作者：毛一炜

编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：彭小梅

“世纪大火”夺走了数百人无辜性命，香港仍在震惊与哀痛之中。然而在事故后的记者会上，特首李家超的第一句话却不是向市民道歉，也不是宣布启动独立调查，而是——“感谢习近平的关怀”。一句话，把一场本应追问责任、制度漏洞与公共安全的记者会，硬生生变成了向上级表忠的政治秀。他真正应该感谢的，是冲在火场、拯救生命的消防员。

李家超是谁？他是香港回归以来首位由警务系统直接晋升的行政长官，没有民意基础、没有民主授权。他的权力完全来自北京，尤其依赖习近平和中共的认可。如今的李家超，政治逻辑完全是“向上负责”，而不是“向市民负责”。灾难发生时，他首先考虑的不是民众生命安全，而是如何在中央面前表现忠诚。

香港此刻最需要的——是答案：建筑监管为何多年失效？承办商为何层层外判、责任模糊？政府为何明知楼宇安全危险，却长期坐视不管？为何一再发生类似悲剧，却没有人承担制度性责任？这些问题本应由记者会提出，由特区政府启动独立透明调查。然而李家超的记者会把“感谢中央”放在首位，真相被挤到角落，制度漏洞被掩盖，责任被抽象化。

这正是香港走到如今的根本原因：中共的谎言。几十年来，北京不断宣称“香港高度自治”“港人治港”，然而事实是：香港的自由与制度保障，被一步步蚕食。所谓“一国两制”，在中共眼里只是一个美丽谎言，是用来掩盖对香港全面掌控的幌子。李家超在记者会上不停感谢习近平、感谢共产党——试问，他究竟在感谢什么？感谢那些用虚假的承诺掩盖真相、用政治忠诚代替问责、用恐惧和压制取代自由的上级吗？

“一国两制”本应保障香港特区向市民负责，但如今却变成了笑话：特首权力不再来自选民，而完全来自中央政府的授权。李家超不需要在意香港人的死伤，也不需要回应公众的愤怒，只要上级满意，他就稳如泰山。这就是香港正在内地化的真实写照：自由消失，民主消失，问责机制消失，留下的只是政治忠诚和表演。

看看这次大火，香港政府的第一反应不是追责，不是公开真相，而是抓人、控言论、压制异议——和中国内地完全一样。谁敢批评政府？谁敢联署四大诉求？谁敢揭露制度漏洞？都会被当作威胁、被抓、被收拾。维稳成了首要任务，真相和民众安全被完全忽视。

这场火灾不仅烧毁了建筑物，更烧毁了香港的信任和制度。自由不见了，独立调查无从谈起，公众监督被封堵，而李家超在镜头前的“感谢习近平”“感谢中央”，实际上是在宣示：权力来源不是民众，而是中共。习近平和共产党做了什么？他们拿着所谓的“一国两制”承诺，掩盖制度漏洞，纵容官僚不作为，把香港变成了一个政治表忠的舞台。值得感谢吗？显然不。

真正毁灭一座城市的，不是火灾，而是一个让政治忠诚高于人民生命、让谎言高于真相的政府。香港曾经是亚洲的东方之都，曾以法治闻名。而今天，制度被蚕食，自由被剥夺，民意被压制，死难者成为政治祭品。

所有香港人——无论生者还是死者的家属——都在等一个答案：香港的政府是否还能直面真相？是否还能保护市民，而不是继续做中共的表演者？如果不敢，如果不愿，悲剧还会一再重演，而所谓“一国两制”“高度自治”，早已成为中共最荒谬、最致命的谎言。

香港自由的焚毁，是习近平和中共用谎言一步步烧掉的结果。火焰烧毁了建筑，政治烧毁了信任，制度与真相被放逐。面对这样的政府，市民的生命和权利被彻底边缘化，未来的悲剧，只能一次又一次重演。

Mao Yiwei: The Hong Kong Fire — John Lee’s Display of Loyalty and the CCP’s Lies

Author: Mao YiweiEditor: Zhou Zhigang Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:After the massive fire in Hong Kong, Chief Executive John Lee opened the post-incident press conference by thanking Xi Jinping, instead of expressing condolences to the injured or gratitude to the firefighters. This shows that the Hong Kong government is gradually becoming a part of the Chinese Communist Party, while democracy and freedom are disappearing.

The “fire of the century” took hundreds of innocent lives, and Hong Kong remains in shock and grief. Yet at the press conference following the incident, the very first words of Chief Executive John Lee were not an apology to the public, nor an announcement of launching an independent investigation, but— “Thank you for Xi Jinping’s concern.” With one sentence, a press conference that should have been about demanding accountability, exposing systemic loopholes, and addressing public safety was forcibly turned into a political show of loyalty to the higher-ups. The ones he should have truly thanked were the firefighters who rushed into the blaze and saved lives.

Who is John Lee? He is the first Chief Executive since the handover to be promoted directly from the police force, with no democratic mandate and no public legitimacy. His power comes entirely from Beijing, especially from Xi Jinping and the CCP’s approval. John Lee’s political logic today is completely “accountable upward”, not “accountable to the citizens.”What Hong Kong needs most at this moment is—answers: Why has building regulation failed for so many years? Why are contractors subcontracting endlessly, creating blurred responsibility? Why did the government ignore known building safety hazards for so long? Why do similar tragedies keep happening, yet no one bears institutional responsibility? These are questions that should have been raised at the press conference and addressed by launching an independent and transparent investigation by the Hong Kong government. However, John Lee placed “thanking the central government” at the top, pushing truth to the corner, covering systemic loopholes, and abstracting responsibility.

This is exactly the fundamental reason why Hong Kong has come to where it is today:the CCP’s lies. For decades, Beijing has repeatedly claimed “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” and “a high degree of autonomy.” But in reality, Hong Kong’s freedoms and institutional safeguards have been steadily eroded. The so-called “One Country, Two Systems,” in the eyes of the CCP, is nothing but a beautifully packaged lie, a façade masking its full control over Hong Kong. At the press conference, John Lee kept thanking Xi Jinping and the Communist Party— But what exactly was he thanking them for? For covering up the truth with false promises? For replacing accountability with political loyalty? For replacing freedom with fear and suppression?

“One Country, Two Systems” was supposed to ensure that Hong Kong officials were accountable to the people. But now it has become a joke: The Chief Executive’s power no longer comes from voters, but entirely from authorization by the central government. John Lee does not need to care about the deaths and injuries of Hong Kong people, nor respond to public anger—as long as the higher-ups are satisfied, he remains secure in his position. This is the true portrait of Hong Kong’s mainlandization: Freedom disappears; Democracy disappears; Accountability mechanisms disappear. All that remains is political loyalty and performance.

