關於 freedom make sentences ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Don’t Be Naive! Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is Standing on the Side Against Human Civilization
　
Peaceful world order after WWII had been established upon the philosophy worshiping multilateralism. The cultural basis supporting such multilateralism contained an imagination believing in the ultimate good of the respect for diversity.
　
The Rise of China and the Naivete of EU
　
However, as time progressed into the Post-Cold War era of the 90's, globalization in trade became the dominant trend. Following the global embrace of multilateralism and respect for diversity, it was believed that China would have been influenced by open and positive values once she had participated in this big family of global trade. Indeed, China took advantage of its role as the "world factory" and gained a huge economic leap forward. After China joined the WTO in 2000, within seventeen to eighteen years, China had grown nine-fold compared in terms of its aggregate economic volume. Furthermore, it surpassed Germany in 2005 and Japan between 2009 and 2010, becoming the second-largest economy in the world.
　
In particular, due to the global financial crisis derived from the subprime mortgage in 2007 and Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in 2008 in the United States, the PIGGS countries turned into victims in Europe. China thus took advantage of this crisis to expand its power, bridging China’s role as depicted in Hu JinTao's "China's peaceful rise" to that in Xi JinPing's "China dream." Finally, China has revealed its ambition to compete for the position as a world leader and a planner of a new world order. The United States has finally, recently woken up to this nightmare of Xi, who has long intended to use China's almighty economic power to achieve his political agenda and hegemony. Unfortunately, many EU countries who consider themselves as advanced, civilized, pro-human rights and respectful to diversification, such as Germany and France, still fail, or refuse, to see the CCP regime’s true color and remain extremely naive towards it.
　
Repulsion towards Vulgarity, Tolerance towards Violence
　
Ironically, the two leading EU countries, Germany and France, prefer a dictatorial emperor, Xi, over Trump elected by the Americans with their ballots. The two countries do not shy away from showing them disgusted by Trump’s vulgar behaviors, but reluctantly show intolerance towards Xi’s cruelty and dictatorship. As a result, the EU countries develop inconceivable and mysterious stubbornness: they loudly criticize countries practicing death penalty based on their own judicial system; however, they are generous and subdued when it comes to the violence happening in HongKong where the HongKong police and Chinese GongAn basically bypass all applicable, or reasonable, laws. We should find this contrast deeply disturbing.
　
Seeing CCP through the eyes of Mao
　
In fact, these european countries and the western world are deluded by the so-called “respect for diversity.” Let’s use the wisdom of the CCP’s spiritual leader, Mao Ze Dong, as a framework to rethink this diversity concept in civilization. In his work “Correct Handling of Contradictions Between People,” published in 1957, Mao clearly classified social contradictions into “contradictions of two different natures”: “contradictions between ourselves and the enemy” and “internal contradictions among the people”. Contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic, for example the contradictions between the exploiting and the exploited classes; but contradictions among people is non-antagonistic. Therefore, the former can not be mediated and resolved, but the latter one can be. Mao further advocated that contradictions between ourselves and the enemy should be resolved by dictatorship, but contradictions between the people should be resolved by a method of “cooperation-criticism-cooperation.” In other words, incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy can only be solved by suppression, but internal contradictions can be softened by cooperation.
　
Civilization and CCP - Two Incompatible Conflicting Systems
　
It is time for us to recognize that CCP, a sovereign of authoritarianism and digital dictatorship, should not have been regarded as a representation of the diversity of human civilization. Diversity should be defined based on a founded premise, i.e., a premise confined with certain agreements and consensus, necessary and beneficial for composing diversity. In fact, the value CCP stands for is against the universally accepted values of the world, just like the “incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy”, as Mao said. As long as the existence of the CCP regime continues, human civilization will continue to be persecuted. It can be seen in the current situation of Hong Kong, where China approved the new bill of national security, thereby destroying the remaining freedom guaranteed to Hong Kongers, and assigned the “secret” police gangs to enforce the so-called “justice”.
　
To see the contracting natures of civilization and the CCP regime, we make an analogy with food. Normally, we respect other people’s choice for food. For instance, Ann prefers rice, Bob prefers noodles, John is a meat lover, Mary only eats seafood, etc. Although those four people have different choices of what they like to eat, they respect each other’s choices of food. However, when Daniel comes over and tells the group that he prefers to eat faeces and needs to be respected for his preference, we can start to see the ridiculousness in it. At first, the four people think eating faeces is a personal choice for Daniel, and Daniel can do whatever he/she wants as long as he/she does it at his/her home. The problem rises when Daniel starts to force other people to eat faeces, while the other four people think faeces is inedible, and should never be served on a plate.
　
The food analogy tells us that the CCP regime is inherently against human civilization. As a reasonable human being could not categorize feces as food, we should not be tricked to believe that the authoritarian regime of China can blend in and contribute to human civilization. The CCP regime is incompatible to human civilization just like we should not consider to eat a meal with feces in it. As the master of CCP, Mao, admitted, one can never resolve the contradiction between the authoritarian regime of China and human civilization. The existence of Chinese authoritarian regime is a symbol for deprivation of human civilization. For us to maintain and preserve human civilization, Chinese authoritarian regime must be eradicated. There is no room for the coexistence of the CCP regime and human civilization.
　　
Draw a Bottom Line to the Respect for Diversity
　
Therefore, among western countries, the United States have started or should start to realize that although diversity needs to be respected and tolerated, a reasonable bottom line should be drawn to such respect. Like what I have mentioned above, rice, noodles, meat, seafood and so on should be viewed as food; however, as we can all reasonably agree, feces should not be a part of the league. The United States is now acting to exclude “feces” from the democratic league and draw a bottom line for respect-worthy diversity. However, leading EU countries are still trapped in their fancy, unconditional acceptance to “respect for diversity.” Such respect is hypocritical, empty and baseless. Now, you should be able to understand why leftards in the EU would vigorously criticize death sentences executed under a legitimate judicial system but remain indifferent to the CCP regime’s merciless, relentless and oppressive killings. Namely, they simply set a wrong premise, including feces as an eligible option for “diversity.” As for those who embrace the CCP regime because of economic benefits, they do not even deserve to be viewed as EU leftards, but merely gold diggers in the EU.
　
--
　
Special Thanks to our supporters in North America for translation🙏

