United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 1, 2016
Executive Summary: If legislators can assault police officers and be acquitted on the spurious basis of “protected speech”, then the China Airlines flight attendant who claimed that a bomb was planted in the president's plane must also be acquitted. After all, the flight attendant took no real action. He was merely striking for the greater good of the flight attendants as a whole. Would such sophistry be considered valid? Why could Premier Lin Chuan drop all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement, but oppose the exercise of public authority and ignore the assault of a police officer?
Full Text Below:
President Tsai Ing-wen has made judicial reform a focal point for her new government. She has stressed the need to restore "people's justice", in order to address injustice and increase public trust. But before she peddles her great reform project, would she please answer one question? Does assaulting a police officer constitute "freedom of speech"?
Big problems always begin small. And so it is with the erosion of public trust in the judiciary. During the Sunflower Student Movement, Legislator Lin Tai-hua attempted to bring a Japanese reporter into the legislature, which the students had occupied, in order to hold an interview. Police stationed at the door blocked him. An altercation ensued, Lin Tai-hua lost his temper and pushed or punched the police officer in the chest. Later some members of the public lodged a complaint with the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, which then charged Lin with "obstruction". Last month the Taipei District Court found her not guilty. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed.
Lin Tai-hua assaulted a police officer in a fit of anger. She probably lost control temporarily and had no intention of hurting anyone. But the police officer was enforcing the law on behalf of the government. Was the police officer supposed to turn to jelly merely because he found himself face to face with a legislator? If he is assaulted, must he chalk it up to bad luck? In fact, the core of the problem is not Lin Tai-hua's status, or whether police were according respect. The problem was the wishy-washy attitude of the presiding judge. The judge said he acquitted Lin Tai-hua because she was exercising “free speech” within the legislature. Her action was “protected speech”, therefore the legislature's disciplinary code applied. According to the judge, Lin Tai-hua brought a reporter with her into the legislature. That did not violate the legislature's disciplinary code. Therefore, he claimed, the police had no reason to stop her.
The reasons the judge cited for his ruling were not merely irrational, they distorted the facts and trampled over the rule of law. First, when the students occupied the legislature they shut it down. The legislature was no longer in session. Lin Tai-hua brought a foreign reporter to the scene merely for the sake of a photo op, and to join in on the excitement of the student protest. How could she possibly have been conducting legislative business? Second, the altercation took place at the entrance to the Legislative Yuan. Lin Tai-hua was not even inside the legislature. How could she have been exercising her duties as a legislator at that moment? Third, legislators enjoy "protected speech” during interpolation. Assaulting a police officer involves physical violence. Lin Tai-hua attacked the police officer. She was not defending herself against attack. Yet the judge had the chutzpah to invoke the legislature's “protected speech” clause in order to give her a free pass. This was a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Fourth, when students occupied the Legislative Yuan, it was under a state of emergency. If the police failed to maintain order at the scene, and allowed people to move in and out at will, Legislative Yuan order and the safety of the students would have been compromised. Yet the judge ruled that the police had no reason to stop Lin. Such a verdict, issued from a judge's mouth, is disgusting.
We have no idea why the judge resorted to such far-fetched rationalizations to acquit Lin Tai-hua. Was it her personal clout as a legislator? Was it the Sunflower Student Movement's phony halo? Was it the change in ruling parties? What we do know is that no judge who cares about justice, whose head is free of political considerations, could possibly hand down such an absurd ruling. Pushing or punching a police officer is not an extraordinarily violent act. Nevertheless it reveals a contempt for the rule of law. But a judge invoked "protected speech” to whitewash such an act, when the legislature was not even in session. He even condemned police officers who stopped legislators from entering. This merely revealed his guilty conscience, and discredited him as a judge.
The DPP has long accused of KMT of “owning the courts”. But the Taipei District Court's judgment makes people wonder whether the ruling party change has also changed who “owns the courts”. Otherwise, why did the court reverse itself the moment a green camp legislator was indicted? Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san recently issued an open letter to prosecutors, demanding that "prosecutorial teams not include black sheep". He said prosecutions must not involve abuses. Nevertheless prosecutors denounced him for failing to grasp the essence of reform. The new government talks a lot about judicial reform. But concentrating exclusively on the issue of prosecutorial burden of proof misses the point. Many people are deeply dissatisfied with “dinosaur judges” who enjoy tenure, abuse “judicial independence”, and nibble away at the justice system with utter impunity. The dinosaur judge in Lin Tai-hua's case handed down an outrageous ruling. Must people endure such injustices forever? We support the prosecutor's appeal. We hope the next ruling will accord more closely with the truth.
