昨天談到黃毓民議員擲玻璃杯，我視之為一種孤憤。他其後教訓記者：「你們這樣心態，注定日後全部做奴隸，對抗這樣一個極權，要和他客氣？就算我有擲又如何？」天下皆醉我獨醒，間接印證我的看法。
問題是，當79萬人参與普選公投，滿街七一遊行的呼喊，事關公憤，何必孤憤？
昨天也談到魏晉的青年狂士禰衡，他只活了26歲，已經歷了漢靈帝被篡位、漢少帝被董卓廢掉、漢獻帝做傀儡三朝不像樣的皇帝。他大有理由憤世嫉俗，但最後被殺，卻十分無謂。禰衡開罪了曹操，恐被殺害，投向荊州劉表；劉表愛才禮待，但禰衡狂傲侮慢，劉表也受不了，把他送給江夏太守黃祖。黃祖的兒子黄射是禰衡的好朋友，黃祖又器重他，但他一樣出言不遜，大罵黃祖為「死公」，因而被怒殺，黄射趕來已救不及。
禰衡死後還有一個淒美傳說。他曾於黄射一次在長江江心洲上的宴會上遇歌女碧姬，碧姬斟滿杯酒捧趨前表仰慕，禰衡接杯一飲而盡。禰衡被殺後，黃祖後悔，厚加棺斂，葬在江心洲上。傳說碧姬身著重孝，帶著禰衡贈送的鸚鵡來到墓前，傷心以頭撞墓自盡。鸚鵡徹夜哀鳴，第二天也死在墓前。這江心之洲便是今天的鸚鵡洲。
39 則留言:
如果禰衡不是二十六歲死，今天得到的可能是 "who cares?" 或 "nobody knows!"。
昨晚看新聞，689夫人的回應真是奇怪得很。若果真的認為是家事，也不想自己的女兒變為公眾人物；實應拒絕傳媒的訪問，且也應表明是家事和女兒不是公眾人物為由，更應該一早請求傳媒不要追訪，或由689口頭解釋。
但梁氏一家卻自製新聞，且被自己的女兒接受信報時自揭是被迫影相。如果真是愛自己的女兒，在其情緒不穩時，仍要被迫配合以示自己情況良好？是傳媒問題？還是家長問題呢？
現在被人質疑自製新聞，就潑婦般回駡別人。真是怪獸家長！！
事關公憤，何必孤憤？
擲杯這個小動作 , 只是民選議員在議事堂 , 向689 , 代表市民發洩公憤 , 為何71遊行後 , 翌日511靜坐人士被捕 ( 講明早上八點散去 ) , 大部份是學生
但很奇怪 , 其他的泛民議員立刻畫清界線 , 連記者也懂的 , 這是政治行為 , 不是什麼刑事暴力 , 泛民懂得應該怎樣表態嗎 ?
還記得美國總統布殊 , 演講時被擲鞋嗎 ? 布殊點反應呢 ?玩政治係點玩的 , 689和一群泛民議員 , 水平似乎很低很差
2014年7月5日 上午11:47－匿名
擲玻璃杯可能造成的傷害比擲鞋大得多！
路人甲
長毛今日出獄 , 在網絡世界受英雄式歡迎 , 正式確立了「政治犯」的形象 , 黃毓民如果被 " 普通襲擊 " 罪檢控成功 , 他就是第二個「政治犯」了 , 那批和他畫清界線的泛民 , 好自為之啦 , 下一次到你地 ga la
71遊行駕車帶頭的司機 , 也被 " 沒有停車熄匙 " 檢控 , 香港政治進入新時代了
"停車熄匙" 唔係指 "路邊停車" 要 "熄匙" 咩? 人地在路中間喎。
黃毓民議員擲玻璃杯, 我視之為一種低級玩意, 智者不為. 向政客擲物是很平常的抗議行為, 例如美國總總及中國總理均曾被擲臭鞋, 但擲物者慣常是身份普通或卑微的人士, 議員東施效顰擲物, 並可能有意或意料之外地傷人, 實在非常愚蠢, 應予以讉責.
