|
Commentary: On Freedom of Belief and Freedom of Speech; Unjust Laws Cannot Be Considered to Be Laws By Hu Ping (Clearwisdom.net) On December 26, 2003, Falun Gong practitioner Liu
Chengjun died at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital of Jilin University after
suffering extended torture at the hands of the police. Liu Chengjun was one of the Falun Gong practitioners who tapped into the
Changchun City cable TV system. During this incident, Liu Chengjun and other
Falun Gong practitioners successfully tapped into eight channels and broadcast
[documentaries about Falun Gong] for an uninterrupted 40-50 minutes to an
audience estimated to be more than one million. This heroic incident brought
strong reactions from not only within China but also around the world. After the
incident took place, the government arrested more than 5,000 Falun Gong
practitioners in Changchun City. Six practitioners died during the arrest,
another 15 practitioners were given prison sentences from 4 years to 20 years.
Liu Chengjun was one of the Falun Gong practitioners who were given heavy jail
sentences, and he died after suffering 21 months of savage torture in prison.
Liu was the eighth Falun Gong practitioner who lost his life because of the
TV-tapping incident. Tapping into the TV system is one method Falun Gong practitioners expose the
persecution committed against them using non-violent means through technology.
It was a stunning feat of breaking through the government's information
blockade. Liu not only died for his belief in the principle of
"Truthfulness, Compassion, Tolerance", he died for safeguarding the
right to express his opinion in a peaceful way as well. Liu Chengjun is a Falun
Gong hero, and he is also a martyr in the fight for freedom of speech. Here we must clarify one issue: Can it be considered legal to tap into the TV
system. Is such an act, right, legitimate or illegal? Regarding rule by law, there are two famous sayings. One states,
"illegal laws are not laws" and the other one states "evil laws
are still laws." These two appear to contradict each other, so how do we
interpret and understand them? We know that in Latin, the word "law" and the word
"right" come from the same root word. The Latin word "Jus"
has two meanings; one is law, the other is right. The first Amendment the US
Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances." If the government makes such a law, then this law would be
unjustified and therefore cannot be called a law, which is what's meant by
"illegal laws are not laws." Friedrich Hayek [an influential
20th-century political thinker and economist] pointed out that rule of law
means limiting legislation (not original quote), which means some laws should
not be enacted. "Illegal laws are not laws" looks like it's redundant, but if we
remind ourselves that "law" and "right" come from the same
Latin word root, we would know that "illegal law" means a law that
negates the law, and a law that negates right. Thus, "illegal laws are not
laws" means that a law that negates right is not the law. Another saying is "evil laws are still laws." It means malicious
and bad laws are still laws, and we should still obey them. The principle behind
this is simple. Because people have different opinions on laws, if we only
follow the laws we think are "good laws" and disobey laws we think are
"bad laws," then the law would lose its universal quality and coercive
nature, then law would no longer be a law and it would therefore become invalid. So does "evil laws are still laws" conflict with "illegal laws
are not laws"? No. Laws that oppose our views or opinions are still laws,
but laws that deprive our belief or our right to express our opinions are not
laws. I should follow laws that I don't agree with, but the law should
acknowledge and protect my right to express my belief and different political
beliefs. No matter how bad a law is, it cannot deprive people's right to express
different perspectives, or it would become not only a malicious law, but an
illegal law. Why can we tolerate evil laws? Because we still have freedom of
speech and we can amend the laws by publicly expressing our opinions. But if we
are deprived of our right to express different opinions, we would lose our last
channel to change unreasonable laws, so we absolutely cannot accept that. Since Jiang's group controls the whole government machinery and suppresses
different voices, it not only prohibits Falun Gong from practicing and sharing
its belief, it also doesn't allow non-Falun Gong practitioners to speak up for
Falun Gong. Therefore it's completely justified and legal for Falun Gong
practitioners like Liu Chengjun to tap into the TV system using technology to
expose the facts and express their belief. Freedom of speech is a universal
human right. In a place where people are deprived of their freedom of speech,
any non-violent means to break through the blockade to express one's belief and
opinion is justified. Posting date: 1/21/2004 |