Look at this fire: The Hong Kong government’s first reaction was not to investigate responsibility, not to disclose the truth, but to arrest people, suppress speech, and silence dissent—exactly the same as in mainland China. Who dares criticize the government? Who dares co-sign four major demands? Who dares expose systemic loopholes? Anyone doing so will be treated as a threat, arrested, or punished.“Stability maintenance” becomes the top priority, while truth and public safety are completely ignored.

This fire did not only burn down a building; it burned down Hong Kong’s trust and its institutions. Freedom has vanished. Independent investigation is impossible. Public oversight is blocked. John Lee’s on-camera “Thank you to Xi Jinping” and “Thank you to the central government” was, in fact, a declaration: The source of his power is not the people, but the CCP. What have Xi Jinping and the CCP actually done?They hid systemic failures behind the so-called promises of “One Country, Two Systems,” indulged bureaucratic negligence, and turned Hong Kong into a political stage for public displays of loyalty. Is this something to be thankful for? Obviously not.

What destroys a city is not a fire, but a government that values political loyalty above human life and lies above truth. Hong Kong, once the Oriental Pearl and renowned for its rule of law, has had its institutions hollowed out, its freedoms stripped, and its public will be suppressed. The victims of the fire have become political offerings.

All Hong Kong people—both the living and the families of the dead—are waiting for an answer: Can the Hong Kong government still confront the truth? Can it still protect its citizens, instead of continuing to perform for the CCP? If it cannot, if it will not, tragedies will repeat again and again. And the supposed “One Country, Two Systems” and “high degree of autonomy” have long become the CCP’s most absurd and most lethal lies.

The destruction of Hong Kong’s freedom is the result of Xi Jinping and the CCP burning it down step by step with lies. The flames destroyed the building; politics destroyed trust. Institutions and truth were exiled. Under such a government, people’s lives and rights are pushed to the margins, and future tragedies can only continue to happen, again and again.

作者：王连江
编辑：钟然 责任编辑：张娜 校对：王滨 翻译：刘芳

任志强1951年3月出生。我们先看看我所知道的任志强多年以来的言论观点，行动，遭遇。

     2006年：民众骂高房价、骂开发商是被蒙蔽了，房价成本的80%都被政府拿走了，政府比房地产商黑多了，房地产商其实是政府推卸责任的靶子，替政府受过。

    2007年：房价过快上涨的直接原因是政府依赖土地财政，掌握土地的供给，认为造成供需矛盾，所以宏观调控政策全部错误，因为没有抓住病根。

    2013年北大：台湾民主制度的建立不仅仅因为有一个蒋经国，而是因为台湾人民有思想，有梦想，他们要建立一个民主社会。鼓励大学生们努力地站起来，承担各自的社会责任，把我们面前的这堵墙推倒。

   2015年2月:当今的体制是垄断的皇权、中央集权。

   2015年9月23日:千万别让团中央用愚昧再去欺骗年轻的一代，千万别让改革开放退回到改革以前，我不在乎别人骂我，但团中央不能用无知欺骗社会。

    2015年10月1日:这个节日不是一个国家产生的节日，而是一个新的政府产生的节日。这意味着：中共是中共，中国是中国，中共不等于中国。

   2016年2月批评央视“官媒姓党”。媒体应当服务于人民，而不是某个党派。

   2020年2月:“丝毫不掩饰坚决当皇帝的野心，和谁不让我当皇帝，就让你灭亡的决心！”。

    2020年3月12日被拘留，9月22日北京市第二中级法院判处有期徒刑18年。

     在现代的政治文明体系里，政府的权利来源于它管辖范围内人民私权的授予，人民不但有权力批评政府，在现任政府不能满足人民的愿望时，人民还有权力推翻现在的政府！

   目前中华人民共和国这个政府的执政权力，这么多年，从来没有人民的授予！它的权力是枪杆子抢出来的，它是非法的，暴力的！他们所宣讲的共产主义，是一种邪教！它是通过欺骗，用一条铺满了鲜花的道路，把信奉它的人们带入地狱！几十年的中国历史世界历史、一而再再而三地证明，它传播到哪里，只会给哪里的人们带来愚昧，贫困，动乱，战争，血腥镇压！

我本人出身富农。土改时，我祖父外祖父几代人辛苦积累的财富被剥夺，我父母被歧视冷遇了几十年，我童年也是在部分同伴的欺凌中度过。上学时面对部分教材的欺骗，参加工作后就业机会的不均等，高房价，儿子上海读书，无法参加当地高考，父母临去世前仅有的低微的养老金等等，这些亲身经历的不公，让我思考为什么眼前的社会会这样？怎么样的社会才是公平的？我需要答案！任志强先生敢言，讲真话！在那个微博流行的年代我关注了他，了解了他，我认同他的观念，敬重他的人品，并赞赏他的勇气！他本衣食无忧，可以安享晚年，他只是为了顾念苍生说了真心话。现在他被抓了，被判了18年！并且是在他69岁的时候被判了18年！他有何罪？讲真话有何罪？批评一个非法政府有何罪？他只是尽到了作为公民应承担的社会责任！任志强先生我愿与你同罪！

2022年8月网上流传的任志强先生在狱中的照片。

 I Am Willing to Share the Same “Crime” as Mr. Ren Zhiqiang

Author: Wang Lianjiang
Editor: Zhong Ran Executive Editor: Zhang Na Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract: For many years, Ren Zhiqiang openly criticized the political system, the media, and China’s reliance on land-based fiscal revenue. He advocated democracy and civic responsibility, and for speaking the truth, he was ultimately sentenced to 18 years in prison. The author reflects on social injustice through personal experiences and expresses deep respect for Ren’s courage and conscience.

Ren Zhiqiang was born in March 1951. Let us first look at the remarks, actions, and experiences of Ren Zhiqiang that I have come to know over the years.

2006: When the public angrily criticized high housing prices and developers, he pointed out that they were being misled—80% of housing costs were taken by the government. The government, he said, was far darker than the real estate companies, and developers were merely scapegoats used by the government to deflect blame.

2007: He argued that the direct cause of surging housing prices was the government’s dependence on land finance and its monopolistic control over land supply. Because policymakers failed to grasp the root cause, all macro-control policies were fundamentally flawed.

2013, Peking University: He stated that Taiwan’s democratic system was not established solely because of Chiang Ching-kuo, but because the Taiwanese people had ideals and aspirations. They wanted to build a democratic society. He encouraged university students to stand up, shoulder their social responsibilities, and push down the wall standing in front of them.

February 2015: He described the current system as a monopoly of imperial power and centralized authoritarianism.

September 23, 2015: “Do not let the Communist Youth League deceive a new generation with ignorance, and do not allow reforms to regress to the pre-reform era. I do not care if others scold me, but the Youth League must not use ignorance to mislead society.”

