Search
🥁 เค้าว่ามือกลองส่วนใหญ่หน้าตาดี
โชคดีจริงๆ ผมเป็นมือกลอง 🙃
The Clash - I Fought the Law
( Drum Cover by torrayot )
Original by The Bobby Fuller four
Recording at ทรยศสตูดิโอ
(Scroll down for english version)
「歷史將宣判我們無罪！」
李卓人8.31案法庭陳情書
法官閣下，我在此認罪，但我在捍衛人民和平遊行和集會自由上，並沒有做錯任何事。我相信歷史將會宣判我們無罪。在此請讓我向你講述更多我的背景，那樣你就能更理解我為何要為了香港的未來，與人民共同走上街頭。
#新時代由政治犯開創
作為一名基督徒，我在復活節期間聽讀經員閱讀聖經，提醒了我，耶穌為世人犧牲，被釘上十字架，使罪人與神和解。從被捕到被控到被彼拉多（Pilate）判死刑，祂也是一名政治犯，沒有犯罪，但因為服務窮人和傳福音，而威脅到猶太統治階層。
縱觀人類歷史文明，我們現在享有的權利，也是由一眾政治犯，諸如甘地、馬丁路德金和納爾遜·曼德拉所開創的。在80年代，我是「香港反種族隔離運動」的主席，我一直將納爾遜·曼德拉在1963年遭審判所言銘記於心。他說：「願意為我的理想而犧牲自己生命。」他的理想是爭取南非黑人的平權，然後就被判刑27年。我為他在1994年當選南非總統而感到興奮，他給予了全世界受壓逼的人民希望，讓他們知道透過堅持不懈的鬥爭，可以達致公義。
#曼德拉給我的啟發
我花了一些時間去講曼德拉帶給我的啟發，因為我是從1978年起投身到勞工權益和民主運動的。我畢生的理想，就是讓基層和被壓逼者勇於發聲和站起來爭取屬於他們的權利。每當那些被壓逼者起來捍衛他們的權利，為尊嚴而抗爭時，我也會受到鼓舞，並得到力量去繼續面對香港正面臨的艱苦奮鬥和挑戰。我曾問自己，沒有抗爭，我的人生將會是如何？這已是我第43年投身於民主運動，法官閣下，你必須明白當我目睹國家權力如何使用武力鎮壓人民，令香港人受傷、受牢獄之苦或是流亡，以及香港民主倒退，人民的權利遭剝奪之時，心裏的痛苦和折磨。我看到我的理想正在崩潰，但即使被黑暗籠罩，也無阻我繼續為理想奮鬥的決心。為了這一理想，我甘願承受任何懲罰。
法官閣下可能會說，法律就是法律，而我好像沒有就八三一案展露出絲毫悔意。我希望法官閣下明白，我是何等重視人民透過言論和集會所彰顯的自由。這是弱勢和受壓逼者尋求公義的唯一路徑。剝奪了這種權利，形同制度對人民施暴。我不願看見香港人活在建基於制度暴力的管治之中。因此，我會竭盡所能，伸張人們有尊嚴及和平遊行去發達意見的權利。
#最壞的尚未來臨
#法庭要睜開眼睛
我十分尊重法官閣下維護法治的熱誠。在此，我希望能引用已故法官Ruth Bader Ginsburg的話：
「法官們會不斷思考和改變，我希望倘若今日法庭有盲點，明日它將會睜開眼。」
我十分敬佩Ginsburg為了性別平權奮鬥一生，成就斐然。她告訴我們，法官應該與時並進，趕上不斷在變遷的時代。在香港，最壞的尚未來臨，我們需要法律界人士去睜開雙眼，觀看人民的苦難，並反思法律在這個時代的立足點，如何隨時代變遷而轉變，以捍衞人民的尊嚴與權利。
2021年4月7日
"History will absolve us"
Submission of Lee Cheuk Yan to the Court
Your Honour, I plead guilty but I’ve done no wrong in affirming the rights of people to peaceful procession and I believe history will absolve us. May I give you more on my background so as your honour can understand why I decided to march with the people for the future of Hong Kong.