泰晤士報人物專訪【Joshua Wong interview: Xi won’t win this battle, says Hong Kong activist】

Beijing believes punitive prison sentences will put an end to pro-democracy protests. It couldn’t be more wrong, the 23-year-old says.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joshua-wong-interview-xi-wont-win-this-battle-says-hong-kong-activist-p52wlmd0t

For Joshua Wong, activism began early and in his Hong Kong school canteen. The 13-year-old was so appalled by the bland, oily meals served for lunch at the United Christian College that he organised a petition to lobby for better fare. His precocious behaviour earned him and his parents a summons to the headmaster’s office. His mother played peacemaker, but the episode delivered a valuable message to the teenage rebel.

“It was an important lesson in political activism,” Wong concluded. “You can try as hard as you want, but until you force them to pay attention, those in power won’t listen to you.”

It was also the first stage in a remarkable journey that has transformed the bespectacled, geeky child into the globally recognised face of Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy. Wong is the most prominent international advocate for the protests that have convulsed the former British colony since last summer.

At 23, few people would have the material for a memoir. But that is certainly not a problem for Wong, whose book, #UnfreeSpeech, will be published in Britain this week.

We meet in a cafe in the Admiralty district, amid the skyscrapers of Hong Kong’s waterfront, close to the site of the most famous scenes in his decade of protest. Wong explains that he remains optimistic about his home city’s prospects in its showdown with the might of communist China under President Xi Jinping.

“It’s not enough just to be dissidents or youth activists. We really need to enter politics and make some change inside the institution,” says Wong, hinting at his own ambitions to pursue elected office.

He has been jailed twice for his activism. He could face a third stint as a result of a case now going through the courts, a possibility he treats with equanimity. “Others have been given much longer sentences,” he says. Indeed, 7,000 people have been arrested since the protests broke out some seven months ago; 1,000 of them have been charged, with many facing a sentence of as much as 10 years.

There is a widespread belief that Beijing hopes such sentences will dampen support for future protests. Wong brushes off that argument. “It’s gone too far. Who would imagine that Generation Z and the millennials would be confronting rubber bullets and teargas, and be fully engaged in politics, instead of Instagram or Snapchat? The Hong Kong government may claim the worst is over, but Hong Kong will never be peaceful as long as police violence persists.”

