關於 忍受tolerate ，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

孤獨焦慮：朋友很多卻依舊寂寞？你是否在被動等待他人的愛？

網路交友、社群媒體如此發達的現代，似乎認識人，與人產生關聯變得輕而易舉，但詭異的卻是孤獨的現象越來越嚴重，即使社群媒體上有眾多好友，依舊感到自己的孤立。

《愛無能世代》作者米夏埃爾在書中曾談到人群裡的寂寞，他被一個社交活躍的朋友邀請到派對上，大家看似熱絡的交談，但其實除了主人之外，他一個人也不認識，主人要與會者開始介紹自己，大家略為尷尬地說起自己的職業，最後是主人自己開始介紹起他認識的每個人。在這場活動中，他感覺十足的寂寞，而這股寂寞卻是，他不認為有任何人想要真正認識與瞭解彼此，他們渴望的，似乎只是我在這群體裡，我是個還不錯的存在，在歡笑聲驅除心中的孤獨感。

也許現代人的孤獨感，正隱藏在許多派對的歡笑裡、美食與美圖的按讚數後，多數人在乎的，已經不是我關懷我身旁的人，而是透過社群的連結，想要知道這個人混得好不好，以確保自己混得還不錯，或更甚的是希望別人知道自己混得好，以此獲取更多眼球與稱讚。
那份與人的連結，有時候成為一種需要證明自己夠好的存在，而連結也因此失去真正重要的意義而變得單薄。

現代人孤獨，但並不孤立。孤獨是一種主觀感受，覺得自己沒人理解與關心，但孤立是一種客觀事實，是被物理上的隔開不得接觸的狀態。而當人的連結與接觸變得容易，友誼卻也變得表層與速食，每個人企圖在快步調的環境中生存，好友與關注變成一個個扁平的數字。

消除孤獨感在於與人產生有意義的連結。
因此破除孤獨，有一個重要的內在歷程，是能夠敞開自己，讓他人感受與看見你真實的狀態，因此對於自卑的人，就容易陷入孤獨的困擾中，因為跟人連結會恐懼被拒絕、被嘲笑，而敞開自己又會感到焦慮與羞愧，因此總在連結與失聯之間、敞開與封閉之間痛苦的擺盪。

美國芝加哥大學（University of Chicago）神經科學家約翰·卡喬波（John Cacioppo)談到，當人遇到危機、困頓時，會陷入孤獨與無助的狀態裡，而此時人們會有「再交往動機（reaffiliation motive，RAM）」與他人建立聯繫，因為孤獨帶來的痛苦會令人想要修復社會關係，也是一種尋求生存機的機制，但有些人RAM機制會失靈。當一個人RAM失靈時，會錯誤的解讀自己與環境，對外在有敵意的反應，這也許是一種自我保護不受傷害的方式，卻也造成長期孤獨的狀態。

因此不受孤獨困擾的人，通常對自己也有正向自我概念，相信自己值得被愛，也可以去愛。因此他們往往能「主動」給予關注，注意到他人的不一樣，與人互動有很多「不重要」的small talk，當然，他們也能「主動」尋求協助，這種適時call for help的行為，也能創造周圍的人產生價值感/有用感的一種方式，因此你不需要總是一個人想破頭的解決問題。

越是孤獨的人，在人際互動中越是「被動」，他們不確定自己給的關心是不是有人想要，更害怕尋求幫忙會被拒絕，因此他們會在行為上表現得可憐，「等待」他人看見自己，期望他人連結自己，如此他們不用品嚐被拒絕的羞愧感，卻也容易在無助中陷入自怨自艾，覺得自己不像其他人擁有很多資源。

說到這裡，你可有發自內心關懷身邊的人，還是希望藉由關懷來換取肯定或陪伴？
當你越是孤獨，你可以越回到自己內在詢問，你花多少的時間關注你內心的痛苦了？你關注的時間已經讓你消耗去愛與付出的能力，成為在人際中飢渴且乾旱的狀態，久而久之，你就容易成為真正的孤島。

