關於 rule of district court ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

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

My recent article😎😎😎

https://m.orangenews.hk/details?recommendId=138868

Opinion｜The Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely

HK Current

2020.10.06 11:05

By Athena Kung

According to the statement made by the US Department of State on 3rd of October 2020 (local time), the arrests made by the Hong Kong Police on 1st of October 2020 were criticized by the Department as malicious ones. It has been alleged by the US Department of State that the Hong Kong Police merely enforces the law for the aim of achieving political goals, which amounts to serious violation of Hong Kong's rule of law and thus strongly attack individual's human rights as well as Hong Kong people's freedom of expression, procession and assembly. The Central Government was commented by the US Department of State as being given up the undertaking of "One country, Two systems" completely. Obviously, such allegations against both the Central Government and HKSAR made by US Government were very serious. To examine whether such comments were fair ones, we have to carefully consider if the allegations really have any valid legal basis or foundation.

According to both the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the BORO“) and and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ICCPR "), the freedoms of expression, procession and assembly were not absolute, and might be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law. Article 16 and 17 of the BORO relates to the freedom of opinion and expression and right of peaceful assembly which can be enjoyed by Hong Kong people:
"Article 16
Freedom of opinion and expression
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph (2) of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary—
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 19]

Article 17
Right of peaceful assembly
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 21]"

Thus, freedom of expression, procession and assembly in Hong Kong are not absolute. On the other hand, such rights are subject to restrictions as prescribed by law in the interests of public order, public safety and the interests of others, and so on.

Besides, Section 10(a) to (e) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, Laws of Hong Kong has clearly stated inter alia that:
"10. The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for—
(a) preserving the public peace;
(b) preventing and detecting crimes and offences;
(c) preventing injury to life and property;
(d) apprehending all persons whom it is lawful to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exists;
(e) regulating processions and assemblies in public places or places of public resort;
…………"

What has really occurred in Hong Kong in various districts on 1st of October 2020?
(1) At around 1400 hours, a group of people gathered and yelled along Great George Street in Causeway Bay, which might have constituted offences related to unauthorised assemblies under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, Laws of Hong Kong and offences related to prohibited group gatherings under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, Cap 599G, Laws of Hong Kong. Even though the Police had given multiple warnings at the scene and raised the blue flag requesting participants to leave the scene, at around 1500 hours, a large group of protesters still remained at the same place. Some of them even commenced to chant the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” over and over again. Thus, they were suspected of inciting or abetting others to commit acts of secession, which might constitute relevant offences under the HKSAR National Security Law. Afterwards, some protesters even spilled onto the road and breached public peace.

(2) At around 1500 hours, 2 men in the vicinity of Tin Ma Court in Wong Tai Sin hurled some petrol bombs and large objects at Lung Cheung Road. Having attended the scene, the police noticed that traces of the road being charred, as well as fences and traffic cones left on it. After investigation, the Police found that even though a large amount of vehicles were travelling along the road at the time of the incident, fortunately, no vehicle was hit by the petrol bombs and objects successfully. In any event, the rioters’ such heinous acts had severely endangered road users and breached public peace.

(3) The Police intercepted a man at Stewart Road in Wanchai at about 1600 hours and found him in possession of a foldable sharp knife which was at the same size of a business card. The 23-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon, as there stood a strong likelihood that he might intend to use the said item to injure members of the public or police officers.

(4) At around 1500 hours, the Police set up a roadblock along a section of the Tuen Mun Road near Summit Terrace in Tsuen Wan to intercept suspicious vehicles, and found extendable sticks, a helmet, face masks and a large amount of promotional leaflets inside a private car with an expired vehicle licence. Some of the leaflets contained slogans suspected of calling for “Hong Kong independence” written on them. The 35-year-old male driver of the car was arrested on suspicion of various offences including “Possession of Instrument Fit for Unlawful Purpose”, “Driving an Unlicenced Vehicle” and “Driving Without Third Party Insurance”.
(5) At around 1630 hours, the Police stopped and searched a man in the vicinity of Tonnochy Road and Lockhart Road in Causeway Bay, and found items including a cutter, a spanner, plastic straps and a pair of gloves in his backpack. The 20-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of offensive weapons.
(6) After nightfall, protesters continued to gather in different districts. To ensure public safety, the Police have enforced the law resolutely according to the situations arising in different districts. At 2200 hours, not less than 86 persons have been arrested in multiple districts. Among them, 74 persons including four District Councillors were arrested on suspicion of taking part in unauthorised assemblies in Causeway Bay, while the rest were arrested on suspicion of committing offences including possession of offensive weapon, failing to produce proof of identity, possession of forged identity card, disorderly conduct in a public place and driving an unlicenced vehicle. Besides, 20 persons were given fixed penalty notices for suspectedly breaching the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation.

Actually, the Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely. On the facts, all arrests taken place on 1st of October 2020 were absolutely lawful and necessary to maintain law and order in the society and protect the life and property of all Hong Kong residents. Undoubtedly, the US officials have all along been adopting "double standards" in expressing utterly irresponsible remarks on law enforcement actions in the HKSAR. Everyone is equal before the law. So long as there is evidence supporting that someone has violated the law, no matter what his or her status or background is, he or she must face the legal consequence. Being a law enforcement agency, the Police must take action whenever they come across any unlawful acts in strict accordance with the laws in force. All cases must be handled in a fair, just and impartial manner by the Police in accordance with the law, which is the only and real reason as to why the Police arrested the 86 odd people on 1st of October 2020. To conclude, all criticizms made by the US towards the Hong Kong Police, HKSAR Government and Central Government were all unfair without any legal or concrete support at all.