As a Christian, during Easter when the scripture was read, I was reminded how Christ went to meet his fate on the cross, sacrificing for mankind to reconcile sinners with God. From His arrest to his prosecution to his death sentencing by Pilate, he was a political prisoner who committed no crime apart from seen to be a threat to the Jewish Hierarchy by serving the poor and oppressed and preaching the good news.
Throughout history of mankind, the rights that humankind now enjoyed were pioneered by political prisoners from Gandhi to Martin Luther King to Nelson Mandela. I was the Chairman of Hong Kong anti apartheid movement back in the 80s and I always remember the determination of Nelson Mandela when he said during his trial back in 1963: “an ideal for which I am prepared to die for.”. His ideal was the equality for black South African and then he spent 27 years in jail. I was thrilled that in 1994, he was elected President of South Africa, giving hope to oppressed all over the world that justice can be achieve through the persistent struggle of the people.
I went to length about his inspiration to me personally because I started my activism starting 1978 for labour rights and democracy. My lifetime ideal is the empowerment of the poor and oppressed to speak out, to rise up for their rights. Whenever the oppressed assert their rights to fight for their dignity, I feel myself also empowered and inspired to continue the difficult struggle and challenges facing Hong Kong. I asked myself, what is my life without the struggle. The struggle is my life, I cannot imagine my life without it. It had been forty three years of struggle for me and your Honour must understand my deep felt pain and sufferings to see how the State Power had been using brute force against the people and the sacrifices of so many Hongkongers who were injured, jailed or exiled, also to witness the deprivation of the basic rights of the people and the regression in democracy. I saw my ideal crumbling but I will continue the struggle even though darkness is surrounding us. It is an ideal for which I am prepared for any sanction.
Your Honour may say the law is the law, I seems not show any remorse in breaching law in this trial for August 31st. I hope Your Honour understand the utmost importance I put on the rights to freedom of expression through speech or assembly. This is the only avenue the weak and oppressed can have to right the wrongs on them. If deprived, I will call this systemic violence on the people and I do not want to see Hong Kong rule on the basis of such systemic violence. Therefore I would do my utmost to affirm the rights of people to a dignified and peaceful procession to express themselves.
Your Honour must be passionate about upholding the law and I respect your ideal. I hope I can quote from the late Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
“Justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eye will be open tomorrow”
I was very impressed with her passion for gender equality and how she fought her whole life for gender equality and was able to achieve so much. Her message was time changes and judges should catch up with time. For Hong Kong, the worst may yet to come, and we need the legal profession to open their eyes to the suffering of the people and reflect on which side the law is with and how to changes with time for the advancement of the rights and dignity of the people.
I humbly submit myself to your sentencing and whatever your sentence, I have no regret for standing up for the rights of the people.
7th April, 2021
Jenna Cody :
Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.
This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.
So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.
Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).
Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.
Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.
Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.
What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.
So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.
It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.
This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.
In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.
After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.
Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.
In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).
In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.
Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.
It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.
Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.
This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.
*
Now, as I said, none of this matters.
What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.
Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.
Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.
Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.
So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.
And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.
The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.
A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.
There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…
…well, that’s already settled.
The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.
Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.
If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.
