鄒幸彤獄中信：709 大抓捕六週年紀念
【文：鄒幸彤（大律師、支聯會副主席）】
鄒幸彤 fb ⼩編按：7 ⽉ 9 ⽇，中國「709 ⼤抓捕」六週年，恰好也是阿彤被還押之後⾸次回到⻄九⿓裁判法院作保釋覆核的⽇⼦。
「709」⼀直是幸彤⼼⼼念念的事，因為在她眼中，這不僅僅是⼀場針對中國內地⼈權律師的⼤抓捕，更是對內地整個公⺠社會的鎮壓和掃蕩，餘震⾄今未平息⸺在「709」中被抓捕的周世鋒律師、胡⽯根長老、政治漫畫家「屠夫」吳淦⾄今在囚，幫助被捕律師的律師余⽂⽣也不能倖免，整個社會只剩下官⽅⼀種「正確」聲⾳……
十天前的「709」當日，她在庭上⾃辯，亦有相關的話想講，但很遺憾，彤說她才講了個開頭，裁判官就決定拒絕她的保釋申請了。那唯有把沒有在庭上說出的話，寫信出來給⼤家看看吧。
＝＝＝＝＝＝
我現今⾯對的控罪，是不折不扣的⽂字獄，是政權對六四記憶的政治打壓，是要令成個公⺠社會噤聲的其中⼀場戰役，是以法律之名⾏不義之事。
而六年前，當 709 發⽣在中國內地，我們能立即意識到這是⼀場不公義的政治檢控，我們法律界的同行，會站出來默站抗議，要求釋放王全璋律師、李和平律師；我們會批評官媒的未審先判，會譴責盲⽬配合的法庭，會要求政府尊重⼈權。
但六年後，當同樣的事情來到我們⾝邊，我們卻似乎失去了辨別事情本質的能⼒。我們的法庭⸺容許我這樣說⸺往往只是順著政府的劇本走，配合地把⼀個⼜⼀個政治犯送入牢籠，無限期地關押。
法治最重要的原則，法庭最神聖的任務，就是制約權⼒，保障⼈權。⽽政治檢控⸺以刑事程序達到政治打壓的⽬的，恰恰就是最常⾒亦最惡劣的一種濫權。縱容這種對法律程序的濫⽤，會令法庭的公信⼒被消磨殆盡。
709 過去六年，我們⾒到的是國內的公⺠社會經此⼀役，元氣大傷，社會只剩官⽅的⼀種聲⾳，不再有多元討論、⾃由思辨。這難道是我們想⾒到的香港嗎？
我作出覆核申請，是因為我確信保釋是我的權利。⾔論⾃由是我的權利，控方這次的檢控和反對保釋，是違憲地侵犯了我的⾔論⾃由和⼈⾝⾃由。
我作出覆核申請，是因為確信法庭在⽬前的政治環境下，是有責任更積極地捍衛公⺠權利，制約政權對公⺠⾃由的打壓。
我作出覆核申請，更是因為見到709的前車之鑑，不想⾒到香港社會變得和國內⼀樣死寂，在⾯對⼈權侵犯時，無⼈發聲。
是認可香港要有⽂字獄，還是要對政權的濫捕說不，就在⼀念之間。
＝＝＝＝＝＝
Letter from Chow Hang-tung: 6th anniversary of China’s “709 Crackdown”
Editor's note: July 9th marked the 6th anniversary of China’s “709 Crackdown”. Coincidentally, it was also the day Hang Tung returned to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts for the first time for bail review.
The 709 Crackdown has always been on Hang Tung’s mind. To her, it was not just a mass arrest targeting human rights lawyers in mainland China, but a sweeping clampdown of the entire civil society, with its aftershocks still being felt. Lawyer Zhou Shifeng, Pastor Wu Shigen, political cartoonist Butcher Wu Gan are still being imprisoned. Even Yu Wensheng, the lawyer who helped the other arrested lawyers, could not be spared. Now, only the government’s voice is deemed “correct” and allowed in the society….
In her self-defence statement in the court, she had similar words to say. But according to Hang Tung, the Magistrate cut short her statement right in the beginning and declared rejection to her bail application. Hence, she has decided to put in writing what she did not manage to say in the court.
＝＝＝＝＝＝
The accusation I am made to face right now is blatantly a case of incarceration for writings or speeches. It is the authorities’ attempt to wipe out our memories of the June 4th. It is one of their maneuvers to silence to the civil society, an injustice done in the name of law.
Six years ago, when the 709 Crackdown struck in mainland China, we immediately realized that it was an unjust political persecution. Our colleagues in the legal profession then launched a stand-in-silence protest, demanding the release of lawyers Wang Quanzhang and Li Heping. We criticised the state media for the conviction without trial and condemned the court for its blind collaboration with the authorities. We reckoned it necessary to demand the Chinese government to respect human rights.
But after six years, when now the same thing has come to us, we seem to have lost the ability to discern the essence of the issue. Our court - allowing me to say this – is just acting in accordance with the government’s script, by sending the political prisoners into jail one after another and by keeping them in detention indefinitely. The most important principle of the rule of law, and the most sacred task of the court is to countercheck the power of the state and protect the rights of the people. Political persecution, via means of the criminal procedures, is exactly the most common and worst form of power abuse. To condone this kind of abuse of the legal procedures will give the public the impression that the court is an accomplice. It will also drain the credit of the court.
Six years after the 709 Crackdown, we can see how devastated the civil society in China has now become. The official voice is the only voice left in the society. No more diverse discussions or free speculative thoughts. Is this the Hong Kong we all want to see become?
I made this application because I am convinced that it is my right to get bail and my right to enjoy free speech. The prosecution and the request for me to be remanded is infringing my constitutional rights to the freedoms of expression and of personal movement.
I made this application because I am convinced that in this context when power is so much tilted, the court has the responsibility to proactively defend people’s civil rights and to countercheck the state’s assaults on citizens’ rights to freedoms.
I made this application because I don't want to see the Hong Kong society being silenced like the one in the mainland, and no one will speak up when human rights are trespassed.
It rests upon everyone's thought of the moment to decide whether we should allow incarceration for writing/ speeches to exist in Hong Kong or to say no to arbitrary arrests.