Nine people including Occupy Central founders were charged by the police for allegedly committing public nuisance , with a maximum sentence of seven years. It is a test of what price they are willing to pay for civil disobedience .

Police took action the day after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was elected chief executive. Critics immediately pointed out that this runs counter to her wish to mend the social split. However, just as she said, according to the law, she has no way to interfere with the decision of the Department of Justice. She was not given prior notice either. If she is questioned because of the coincidence in timing, it is unreasonable and unfair.

Public nuisance charge involves no politics

As the "Occupy Central trio" and others were charged, many supporters will feel bad while some even condemn it as political prosecution . However, emotions must not override the law. These people already said it is an act of civil disobedience . And the objective of civil disobedience is to "breach the law for justice" - increasing pressure by going against the law in the fight for "genuine universal suffrage". Although they called the occupation movement a "fight for democracy", they cannot deny its illegal nature. Its bad effect on social order and complications are evident . The law enforcement and prosecution authorities cannot turn a blind eye to such a large-scale open breach of the law.

In other countries, civil disobedience means not running away after breaking the law. There will be no pleadings either. Charges will be admitted and penalty accepted in an attempt to express one's view.

Occupy Central organizers asked participants to sign a letter of intent beforehand. One of the choices was to give themselves up to the authorities and file no defence in court after the act.

After the police carried away the sit-in protesters in Admiralty to clear the venue in the occupation movement that lasted 79 days, 65 people including the "Occupy Central trio" went to the Central Police Station to surrender themselves. Now is the time for them to honour their pledge.

Then they admitted holding public rallies without prior approval. However, the police this time under instruction from the Department of Justice, charged them for committing public nuisance under the Common Law. Such charge is not politically sensitive, unlike that of illegal rallies under the Public Order Ordinance. So the hearing will not stir up a political struggle focused on the ordinance.

The Department of Justice chose to hand the case to a district court, reflecting that a trial at the magistrate's court is not sufficient to highlight the seriousness of the case while it is not taken to the High Court as in the case of the Mong Kok riot.

Willing to sacrifice without consideration for others

The charge targeted at the trio's conspiracy covers the preparation for the occupation movement a year and a half ago, while the incitement charges on some people mainly involve activities around the Government Headquarters in the beginning. More people are expected to be charged later.

The high moral ground of civil disobedience comes from accepting legal responsibility and making sacrifice. If the case is not pursued, it will be empty talk. Moreover, the other accompanying prices, other than penalty, may include losing one's professional qualification, career and future. The participants may be willing to pay the price but in the occupation, many innocent people were made to do the same, including lots of citizens affected by the traffic and shop owners who lost business as well as the split among friends and family members. Had these people who advocated and participated in the movement thought about these clearly beforehand?