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
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過231的網紅Juno Lin,也在其Youtube影片中提到,SUBSCRIBE for more videos!: https://goo.gl/pCwtf7 Juno L. Vlog - The Joker, Suicide Squad by Juno Lin The Joker Art by Alex Ross Publisher DC Comic...
criminal responsibility 在 Milton Goh Blog and Sermon Notes Facebook 的最讚貼文
Jesus Bequeathed His Estate to You
“For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify to the cleanness of the flesh: how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without defect to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, since a death has occurred for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, that those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a last will and testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him who made it. For a will is in force where there has been death, for it is never in force while he who made it lives.” (Hebrews 9:13-17 WEB)
Jesus did not die just to purchase our pardon from transgressions, but He also gave us everything good that belongs to Him.
The New Covenant of Grace is a will. In it, we are the heirs of a vast inheritance.
What Jesus did at the cross is essentially Him saying, “I am taking the penalty of everything bad you did, and in their place, everything good that I have, I bequeath to you.”
That is crazy! The first question would be, “Why would you do that, Jesus? I was not even nice to You—in fact, I sinned constantly against You like an enemy.”
We must realize that Jesus was sent by Abba God to do this. Jesus’ actions shows us the Father’s will.
Abba God did not want us to be separated from Him, so Jesus became “The Way” that leads back to Him.
There is no proper reason to pardon a vile criminal who behaves like your enemy, and bequeath him your entire inheritance, except for the reason of love.
It is only because God loves us that He designed this whole salvation plan, so that we would be spared from punishment and instead enjoy the abundance of His grace.
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves has been born of God, and knows God. He who doesn’t love doesn’t know God, for God is love. By this God’s love was revealed in us, that God has sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, if God loved us in this way, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God remains in us, and his love has been perfected in us.” (1 John 4:7-12 WEB)
God has to punish sin, but love is who He is. One is a responsibility, the other is a heart’s desire.
When we see how much God loves us, we will not want to continue in hatred or bitterness. Instead, we will look up to Him and want to walk in the same kind of love as Him. God’s love will then have its perfect work completed in us.
This is like a blob of red paint being dropped into a glass of water and being fully stirred until the whole mixture is red. If you hear about His love and do not receive it with a receptive heart, it is like allowing the blob of paint to sink to the bottom of the glass without being mixed into the water.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”” (John 13:34-35 WEB)
Won’t you allow God’s love to have its intended effect in your heart? Jesus’ disciples are to be known by their love for one another. Christians are supposed to be the most loving people in this world, so let your good works done in love shine for God’s glory!
Starting tomorrow, I will be embarking on a new Patreon Bible Study series focused on Romans. If you want to receive it, join our community as a “God Every Morning” tier or above patron on Patreon. Looking forward to growing in the knowledge and revelation of God’s word with you: http://Patreon.com/miltongohblog
criminal responsibility 在 無待堂 Facebook 的最讚貼文
❗️重要:電檢處告示並不代表導演團隊立場
《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》遭電檢處多番為難❗️
(Please scroll down for English)
香港電影、報刊及物品管理處要求《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》片首加上聲明,我們要澄清這聲明並非創作人的意願。
《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》一直為外界爭議度非常高的電影,導演團隊一直為真實紀錄各社會運動而不惜冒著各種風險,電影帶來的回響及反應大家有目共睹。
但!
香港電影、報刊及物品管理處(簡稱電檢處)卻利用各種手段,逼使導演們需要作出非本人意願的聲明!如果不跟從指引,電檢處便可以利用行政手段令放映無法進行!