Did 美國總總 & 中國總理 call the police? 低級的人才覺得自己重要﹑不可侵犯﹑下下不問原由便移動法律城堡。
這些政治的肢體語言 , 是弱勢對抗 " 制度暴力 " 的一種表達 , 身份是否議員或平民 , 並不重要 , 在特首答問大會場合 , 最自然是由有醒悟有稜角的議員動手 , 如果是在場的平民 ( 可能是立會的保安或文職人員 , 記者等 ) , 那肯定更震撼 , 可惜香港人的政治質素沒那麼高
這種場面 , 社會上最有權勢的人 , 竟然用報警方式處理 , 實在給人很小學雞的感覺 , 外人會覺得香港整個政界不成熟
那個立法會主席 , 沒有想過立法機關是三權之一 , 警察出出入入 , 尊嚴何在呢 ? 台灣太陽花運動 , 立法院長王金平 , 寧願面對面同學生政治談判 , 也不讓軍警入立法院清場 , 面向馬英九的行政權 , 毫不失禮 , 比之香港的曾鈺成 , 水平高下立見
Violence is violence. Just because similar events (throwing things at politicians) have happened in other countries we normally respect doesn't make it right at all. In this respect, the young people who demonstrated peaceful, non-violent means of civil disobedience in Central are a lot more "mature" than Mr. Wong; these young people command a lot more respect than this so-called radical politician. Throwing things doesn't make one politically radical. The difference between the young people and Mr. Wong reminds me of the difference between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. A BIG difference!
效顰擲物已屬不智, 擲可傷人之玻璃杯, 貽人刑事犯罪之口實, 笨上加笨, 愚笨若此, 情何以堪?
Haven't the entire HK population witnessed that verbal violence from the HK government and around the Basic Law is much much more evil than Mr. Wong's action of throwing a glass, particularly when the court hasn't even judged if Mr. Wong's action was intentional or not intentional? A planned ahead action or not a planned ahead action? Then at this stage of Mr. Wong's case, who have the right to make a verdict? Are you granted the right to be the court or represent the court?! But, the violation of the Basic Laws was already proven to have happened by the silent match of legal professionals last month.
" 黃毓民議員的玻璃杯擲向梁振英特首，特首冷靜拾起玻璃碎片，正色批評：「從幾年前擲第一隻蕉開始，到今早大家看到的事件，大家都應該反省一下，到底立法會議員在我們青少年人當中起了甚麼作用？」 "
青少年人是十分歡迎毓民的行動的 , 紛紛遺憾為什麼沒有擲中 , 日前一個青少年活動 , 偶像明星出席 , 當大會司儀宣布有神秘家賓時 , 原來是梁特首 , 當場被報以噓聲 , 這些是老油條成年人不明白的了
和平坐在遮打道 , 都拘捕了511件 , 好多仲係學生哥呀 , 689咁都可以落手 , 黃毓民擲得好 , 為小市民出啖氣
佔中被捉的511個學生 , 大家不會說他們阻街 , 教壞細路 , 黃毓民擲杯 , 大家不會說他不對 , 因為他們都在同一個更大的暴力對抗 , 689
近日在海外旅遊，少看了區醫生的文章，今天看了上面的留言，「唉」了一聲，為什麼鼓吹暴力的留言會走到區醫生的「茶餐廳」來了？居然有人（不知是一人或多人，因為全都是匿名）讚揚擲玻璃杯的事件和議員？！相信遲些擲汽油彈也有人拍手掌。很恐怖的香港！
連「暴力」和「抗爭」也故意混淆的人 , 都出來獻世 , 所以政府有689 , 立法會有吳亮星 , 一伙人配合得很好
很恐怖的邏輯：和自己意見相同者的一切行為都沒有問題，暴力就變成抗爭；政府警方執法就是暴力。無言。
同689政府 , 公安的想法一樣 , 很恐怖的腦袋
No one here pretended to be the court to judge Mr. Wong's action of throwing a glass as illegal. The judicial system will do the job. I am here to interpret Mr. Wong's action as a violent means of political expression. As the above commentator said, "the violation of the Basic Laws was already proven to have happened by the silent match [march] of legal professionals last month." The political expression of the legal professionals here was (I quote) "a silent march," which was powerful but non-violent. Such a march is a far cry from throwing a glass in an otherwise serious area of political exchange. I applaud the legal circle as much as the young peaceful demonstrators in Central but not (and never) Mr. Wong.
Mr. Wong's action of throwing a glass is stupid and, if it violates the law, not excusable.
>> The political expression of the legal professionals here was (I quote) "a silent march," which was powerful but non-violent. Such a march is a far cry from throwing a glass in an otherwise serious area of political exchange. I applaud the legal circle as much as the young peaceful demonstrators in Central but not (and never) Mr. Wong.
My reply is this:
Therefore you want everyone to act like you, think like you, do whatever like you, agree with whatever you suggest... (Isn't it?) I must tell you that if this is the case, you are trying to enforce and inject another kind of evil into this society.
I didn't say that I agree or not agree with you that Mr. Wong's action was an illegal and/or violent one, nor was I saying that Mr. Wong's action was a legal and/or peaceful one. Our court will decide.
What you said already excluded a possibility that Mr. Wong just had the glass slipped out of his hand and that Mr. Wong never had the intention to let the glass fly out towards somewhere. (Could this be a very possible possibility?)
Therefore, you have already made up your mind on the matter, and therefore you have already put the law into your own hand, and pretending that you already have all the details and evidence to issue a verdict not in favor of Mr. Wong.
