關於 truth用法 ，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

【比中指】

小說連載連結🔗在一樓

故事開始前，請大家先回想一下上次你被連名帶姓稱呼時，是怎樣的感覺？

「Ophelia 嚴莉亞！」Melody在客廳發出獅吼。
Uh oh，小魔頭到底幹了什麼好事？居然被中英合璧叫全名。
小魔頭當然不懂，她正全身灌注在我正在唸的故事書中。
Melody見獅吼無效，她拿著一張紙走進房間。
「你明天得去跟老師談談了。」
我接過紙，原來是老師寫給家長的意見信。
通常只有在「有壞事發生」時，學校才會通知家長，加上Melody剛才那略帶破音的嘶吼，嗯，我合理推斷不是好事。

「Ophelia今天在教室內對著另一名同學比中指。她有被要求向同學道歉，我們也和她談過了。如有問題，歡迎來電。」

比中指。
我不記得上次比中指是什麼時候。
感覺那是還很中二時的遙遠年代。
現在多半用說的比較快⋯⋯
那她中指是跟誰學的？

我把故事書放在一旁，請她看著我們。
👨🏻「妳為什麼要對其他小朋友比中指。」
👧🏻「I just exercise in my middle finger.」額⋯⋯這哪招？
👩🏻「Tell me the truth.」
👧🏻「對方先比的。然後我就比回去。」
👨🏻「誰對妳比中指？」
👧🏻「Austin。」
👨🏻「她為什麼對妳比中指？」
👧🏻「因為他想用我正在用的畫筆，我不想借他。」
👨🏻「所以他就對妳比中指？」
👧🏻「嗯。但是他抓著我的衣服跟我說：『don’t you dare tell the teacher！』」
👨🏻「那妳有跟老師說嗎？」
👧🏻「沒有。」
👨🏻「那老師有看到妳比中指嗎？」
👧🏻「沒有。Austin跟老師說的。」
👨🏻「他先對妳比中指，威脅妳不准說，然後又去跟老師告狀？」
👧🏻「嗯。」

妳怎麼這麼吃虧啊？唉⋯⋯被霸凌了吧⋯⋯

「妳知道比中指是什麼意思嗎？」
「F word。」小魔頭直言不諱。
「她真的知道耶⋯⋯」我看著Melody。
「誰告訴妳這是F word的？」Melody問。
「心弦。」房東布克曼的兒子。

Uh oh⋯⋯

「他為什麼教妳這個？！」Melody心急地問。
「Because...」小魔頭說出了一段驚心動魄的天方夜譚。
但身為她的父母，我們卻不得不相信，
因為她就是這麼奇怪的存在⋯⋯

大意大概是：
喜歡用手比愛心的她，
有天覺得總是用食指跟拇指比很無趣，
於是她突發奇想，改用雙手中指比愛心。

「Daddy，你看。」小魔頭彎曲中指，變出一個愛心💗

我們被這比扯鈴還扯的故事搞得啼笑皆非，
但還是不能解釋十歲的心弦為何要教她F word。
於是我們繼續問。
原來，她在練習用中指比愛心的時候，
被心弦看到，
然後那位想當個好哥哥的青少年就苦口婆心地跟她說：「別對別人比中指，那是F word的意思，被老師看到會get you into trouble。」

原來心弦是出於好意提醒啊⋯⋯
差點跑上樓去跟布克曼告狀了。

「好了啦！別再練習用中指比heart了！」Melody笑著命令。
「你明天得去跟老師說明情況。」Melody命令道。
「喔⋯⋯」遵命，老婆大人。

週五上午，室外氣溫下降至攝氏負三十二，體感溫度負四十五。
只要體感溫度低於負二十五，學校就會讓小朋友提早進學校。
否則通常都是讓小朋友在操場野到八點半。
我牽著小魔頭來到教室門口，老師看到我立刻戴上口罩站起身。
這已經變成一種新的習慣了。
我讓女兒先進入教室。

「老師早，我們昨天晚上和Ophelia了解過情況了。她確實承認有比中指，但她說是對方先比，還威脅她不准跟老師說。而且，我們在家也沒有在比中指，所以我們也有些訝異。」

「她肯定是在學校學的。」老師淡淡的說，「別以為她們只有五六歲，他們非常清楚哪些字或是手勢是不該學的，然後偏偏就會學起來，而且用法非常正確。」

「我們確實偶爾會不小心說出一兩句髒話，所以我們也有責任。還會再和她溝通的。不好意思。」

「喔，不用。我其實並不覺得這是什麼大事。我只是覺得要是告知你們，你們會做出反應。其他家長我就不太⋯⋯我很確定某些孩子是天天充斥在那種語言的環境下長大的。」老師側身瞄了一眼教室中失控的孩子們，某人已經開始吃違禁品巧克力。

「你能跟我說是誰對Ophelia比中指的嗎？如果你不介意。嘿，有人說你可以吃巧克力嗎？我差不多得回去了。」老師開始有些手忙腳亂。

「Austin。」

老師一個心知肚明的表情。
「謝謝你告訴我，我會再和Ophelia溝通。」
「也麻煩妳再教她要怎麼保護自己。」
「我會的。」
「掰掰，Ophelia。」小魔頭手中拿著巧克力棒，又試著用中指對我比愛心💗
「別比了！掰掰。」我苦笑。