October 1, 2015: “This day is not the birth of a nation, but the anniversary of a new government coming into existence. This means: the CCP is the CCP, China is China, and the CCP is not China.”

February 2016: He criticized the slogan “state media must bear the Party’s surname,” insisting that the media should serve the people, not a political party.

February 2020: He wrote that someone at the top “makes no effort to hide his determination to be emperor, and his resolve to destroy anyone who stands in his way.”

March 12, 2020: He was detained. On September 22, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court sentenced him to 18 years in prison.

In modern political civilization, a government’s authority comes from the private rights granted by the people within its jurisdiction. People not only have the right to criticize their government, but when the current government fails to meet the people’s expectations, the people also have the right to overthrow it.

  

The current government of the People’s Republic of China has never received its governing authority from the people—not once in all these years. Its power was seized through the barrel of a gun; it is illegal and violent. The communism it preaches is a cult. Through deception, it leads believers down a flower-strewn path into hell. Decades of Chinese and world history have repeatedly proven that wherever this ideology spreads, it brings ignorance, poverty, chaos, war, and bloody repression.

I myself come from a “rich peasant” family. During land reform, the wealth that my grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestors accumulated over generations was confiscated. My parents suffered discrimination for decades, and my own childhood was marked by bullying. In school, I faced deceptive textbooks; after entering the workforce, I encountered unequal employment opportunities. Later came unaffordable housing, my son being unable to take the college entrance exam in Shanghai despite studying there, and my elderly parents surviving on meager pensions. These injustices in my own life made me question why society is the way it is. What kind of society is truly fair? I needed answers. Ren Zhiqiang spoke boldly and truthfully. In the era when Weibo was at its height, I followed him, learned from him, agreed with his views, respected his character, and admired his courage. He did not lack food, clothing, or comfort; he could have enjoyed his old age in peace. Yet he chose to speak out of conscience, out of concern for the people. Now he has been arrested and sentenced to 18 years—at the age of 69. What was his crime? What crime is there in telling the truth? What crime is there in criticizing an illegitimate government? He merely fulfilled the social responsibility expected of a citizen. Mr. Ren Zhiqiang, I am willing to share the same “crime” as you.

A photo of Mr. Ren Zhiqiang in prison, circulated online in August 2022.

作者：毛一炜
编辑：张宇 责任编辑：张娜 校对：王滨 翻译：刘芳

最近我在油管刷到王志安频道更新的一段历史影像——徐勤先庭审的视频，画面来自 1990 年 3 月 17 日。三十多年过去，这段庭审影像第一次完整公开。视频中，徐勤先面对军事法庭，神情沉稳，语气平静地说：“我不同意使用武力。”没有激烈的抗议，也没有刻意的姿态，只有一种令人无法忽视的坚定。那一刻，他的平静本身就像一种沉默的力量，让人心头一紧。

1989年六月的北京，街头的学生和市民手无寸铁，却被共产党和军队以暴力镇压。徐勤先是当时的第 38 集团军军长，拒绝带兵入京镇压学生，甚至拒绝在调兵令上签字。这个决定意味着他直接违抗上级命令，也意味着承受无法预料的惩罚。最终，他被秘密军事法庭判处五年有期徒刑。庭审中，他没有求情，也没有辩解，只有冷静、沉着的神态。那份安静的坚持，比任何激烈的抗争更让人动容。

影像里，庭审室的光线昏暗，徐勤先坐在法庭上，眼神清澈却带着沉重的分量。旁边的审判官面无表情，周围的环境压抑而沉默。每一个微小的动作，都仿佛在诉说着当年的紧张和恐惧。他的选择，是军人的职业底线，也是良知的底线。三十多年被封锁的历史，在这段影像里重见天日，让人切实感受到那个时代的复杂和残酷。

看到这段视频，我的思绪回到了初三那年。那一年，我第一次学会“翻墙”，第一次看到了关于六四事件的影像。屏幕上，一个大学生映入眼帘，戴着眼镜，头上绑着红色头带。他的眼神坚定，骑着自行车奔向天安门广场。他说：“去游行，去天安门广场“。记者问他为什么 他回答“I think It’s my duty”。”短短一句话，却让我第一次理解责任感和勇气。画面中的他，不只是一个学生，更像是历史的一部分——一个时代里敢于站出来的人。

徐勤先的庭审和那个大学生的画面在我心中交织。一个在军中核心选择遵从良知，一个在街头选择挺身而出。时间、身份、环境不同，但他们的行为本质相通：在关键时刻，他们拒绝背弃自己的判断，拒绝让良知沉默。看着这些影像，我感到一阵寒意，也感到敬意。那份在压迫面前依然坚守的勇气，比任何言语都更有力量，也提醒我：历史不会因为沉默而消失，真相终会揭开。

而曾经用枪口镇压学生、用谎言掩盖真相的共产党，其统治必将终结。血与恐惧无法永远压制人心，谎言无法永远掩盖历史。迟早有一天，真相将冲破封锁，暴政会被彻底推翻，党权必将下台。人民的记忆和良知才是永远的裁判，历史不会忘记，也不会宽恕。

Refusing to Yield: Xu Qinxian and the Struggle of June Fourth

Author: Mao Yiwei
Editor: Zhang Yu Executive Editor: Zhang Na Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract: Inspired by the newly released footage of Xu Qinxian’s trial, the author reflects that history never disappears, and truth can never be buried.

Recently, I came across a historical video on Wang Zhi’an’s YouTube channel—footage of Xu Qinxian’s military trial, recorded on March 17, 1990. More than thirty years later, this is the first time the full trial has been made public. In the video, Xu Qinxian faces the military court with a calm expression and a steady voice: “I do not agree to the use of force.” No fiery protest, no dramatic posturing—only an unshakeable firmness. In that moment, his composure itself was a form of silent strength, tightening the chest of anyone who watched.

In June 1989, students and citizens stood unarmed on the streets of Beijing, yet they were crushed by the violence of the Communist Party and the military. Xu Qinxian, then commander of the 38th Army, refused to lead his troops into Beijing to suppress the students and even refused to sign the mobilization order. This decision meant directly defying his superiors and facing unpredictable consequences. In the end, he was sentenced to five years in prison by a secret military court. During the trial, he neither pleaded nor defended himself. His demeanor remained cool and composed. That quiet, unwavering stance spoke louder than any outcry.。

In the footage, the courtroom appears dim, and Xu Qinxian sits before the judges with clear eyes that carry a heavy gravity. The presiding officers look expressionless. The entire room feels oppressive and still. Every small movement seems to whisper the tension and fear of that time. His choice represented the boundary of a soldier’s duty—and the boundary of conscience. After more than three decades of censorship, history resurfaced through this footage, allowing us to truly feel the complexity and brutality of that era.