PS4 Pro（PS5）のサイバーパンク2077/Cyberpunk 2077の攻略動画です、Part 21。
小ネタ：
サイドジョブの「THE HUNT/狩り」で、デス・ストランディングで登場するBB(ブリッジ・ベイビー)を見る事が出来ます。また、スキャンすると使用目的に「BBの生命を維持し、BTを感知する」と書いています。
リバーは女性を恋愛対象としているため、女性主人公時のみロマンスシーンを体験できます。
また、ジェファーソン・ペラレスのサイドジョブでは一見続きありそうですが、実際は続きのサイドジョブはなしで、エンディングでのメッセージとして事後報告のようなもののみになります。
Part 21：
ACT 3
0:00 Side Mission - I FOUGHT THE LAW/権力との闘い
39:01 Side Mission - DREAM ON/覚めない夢
1:16:25 Side Mission - THE HUNT/狩り
1:23:23 小ネタ - デス・ストランディングのBB
2:03:37 Side Mission - FOLLOWING THE RIVER/"川"を辿って
・使用キャラ - V・コーポレート
・難易度 - Very Hard
*PS5版は来年発売のため、後方互換機能によりPS4 Pro版をPS5でプレイしています。
Cyberpunk 2077 Complete Walkthrough Playlist:
⇒https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4fd59i0eA3UK98XAVeIUJpdni2dZUjJB
サムネイル製作：K.K
======================
#サイバーパンク2077 #Cyberpunk #Cyberpunk2077
======================
- ゲームタイトル： サイバーパンク2077/Cyberpunk 2077 (PS4 Pro)
- 発売日： 2020年12月10日 (日本)
- 価格： 通常版：8,690円(税込)
- ジャンル ： オープンワールドコンピュータRPG
- ESRB : Cero Z
- 発売元: CD Projekt, スパイク・チュンソフト
- 開発: CD Projekt RED
=======================
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976,
allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise
be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance
in favor of fair use."
=======================
歡迎 訂閱 / 分享 / 按讚 (字幕)
https://plus.google.com/+ZackGTA
https://www.facebook.com/ZackNTPD
https://twitter.com/ZackNTPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
遊戲名稱:俠盜獵車手 5 (遊戲內文情節純屬虛構)
對應模組:警察模組 LSPDFR.COM (台灣警察模組)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GTA 5 LSPDFR 警察模組系列:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuSeJZOko3sNp4q2kQhAsK7dhU-3ZoZgx
GTA 4 LCPDFR 警察模組系列:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuSeJZOko3sPTH59uHWTw-Dm_MEZHxoOK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ตอน27:"หาญกล้าท้ากฎหมาย" [I Fought the Law]
บรรยายไทยโดย: 9th TEARDROP GameTeller
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▲Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/9th-Teardrop-GameTeller/381431275354388?ref=hl
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง DYING LIGHT ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykbI8oo8bZA&index=10&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tQEB4imxm3qEbJLTq9J1HfO
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง DRAGON AGE: Inquisition ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enCVPMOMeYM&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tQ7yOl_N1LLbZfWFXjX1qLR&index=12
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง GTA 5 ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lBgoBYp0cs&index=5&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tRikVhqCFYrQz23eLbp4zxc
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง CALL OF DUTY Advanced Warfare ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-UJZbhLa1k&index=10&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tQotISHMI1ttYY1sAfViwnU
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง THE EVIL WITHIN ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah7xXuVoTW0&index=7&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tSyGLUiEmJq2OMf8pPUhdol
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง CALL OF DUTY Modern Warfare ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5--u4DIo1ZY&index=3&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tSlDKu4peLbiJeIx07JmNXr
►►ดูเนื้อเรื่อง CALL OF DUTY Modern Warfare 2 ไทย
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JXexDygyKo&list=PLZoxnoGyv9tSrcVoa8IJ7UJ_0LOidysc9&index=13
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Grand Theft Auto V
แกรนด์ เตฟ ออโต้ 5
ประเภท: Action-adventure, Openworld
ลงเครื่อง: PC, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One
ออกวันที่: 17 September 2013
ผู้พัฒนา: Rockstar North
ผู้จัดจำหน่าย: Rockstar Games
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Tag:
GTA ไทย
GTA V ไทย
GTA 5 ไทย
GTA 5 เนื้อเรื่อง
GTA 5 ซับไทย
GTA 5 ซัพไทย
GTA 5 PS4
GTA 5 Xbox one
GTA 5 pc
Dragon Age ไทย
call of duty advanced warfare ไทย
Resident Evil: Revelations 2 ไทย
Grand Theft Auto V ไทย
Grand Theft Auto V เนื้อเรื่อง
Grand Theft Auto V ซับไทย
Grand Theft Auto V ซัพไทย
i fought the law 在 I fought the law and the law won | Law, Fight - Pinterest 的推薦與評價
Sep 20, 2013 - This Pin was discovered by Pilar Freire. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest. ... <看更多>