In Unfree Speech, Wong argues that China is not only Hong Kong’s problem (the book’s subtitle is: The Threat to Global Democracy and Why We Must Act, Now). “It is an urgent message that people need to defend their rights, against China and other authoritarians, wherever they live,” he says.

At the heart of the book are Wong’s prison writings from a summer spent behind bars in 2017. Each evening in his cell, “I sat on my hard bed and put pen to paper under dim light” to tell his story.

Wong was born in October 1996, nine months before Britain ceded control of Hong Kong to Beijing. That makes him a fire rat, the same sign of the Chinese zodiac that was celebrated on the first day of the lunar new year yesterday. Fire rats are held to be adventurous, rebellious and garrulous. Wong is a Christian and does not believe in astrology, but those personality traits seem close to the mark.

His parents are Christians — his father quit his job in IT to become a pastor, while his mother works at a community centre that provides counselling — and named their son after the prophet who led the Israelites to the promised land.

Like many young people in Hong Kong, whose housing market has been ranked as the world’s most unaffordable, he still lives at home, in South Horizons, a commuter community on the south side of the main island.

Wong was a dyslexic but talkative child, telling jokes in church groups and bombarding his elders with questions about their faith. “By speaking confidently, I was able to make up for my weaknesses,” he writes. “The microphone loved me and I loved it even more.”

In 2011, he and a group of friends, some of whom are his fellow activists today, launched Scholarism, a student activist group, to oppose the introduction of “moral and national education” to their school curriculum — code for communist brainwashing, critics believed. “I lived the life of Peter Parker,” he says. “Like Spider-Man’s alter-ego, I went to class during the day and rushed out to fight evil after school.”

The next year, the authorities issued a teaching manual that hailed the Chinese Communist Party as an “advanced and selfless regime”. For Wong, “it confirmed all our suspicions and fears about communist propaganda”.

In August 2012, members of Scholarism launched an occupation protest outside the Hong Kong government’s headquarters. Wong told a crowd of 120,000 students and parents: “Tonight we have one message and one message only: withdraw the brainwashing curriculum. We’ve had enough of this government. Hong Kongers will prevail.”

Remarkably, the kids won. Leung Chun-ying, the territory’s chief executive at the time, backed down. Buoyed by their success, the youngsters of Scholarism joined forces with other civil rights groups to protest about the lack of progress towards electing the next chief executive by universal suffrage — laid out as a goal in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution. Their protests culminated in the “umbrella movement” occupation of central Hong Kong for 79 days in 2014.

Two years later, Wong and other leaders set up a political group, Demosisto. He has always been at pains to emphasise he is not calling for independence — a complete red line for Beijing. Demosisto has even dropped the words “self-determination” from its stated goals — perhaps to ease prospects for its candidates in elections to Legco, the territory’s legislative council, in September.

Wong won’t say whether he will stand himself, but he is emphatically political, making a plea for change from within — not simply for anger on the streets — and for stepping up international pressure: “I am one of the facilitators to let the voices of Hong Kong people be heard in the international community, especially since 2016.”

There are tensions between moderates and radicals. Some of the hardliners on the streets last year considered Wong already to be part of the Establishment, a backer of the failed protests of the past.

So why bother? What’s the point of a city of seven million taking on one of the world’s nastiest authoritarian states, with a population of about 1.4 billion? And in any case, won’t it all be over in 2047, the end of the “one country, two systems” deal agreed between China and Britain, which was supposed to guarantee a high degree of autonomy for another 50 years? Does he fear tanks and a repetition of the Tiananmen Square killings?

Wong acknowledges there are gloomy scenarios but remains a robust optimist. “Freedom and democracy can prevail in the same way that they did in eastern Europe, even though before the Berlin Wall fell, few people believed it would happen.”

He is tired of the predictions of think-tank pundits, journalists and the like. Three decades ago, with the implosion of communism in the Soviet bloc, many were confidently saying that the demise of the people’s republic was only a matter of time. Jump forward 20 years, amid the enthusiasm after the Beijing Olympics, and they were predicting market reforms and a growing middle class would presage liberalisation.

Neither scenario has unfolded, Wong notes. “They are pretending to hold the crystal ball to predict the future, but look at their record and it is clear no one knows what will happen by 2047. Will the Communist Party even still exist?”