As I watched the video, my thoughts drifted back to my third year of middle school. That was the year I first learned how to “climb over the firewall,” and the year I first saw images of the June Fourth crackdown. On the screen, I saw a university student wearing glasses and a red headband. His eyes were resolute as he rode his bicycle toward Tiananmen Square. He said he was going there to join the demonstration. A reporter asked why. He replied, “I think it’s my duty.” Just a few words, yet they taught me, for the first time, the meaning of responsibility and courage. He was not only a student—he was part of history, one of those who dared to stand up in that era.

The image of Xu Qinxian’s trial and the image of that student merge in my mind. One was inside the core of the military, choosing to follow conscience. The other was in the streets, choosing to step forward. Their times, identities, and environments were different, but the essence of their actions was the same: in a decisive moment, they refused to betray their judgment and refused to let their conscience fall silent. Watching these scenes, I felt a chill, but also deep respect. The courage to hold on in the face of oppression is more powerful than any words—and it reminds us that history does not disappear because of silence, nor does truth fade with time.

And as for the Communist Party that once turned its guns on students and buried truth under lies—its rule will inevitably come to an end. Blood and fear cannot suppress the human heart forever, and lies cannot cover history forever. One day, truth will break through the blockade, tyranny will be shattered, and the Party’s authority will fall. The memory and conscience of the people are the only eternal judges. History will not forget—and it will not forgive.

宪法第一条：开宗明义

作者：程伟
责任编辑：胡丽莉 校对：熊辩 翻译：刘芳

引言：宪法的民治之魂 《公民宪法》以民治、民主、民权、民生、民族为核心，勾勒出一幅中国民主未来的宏伟蓝图。第一条作为宪法的开篇基石，明确了国家与公民的关系，奠定了民治的根本原则：“先有人类后有国家，是公民建立国家，国家是公民的国家，是公民治理国家，而不是国家统治公民，公民没有爱国的义务；国家政权的建立其基本原则是保护公民的生命权、自由权、财产权、反抗压迫权和选举与被选举权不受任何的非法侵犯，当国家政权无法保证这一基本原则时，公民有权有义务推翻这个政权，建立一个以保障公民生命权、自由权、财产权、反抗压迫权和选举与被选举权为基本原则的政权。”本文将深入解读这一条款，揭示其对中国民主未来的深远意义。

一、民治的核心：公民先于国家 第一条开宗明义，提出“先有人类后有国家”，颠覆了传统国家至上的观念，确立了公民在国家形成中的主体地位。这一理念源自以民治为核心的政治理论，强调国家是公民意志的产物，而非凌驾于公民之上的统治工具。公民不仅是国家的缔造者，更是国家治理的主体，“是公民治理国家，而不是国家统治公民”明确了权力的流向：国家权力源于公民授权，而非反向统治。这种设计彻底打破了威权体制的逻辑，将公民置于宪政体系的中心。更为前瞻性的提出，“公民没有爱国的义务”这一表述，挑战了传统爱国主义的强制性叙事。在《公民宪法》的语境中，爱国并非公民的义务，而是基于自由选择的情感表达。国家若不能服务于公民的福祉，便无权要求公民的忠诚。这一理念不仅赋予公民精神上的自由，也为反抗不义政权提供了理论依据，体现了民治的彻底性。

二、国家政权的原则：保障五项基本权利 第一条进一步阐述，国家政权的建立以保护公民的生命权、自由权、财产权、反抗压迫权、选举与被选举权为基本原则。这五项权利构成了《公民宪法》的核心价值，涵盖了从生存到自由、从经济到政治的全面保障。 

生命权：作为最基本的人权，确保公民免受暴力与非法侵害，是国家存在的首要理由，所以，人权高于主权。 

自由权：包括言论、信仰、结社等自由，保障公民在思想与行动上的自主性，思想自由是人类的第一自由权，是不可剥夺也不能被剥夺的自由权利。 

财产权：保护公民的经济成果，防止国家或他人非法侵占，促进社会公平与个人激励，私有财产不可侵犯。 

反抗压迫权：赋予公民对抗不公与暴政的合法性，是民治理念的直接体现，公民有权利有义务反抗压迫，使反抗压迫成为一种基本人权。 

选举与被选举权：确保公民通过民主机制参与国家治理，体现民主乃民治的制度化实现，选举与被选举权作为基本人权之一，是民治理念的具体体现。

这些权利的设定不仅是对个人尊严的维护，也是对国家权力的约束。国家若无法履行保护公民这些权利的职责，便失去了合法性。这一原则为公民治理提供了明确的衡量标准，也为公民监督国家公权机构行使公权力提供了法律依据。

三、公民的权利与义务：推翻与重建 宪法第一条赋予了公民的革命权利：“当国家政权无法保障五项基本原则时，公民有权、有义务推翻这个政权，建立一个以保障公民生命权、自由权、财产权、反抗压迫权和选举与被选举权为基本原则的政权。”这不仅是一项权利，更是一项义务，体现了《公民宪法》对公民能动性的高度信任。公民不再是被动服从的臣民，而是国家命运的主动塑造者。这种设计既是对历史中暴政教训的回应，也是对未来民主韧性的保障。通过这一条款，将民治的理念推向极致：当国家背离其服务公民的初衷，公民有权通过合法或革命手段重建宪政秩序。这种权利与义务的结合，既激励公民参与公共事务，也为民主制度的自我纠错提供了机制。

四、对中国民主未来的启示 第一条以民治为核心，重新定义了国家与公民的关系，为中国民主的未来提供了明确的方向。这不仅回应了西方民主的局限，如过度依赖代议制而忽略公民直接参与，也避免了传统集权体制对个人自由的压制。通过将公民置于国家之上，《公民宪法》的第一条为中国民主提供了“第三条道路”。在人工智能、数据监控等新技术的兴起对公民权利构成了新挑战的当下，《公民宪法》通过保护反抗压迫权和选举与被选举权，为应对这些挑战提供了制度保障。同时，“公民没有爱国的义务”打破了民族主义的桎梏，使中国民主能够在开放与包容中迎接全球化的机遇。

结语：民治的星辰大海 《公民宪法》第一条，以其对民治的深刻诠释，点燃了中国民主未来的希望之光。通过“先有人类后有国家”的宣言，赋予公民无上的主体地位；通过五项基本权利的保障，构筑了民治的坚实基石；通过推翻与重建的权利与义务，激发了公民的能动性。这一条款不仅是一部宪法的开篇，更是通向自由、公平、繁荣的中国民主之路的起点。

点击查看《公民宪法》原文

——《公民宪法》撰写人程伟/何清风，一身正气、两袖清风。

An Interpretation of the “Civic Constitution”: On the Future of Chinese Democracy – Part II

Article One: The Foundational Principle
Author: Cheng Wei Executive Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract: Article One of the Civic Constitution establishes a fundamental principle: humanity precedes the state, and it is the citizens who create the state—not the state that governs citizens. By defining the chronological and logical order between citizens and the state, it derives the doctrine that citizens stand above the state. Article One further articulates five basic principles of citizenship and affirms that when a regime fails to protect these principles, citizens not only have the right but also the obligation to overthrow it.