也許現在正是時候，去用心關懷身旁的人了。

也許你想測測你的孤獨指數：
加州大學洛杉磯分校創用的孤獨量表 (UCLA Loneliness Scale)：內容、計分

UCLA 孤獨量表（第3版），共有十題，讓受試者針對每個個別題目在“1從來沒有” 、“2很少” 、“3有時” 、或“4常常” 共四個答案中選一個。以下是這十題的譯文和原文：

你多常常會因為需要單獨做很多事情而感到不快樂？How often do you feel unhappy doing so many things alone?
你多常常會覺得沒有說話的對象？How often do you feel you have nobody to talk to?
你多常常會覺得目前處境如此孤獨而難以忍受？How often do you feel you cannot tolerate being so alone?
你多常常會覺得沒有人真正理解你？How often do you feel as if nobody really understands you?
多你多常常發現自己在等待別人打電話或寫信來？How often do you find yourself waiting for people to call or write?
你多常常會覺得自己是完全地孤單？How often do you feel completely alone?
你多常常會覺得你無法與你周圍的人接觸和溝通？How often do you feel you are unable to reach out and communicate with those around you?
你多常常會覺得渴望能有伴侶？How often do you feel starved for company?
你多常常會覺得你很難交到朋友？How often do you feel it is difficult for you to make friends?
你多常常會覺得你被他人排擠或拒於門外？How often do you feel shut out and excluded by others?

總分在 15 和 20 之間，被認為是一般人正常的孤獨經驗。總分在 30 以上，則表明一個人正在經歷嚴重的孤獨感。

#以紀念攝影師PeterLindbergh

依稀記得，某一年冬天的巴黎，我和好友攝影師蘇益良，於瑪黑區一場攝影展中，站在一副黑白照片前端詳甚久。

那幅照片攝於80年代，沒有經過任何修片，從窗台探頭而出的女主角，一雙瞳孔彷彿把我們靈魂吸了進去。我猜，會吸引我們佇足的，不外乎是那「純粹」。

我想起了Peter Lindbergh。

被邀約拍攝美國版《Vogue》的封面，無不是任何一個時尚攝影師的夢想。但1987年，Peter Lindbergh毅然決然拒絕當時總編Alexander Liberman的邀請，並且說道：「I just can't tolerate that type of photos of women in your magazine.」（我就是無法忍受你們雜誌上那種女性照片）

Peter是一位擅長拍攝黑白人像照的攝影師。追求自然的他，厭倦華麗、虛榮的花花世界，只想拍攝下純粹的畫面。仔細端詳他的作品，模特盡可能都素顏，身上的衣著越簡約越好，丟掉外在的束縛和假裝，捕捉身為一個人最真實的樣貌。「I don’t retouch anything.」（我從不修圖）他曾這樣說。

Peter其中非常善於拍攝女人，因為他看見的是女人的堅毅及獨立。一九九〇年英國《Vogue》一月號的封面是他最著名的作品之一，相片裡站著五位獨特、迷人的女性，包括Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Tatjana Patitz, Christy Turlington, and Cindy Crawford，都在日後成為廣為人知的超級模特。黑白照使觀者更聚焦在被攝者的身上，我們能看到她們各自充滿自信，誰也不搶誰的風采，努力綻放屬於自己的特色。我想這就是Peter最被推崇的原因之一，「他並不想定義什麼是美，而是讓你去察覺美。」

拍了那麼多時尚雜誌封面和廣告，他從不將自己視為時尚攝影師。「The most important part of fashion photography, for me, is not the models; it's not the clothes. It's that you are responsible for defining what a woman today is. That, I think, is my job.」(對我來說，時尚攝影最重要的不是模特，也不是衣服，而是去確立現今女人的模樣；我認為這是我的工作)

去年的九月三號，高齡七十四歲的Peter離開人世。現今汲汲營營、追求物質的社會中，但願我們都能保有Peter lindbergh那溫柔又細膩的心，找回純粹。

#Peterlindbergh
#Photographer #Style #Stylist #FashionDirector #YouGunLee #李佑群老師 #佑群老師 #群說