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1119445/unfree-speech

【大使館發言人批評意大利國會邀請我作聽證 外交部長反駁斥捍衛言論自由】

感謝意大利國會議員邀請，日前我藉視像通話方式，參與意大利國會外交及人權委員會的聽證會，呼籲意大利支持香港實現民主普選，停止出口衝鋒車予香港警察，亦鼓勵他們參考《香港人權民主法案》醞釀制裁機制。

聽證結束以後，本來當地關注尚算有限，但中國駐意大利使館發言人高調發表聲明批評意大利國會議員「執意與黃之鋒搞視頻通話，為港獨分子撐腰」，就令到香港議題再度進佔輿論版面。

根據「中國外交Bingo紙」，聲明內文中了至少9個關鍵詞，包括斥我「竭力 #顛倒黑白，#美化暴力，詆毁一國兩制……是個徹頭徹尾的港獨 #跳樑小丑」，還有「#極其錯誤、#不負責任」，表示 #強烈不滿、#堅決反對，呼籲有關人士 #尊重主權（？？？），多做有利中意友好與合作事宜，這只反映中國外交系統何等「玻璃心」。

據意大利記者告知，中國駐意大利大使館發言人的取態，導致意大利外交部長及國會議員先後回應，表明捍衛言論自由，反對中國政府阻礙交流；同時，政界與傳媒亦深深體會到中共威權擴張的可怕，相信此舉只會有助香港令國際社會明白，為何與香港同行就是捍衛自由。

作用曾遭中共駐多國使館均曾批評人士，我已對一切批評見怪不怪，也由衷感謝中國外交系統的批評，往往本來聽證會也沒有甚麼關注，但只要大使館發言批評，就令到香港議題再度進佔輿論版面。我會繼續努力，讓世界看見香港，與香港同行。

最後，附上自己的國會發言全文給各位細閱：

Thursday, 28 November 2019
Italy Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Testimony by Joshua Wong

Good afternoon,

May I first express our heartfelt gratitude to the Senate’s generous invitation to give testimony before the honourable Senators and Congressmen, even though I’m not allowed to fly to Italy. The very moment I was rejected by the court to travel, I felt that it was even worse than deciding my sentences in jail as I would not be able to meet with friends in Europe to explain our cause for democracy and freedom.

Implications of Local Election result

As you may aware of Hong Kong’s local election record-high turnout, almost 3 million Hong Kong people, in a community and policy-based election, had cast ballot to express our discontent to the government and huge distrust to the Beijing authorities. Democrats went up to 385 seats, but the largest pro-Beijing party DAB, who owned 119 seats in the last term, had reduced to 21 seats.

The significance of this election to the world is that HK's current political crisis must be resolved by political solution, instead of policing force. The implications of this election are more than the number of seats in the council, but a sharp political message to the world that Hong Kong people stand with fellow protestors, and our resolve to free elections and a thoroughly independent investigation on police brutality. These humble demands are denied by China since 1997.

Civil Liberties Denied

Unfortunately, I have the most frequent encounters of civil liberties deprivation recently. At first, I went protesting against the controversial extradition bill, exercising my freedom to assembly. The government arrested me and charged me of inciting people taking part in an unlawful assembly. Then I went contesting in this local election, yet the government banned me from running for office because of my political stance. I turned to international advocacy, planning to fly to Italy explain to friends in Europe our democratic and peaceful cause. Regrettably, the court thought this Senate hearing is not important and rejected my travel application. Following the court decision, it's clear now I'm deprived of the right to election, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly (not allowed to appear on designated area), and freedom of speech. The civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution are however no longer applicable to me.

The principle of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ is a fragile ruling philosophy defining China-Hong Kong relations, guaranteeing the global financial city its autonomy. But in the past 22 years, Beijing intervened on many fronts already. Since 2014, Hong Kong’s civil society, particularly student leaders, had become the target of revenge in the past 5 years. I was arrested for 3 times, prosecuted and later imprisoned for my leading role in the Umbrella Movement. My colleague, Nathan Law, the youngest Councillor in HK’s history, was unseated and later imprisoned for the same reason. So this time people learnt from the experience and not to rely on particular ‘leading activists’ in order to prevent them from exposing to political prosecution. Besides, In the past three years, altogether Six elected legislators are disqualified for ridiculous reasons and led to an uninvited constitutional re-interpretation by Beijing.