Introduction: The Democratic Soul of the ConstitutionAnchored in popular governance, democracy, civil rights, livelihood, and national identity, the Civic Constitution sketches a grand blueprint for the future of Chinese democracy. Article One, serving as the foundation of the document, clarifies the relationship between the state and its citizens and establishes the core principle of democratic rule by the people: “Humanity came before the state; it is citizens who establish the state. The state belongs to the citizens, and it is the citizens who govern the state, not the state that rules over citizens. Citizens have no obligation to love the state; the fundamental purpose of establishing state power is to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty, property, resistance against oppression, and suffrage—including the right to be elected—against any unlawful infringement. When the state fails to uphold these principles, citizens have the right and the duty to overthrow that regime and to establish one that protects these fundamental rights.” This article examines Article One in depth and reveals its profound implications for China’s democratic future.

I. The Core of Popular Governance: Citizens Precede the StateArticle One begins with the declaration “Humanity came before the state,” overturning traditional notions of state supremacy and establishing citizens as the primary actors in political formation. Rooted in theories of rule by the people, this principle underscores that the state is the product of citizens’ collective will, not a tool of domination imposed upon them. Citizens are not merely subjects—they are founders and governors of the state. The assertion that “citizens govern the state, not the state the citizens” clarifies that political authority flows from citizens to the government. This dismantles authoritarian logic and places citizens at the center of constitutional order. The forward-looking statement “citizens have no obligation to love the state” challenges coercive nationalism. Under this constitutional vision, patriotism is voluntary. A state that fails to serve its citizens cannot demand their loyalty. This grants citizens spiritual freedom and offers a theoretical basis for resisting unjust power, embodying the completeness of popular governance.

II. The Principles of State Authority: Safeguarding Five Fundamental RightsArticle One further declares that the establishment of state power must rest on the protection of five essential rights: the right to life, liberty, property, resistance against oppression, and the right to vote and to be elected. These rights form the core moral structure of the Civic Constitution, spanning survival, freedom, economic security, and political participation. The right to life is the most basic human right and the primary justification for the state’s existence; thus, human rights supersede sovereignty. Liberty includes freedom of speech, belief, and association, protecting the autonomy of thought and action; freedom of thought is humanity’s first and inalienable freedom. Property rights protect citizens’ economic achievements and prevent unlawful seizure, ensuring fairness and incentive. The right to resist oppression grants citizens legitimacy to oppose injustice and tyranny, transforming resistance into a fundamental human right. The right to vote and be elected ensures democratic participation and institutionalizes the principle of rule by the people. These rights safeguard individual dignity while constraining state authority. A regime that fails to protect them loses legitimacy, providing clear standards for public governance and a legal basis for citizens to supervise the state.

III. Citizens’ Rights and Duties: Overthrowing and RebuildingArticle One grants citizens a revolutionary mandate: when a regime fails to safeguard the five fundamental principles, citizens have not only the right but also the obligation to overthrow it and establish one that protects these rights. This is more than a right—it is a civic duty, reflecting profound trust in citizen agency. Citizens cease to be passive subjects and become active authors of political destiny. This design responds to historical lessons of tyranny and ensures the long-term resilience of democracy. When the state abandons its purpose of serving its citizens, citizens are empowered to restore constitutional order through lawful or revolutionary means. By linking rights with obligations, Article One stimulates civic participation and provides democracy with a built-in corrective mechanism.

IV. Implications for the Future of Chinese DemocracyCentered on popular governance, Article One redefines the relationship between citizens and the state and charts a clear course for China’s democratic development. It addresses limitations of Western democracies—such as overreliance on representative systems—while avoiding the suppressive tendencies of authoritarian governance. By placing citizens above the state, Article One offers a “third pathway” for China’s democratic future. In an era when artificial intelligence and data surveillance pose new threats to civil liberties, the constitutional protection of the right to resist oppression and the right to vote provides institutional safeguards against future abuses. Meanwhile, the declaration that “citizens have no obligation to love the state” breaks free from enforced nationalism, enabling a democratic China to embrace openness and global opportunity.

Conclusion: Toward a Democratic HorizonThrough its profound articulation of popular governance, Article One of the Civic Constitution illuminates a path of hope for China’s political future. By asserting that humanity precedes the state, it grants citizens supreme political primacy; by establishing five essential rights, it lays a foundation of democratic order; by granting citizens the right and duty to overthrow unjust regimes, it empowers democratic self-renewal. Article One is not merely the opening clause of a constitution—it is the starting point of a journey toward freedom, justice, and prosperity.

Click to view the full text of the Civic Constitution.— Written by Cheng Wei and He Qingfeng, paragons of integrity and moral clarity.

慰问被中国当局扣押的各族裔良心犯+ 人道中国年会 | Christmas card signing for prisoners of conscience of all ethnicities detained by Chinese authorities & The Humanitarian China Annual Meeting

岁末年终，签圣诞新年贺卡，慰问中国和香港的良心犯活动，由人道中国举办。人道中国年会同时举行。

这项活动在八九六四后由矽谷民主促进会发起，送出寒冬中的问候，历年来激励鼓舞着最需要关注的人们。欢迎公众参加。

时间：2025年12月7日(星期日)，下午二点至四点

地点：红木城公共图书馆活动室

主办：人道中国

协办：擦星星事务所

For the upcoming holiday season, you are invited to join us in this annual Christmas card signing event for the prisoners of conscience of all ethnicities detained by Chinese authorities. The Humanitarian China Annual Meeting will be held at the same time.