電檢處要求作出之聲明如下:
《佔領立法會》:
「影片紀錄2019年7月1日立法會綜合大樓受到示威衝擊的嚴重事件,當中有部分描述或行為,根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。」
《理大圍城》:
「影片紀錄2019年11月在香港理工大學及周邊地點發生的嚴重事件,當中有部分描述或行為,根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。此外,影片部分內容或評論亦可能未獲證實或有誤導成份。」
影意志表示強烈不滿電檢處以下行為:
1.以保障各方為由,實屬保障自己之實來強逼修改影片
2.要求影片開首作出聲明,但不願表明此為電檢處要求
3.以不知明原因推翻由電檢處發出的證明書
4.未能按時發出證明書,並將責任推卸於申請者
以下為影意志與電檢處之洽商經過:
7月中時,影意志為舊版本影片申請電檢證明書。
8月7日(國安法生效約一個月後)
影意志首次收到電檢處通知,表示需要在電影片頭加入由電檢處發出之警告字眼。影意志清楚表示此字句並不是出自導演團隊意願,並不會修改影片。電檢處表示,若不跟從指引,有機會令行政程序時間增加。
9月3日(國安法生效約兩個月後)
影意志重新遞交申請,並於新版本影片中加入電檢處要求之字句,及標明此字句為電檢處要求。
9月8日
影意志收到電檢處通知,表示影片開首有不屬於此影片之告示字眼,要求刪改。影意志表示此要求不合理,電檢處不能在未執行檢視工作前便要求申請者進行更改;但對方亦一貫作風,以會引致檢視工作延誤等為由而要求進行修改。
9月9日
影意志立即按電檢處要求遞交新版本。
9月15日
影意志致電查詢電檢進度,對方則回應未能於本星期批核證明書。影意志表明早於9月3日已遞交申請,理應9月17日收到證明書;電檢處解釋因為9月11日才正式收到更新版本影片,當作9月14日才正式開始工作,故最快只能於9月21日發出證明書。(影意志:申請表已列明9月3日為申請日期,但因為電檢處內部審查緩慢而將責任推卸。)
9月18日 下午6時40分 (辦公完結時間為下午6時)
電檢處通知影意志需在片頭加上其提供的告示字句,並於9月21日當日交回新版本,否則未能於放映當日發出證明書;影意志重新要求要標示電檢處是發出告示者,並且需於放映當日收到證明書。電檢處回覆,告示並不能標明是電檢處發出,並且只能按照他們要求作出更改。
同時,影意志被告知原有舊版本的電檢證明書不能使用,因為新舊版本不可同時擁有兩張證明書(影意志不明所以,但對方亦無法列出清晰原因)
9月21日
直到放映前兩小時,影意志才收到電檢處發出的證明書,而《理大圍城》被評為III級,需作出退票手續。為觀眾帶來不便,影意志深感抱歉。
影意志及香港紀錄片工作者不希望為業界帶來錯誤先例,但亦不想真相任由香港政府扼殺、及默許歷史被政權改寫!為了能順利放映,影意志暫時接受此條件,但一定會繼續上訴!請大家廣傳此消息!多謝大家一直支持香港電影;煩請以後看電影出現奇怪告示,請大家不要誤會導演們!
*註1:在香港舉行之所有公開放映,需獲得由香港電影、報刊及物品管理處發出的核准證明書,方可進行放映活動;否則,實屬違法。
__________
❗️Disclaimer: The opinion expressed in the statement issued by The Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA) does not reflect the views of the director and the production team.
The Tug of War with the OFNAA over “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".
Although “Taking back the Legislature" and "Inside the Red Brick Wall" have not shied away from controversy, yet the production crew have always strived to objectively capture every social movement against all odds, and the films have received a wide swath of responses since their release.
Nevertheless, the OFNAA has gone out of their way to coerce the directors into making statements against their wills. When failed to oblige, they could face having their works barred from screening by the OFNAA with whatever administrative reasons they might come up with.
Therefore, Ying E Chi hereby express our strong discontent to the following actions of the OFNAA:
1. Force the films to be edited under the pretext of protecting everyone, but in fact, only to protect their own interest
2. Request an announcement to be made at the beginning of the film, yet refused to be declared as the one who demanded the announcement
3. Overturn the previous certificate issued by the OFNAA with unspecified reason
4. Fail to issue the certificate on time as promised, whilst shifting the responsibility to the applicant
The statement required by the OFNAA is as follows:
“Taking back the Legislature”:
“This film records the serious incident of the storming of the Legislative Council Complex on 1 July 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws.”
“Inside the Red Brick Wall:
“This film records the serious incidents at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and nearby areas in November 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws. Some of the contents of or commentaries in the film may be unverified or misleading.”
