《眾新聞》備份：【煽惑六四集會案】鄒幸彤拒絕屈服被冠上罪名：「應審判屠殺者而非我們」　何桂藍：「對我的判刑，也是對當日維園出現過的香港人的判刑」

撰文: 記者池淑霖 | 發佈日期: 13.12.21

鄒幸彤：審判賦予悼念新意義

代表鄒幸彤的大律師張耀良今表示，鄒已解聘法律團隊並將親自求情。鄒以英文讀出陳詞（全文見報道末），她先向法官表明不會就其個人情況作表述，指「這審訊不是有關我本人」（for this trial is not about me）。

受審的是具31年歷史的悼念晚會　在本案檢控下被迫使畫上句號

她認為本案受審的是有31年歷史的悼念晚會，是由已被政府取締的支聯會舉辦的最後一次六四維園晚會。長達幾十年的抗爭，被本案的檢控及政權持續升級的手段迫使下畫上句號。 

鄒直言，手握權力及法律的「兇手」自以為控制是與非、有罪和無罪的討論，便可以輕鬆穩守權位，但她會拒絕合作或屈服接受所謂的罪名。她又言：「If this country still cares to maintain any resemblance of fairness, let’s put the murderers on trial instead of us. Let’s put those criminals behind bars instead of honouring them as our great leaders.（如果這國度還打算保持看來公正的形象，那就審判屠殺者而不是我們吧。把那些罪犯關進監獄，而不是將他們尊崇為我們的偉大領袖。）」語畢，庭內掌聲四起。

當日集會多樣化、無領導　即使失支聯會抗爭仍繼續

鄒接著指，維園當日有不同的口號、標號、旗幟，它們不止與悼念六四相關，更蘊含著香港爭取自由的奮鬥。在場人士各有分別，無領導無組織，只是在獨立行動的同時，因共同的信念聚在一起，反抗政府篡改歷史和打壓自由的行徑。

她相信，當歷史不被遺忘，自然會照亮前路（When history is not forgotten, it lights our path to the future），她說：「As on that beautiful night last year, when candlelight lit up all over Hong Kong and in Victoria Park, and the spirits of 1989 and the movement in Hong Kong rhymed.（在往年那個美麗的夜晚，燭光照遍維園及香港，八九民運的亡魂與香港的集會互相和應。）」

鄒續指，當日是一個多樣化的集會，每人都肩負責任去行動，表述各自的意見，可證即使失去支聯會，民主和公義的抗爭仍會繼續，「或許對這個延續31年的傳統來說，也是一個不錯的最終章」（perhaps a fitting finale to this 31 years of tradition）。

當權者欲以牢獄摧毀運動　只會促使新一代加入抗爭

鄒認為今次的審訊和定罪，使悼念天安門事件的意義進化，成為一場跨越時間、地域和身份的打壓。當「罪犯」一詞能隨意安在敢於「六四」點起燭光的人身上，抗爭便不只關於遙遠的歷史，亦關乎守護我們自己的權利與未來。

「如果當權者希望透過牢獄摧毀這場運動，他們將會大失所望。」鄒認為打壓只會賦予運動新的生命，促使新一代加入爭取真相、民主和公義的漫長抗爭。

陳詞結尾，鄒指受良知驅使的人，不會被牢獄嚇退，有信心在禁令和苛法之下，燭光仍會延續。鄒自言只是其中一個憑良知行事的人，僅要求法庭考慮此點作出判刑，她續稱：「For when mass action is condemned, individual leninency is but a farce.（因為當集體行動被認定有罪，對個人輕判亦不過是場鬧劇。）」

何桂藍簡短陳情　同樣沒就量刑求情

何桂藍 在上周五裁決後，表示已辭退律師團隊，將自行求情。何當時一度向法官胡雅文表示，由於控方依賴15份判例，資料眾多，故希望索取更多時間準備陳詞，惟法官拒絕押後。

今早開庭時，法官問何需否更多時間準備求情，何表示不用。她先用廣東話作簡短陳情，與鄒一樣同沒提及任何個人背景或量刑求情，她只謂：「無論用咩法律陳詞堆砌都好，今日對我嘅判刑，都係對每一個喺2020年6月4日喺維園出現過嘅香港人嘅判刑。」她再以英文向法官覆述一遍，說罷庭內掌聲雷動。

鄒幸彤陳詞全文

Your Honour, you will not hear from me any moving life story and personal particulars, for this trial is not about me.

What has been put on trial here is perhaps the last candlelight vigil in Victoria Park for a long time to come, and definitely the last time that the Hong Kong Alliance could appear in Victoria Park on June 4th now that the Hong Kong Alliance was “killed” by the Government. It is a trial of this 31 years of tradition, this decades-long symbol of resistance that has been forcibly put to an end, first through the present prosecution, then continued through ever-escalating measures by the authorities.

Let us not delude ourselves that this is all about COVID-19 and that the criminalization of the vigil is only an exceptional measure at an exceptional time. What happened here is instead one step in the systemic erasure of history, both of the Tiananmen Massacre and Hong Kong’s own history of civic resistance.