Time: 2025-12-7 (Sun), 2pm to 4pm

Place: Redwood City Downtown Library, Meeting Room

1044 Middlefield Road, Redwood City

Organizer: Humanitarian China

Co-organizer: Star Shiner

作者：张致君
编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：熊辩 翻译：吕峰

2025年11月26日，香港大埔屋苑宏福苑大火，7座大厦受灾。之后，本应是一场人道灾难后的公共检讨，却再次被拽入政治黑暗之中。当民众发起联署，呼吁成立独立调查委员会、要求问责、改善制度，以避免悲剧再度发生时，理应是制度健全社会里最普通不过的公民行为。然而，发起人在周六被警方以“涉嫌煽动”拘捕。

四项诉求，合乎法治。而灾难没有让政府反省，反而成为压迫言论的契机。

这正是今天香港最荒凉的现实：

言论自由已死，公民监督已死，国安法成了枷锁，牢牢锁住每一个愿意说真话的嘴。

中共驻香港国安署更是宣告联署行为为“反中乱港”，这种压迫，并非突如其来，是自2019年的“反送中”以来，一步步被雕刻、强化、制度化的结果。

2019年的“反送中”运动里，数百万港人提出五大诉求：撤回《逃犯条例》修订；成立独立调查委员会，调查警方滥权；撤销“暴动”定义；释放所有被捕示威者，不予追究；实行双普选。

这五大诉求，是香港社会对体制失信的回应，是市民在持续被压迫之下的最低要求。

但六年过去，结果是什么？

只有第一项“撤回条例”被动完成，但已失去意义，一部更严厉、更全面、更无法上诉、更不受监督的法律取而代之：《香港国安法》。

它不是修补社会裂痕，而是直接把所有裂痕密封、焊死，把自由统统埋进水泥里。

独立调查委员会没有成立，警方被视为“不可质疑的权力体”。六年前，警察在街头、地铁站、校园中的武力使用问题，引发巨大争议。

社会要求成立独立调查委员会，是希望真相得以公开，责任得以承担，这也是任何成熟法治社会处理公民冲突的常规方式。

但在香港，这项诉求被彻底拒绝。

更讽刺的是：今天的香港，只要公民使用合法权利再提出同样要求——哪怕是针对一场大火、一起意外事故，都有可能被控“煽动”或“危害国家安全”。

“反送中”抗争后，“暴动”定义仍然存在，甚至被无限扩大，2019年参与游行的普通市民，原本希望争取公义，却被当成“暴徒”。六年后，香港的法律环境更恶劣：只要在网上表达对政府的不满、转发新闻、写标语、参与纪念“六·四”活动，甚至在不同意官方叙述的群组中留言，都可能被判刑、被扣押、被噤声。

大量年轻人被捕、定罪、入狱，许多人的人生轨迹被改变。他们本应是社会的未来，却被视为对国家的“威胁”。被捕者没有获得宽恕，却成为政治审判的核心对象。

香港人要求的普选更是遥遥无期，“爱国者治港”成为唯一政治标准，“爱港者治港”成为分裂国家标语，香港人民理想中的民主没有实现，进一步倒退。在一场公民运动中，被排除的不是政客，而是整整一代人的政治权利。

五大诉求没有被政府认真回应过，成为政府口中“必须压制的动乱根源”之后，如今大火，当民众再度提出“调查”、“问责”、“制度改革”时，政府第一反应不是改善，而是镇压，这便是在2019年坚持抗争的人们所预料到的现实。

《国安法》成为了万能的法治枷锁。

该法定义模糊，“危害国家安全”几乎可以涵盖任何行为，所谓“煽动”，可以是不满政府的言论、批评公共政策的文章，甚至是一张海报、一句口号、一支蜡烛。当法律缺乏明确界限时，权力便可以无限扩张。加之其执法方式不透明，“调查本身”就是惩罚，在国安案件中：拘捕时警方不必公开理由，律师无法接触核心资料，嫌疑人基本无法获得保释，审判由指定法官完成，没有陪审团，媒体报道受限制。这些都意味着国安案件已经脱离正常法治程序。

在《国安法》控制下，寒蝉效应被设计成制度的一部分，只要人们知道“别人因为发起联署被捕”，民众就会自我审查，对公共事务保持沉默。

政府不需要抓所有人，只需要抓一两个典型，便能让更多人不敢开口。

这就是政治的恐惧机制。这种政治恐惧，从大陆烧到了香港，一党独裁，遍地是灾。

今天的香港，不再是曾经那个自由、开放、敢于批评权力的城市。它像一扇被焊死的铁门，外表依旧繁华亮丽，内部却暗流汹涌，日益窒息。

独立媒体被关闭、冻结资产、编辑被捕，记者被控“串谋发布煽动刊物”。昔日的新闻自由指数跌落谷底。

工会组织、人权团体、学生组织纷纷解散。不是因为不想存在，而是不敢存在。

教科书也被重写，6月4日被从历史里删除，校园里的政治表达被禁止。

成长中的一整代人，被迫在过滤后的世界里成长。

从2019年后，超过几十万港人离开香港。不是为了更好的生活，而是为了逃离恐惧。

对于香港最大的失败不再是经济停滞，而是人民不再相信未来，香港已死。

香港大火的悲剧本应促成政体反思：制度是否有漏洞？官员是否失职？监管是否失效？是否需要独立调查？

这在过去的香港，是常态。无论是撞船事故、地铁出轨、食物安全问题，社会都会要求独立调查委员会——这是香港曾引以为傲的制度。

然而今天，提出独立调查的人被抓，提出问责的人被控“煽动”。

不是社会变了，是制度之下不再允许公民参与讨论。

在《国安法》的铁幕之下，公共治理不再接受监督，权力不再需要解释，而人民不再被允许发问。

法治落幕，赤裸裸的权力统治昭然若揭。

香港人从2019年的反抗，就看到了今日的司法惨剧。一个没有言论自由和公民监督的社会，是无法纠错的社会。

没有人可以提醒政府错误，没有媒体可以揭露疏忽，没有市民敢提出制度缺陷。

错误变成习惯，习惯变成制度，制度变成压迫。

“反送中”的五大诉求之所以重要，就在于它们是防止今日香港走向黑暗的最后努力。

当五大诉求被忽视，国安法成为枷锁，言论不再被允许，悲剧就不仅仅是火灾，而是整个民主制度的逐步沉沦。

中共抓不完香港人，香港仍有在坚守的人，公义的希望来自那些仍然愿意发声的人。

尽管风险巨大，尽管时代黑暗，总有人愿意站出来告诉权力：真相必须被说出，责任必须被追究，自由必须被守护。

“世界上本就没有英雄，而是一个个挺身而出的凡人。”

我仍愿意书写今日香港，为的是还在坚持的平凡人。正如2019年的街头，正如无数被捕但未沉默的人们，正如仍在要求调查、要求问责的市民。

这是香港不灭的火种。

权力可以压制言论，可以拘捕发声的人，但无法消灭思想。

只要有人记得，自由就不会彻底死亡。

我也记得。

香港大火后的联署被捕事件，只是国安法下无数荒谬事件中的一桩。

它暴露的不仅是权力的狂妄，更是制度对公民自由的系统性摧毁。

“反送中”的五大诉求，如今看似遥远，却正揭示了今日香港的问题根源：没有调查、没有问责、没有民主、没有法治，只剩下恐惧与沉默。

控诉不是为了发泄，而是为了提醒世人——自由与监督一旦被夺走，悲剧就不再是意外，而是必然。

而香港，正走在这条不归路上。

救救香港，这样的呼求声从2019年一直回响到现在。

Crying Hong Kong: Accountability for the Next “Anti-China, Destabilizing Hong Kong” Fire Under the National Security Law

Author: Zhang Zhijun
Editor: Li Congling Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreading: Xiong Bian Translator: Lyu Feng

Abstract:After the deadly fire in Hong Kong, citizens’ calls for an independent investigation led to arrests on charges of “incitement,” while all five demands of the Anti-Extradition Movement were comprehensively suppressed. The National Security Law has deepened a regime of fear, eroding free expression and public oversight. As the system refuses mechanisms for self-correction, Hong Kong society has sunk into silence and darkness, allowing tragedies to recur again and again.

