昨天有網民在尖沙嘴發起「反蝗」行動，針對內地遊客。黎棟國今天表示，相當關注事件，會依法處理。他抨擊有關人士的漫罵和推撞行為，令遊客受驚和感到受侮辱，亦影響了遊客區商戶和市民的正常活動，破壞公眾秩序，必須予以譴責。
他強調市民示威有守法義務，尊重他人權利。他指出，事件中有人受傷，在場警方和傳媒也看到了現場情況，警方會依法跟進，若有足夠證據會採取行動，以在公共地方行為不檢等罪名，予以追究。
(17/2/2014明報即時新聞)
某些本土派發動的「反蝗」行動，是否構成「在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為」罪，是一個法律加檢控政策的問題。法律方面的考慮可以拿著終審法院周諾恆及黃軒瑋案訂下的法律原則來考慮。考慮「擾亂秩序行為」(disorderly behaviour)，是一個結合字面意思及在該時空之下，因應整個環境的考慮。判辭有關這方面的講法，在下面引用這兩段：
66. In the same case, the Divisional Court held that the proper approach is that of the House of Lords in Brutus v Cozens[34]where their Lordships decided that the meaning of “insulting behaviour” was a question of fact for the trial court. As Lord Reid held in Brutus v Cozens:
某些本土派發動的「反蝗」行動，是否構成「在公眾地方作出擾亂秩序行為」罪，是一個法律加檢控政策的問題。法律方面的考慮可以拿著終審法院周諾恆及黃軒瑋案訂下的法律原則來考慮。考慮「擾亂秩序行為」(disorderly behaviour)，是一個結合字面意思及在該時空之下，因應整個環境的考慮。判辭有關這方面的講法，在下面引用這兩段：
66. In the same case, the Divisional Court held that the proper approach is that of the House of Lords in Brutus v Cozens[34]where their Lordships decided that the meaning of “insulting behaviour” was a question of fact for the trial court. As Lord Reid held in Brutus v Cozens:
“The meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law. The proper construction of a statute is a question of law.”[35]
67. In my view, that is the approach which should be adopted in Hong Kong. As Gleeson CJ pointed out in Coleman v Power:[36]
“Concepts of what is disorderly, or indecent, or offensive, vary with time and place, and may be affected by the circumstances in which the relevant conduct occurs.”
「反蝗」行動對那些當時在廣東道購物的大陸客而言，法庭不難裁定屬「擾亂秩序行為」。
另一考慮是這些「反蝗」人士的行為是否有意圖去激起在場其他人破壞公眾安寧(intent to provoke a breach of the peace)。這一點下面引用判辭的一段是精要所在：
79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”.[55] That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group.[56] The actual or feared harm must be unlawful[57] and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm.[58] Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.[59]
新聞報導講，這抗議行動惹起「愛港之聲」到場唱反調，兩班人加上部份大陸客互相指罵，而「反蝗」另一發起人還挨了打，已符合控罪的第二元素。
有足夠檢控的基礎，是不是一定要檢控呢？這是超乎純法律的問題。這種辱罵別人，做成滋擾的示威方式，我想在香港已出現了很多年了。單純是這種激動行為，一貫政策都沒有作出檢控，故此這一宗也沒有特别理由去偏離一貫做法。唯一特別的是這些本土主義義士沒有自己去畜牧務農，卻以為可以圈地為城邦，獨樹一幟。他們不懂種米，卻在不斷倒米。香港可靠內銷，搞本地消費、本地旅遊來支持經濟持續發展？
有朋友恐怕我不知林老師也出席，專程告訴我。我沒有興趣去講她了，所以她復課，我也不評論。由她去吧，她卻要跟自己過不去。她有小病，出來走走湊熱鬧也應該，不過不要搞到自己過份興奮，睡不安穩又惡夢頻仍，何苦來哉！
79. However, a person may provoke a breach of the peace without any violence or threat of violence on his part: “... it suffices that his conduct is such that the natural consequence of it is violence from some third party”.[55] That third party need not be the person provoked or a by-stander, it could, for instance, be a member of the provoker’s group.[56] The actual or feared harm must be unlawful[57] and, where the harm is anticipated, there must be a real risk and not the mere possibility of such harm.[58] Moreover, the anticipated harm must be imminent.[59]
新聞報導講，這抗議行動惹起「愛港之聲」到場唱反調，兩班人加上部份大陸客互相指罵，而「反蝗」另一發起人還挨了打，已符合控罪的第二元素。
有足夠檢控的基礎，是不是一定要檢控呢？這是超乎純法律的問題。這種辱罵別人，做成滋擾的示威方式，我想在香港已出現了很多年了。單純是這種激動行為，一貫政策都沒有作出檢控，故此這一宗也沒有特别理由去偏離一貫做法。唯一特別的是這些本土主義義士沒有自己去畜牧務農，卻以為可以圈地為城邦，獨樹一幟。他們不懂種米，卻在不斷倒米。香港可靠內銷，搞本地消費、本地旅遊來支持經濟持續發展？
有朋友恐怕我不知林老師也出席，專程告訴我。我沒有興趣去講她了，所以她復課，我也不評論。由她去吧，她卻要跟自己過不去。她有小病，出來走走湊熱鬧也應該，不過不要搞到自己過份興奮，睡不安穩又惡夢頻仍，何苦來哉！