The fact that this case relies heavily on publicly collected evidence that are no longer publicly available, either because the media publishing them had shut down, or the organisation hosting them had been banned, is saying something about the kind of repression and fear that has swept over Hong Kong in a mere one and a half year time. The shrinking, no, the collapse of the space for free expression, association and political action, is a prevalent experience that is every bit as common and as painful, if not more painful, than the COVID-19 situation in this city.

Yet while the Court sees fit to take judicial notice of the situation of a health crisis, it acts as if the parallel political crisis does not exist. It declines to hear any evidence of what “us”as an organisation, as a people, are experiencing in this pandemic of political repression. It refuses to see the wider context under which this case happened, in the name of focusing only on relevant and admissible evidence.

A collective act of some 20,000 people has been branded as “criminal,” yet their experience is irrelevant. History is irrelevant. Politics is irrelevant. Views of the purported decision makers matter but not of those commoners who were affected but excluded from the decision-making process. The reality of political repression never stands a chance in court since no evidence of the kind would ever be admissible.

In closing its eyes to the obvious the Court risks making itself irrelevant to the ailments of our times. In purporting to maintain political neutrality the Court is in effect affirming the unequal power wielded by the Government in instituting political charges against its opponents, emboldening the authorities to take over more restrictive action that squeeze out the rights of the citizens.

Throughout the trial the greatest injustice in this case remains hidden and unmentionable, for who are truly responsible for inciting hundreds of thousands of people to gather in Victoria Park on June 4th, years after years? They are the murderers who killed at will in Beijing 32 years ago, with tanks and dumdum guns. Yet the killers were never punished by any court of law, while those who demand truth and accountability were relentlessly criminalised. This has continued non-stop for 32 years in mainland China, and is now also happening in Hong Kong.

With power and law in their hands, the killers think that they can sit easily in their thrones by controlling the discourse of right and wrong, guilt and innocence. I for one, refuse to play along and submit to my so-called guilt. If this country still cares to maintain any resemblance of fairness, let’s put those murderers on trial instead of us. Let’s put those criminals behind bars instead of honouring them as our great leaders. Let the truth of Tiananmen Square be freely discussed and redress be given to the long suffering Tiananmen Mothers.

What stands condemned here is 31 years of effort in calling those criminals to account, in standing beside victims of the Massacre, in continuing their unfinished quest for democracy. In designating the vigil as criminal a proud tradition of Hong Kong stands condemned, signifying to the world that this city is no longer the haven for free speech it once was. One Country has completely overwhelmed Two Systems, leaving no trace of the kind of life we once took for granted, including the freedom to light a candle on June 4th.

What stands condemned here is also individual agency. The Court seems unable to grasp that each individual, being his or her own master, deciding his or her own action, should not be criminalised just because such act is echoed by many. It seems unable to appreciate that a leaderless movement where people are not just mindless followers in a crowd is possible. It is significant that this last vigil was also the first time where the vigil has no definite organiser, no centralised theme. The organising role of the Hong Kong Alliance faded into the background, with individuals taking up their own initiatives to give a much wider variety of meaning to candlelight on this day. Indeed the meaning of remembering Tiananmen has always been evolving, through the participation of hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers throughout the years. Hong Kong Alliance provided one platform but was never the sole driver. Different groups and people devised their own action to mark the date, thus participated in a continuous dialogue over the meaning and importance of commemorating the Massacre.

Victoria Park was filled with slogans, songs and flags that are related not only to June 4th, but at the heart was the freedom struggle in Hong Kong. We are different and decentralised, yet we act in solidarity, united by our conviction that the government’s blatant attempt at erasing history and suppressing activism must be resisted. When history is not forgotten, it lights our path to the future. As on that beautiful night last year, when candlelight lit up all over Hong Kong and in Victoria Park, the spirits of 1989 and the movement in Hong Kong rhymed. Such a diversified vigil, where every individual took up the responsibility to act and all kind of views were expressed, is perhaps a fitting finale to this 31 years of tradition, showing the way how this decades long campaign for justice and democracy will continue despite the fact that the Alliance is no more.

With the present trial and conviction, the meaning of remembering Tiananmen undergoes another evolution. No longer is it some far-away suffering whose relevance wanes as each day passed. Nay, now it is a suppression shared across time, across distance, across identities. When the label of “criminals” is casually put onto all who dared to light a candle on that day, the struggle becomes as much as about history as about protecting our rights and future, here at home. If those in power had wished to kill the movemont with prosecution and imprisonment, they shall be sorely disappointed. Indeed what they have done is breathing new life into the movement, rallying a new generation to this long struggle for truth, justice and democracy.

People moved by conscience cannot be deterred by jail. Rest assured that the candle light will live on, despite bans and ever more restrictive “laws”. I am but a humble member of these people of conscience, and this is the only basis I ask the court to sentence me on. For when mass action is condemned, individual leniency is but a farce.