protected and their democratic aspirations fulfilled.
“The umbrella movement and its leadership are acting in the long tradition of previous Nobel Peace Prize laureates who captured the imagination of their fellow countrymen and sought principled and peaceful change from within.”
The congressmen also highlighted the subsequent jailing of the trio and Law's disqualification as a lawmaker “after the Chinese central government issued an interpretation of the Basic Law deeming certain previously acceptable oath-taking behaviours … as punishable by disqualification”. The Basic Law is Hong Kong's mini-constitution.
The letter was jointly signed by 12 congressmen, including Republican senator Marco Rubio. Photo: AFP
“Joshua Wong's sentiments on Twitter immediately after the announcement of his prison sentence capture well the optimistic and persistent spirit that animates their efforts: ‘The government can lock up our bodies but they cannot lock up our minds! We want democracy in Hong Kong. And we will not give up.'”
The letter was jointly signed by 12 congressmen, including Republican senator Marco Rubio and representative Christopher Smith, as well as four of their colleagues in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, of which Rubio and Smith are chairman and co-chairman respectively.
Last year, the commission highlighted in its annual report the deterioration of human rights in China and also expressed concern over Hong Kong's press freedom as well as the disqualification of lawmakers.
Rubio and Smith then also stated their intention to nominate the three activists and the entire “umbrella movement” for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize.
Calling the trio “champions of peace and freedom and Hong Kong's entire pro-democracy movement”, the congressmen also noted the Nobel Committee's “past willingness to brave the displeasure and outright retribution” of China in awarding the prize to political dissident Liu Xiaobo in 2010.
Liu was jailed for what Beijing called “inciting subversion of state power”. Mainland authorities criticised the awarding of the prize to him as “politically motivated”.
The laureate was barred from going to accept his prize. His absence was marked at the ceremony by an empty chair.
Liu died last year, becoming the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to perish in custody since German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky, who died in 1938 after years in a Nazi concentration camp.
The Nobel laureates are to be selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Winners will be announced in October, with the awards ceremony in December.
Law Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, said the trio deserved the recognition.
“Participants in the ‘umbrella movement' insisted on making the campaign peaceful and orderly – that deserves international recognition,” Law said. “If they win the prize, Hong Kong's social movements will enjoy the moral high ground.”
But New People's Party chairwoman and executive councillor Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said it was “ridiculous” for the trio to be nominated.
“What have they done to deserve that? It was an illegal ‘Occupy Central' movement … They had no right to occupy the streets – there were outbursts of violence and they were charged and convicted,” she said.
The three had not been “hailed as advocates of democracy or heroes by most of the people in Hong Kong”, she added. “The congressmen's nomination is politically driven … It is not fair.”
Wong himself was once quoted as saying he would not deserve such an honour, but that the nomination should go to all the Hongkongers who took part in the “umbrella movement”.
Additional reporting by Jeffie Lam and Tony Cheung