|
Protest law referred to Grand Justices
'LOT OF GUTS': Chen Ssu-fan said he was concerned that the Assembly and Parade
Act could be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which protects
freedom of assembly
By Vincent Y. Chao
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Sep 11, 2010, Page 1
In a stunning turn of events in a 23-month-long court battle,
a judge has decided to suspend the hearing and ask for a constitutional
interpretation on whether illegal restrictions have been placed on the public’s
right to assembly and on freedom of speech.
Taipei District Court Judge Chen Ssu-fan (陳思帆), presiding over a case where a
university professor was arrested for holding a sit-in without a permit, said on
Thursday night that the controversial Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) would be
passed on to the Council of Grand Justices to determine the constitutionality of
several of its clauses.
The judge said in the meantime he did not have enough information to make a
ruling in the case against National Taiwan University assistant professor Lee
Ming-tsung (李明璁), a leader of the Wild Strawberries student movement in 2008.
On Nov. 6, 2008, the sociology professor led dozens of university students as
they held a two-day sit-in at Liberty Square in Taipei to protest a police
crackdown on the display of the Republic of China (ROC) national flag and the
playing of Taiwanese songs during a visit by Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林)
earlier that week.
Along with a number of student leaders, Lee was forcibly evicted and arrested
the next day after police said he did not hold a valid permit and accused him of
refusing to disperse the crowd despite repeated warnings by officers.
Prosecutors said Lee had not applied to hold the protest with Taipei police, in
contravention of the act.
Restrictions placed on protesters by the Assembly and Parade Act are
far-reaching and numerous.
Article 4 and Article 6 of the act state that protesters cannot speak in support
of communist or pro-Taiwanese independence activities and that protests cannot
take place near certain government buildings, airports, military installations
and embassies.
The act also states that permits for protests must be applied for in writing
with local police departments beforehand and that protests can be canceled or
moved by the government because of adverse weather conditions or other “serious
events” — without further elaboration.
On Thursday, Chen Ssu-fan said he was concerned that the articles in question
could be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which protects freedom
of assembly and association. He added that the restrictions could also violate
the principles of two international conventions on human rights protection that
were promulgated last year.
Leaving the courtroom following the judge’s decision, Lee told reporters the
move was a “major step forward in Taiwan’s democratic development.”
He added he was even happier with the judge’s stance than he would have been if
acquitted.
“The judge has taken this case up from an individual issue to a constitutional
issue ... this will have long-term positive implications for the protection of
human rights,” the 39-year-old professor said.
“I honestly think the judge has a lot of guts and his decision shows long-term
vision,” Lee said.
Lin Feng-jeng (林峰正), an attorney and executive director at the Judicial Reform
Foundation, which provided Lee with his legal team, also applauded the decision,
saying he was optimistic the Grand Justices would find in favor of abolishing
the act.
“Frankly, having the judge stop the case and actively ask for a constitutional
interpretation was the most surprising thing that could have happened during
this case,” he told the Taipei Times.
Civil organizations scrutinizing the case said they believe revisions to the act
are long overdue and they agreed the decision would have long-term implications
for Taiwan’s democracy.
“We have had concerns for a while now that the act is falling behind and can no
longer protect the public’s constitutional rights and I think the judge’s
decision reflects this,” Taiwan Association for Human Rights secretary-general
Tsai Chi-hsun (蔡季勳) said.
The act, first passed in 1988 — a year after the end of martial law, has long
been a cause of controversy for activists and politicians, who argue that it
seeks to excessively regulate protesters and handicaps more spontaneous
protests, compared with laws in the US and Europe.
The latest revisions, in 2002, relaxed some of the restrictions, but requests
for an overhaul of the entire act have so far failed to reach a legislative
consensus.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers yesterday said they would once
again request that the Executive Yuan begin efforts to abolish the act, calling
it an important indicator of whether the country was “truly democratic” — saying
that such efforts should supersede party politics.
DPP Legislator Wong Chin-chu (翁金珠) commended Chen Ssu-fan for his handling of
the case, which she said was an “historical issue” that would play an important
part in Taiwan’s judicial reform.
|