Here is how the negotiation between Ying E Chi and the OFNAA unfolds:
Mid-July
Ying E Chi filed an application for a Certificate of Approval for the old version of “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".
7/8/2020 (A month after the National Security Law was enacted)
The first time Ying E Chi were notified by the OFNAA that a warning issued by them must be added at the beginning of the film. Ying E Chi then categorically declared that since the content of the warning does not reflect the will of the director, the films will not be edited as a result. The OFNAA responded by saying the administrative procedure might be delayed if their instructions have not been followed.
3/9/2020 (About 2 months after the National Security Law was enacted)
Ying E Chi handed in the application again with a new version of the films including the warning statement as requested, indicating that the warning is issued by the OFNAA.
8/9/2020
Ying E Chi were informed by the OFNAA to remove the statement at the beginning of the film as it does not belong to the film. Ying E Chi responded by calling out the absurdity of such request, as the OFNAA ought not to ask the films to be edited before they even review the whole film. Yet again the OFNAA demanded the changes to be made since it might cause a delay in the reviewing process.
9/9/2020
As a result, Ying E Chi submitted a new version at the first instance at the request of the OFNAA.
15/9/2020
Ying E Chi phoned in to enquire about the application procedure, since the application was made on the 3 Sep, so the Certificate of Approval should be issued on 17 Sep. However, the OFNAA replied that the Certificate of Approval would in fact not be granted this week for they claimed to have received the updated version on 11 Sep, so they could only have begun the reviewing process officially on the 14th, and thus the earliest time the certificate could be issued would be 21 Sep. (Note: Despite the official application date listed on the application form was 3 Sep, the OFNAA still tried to avoid the responsibility caused by their sluggish bureaucratic process.
18/9/2020 6.40pm (Office Hour ends at 6pm)
The OFNAA informed Ying E Chi that a statement PROVIDED by them must be included at the start of the film, and the new version must be handed in on 21 Sep, otherwise the Certificate of Approval would not be issued on the day of the screening. Ying E Chi again requested to indicate the OFNAA as the one who issued the statement, and that the certificate should be granted on screening day. The OFNAA, however, rejected to be identified as the one who issued such a statement, and insisted that all amendments can only be made subject to their approvals and requirements. At the time, Ying E Chi were informed that the Certificate of Approval obtained for the old version of “ Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall" could no longer be used, as there cannot be two certificates for both old version and the updated version. (Ying E Chi, are deeply confounded by this sudden decision, but the OFNAA has failed to offer any clarifications.)
21/9/2020
Not only have Ying E Chi just received the certificate on the day of the screening from OFNAA, but at the same time we have been notified that "Inside the Red Brick Wall” has been classified as a Category III Film, and therefore need to make the refund arrangements.
We are profoundly sorry about the inconvenience caused.
It is not the wish of Ying E Chi and Hong Kong Documentary Filmmakers to set the wrong example for the industry, yet we would hate to have the truth to be buried by the Hong Kong Government or to let those in power rewrite the history. Ying E Chi have compromised for this instance in order to facilitate this screening, we, nevertheless, will keep on protesting, so please spread the words and make our story known. Thank you for continuing to support Hong Kong films, and from now on please do not be misled by any bizarre statements in movies and misunderstand the directors.
*Note: Under the Film Censorship Ordinance (Cap 392), a film intended for exhibition in Hong Kong at any public place has to be submitted to the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration for prior approval. Failing to comply with such requirement may constitute a criminal offence.
criminal responsibility 在 Juno Lin Youtube 的精選貼文
SUBSCRIBE for more videos!: https://goo.gl/pCwtf7
Juno L. Vlog - The Joker, Suicide Squad by Juno Lin
The Joker
Art by Alex Ross
Publisher DC Comics
First appearance Batman #1 (April 25, 1940)
Created by
Bill Finger
Bob Kane
Jerry Robinson
Team affiliations
Injustice Gang
Injustice League
Notable aliases Red Hood
Abilities
Criminal mastermind
Expert chemist
Utilizes weaponized props and toxins
The Joker is a fictional supervillain created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson who first appeared in the debut issue of the comic book Batman (April 25, 1940), published by DC Comics. Credit for the Joker's creation is disputed; Kane and Robinson claimed responsibility for the Joker's design, while acknowledging Finger's writing contribution. Although the Joker was planned to be killed off during his initial appearance, he was spared by editorial intervention, allowing the character to endure as the archenemy of the superhero Batman.