If legislators can assault police officers and be acquitted on the spurious basis of “protected speech”, then the China Airlines flight attendant who claimed that a bomb was planted in the president's plane must also be acquitted. After all, the flight attendant took no real action. He was merely striking for the greater good of the flight attendants as a whole. Would such sophistry be considered valid? Why could Premier Lin Chuan drop all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement, but oppose the exercise of public authority and ignore the assault of a police officer?
襲警是一種「言論自由」？
2016-07-01 聯合報
蔡英文總統把「司法改革」列為新府施政重點，強調要回歸「人民的司法」，解決不公，強化人民的信賴。但在推動這項偉大的改革工程之前，請先回答一個小小的問題：打警察，能算是一種「言論自由」嗎？
大問題都始於小地方，司法失去人民信任，也是如此。太陽花運動期間，立委林岱樺想要帶一名日本媒體記者進入被學生占領的國會議場採訪，在門口遭到駐衛警阻攔；雙方發生口角衝突，林岱樺憤而朝執勤警員胸口揮了一拳。事後有民眾向北檢告發，北檢依「妨礙公務」罪嫌起訴，上月台北地院判她無罪；北檢對判決結果不滿，最近提出上訴。
林岱樺憤而襲警，或許只是一時失控，並非刻意傷害對方；但警察執勤代表的是政府公權力的執法界線，能因遇到立委就腿軟放水嗎？難道，即使挨打也應忍氣吞聲，自認倒楣？事實上，問題核心不僅在林岱樺的身分或公權力的不受尊重，而在法官對此案的和稀泥態度讓人忍無可忍。法官判決無罪的理由是：林岱樺是在議場內行使立委職務的「適度意見表達」，屬於「言論免責」的保障範圍，國會的自律原則應該尊重；且林岱樺帶記者進場並不違反議場管制規定，員警沒有理由阻擋。
這些判決理由，不僅強詞奪理，更是歪曲事實踐踏法治。第一，當時學生以占領議場癱瘓國會，會議早已停開，林岱樺帶外媒前往現場只是為湊學運的熱鬧，哪裡是為了議事？第二，衝突地點是在立院門口，林岱樺根本未踏入議場，這也與行使立委職務毫無瓜葛。第三，立委獲有「言論免責權」，是為了保障其質詢的自由；但推打警察已涉及肢體暴力，且林岱樺是主動攻擊而非基於自衛，法官居然還敢套用「言論免責」之冠冕使其免罪，簡直是明目張膽地欺世盜法。第四，學生占領國會已使立院處於緊急狀態，員警若不在現場維持秩序，隨便讓民眾進出，立院秩序和學生安全都可能受到損害；但法官卻說員警沒有理由阻擋，這種話出自司法人之口，讓人吐血。
我們不知道，究竟是林岱樺的立委身分，或者是太陽花學運的光環，或者是政黨輪替的因素，而導致法官掰出這麼牽強的理由來為林岱樺脫罪。但可以確定的是，法官心中若有一尊司法天平，如果腦中沒有那麼多奇怪的政治考量，絕不可能寫出這樣的判決書來。推打警察不算嚴重暴行，卻是無視法治公權力的表現；然而，法官要援引「言論免責」來粉飾太平，把根本沒開的會說得煞有介事，甚至責指警察不該阻擋立委帶人入內，反而暴露了自己的心虛，也蹧蹋了司法尊嚴。
民進黨動輒指控「法院是國民黨開的」，但看到北院這樣的判決，人們不禁懷疑法院也「政黨輪替」了，否則，為何一碰到綠營立委就轉彎。法務部長邱太三最近向檢察官發出公開信，要求「檢察辦案團隊不能有害群之馬」，起訴不能浮濫；卻遭檢察官群起反嗆，認為他沒有抓到改革重點。的確如此，新政府談司法改革，若只能將目光放在檢察官的起訴舉證責任，恐怕無法抓到要害。事實上，許多民眾深感不滿的，是那些躲在「終身職」及「獨立審判」大旗下苟且因循的恐龍法官，日復一日地腐蝕司法正義，卻無人可奈他何。從林岱樺的案子看，這位恐龍法官的判決理由，人們嚥得下去嗎？我們當然支持檢察官再上訴，也等著看下次的判決將說出什麼道理。
如果立委打警察可以因言論自由而脫罪，那麼，華航空少謊稱總統專機有炸彈一案，恐怕也該無罪開釋。因為，空少並沒有採取實際行動，而且他是為了更高的空服員罷工理想而發，不是嗎？如果認為這樣的詭辯不能成立，請問，為什麼林全可以撤銷對太陽花學生的告訴，卻置因執行公權力而被告的警察於不顧？
No comments:
Post a Comment