WEEK7-What Is Hong Kong’s Occupy Central Movement?

By BBC, www.bbc.com
September 23rd, 2014

Many in Hong Kong are angered at the lack of fully democratic elections.

Tensions are high in Hong Kong amid a row about how the city’s leader should be elected.

Elections are due in 2017 – but the Chinese government has issued a ruling limiting who can stand as a candidate. Democracy campaigners are planning to occupy the city’s business district in protest – a move denounced by China. The BBC explains the movement.

What does Occupy Central want?

Occupy Central with Love and Peace, known as Occupy Central, is a civil disobedience movement proposed by democracy activists in Hong Kong.

The campaigners want political reform and democratic elections that meet international standards.

They are planning a non-violent occupation of the business district, Central, in response to the Chinese government’s ruling against open elections in 2017.

They have said they can mobilise 10,000 in the first phase of the sit-in.

The campaign takes its name from the US’s Occupy Wall Street movement against social inequality in 2011.

Hong Kong is under Chinese rule – can protests realistically make a difference?

A controversial national security law proposed by the government was dropped after large protests in 2003

Even the movement’s organisers admit that Occupy Central is highly unlikely to sway the Chinese government.

However, public protests play an important role in Hong Kong. Locals have free speech and the right to protest, but cannot directly elect their government. Many see taking to the streets as their way of forcing change.

Some demonstrations have succeeded. A controversial national security law known as Article 23 was proposed in 2002, but dropped after large protests. The government also backed down over “patriotic education” classes following rallies against the move.

Occupy Central’s demands, however, are more sensitive. Demanding full democracy would radically change how Hong Kong is governed, and Beijing would view it as a direct challenge to its own authority.

Structure of the lead:

Who-many people

When- not given

What- angered at the lack of fully democratic elections

Where-in Hong Kong

How-not given

Why-not given

Words:

1.      democratic election 普選

2.      mobilize  動員               

week-6-Scottish independence

Scottish independence: What is the referendum about?

Voters in Scotland cast ballots Thursday in a historic referendum on seceding from Britain.

A “yes” vote would end Scotland’s 300-year-old union with England and Wales, redrawing the map of the United Kingdom and raising difficult questions about the future of Scotland’s economy and its relationship with international partners such as the European Union and NATO.

But even if the “noes” have it, Scotland appears poised to extract more powers from the central government in London. In a bid to persuade Scots to stay in the fold, Britain's main political parties have pledged to turn over control of important tax and budgetary issues to the semiautonomous government in Edinburgh.

More than 4.2 million people – 97% of the eligible electorate, including for the first time 16- and 17-year-olds -- registered to vote. The referendum will be decided by a simple majority. Turnout is expected to be high, and polls show the outcome too close to call heading into the vote.

Why are Scots voting on independence?

Support for what was long regarded as the dream of a romantic fringe has been growing in recent years, receiving a boost in 2010 with the election of a Conservative-led government in London that did not prove popular in Scotland.

The following year, the Scottish Nationalist Party, whose main goal is independence, won a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Party leader Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, immediately declared his intention to call a referendum on the issue.

With opinion polls giving the pro-union side a consistent majority, the British government agreed to recognize the plebiscite, no doubt hoping that a “no” vote would kill off the issue.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-scotland-independence-questions-20140917-story.html

structure of the lead:

who- Voters

when- on Thursday

why- not given

what- cast ballots in a historic referendum on seceding from Britain.

where- in Scotland

how- not given

keywords:

1.     referendum 公投

2.     ballot投票用紙，選票

3.     turnout 結果

WEEK5-Police Lied: Michael Brown Was Killed 148 Feet Away From Darren Wilson's SUV

Distance is essential to the defense and how Wilson must demonstrate that he reasonably feared for his safety.

For 104 days,  the police have lied and said Michael Brown was killed 35 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV. It was actually 148 feet.

This distance is essential to the defense and how Darren Wilson must demonstrate that he " reasonably feared for his safety." At the point in which Brown ran half a football field away, how reasonable is it for an armed officer to fear anyone?

Our starting point, which is 17 feet behind the driver's side window of Wilson's SUV, is this yellow fire hydrant next to the storm drain.

So: 131 feet, 1 inch (distance between the fire hydrant and where Mike Brown died), + 17 feet (distance between the fire hydrant and the driver's side door of Darren Wilson's SUV) = 148 feet.

The St. Louis-area police have continued to advance this lie for over 104 days since Mike Brown was killed on Canfield Drive on the afternoon of August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri. Here we will methodically expose this lie and examine just why it's so important.

On this past Monday, Gov. Jay Nixon  declared a state of emergency in Missouri in anticipation of some level of unrest regarding a decision from the grand jury in the Darren Wilson case. Covering this decision, and the case in general, CNN authoritatively states that Mike Brown was found 35 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV.

Where the Lie Began

On Aug. 10, 2014, St. Louis County Police Chief John Belmar held his first press conference on the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson of the nearby Ferguson Police Department. His force had been called in to take over the investigation for the much smaller local department. The shooting had occurred less than 24 hours earlier, and the tensions on the ground in Ferguson were already red hot and boiling over.

Six different witnesses on the scene claimed that Brown was shot at repeatedly from behind before he turned around, faced Wilson, verbally surrendered, and put his hands in the air. Wilson,  having already shot at Brown at least six times while he fled, then fired off a barrage of four quick shots at the surrendered Brown he was looking at face to face, killing him on the spot. The shooting and the aftermath that evening infuriated residents as never before, and the anger spread rapidly across St. Louis and to the nation.

At that time, when the chief said the "entire scene" was just 35 feet in distance from the "car door to the shooting," every observer accepted it as a negligible fact and thought little about it, instead zeroing in on why Wilson stopped Brown in the first place and why a police officer would shoot a young man who was surrendering with his hands up.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/video-police-lied-mike-brown-was-killed-148-feet-away-darren-wilsons-suv

structure of the lead:

who- Police

when- not given

why- Michael Brown Was Killed 148 Feet Away From Darren Wilson's SUV

what- Lied

where- not given

how- not given

keywords:

1.infuriate  使大怒，觸怒

2.negligible  可以忽略的；無關緊要的；微不足道的