In his DCU comic book appearances, the Joker is portrayed as a criminal mastermind. Introduced as a psychopath with a warped, sadistic sense of humor, the character became a goofy prankster in the late 1950s in response to regulation by the Comics Code Authority, before returning to his darker roots during the early 1970s. As Batman's nemesis, the Joker has been part of the superhero's defining stories, including the murder of Jason Todd—the second Robin and Batman's ward—and the paralysis of one of Batman's allies, Barbara Gordon. The Joker has had various possible origin stories during his decades of appearances. The most common story involves him falling into a tank of chemical waste which bleaches his skin white, turns his hair green, and his lips bright red; the resulting disfigurement drives him insane. The antithesis of Batman in personality and appearance, the Joker is considered by critics to be his perfect adversary.
The Joker possesses no superhuman abilities, instead using his expertise in chemical engineering to develop poisonous or lethal concoctions, and thematic weaponry, including razor-tipped playing cards, deadly joy buzzers, and acid-spraying lapel flowers. The Joker sometimes works with other Gotham City supervillains such as the Penguin and Two-Face, and groups like the Injustice Gang and Injustice League, but these relationships often collapse due to the Joker's desire for unbridled chaos. The 1990s introduced a romantic interest for the Joker in his former psychiatrist, Harley Quinn, who becomes his villainous sidekick. Although his primary obsession is Batman, the Joker has also fought other heroes including Superman and Wonder Woman.
One of the most iconic characters in popular culture, the Joker has been listed among the greatest comic book villains and fictional characters ever created. The character's popularity has seen him appear on a variety of merchandise, such as clothing and collectable items, inspire real-world structures (such as theme park attractions), and be referenced in a number of media. The Joker has been adapted to serve as Batman's adversary in live-action, animated, and video game incarnations, including the 1960s Batman television series (played by Cesar Romero) and in film by Jack Nicholson in Batman (1989), Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (2008), and Jared Leto in Suicide Squad (2016). Mark Hamill, Troy Baker, and others have provided the character's voice.
SHOT ON:
Fav drone - http://amzn.to/2z9JtQ3
Main vlog cam - http://amzn.to/2gyFrcA
Vlogging Lens - http://amzn.to/2zaxB04
Vlogging tripod - http://amzn.to/2ylfiGg
Main mic - http://amzn.to/2hHpVeB
Sidekick cam - http://amzn.to/2zqnyVS
Mini tripod sidekick cam - http://amzn.to/2xHwpoE
B-roll cam - http://amzn.to/2hHqiWx
B-roll portrait lens - http://amzn.to/2ldk6KT
B-roll other portrait lens - http://amzn.to/2gA61lV
B-roll versatile lens - http://amzn.to/2ykR6DX
B-roll long lens - http://amzn.to/2z9WlWr
B-roll backup lens - http://amzn.to/2lc3dQN
Other mic - http://amzn.to/2zpTqJV
Sidekick’s sidekick - http://amzn.to/2ymXxX2
MY FAV ACCESSORIES:
Main monopod - http://amzn.to/2zpLdWh
Handier monopod - http://amzn.to/2zazQk0
Fav headphones - http://amzn.to/2xGiafd
Other headphones - http://amzn.to/2ymTOZP
Other wireless headphones - http://amzn.to/2ypd2Qb
Cam Backpack - http://amzn.to/2xGEV2F
LAPTOP ACCESSORIES:
MBP USB-C Hub - http://amzn.to/2ynAmw7
SSD 1TB - http://amzn.to/2zq2fDJ
EDITED ON - FCPX
HAIR SPONSOR: Hairloom Singapore
FOLLOW ME ON:
Facebook -https://goo.gl/FHggfD
Instagram - https://goo.gl/Vxuytf
YouTube - https://goo.gl/pCwtf7
ArtistCo - https://goo.gl/tR51zz