It appears that the US government has always been refusing to accept the truth that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the PRC") and a local administrative region which enjoys a high degree of autonomy, as contrary to absolute autonomy, and comes directly under the Central People's Government. Hong Kong affairs are internal matters of the PRC. The system in Hong Kong is not "Two countries, Two systems". Hong Kong will never be an independent country with a pro-American government formed by the Opposition Camp in Hong Kong. Any foreign governments like the US must at once stop scaremongering and interfering in any form in Hong Kong's affairs. The "Colour Revolution" promoted by the US in Hong Kong should be terminated in no time.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責編： CK Li

//佔中九子被判入獄，不僅是九人的事。這場歷時七十九日、備受世界關注的大型抗爭，由市民自發抵抗政權的暴力打壓而起，亦由每個參與者的共同經驗編織而成。九子所承擔的罪責，固然是為了自身的公民抗命，更是為了每一個當日在街頭爭取民主的人。

#雨傘運動 的緣起，必然是中共扼殺香港邁向民主的道路，必然是政權動用防暴警察和和催淚彈對待手無寸鐵的市民。法庭固然無法為這些真正的「妨擾」與「煽惑」作出審判，但正如被告之一，前學聯代表鍾耀華於審訊後發言時所言：「真正能夠審訊這場運動、審訊我們的，是我們自己每一個人。」

要歷史宣判我們無罪，我們就必須挺身而出改變歷史。四二八，就讓我們在街頭在街頭相見，拒絕送中條例，不要讓香港再有下一個政治犯。//

【毋忘命運自主 不要再有政治犯】——香港眾志就佔中九子判刑之聲明

今日，西九龍裁判法院裁定佔中九子煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾等罪罪成，並判處各人高達16個月監禁的刑罰。我們對於判決感到痛心，並向眾人及其親友致以祝福和慰問。

佔中九子被判入獄，不僅是九人的事。這場歷時七十九日、備受世界關注的大型抗爭，由市民自發抵抗政權的暴力打壓而起，亦由每個參與者的共同經驗編織而成。九子所承擔的罪責，固然是為了自身的公民抗命，更是為了每一個當日在街頭爭取民主的人。

#雨傘運動 的緣起，必然是中共扼殺香港邁向民主的道路，必然是政權動用防暴警察和和催淚彈對待手無寸鐵的市民。法庭固然無法為這些真正的「妨擾」與「煽惑」作出審判，但正如被告之一，前學聯代表鍾耀華於審訊後發言時所言：「真正能夠審訊這場運動、審訊我們的，是我們自己每一個人。」

雨傘運動至今即將五年，中共對香港自主的侵蝕無日無之，港人當家作主之路仍然遙遙無期。近日，港府強行修訂《引渡條例》，便是政權肆意摧毀香港法治制度以及自主的又一例證。

我們寄語港人，在毋忘所有為香港付出的政治犯的同時，能夠繼續為我城的命運自主而抗爭，以實際的行動傳承雨傘精神。

要歷史宣判我們無罪，我們就必須挺身而出改變歷史。四二八，就讓我們在街頭相見，拒絕送中條例，不要讓香港再有下一個政治犯。

香港眾志
二零一九年四月廿四日

Determining Our Own Fate, Saying No to More Political Prisoners - Demosistō’s Statement Regarding the Sentencing of the Occupy 9

The West Kowloon District Court sentenced the nine leaders of the Occupy Central movement with up to 16 months in prison. We acknowledge the sentencing with heavy hearts, and our condolences go out to the leaders and their close ones.

The sentencing is not only a matter of nine people. The globally recognised 79-day movement was the combined effort of all participants. The charges shouldered by the nine leaders were not only for the sake of their own civil disobedience, but also for every single person who went to the streets to fight for democracy in 2014.

Evidently, if one is to trace back to the cause of the Umbrella Movement, then it would undeniably be the Chinese Government’s move to block Hong Kong’s road to democracy, and the Hong Kong government’s mobilisation of the police and subsequent utilisation of tear gas against unarmed citizens. The Court will not be able to convict these true culprits of nuisance and incitement, but as Eason Chan - one of the defendants and former representative of the HKFS - noted, “The only people who get to judge this movement and to judge us, is each and every one of us.”

We are approaching the fifth anniversary of the Umbrella Movement, and we are still far from achieving true democracy and autonomy. The government intends to forcefully amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, it is obvious that this administration is intentionally ruining Hong Kong’s rule of law and level of autonomy.

We encourage Hong Kong citizens to bear in mind political prisoners who have contributed to our fight for democracy, and to carry on the spirit of the Umbrella Movement - fighting against authoritarianism and determining the fate of our own city.

For history to declare our innocence, we must step forward to change history. Let us meet again in the streets on 28th April to oppose the changes to the extradition law, so that Hong Kong would not have another political prisoner.

Demosistō
24th April 2019
————————————————
⚠️反送中 抗惡法 大遊行🆘
日期：4月28日（日）
時間：15:00
起步地點：銅鑼灣東角道
————————————————
戴耀廷、陳健民｜即時監禁16個月
朱耀明｜監禁16個月 緩刑2年
邵家臻｜即時監禁8個月
黃浩銘｜即時監禁8個月
鍾耀華｜監禁8個月 緩刑2年
李永達｜監禁8個月 緩刑2年
張秀賢｜200小時社會服務令
陳淑莊｜休庭至6月10日再判