Skip to main content

佔中 N 子判刑

 佔中 N 子判刑,深夜時分諗起當年得戴教授啟蒙,心有戚戚。

我今日咁擁護《基本法》,或多或少都係因為十幾年前上佢導修課。有人話佢「吹水」(大概係講太多 out syl 嘢),或者嗰啲嘢對考試冇用,但嗰啲「吹水」亦都我使對「憲法」嘅理解更豐富。(係呀,你哋喺我身上學咗咁多《基本法》知識,要多謝戴妖架。)

我成日覺得,好多本土派同獨派都冇俾足夠 credit 戴耀廷。若果溫和抗爭冇失敗過,又點會出現武力抗爭嘅思想?若果唔係佢將鳩噏當成真,大家又點會喺佔領運動裡面認識,繼而衍生日後嘅各個組織同行動呢?當日戴提倡嘅「佔領」概念,假假哋都起碼幾十萬香港人以行動支持。取笑戴耀廷嘅人,又有冇諗過自己點樣可以取得呢種可以震憾中央嘅號召力?

常言道:「書生造反,三年不成」。戴不折不扣係個書生,固然有佢自己嘅盲點,有佢自己on9之處。但如果將佢嘅優點同「功勞」全然抹殺,咁門戶之見未免太深。

好多人覺得佔中 N 子判刑不足兩年,惹來咁大迴響,替判刑更長嘅抗爭者不值。但我又覺得,一般政治人物冇理由叫人「唔好關心我」,而點解人哋 PR 做得咁好,都有值得反思之處。旺角案有抗爭者被判三年、六年、七年,相比之下佔中 N 子將受嘅「苦難」固然顯得有點「兒戲」,但安坐家中嘅你同我,若未受牢獄之苦,不見得有資格苛責。至於大眾受泛民文宣機器影響對事件嘅情緒,最多只可以話「選民係on9」,不過呢樣嘢永遠係事實,任何政治勢力都要面對點樣做 PR 呢個問題,而「屌票」始終係無助於事。

唯一應該大屌特屌嘅,係事前言之鑿鑿話做「佔中死士」而又唔找數嘅社會賢達。

蔡東豪,我屌你老母
徐少驊,我屌你老母
錢志健,我屌你老母
鄧偉棕,我屌你老母
郭乃弘,我屌你老母
陳慧,我屌你老母
張銳輝,我屌你老母
潘瑩明,我屌你老母
吳錦祥,我屌你老母

----
但又講時講,我必須利申一下,我對「抗爭者」嘅支持,純粹係出於認同抗爭者對香港無私付出嘅決心,對抗爭者坦然面對厄難感到愧疚。但我對一般人所想像嘅「抗爭」,無論係所謂「和理非」抗爭或係「勇武」抗爭嘅成效,都係有所保留嘅。不過呢啲 #論述 得閒再講,無謂潑冷水。


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump v. CASA, Inc. et al.

The recent Trump case was one of the most eye-opening and confusing judgments I've read. For context, Trump signed an executive order to re-interpret "birthright" citizenship limiting it to children born in USA by at least one parent with US citizenship. A couple district courts ordered preliminary injunctions against its enforcement. The government eventually argued to the Supreme Court that the preliminary injunctions were too broad in scope. The court with an apparently 6:3 majority decided that the lower courts had no right to award "universal injunctions" beyond the scope of the plaintiffs seeking the injunction. Federal courts' power to issue injunctions apparently stems from the Judiciary Act of 1789, which endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over "all suits... in equity". This is nothing exciting, except that the USSC then declares that the scope of "equity" is basically the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chancery in Engla...

Reconciling apparent inconsistencies within the Basic Law -- what is the proper approach?

What happens when two different pieces of legislation contradict each other? In common law, one could apply the principle of "implied repeal", where the subsequent legislation would be considered to have repealed the earlier one. But the Basic Law has not undergone amendments since its promulgation in 1990, so this does not apply. Another common way to resolve apparent contradictions is to consider that the more general provision be qualified by the more specific one. Yet in cases where fundamental rights are at issue, courts may instead adopt a " generous interpretation ", restricting the scope of those provisions that appear to restrict fundamental rights. Indeed, this was the approach laid out by the Court of Final Appeal in 1999 in Ng Ka Ling : The courts should give a generous interpretation to the provisions in Chapter III that contain these constitutional guarantees in order to give to Hong Kong residents the full measure of fundamental rights and freedoms so...