Most recently in last week, Chinese troops, not only ready to be deployed, they have actually deployed soldiers near university area with an excuse to 'clear the barricades' of the streets. It is important to voice out to the global community, which is an attempt to coerce China's aggressive behavior using international pressure.

Trusted and Self-correcting protestors VS Abusive Police Power

In the past five months, I took a lot of interviews from journalists all over the world who are interested in reporting Hong Kong. They often find it difficult to understand why a social movement can be led without a leader, why protestors’ use of force is tolerated by fellow Hong Kong people and whether there is foreign forces behind this movement. Behind all these questions, I would like to appeal to you two messages:
firstly, the police brutality is far more serious than what is reported. Pregnant women also got beaten by police; young female (who is not a protestor) was gang raped inside the police station and many others

Secondly, there is strong and mutual trust among protestors. Certainly, protestors always have different tactical viewpoints. But there are apparently some principles guiding protestors’ decision-making, to name a few: to achieve the five demands, to prevent casualty, to avoid being arrested and to achieve mass support. These principles are essential, although we have suffered a lot of notorious police brutality in the past five months, making us more determined to fight for the five demands in solidarity.

As I mentioned the above, I realise these features are the important elements when practising democracy - mutual trust, transparency, people’s mandate, checks-and-balance. It is just ironic that Hong Kong is far from practising full democracy and free election under the authoritarian rule of Xi Jinping.

Another Frontier: International Advocacy

International advocacy is another frontier that Hong Kong people are keen on taking part in. It is the reason why I find compelled to travel and explain our cause and demands to the world. Before testifying in this committee, I attended an assembly an hour ago to yield for international support and to express our acknowledgement to advocacy efforts on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The bill is signed by the US President today to coerce and prevent further human rights violation in Hong Kong. I also wrote to several Italian papers to share the viewpoints of the protestors during this period. To enhance the understanding of Hong Kong and deteriorating human right situation in China is essential for world leaders to make an informed choice in their collaboration with the Chinese authorities too.

Why Italy should care about Hong Kong?

However, I have to say I'm quite disappointed reading the Italy Foreign Minister’s Luigi Di Maio indifferent remarks on the dire human rights situation in Hong Kong. Prolonged police brutality since June this year, what protestors facing are live round bullets. Not to mention the fact that some Italian car factories like IVECO did play a part in the brutality of Hong Kong police by supplying police vehicles. I believe a responsible state like Italy should take the conscience of human dignity into consideration.

In fact, Hong Kong can serve as a story to learn from. We were unaware of the Chinese regime's intention to gain influence and control over our economy in the early years. And our economy now is to some extent too reliant on China, which makes our battle for freedom and democracy harder. Italy should stay alert to the reliance on Chinese economic interests. There's no free lunch in the world.

Many would say I am over worrying or being too skeptical about China. But the truth is China is known for not playing by the rules and has a notorious track record for its human rights violations. The failure of 'One Country Two Systems' in Hong Kong represents the notorious track record of China not honouring the international treaty signed in 1984. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Uighurs have been detained in camps without trial now. Victims have come forth and said they are forced to take medicines that lead to infertility, young female Uighurs are forced into marriage with Chinese officials to exchange for the safety of their families. 30 years ago, the Chinese Government sent tanks against its own people on the 4th June despite the public and global attention. It almost happened last week in two universities lockdown and it is my view that the international pressure had prevented this massacre from happening.

Possible Actions by Italy

Finally, I understand that Business leaders and politicians worry that if they directly confront China on its human rights abuses, it could jeopardize future deals. Yet it is my humble wish Italy will also be truth-ful to the promises the European Union has made. EU have pledged themselves to defend and advocate for human rights in neighboring countries and the world and promised to never directly or indirectly encourage human rights violations. Italy and the rest of the free world should refrain from turning a blind eye to this.

Our position is clear: HK people are defending not only the civil liberties, democratic values and economic freedom of this international city. Standing up against the largest authoritarian regime after the Cold War, we shall continue our fight for democracy lest HK becomes a police state nor an authoritarian state. I appeal to you to stand with the people of Hong Kong.

Thank you.