再談時事

在上一篇, C君囑咐我不要談時事, 可惜最近我沒有吃喝玩樂的東西可以講, 看書又沒有心得, 所以很無奈地又講時事。我這幾篇都說香港人最需要的訴求是精神心理的服務, 話口未完, 今晚明報就來了這一則新聞:

研究：港人精神健康指數創8年新低 逾四成受訪者稱社會爭議致負面影響

我不知訪問對象有幾多是上街示威及參與暴動的人, 又或者有幾多是無時無刻都在兇人的學生, 又或者有幾多在網上積極發表意見的人。總之, 我提出這個訴求要比五大或六大訴求重要(我都說不清五時花六時變的東西是甚麼)。如果社會事務引發爭議可以理性討論, 基本上是正面和有建設性的, 可惜太多腦筍也未生埋的夾雜其中, 只被激情淹沒, 影響當然是負面的。

初期的五大訴求, 我是贊成撤回修例及成立獨立調查委員會的, 其他是偽命題。後來這獨立調立委員會的訴求變成要求只查警察, 又變成另一不切實際的訴求, 所以我就不再去討論了。今天有人留言, 說我不公正, 所以不再支持我。真感激不盡, 希望少看網上言論的人可以身心健康。講真, 我又沒賣廣告, 多少點擊又有何關係。

今天梁天琦對判刑提出上訴, 上訴庭三位大官中竟然有朱官, 她一向少涉刑事的, 也許我太生疏了, 不闇大內政情, 不了解她加入的原因。儘管駱資深大律師舉其如簧之舌力爭, 看來梁君凶多吉少。這次潘官擔大旗, 判詞應該由他寫。在現在這種社會氣氛下,  義士上庭(不論那級法院)的聲勢, 害自己人不淺啊。越砸得勁自然越判得重。

24位泛民議員申請對《禁蒙面法》的臨時禁制令被拒, 昨天上載了判詞,  其中兩段值得義士咀嚼下:

14. Leaving aside whether it is to be characterised as public disorder as the applicants(泛民議員) submitted rather than public danger, it can be seen that the level of violence had been escalating even prior to the Regulation, with certain people, invariably masked, seriously damaging public and private property, committing arson, throwing petrol bombs and corrosive liquids, and beating up people on the streets, such as had occurred in various districts on 29 September and 1 October. Needless to say, in these circumstances the protection of the safety of the public is a very important factor to take into account.

15. The applicants suggest that because lawful meetings could quickly turn into unauthorised or unlawful assemblies (as recent experience has shown), it is all the more necessary for participants in lawful assemblies to wear masks in case the assemblies become unlawful. It seems to me there is some force in Mr Yu’s (代表政府的余若海資深大律師) riposte that in such a case such participants should distance themselves from the unlawful or riotous assemblies as soon as possible rather than to continue to participate and seek refuge behind a mask.