On November 26, 2025, a massive fire broke out in Hong Fu Court, a housing estate in Tai Po, Hong Kong, affecting seven residential blocks. What should have been a moment for humanitarian concern followed by a public review was once again dragged into political darkness. When citizens launched a petition calling for the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, demanding accountability and institutional improvement to prevent future tragedies, such actions should have been the most ordinary civic behavior in any society with a functioning system. Yet on Saturday, the organizer was arrested by the police on suspicion of “seditious intent.”

The four demands were entirely consistent with the rule of law. Instead of prompting introspection from the authorities, the disaster became an opportunity to further suppress free expression.

This is precisely the bleak reality of Hong Kong today:

Freedom of speech is dead; public oversight is dead. The National Security Law has become shackles, tightly fastening shut the mouths of all those willing to speak the truth.

The Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong even declared the petition a form of “anti-China, destabilizing activity.” Such repression is not sudden, but the cumulative product of a process etched, reinforced, and institutionalized step by step since the 2019 anti–extradition movement.

The 2019 Anti–Extradition Bill Movement saw millions of Hong Kong people put forward five major demands: withdrawal of the extradition bill; the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police abuses; withdrawal of the “riot” designation; release of all arrested protesters with no prosecution; and the implementation of genuine universal suffrage.

These five demands were the society’s response to the collapse of institutional trust—the minimum expectations of citizens who had been persistently pressured.

But six years have passed. What is the result?

Only the first item—the withdrawal of the bill—was passively completed, and its meaning had long evaporated. A harsher, more sweeping, appeal-proof, and entirely unaccountable law replaced it: the Hong Kong National Security Law.

It does not mend social fractures; it seals them shut—welding every crack into place and burying freedom in concrete.

The independent commission of inquiry was never established. The police have become an “unquestionable authority.” Six years ago, controversies around police use of force on streets, in subway stations, and on campuses triggered enormous public outcry.

The demand for an independent investigation was meant to reveal facts and assign responsibility—a routine mechanism in any mature rule-of-law society for handling conflicts between citizens and the state.

But in Hong Kong, this demand was categorically rejected.

Even more ironically: in today’s Hong Kong, merely exercising one’s legal rights to make the same request—even in response to a fire or an accident—can lead to charges of “seditious intent” or “endangering national security.”

Since the Anti–Extradition Movement, the definition of “riot” remains, and has even expanded without limit. Ordinary citizens who marched in 2019, hoping to uphold justice, were branded “rioters.” Six years later, the legal environment in Hong Kong is even worse: expressing dissatisfaction with the government online, sharing news, writing slogans, joining a June Fourth memorial, or simply posting in a chat group that diverges from the official narrative can result in imprisonment, detention, or enforced silence.

Large numbers of young people have been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. Many lives have been permanently altered. These individuals—who should have been the future of society—are instead treated as threats to the state. They received no clemency; they became central targets of political prosecution.

The demand for universal suffrage is now more distant than ever. “Patriots governing Hong Kong” has become the sole political qualification. “Loving Hong Kong” has been reframed as a slogan of subversion. The democratic vision cherished by Hong Kong people has not only failed to materialize—it has retreated further. What has been excluded in this political movement is not merely politicians, but the political rights of an entire generation.

The government never seriously responded to the five demands. Once they were labeled “the root of destructive unrest that must be suppressed,” it became predictable—as those who resisted in 2019 long foresaw—that after the recent fire, when citizens again called for “investigation,” “accountability,” and “institutional reform,” the authorities would respond not with improvement but with repression.

The National Security Law has become an all-purpose shackle of “rule by law.”

Its definitions are vague; “endangering national security” can encompass almost any behavior. “Sedition” may include dissatisfaction with the government, critical commentary on public policies, a poster, a slogan, or a candle. When a law lacks clear limits, power expands infinitely. Its enforcement is opaque; “investigation itself” becomes punishment. In national security cases, police are not required to disclose reasons for arrest; lawyers cannot access core evidence; suspects are almost never granted bail; trials are conducted by designated judges without a jury; and media reporting is restricted. All these features indicate that national security cases operate outside normal legal procedure.

Under the National Security Law, the chilling effect is deliberately built into the system. Once people learn that “someone has been arrested for launching a petition,” they will self-censor and remain silent on public issues.

The government does not need to arrest everyone; it only needs to arrest a few key examples to silence the many.

This is how political fear works. This fear, cultivated on the mainland, has now spread to Hong Kong. One-party rule brings disasters everywhere it extends.

Today’s Hong Kong is no longer the free, open, and outspoken city it once was. It resembles a welded iron gate—still glossy and prosperous on the surface, yet suffocating within.

Independent media outlets have been shut down, frozen, or dismantled; editors arrested; journalists charged with “conspiracy to publish seditious publications.” The city’s former ranking in press freedom has collapsed.

Trade unions, human rights groups, and student organizations have dissolved—not because they wished to disappear, but because they feared they could not survive.

Textbooks have been rewritten; June Fourth erased from history; political expression prohibited on campuses.

A whole generation is growing up in a filtered reality.

Since 2019, hundreds of thousands have left Hong Kong—not seeking better economic opportunities but fleeing fear.

Hong Kong’s greatest failure is no longer economic stagnation but the loss of belief in its own future. Hong Kong is dead.

The recent fire should have prompted institutional reflection: Were there systemic failures? Did officials neglect their duties? Did regulatory mechanisms break down? Should an independent commission be established?

In the Hong Kong of the past, these questions were routine. Whether in ferry collisions, subway derailments, or food safety scandals, society routinely demanded independent investigations—a hallmark of the city’s once-admired governance.

Today, however, people who call for such investigations are arrested, and those who demand accountability are charged with “sedition.”

The society has not changed; it is the system that no longer allows citizens to participate.

Under the iron curtain of the National Security Law, public governance no longer accepts oversight; power no longer needs to explain itself; and people are no longer permitted to ask questions.