If this is the case, you are being illogical yourself because you are trying to deprive my freedom of speech, and twisted my words to satisfy or match your opinion about my words. Then, you are doing great evil to our society with/without knowing.
「警方執法」原來是用 「停車不熄匙」 罪檢控遊行帶頭車的司機 , 那些以為「 警方執法」 好正義的人 , 要用腦想一想了
689用報警方式處理, 可能是聽到黃毓民在記者前喊他落地獄,加了這怒氣
黃毓民曾回應林鄭警告會有汽油彈, 這次
擲玻璃杯為何他不反駁:我已經無用汽油彈, 小事啦!
可能他事後心虛, 要用罵689應落地獄來justify 他擲玻璃杯相對下地獄, 擲玻璃杯是很輕的懲罰
如果遊行帶頭車司機真的有犯「停車不熄匙」，用這罪檢控他有什麼問題？（示威人士吸太多的汽車廢氣對健康不好。）如果罪名成立，更証明他是故意超慢及無理停車去製造人多的假象。
>> 如果遊行帶頭車司機真的有犯「停車不熄匙」，用這罪檢控他有什麼問題？
The road was authorized and designated to the protestors for that part of time, and no other cars would go through that part of the road. Thus at that moment, one may argue that that part of the road has become a "private place" for the protestors, as otherwise, one may argue that even the "街站" is illegal, and another one moving anything in that part of the road is unauthorized and/or violate certain laws, and/or charges the protestors being "jaywalk-ing".
Therefore, the police and the HK government is quite brainless and shameless.
If the argument that the part of the road became "private place" is valid, then the Government's legal advisor would not advise to prosecute and court would not punish the client. Leave it to the court and let us see.
「停車不熄匙」，用這罪檢控司機有什麼問題？
欲加之罪 , 何患無詞 , 這也不懂 , 死蠢 , 這些叫做 " 政治犯 " 啊 !
香港警察隊員佐級協會昨發聲明，指控7.1遊行「有人故意拖慢遊行速度」是「尋釁滋事」
「尋釁滋事」第一次出現在香港警察的正式文件中 , 你知道「尋釁滋事」在大陸是對付什麼人的嗎 ?
劉曉波也是 " 依法 " 檢控的啊 !
警方濫用檢控權 , 這行為本身已經是一種政治攻擊 , 用政府的資源 , 透過法律程序 , 來虛耗被檢控者的時間金錢精力 , 這是極權政府常用的手法
Leave it to the court and let us see. <-------警方是否應該檢控 , 與法庭如何判是兩回事 , 不應混淆 , 也有政府不但敗訴且被法官批評檢控馬虎不合理 , 97前的律政司把關較好 , 近年的律政司似乎專業水準下降 , 立場偏向加強
If the police insists that the "遊行帶頭車" was blocking and slowing down the rally, one may argue that there were many police mini-vans (at least five) parked on one of the main path of the rally, "Pennington Street 邊寧頓街", during at the time of the rally. It shows that protestors were able to proceed without obstructed by the the police vans. Therefore there is no correlation between the "遊行帶頭車" and the rally was being slowed down. The purpose of the "遊行帶頭車" was to provide audio broadcast and transport audio equipments, which is equivalent to a 木板車 carrying the audio equipments. And the stopping of the "遊行帶頭車" by the "司機" was not controllable by the "司機" but by the need of the protestors to receive the audio broadcast.
The "遊行帶頭車" on that part of the road was equivalent to the vans getting into "維園" football fields before each year's "維園年宵", to deliver materials and flowers.
Therefore the 檢控 is discriminating and should be dropped.
罵人「死蠢」、「獻世」等等的留言者，只顯示其修養及質素之低劣。
遊行、反對政府便「大哂」，不需要遵守法律嗎？
毛主席教導 , 對只會搖尾巴的反動份子 , 不需客氣 , 站在廣大人民對立面的 , 用「死蠢」、「獻世」的形容詞 , 只不過反映他們的本質
匿名2014年7月5日 下午11:30
"Haven't the entire HK population witnessed that verbal violence from the HK government and around the Basic Law is much much more evil than Mr. Wong's action of throwing a glass, particularly when the court hasn't even judged if Mr. Wong's action was intentional or not intentional? A planned ahead action or not a planned ahead action? Then at this stage of Mr. Wong's case, who have the right to make a verdict? Are you granted the right to be the court or represent the court?!”
If the verdict has been passed by a court, Mr Wong would have been guilty of common assault and might have been sent to prison instead of playing filibusters in the LegCo.
「毛主席教導....」- 唉！大陸都不跟毛主席的教導了！你想跟著毛主席，隨便吧！
毛主席的徒子徒孫 , 胡主席習主席不會放過你的 , 你爆了他們的秘密
張貼留言