html March 13th was a big day for Huang Guochang and 22 other people.
4 years ago (March 18, 2014), the "Sunflower Student Movement" broke out in Taiwan. Huang Guochang, Lin Feifan, Chen Weiting and others led nearly 400 students to occupy the chamber of Taiwan's legislative body and launch a 24-day "Anti-Services Trade Sunflower Student Movement"; during this period, there were cases of harassment in front of the main entrance of Taiwan's legislative body, expelling police officers for obstructing official duties, and removing the title of Taiwan's legislative body.
In response, Taipei prosecutors charged 22 people including Chen Weiting, Lin Feifan, Huang Guochang, and Cai Dinggui with crimes such as "inciting others to commit crimes." In 2017, the Taipei District Court invoked the concept of "civil disobedience" and acquitted all the defendants. The prosecutors appealed. On March 13 this year, Taiwan's "High Court" believed that Huang Guochang and others were trying to express political dissatisfaction and that the prosecutors did not provide enough evidence. They rejected the appeal and acquitted all 22 defendants.
The part where Huang Guochang and others were accused of "inciting others to commit crimes" was a second trial case. Huang and others were found not guilty. The other defendants were charged with "obstructing official business" and other crimes. Since they were acquitted in the first and second trials, appeals are not allowed unless the verdict violates the interpretation, precedents or applicable laws of Taiwan's judicial institutions and "violates the constitution". Therefore, in theory, 22 people including Huang Guochang have been found not guilty.
As we all know, the DPP was able to regain the "power", and the "Sunflower" helped a lot, and the Tsai administration is eager to repay. Therefore, whether it is the first instance or the second instance, Taiwan's justices are trying to concur with the wishes of the Green Camp executives, and it is really difficult for them to come up with these eternity-era reasons for the judgment.
In the first instance judgment last year, the Taipei District Court judge ruled that Huang Guochang and others were protesting against the "service trade" and did not incite others to invade the building of Taiwan's legislative body. Their behavior was in line with the concept of the "civil disobedience movement" and therefore did not constitute a crime. It sounds reasonable, but anyone who understands the rule of law in Taiwan knows that "civil disobedience" is only a theoretical concept in Taiwan and has never been used in judicial practice as a reason to prevent violations of the law.
The judges probably also knew that the reason for "civil disobedience" was too controversial, so when the second instance came to the judgment, they abandoned this article and then creatively came up with several "not guilty" reasons.
In fact, all the controversial points in this case are very clear. The only thing is to clarify:
Who was there to confuse the masses and cause conflicts?
Who is involved in the crime of "obstructing official business"?
Who removed and destroyed the title plate of Taiwan’s legislative body?
As for the conflict caused by instigating the masses, the collegial panel believed that this case was due to a dispute over the proceedings of the Trade in Services Agreement. The defendants and others chose to gather in Taiwan’s legislative body, which has less impact on the daily life of the public, to express their dissatisfaction with the rough deliberations of the People’s Republic of China (here specifically refers to the Blue Camp People’s Representative). This is an expression of freedom of speech and should be protected. It should not be suppressed by criminal means afterwards.
In other words, in the future, as long as the Taiwanese people are dissatisfied with the "rough deliberation" of the People's Republic of China and take up the so-called democratic banner, this level is enough, then what they do will not matter at all. In this way, the recent anti-annual reform group’s attack on Taiwan’s legislative body—after all, there are “rough discussions” about pension reform—is completely reasonable and legal.
Next, let’s talk about the second controversial point that needs to be clarified. Who is involved in the crime of “obstructing official business”?
During the "Sunflower Student Movement", Huang Guochang and others led the crowd to climb over the wall and break into Taiwan's legislative body. Fierce conflicts broke out between the police and citizens. In the process, protesters were injured and many police officers were bleeding and injured. However, Taiwan's "High Court" determined in the second instance that the protesters did not violently attack the police and there were no bloody conflicts. The prosecutors were all acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Is there really no evidence? I wonder if the above photos that the editor found randomly can be considered evidence?
What is even more ridiculous is that the "murderer" who beat the police has been found not guilty, and the policeman who was beaten is still frequently running to the court because he was accused of "attempted murder."It is understood that Fang Yangning, deputy chief of the Taipei City Police Department who was the on-site commander at the time, was accused of serious injury and attempted murder by the "student activists" at the time. The case has not yet been settled. The Taipei District Court previously dismissed the verdict, and the parties appealed to the High Court. The High Court then sent the case back to the District Court for trial. The lawsuit has been going back and forth to this day, and he has to appear in court in April.
No wonder that in response to this verdict, many police officers said privately that if they encounter the Chen Kang incident in the future, they should just treat it passively and avoid close conflicts, so as to avoid personal injury and trouble.
As for the case of "independence" elements Cai Dinggui and others demolishing the title sign of Taiwan's legislative body, Taiwan's "High Court" believes that removing the title sign is a symbolic way of expressing political speech. Even if this method embarrasses Taiwan's legislative body, it does not constitute the crime of "insulting the Office of the Commissioner."
I wonder if Lin Zhicheng, the well-known bodybuilder on the island, should look up to the sky and sigh after hearing such a verdict? In 2011, Lin Chih-cheng went to the Taiwan Judiciary Building with a pair of axes to protest against the injustice of justice and chopped off his title plate. He was sentenced to "obstructing official business" and was sentenced in June.
❈
Taiwan's "High Court" has finalized its verdict on Huang Guochang and others, but the editor can't help but wonder, since the DPP believes that Taiwanese people should enjoy this unrestricted right to protest, why has Tsai Ing-wen continued to use barbed wire and barbed wire to isolate the people of Chen Kang in the two years since she took office? Why let the police protect his father's cemetery without hesitation to use public weapons for personal use? Why did he just decide to reinforce the barbed wire fence around his office, euphemistically calling it a "landscape fence"?
From this point of view, the authorities’ connivance towards Huang Guochang and others today will become the legal basis for Taiwanese society to never have peace in the future!
❈
For more exciting content, please pay attention to "Strait Shinkansen" broadcast at 22:17 tonight.