Rule of law has collapsed; unmasked authoritarian power stands exposed.

Those who resisted in 2019 foresaw the judicial catastrophe unfolding today. A society without free expression and civic oversight is a society incapable of correcting its mistakes.

No one can warn the government; no media can expose negligence; no citizen dares point out institutional flaws.

Mistakes become habits; habits become systems; systems become instruments of oppression.

The Five Demands mattered precisely because they were the last effort to prevent Hong Kong from descending into darkness.

When these demands were ignored, when the National Security Law became a shackle, when speech was no longer tolerated, tragedies expanded from isolated disasters to the gradual collapse of an entire democratic structure.

The authorities cannot arrest all Hongkongers. There are still those who persevere. The hope for justice comes from people who continue to speak.

Despite immense risk, despite the darkness of the times, someone will always stand up to tell power: the truth must be spoken, responsibility must be pursued, freedom must be defended.

“There are no born heroes—only ordinary people who step forward.”

I will continue writing about today’s Hong Kong for the sake of those who persist, just like the people who filled the streets in 2019, like the countless arrested yet unbowed, like the citizens who still demand investigation and accountability.

This is the city’s undying ember.

Power can silence voices and imprison those who speak, but it cannot extinguish ideas.

As long as someone remembers, freedom will never fully die.

I remember as well.

The arrests following the petition after the Hong Kong fire are only one among countless absurdities under the National Security Law.

What they expose is not merely the arrogance of power but the systemic destruction of civic freedom.

The five demands of the Anti–Extradition Movement may now seem distant, yet they illuminate the root of today’s crisis: no investigation, no accountability, no democracy, no rule of law—only fear and silence.

To denounce is not merely to vent. It is to remind the world: once freedom and oversight are stripped away, tragedies cease to be accidents and become inevitabilities.

Hong Kong is moving down that irreversible path.

“Save Hong Kong”—this cry has echoed from 2019 to the present.

中国，停止反人类罪——12月10日国际人权日全球声援

每年12月10日为国际人权日，我们控诉中国政府持续残暴践踏人权，同时为纪念《世界人权宣言》签署77周年！当前，中共持续在国内外实施系统性镇压，侵犯基本人权，威胁世界和平与国际秩序。

基于人权观察（HRW）和国际特赦组织（Amnesty International）2025年报告，中国政府继续犯下反人类罪，包括但不限于：

• 新疆维吾尔族：数十万人在“再教育营”遭受强奸、酷刑、强迫劳动和文化抹杀；2025年8月，联合国报告确认“中国问题法律和政策”仍存。

• 西藏与少数民族：2025年7月，四川德格县数百僧侣和村民抗议水电站项目被拘留、失踪；儿童寄宿学校强制同化，殴打祈祷儿童。

• 香港与言论自由：2025年10月，封锁海外媒体；#MeToo活动人士黄雪琴和王建兵被判5年和3.5年监禁，仅因非暴力培训。

• 白纸运动遗产：2022年抗议“清零”政策后，2025年逮捕海外活动家如张亚迪（Tara Zhang），以“煽动分裂罪”判刑。

• 宗教迫害：2018年12月9日晚，警方出动数千警力突袭秋雨教会，逮捕王怡夫妇及逾100名成员（包括长老、执事和信徒）。

2025年10月，锡安教会被全国性镇压，逮捕金明日牧师和其他教会成员，无数家庭不能团圆。 这些侵犯违反《世界人权宣言》第5、18、19条（禁止酷刑、宗教自由、言论自由）。

面对不断扩大的暴行，我们不能沉默。沉默意味着纵容，发声才是力量。 我们 欢迎美国各民运人士，和维吾尔/藏族流亡者、香港民主派、基督徒异议人士等积极参与抗议中共犯下的反人类罪行，声援所有被共匪迫害的民主人士，良心犯，基督教徒，政治犯！要求中国政府立即释放所有人！还民主与自由给中国人民！

日期：2025年12月10日(周三) 国际人权日

时间：下午12.00pm-14:00pm

地点：旧金山中国使领馆前 1450 Laguna St , San Francisco

主办单位： 中国民主党 中国民主教育基金会

召集人：方政 赵常青

发起人：李小林 缪青

组织者：卫仁喜 高俊影 周志刚 李栩 王灵 高应芬 蔡晓丽

主持人：崔允星 陈森锋

摄影：关永杰

协调：惠汝涛

现场义工： 卢占强 李树青 吕小静 张春光 罗艳丽  

紀念高耀洁 逝世两年

IN MEMORY OF DR. GAO YAOJIE-2ND ANNIVERSARY

她揭露真相

不为荣誉，只为生命！

She spoke the truth not for honor ,but to save Iives.

90年代，她揭露河南农村因卖血导致的大规模艾滋感染，

用个人力量对抗系统性的掩盖与恐吓；

她被监控、被封日、被迫出走，

却从未停止为患者、为孤儿、 真相发声。

今天，我们记住她的良知、勇气和代价

良知不灭 真相不灭

TRUTH NEVER DIES. TRUTH NEVER

主办单位：中国民主党中国民主教育基金会召集人：

方政ZHENG FANG 张俊杰JUNJIE ZHANG

策划宣传：胡丕政PI ZHENG HU 庄帆FAN ZHUANG 郝剑平JIANPING HAO 黃晓敏XIAOMIN HUANG

义工：李小林XIAOLIN LI 李树青SHUQING UI 高应芬YINGFEN GAO

活动时间：2025年12月7日（周日）

11:00am – 12:30pm

活动地点：旧金山中国领事馆前

Consulate-Ceneral of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco

《心繫香港 為大埔宏福苑居民打氣》：哀悼晚會

“Tai Po Wang Fuk Court Memorial Vigil”

日期：12/6/2025（星期六）

時間：6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

*網上同步直播（Live Online Broadcast）

地點：灣區香港人社區中心（Bay Area HongKonger Community Center）

地址：42982 Osgood Road, Fremont, California 94539

【心繫香港】為大埔宏福苑居民打氣

對好多家庭、好多朋友嚟講，呢段時間係沉重、係難捱、係唔知如何面對嘅一段路。

為悼念大埔宏福苑死難者，亦為受事件影響的居民、家屬及社群打氣，我們將舉行 「心繫香港．為大埔宏福苑居民打氣」，一同度過這段艱難時刻。

日期｜2025年12月6日（星期六）

時間｜下午 6:00 PST

地點｜ 42982 Osgood Rd, Fremont, CA

願逝者安息。

願家屬得到安慰。

願受傷者早日康復。

願香港人無論身在何方，在艱難時候都可以凝聚力量，排除萬難。

現場參與報名：https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/ticketing/a2865ec0-bce8-4622-aa9e-f6b557bf782c