小說連載連結🔗在一樓

#關於教育這回事
#小魔頭與貓媽熊爸

【標點符號──番外篇】當中文寫作遇到英文用字……
**
中文寫作夾雜著英文，已是常見的寫作形態。文稿中，英文字母的大小寫、英式句號的使用與否，以及英文與中式標點（特別是夾注號與引號）的關係，也就成了工作上經常遭遇的小小困擾。趁著冬雨煩心，試著靜下來整理一下我的想法。

必須說明的是，就我所知，目前有關上述的問題並無統一的規範用法，所以以下說的並不一定對，只是作為有興趣者討論的基礎。
**
一、英文的夾注、說明、引用，應該置於引號之外。

例1──很明顯，這是一套給「信徒」（believers）看的電影，因為只有信徒，才可以在黑暗中看見光明。

不寫（例1A）──很明顯，這是一套給「信徒（believers）」看的電影……

書名號也是如此：

例2──英國詩人彌爾頓寫的《失樂園》（Paradise Lost）強調，人類的始祖亞當與夏娃「有足夠的能力循規蹈矩，但也可隨自己的意願沉淪墮落。這不是上帝的疏忽，而是上帝的方法。

不寫（例2A）──英國詩人彌爾頓寫的《失樂園（Paradise Lost）》強調……

不只是短詞語，句子也是如此：

例3──馬克吐溫說「真相穿鞋子所需的時間，足夠謊言繞著地球跑半圈」（A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes），指的就是人類喜惡厭善的本性。

不寫（例3A）──馬克吐溫說「真相穿鞋子所需的時間，足夠謊言繞著地球跑半圈（A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes）」，指的是……

二、英文的句子句首字母須大寫，如「例3」。

三、比較複雜的情況是英文句子的句號使用。

作為一個句子局部成份的英文夾注句應省略句號：

例4──痛苦比快樂教會我們更多（Pain teaches us more than pleasure），這個事實，每個成年人都有深刻的感觸。

不寫（例4A）：痛苦比快樂教會我們更多（Pain teaches us more than pleasure.），這個事實，每個成年人都有深刻的感觸。

間接引語的英文句號應省略：

例5──馬克思說，哲學家以不同的方式解讀世界，但世界需要的不是解讀，而是改變（The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways: the point, however, is to change it）。

不寫（例5A）──馬克思說，哲學家以不同的方式解讀世界，但世界需要的不是解讀，而是改變（The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways: the point, however, is to change it.）。

也不寫（例5B）──馬克思說，哲學家以不同的方式解讀世界，但世界需要的不是解讀，而是改變。（The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways: the point, however, is to change it.）

注意，只有完全直接引語的句式，因為中式句號（。）必須在下引號（」）之內，所以夾注的英文必須使用英式句號（.）。當然，英文句末若是問號或驚嘆號，則都必須保留。

例6──馬克思說：「哲學家以不同的方式解讀世界，但世界需要的不是解讀，而是改變。」（The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways: the point, however, is to change it.）

例7──鮑勃‧迪倫傳頌一時的〈風中飄揚〉（Blowing in the Wind）有一句「面對不公不義，一個人可以假裝沒有看見，掉頭就走多少次？」（How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see?），不知鼓舞了多少義憤填膺的人挺身而出。

四、如果中文作為英文的夾注？

因為句型還是中文句，所以英文句的引號應用中式引號（「」）；同時，因為句型是中文句，英文句未的英文句號也應省略。

例8──小說《老人與海》有一句話傳頌一時：「A man can be destroyed but not defeated」（真漢子寧死不屈）。

不寫（例8A）──小說《老人與海》有一句話傳頌一時：”A man can be destroyed but not defeated”（真漢子寧死不屈）。

也不寫（例8B）──小說《老人與海》有一句話傳頌一時：「A man can be destroyed but not defeated.」（真漢子寧死不屈）。

#不過，「例8」是值得商榷的，因為這違反中文句式直接引語的句號必須在下引號之內的規範。

或許可以改為（例8C）──小說《老人與海》有一句話傳頌一時：「A man can be destroyed but not defeated（真漢子寧死不屈）。」

但這一來又違反夾注號不應在引號內的規範，見「例1」。這問題的確有點麻煩。

五、如果是整段或多段英文引用，因為句子是英文句，所以英文應使用英式引號（””），並加英式句號。

例9──美國作家懷特（E.B. White）在《這裡是紐約》（Here is New York）寫到城市與個人的命運，文字簡潔流暢：

“Many of its settlers are probably here to escape, not face, reality.”
（很多移民來到這裡是為了逃避，不是面對現實。）

“It can destroy an individual, or it can fulfill him, depending on a good deal on luck. No one should come to New York to live unless he is willing to be luck.”
（紐約可以毀掉一個人，也可以成就一個人，視乎運氣而定……）

**
#這是《一次搞懂標點符號》書中沒有的，為讀者作一點補充。

《一次搞懂標點符號》
https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010801802?sloc=main