Posted on 12/12/2014 9:30:59 AM PST by Olog-hai
At least 260 Chinese lawyers signed an open letter of protest on Friday after a fellow attorney was detained by police for defying a judge by invoking the constitutional rights of free speech and religion in court.
Zhang Lei, a lawyer who drafted the open letter condemning the police action in the northeastern province of Jilin, said Zhang Keke was hauled away from the court on Thursday and detained for six hours over his statements in court while defending a member of the banned spiritual group Falun Gong.
“How can a lawyer not speak of law in court? We have found it to be too absurd,” Zhang Lei said. “It violated the basic rights of lawyers.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The Chinese Constitution includes protections for the right to free speech and freedom of religion?
I did not know that.
Coming soon to the US.
What’s the difference between the Chinese Constitution and the American Constitution?
Under the Chinese Constitution you have freedom of speech. Under the American Constitution you have freedom after speech.
Not so much anymore if you criticize protected classes.
The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it recognizes rights you possess because you are a human being created in the image of God.
Apparently the Chinese government doesn’t agree.
Shocking... /sarcasm
Every nation’s written constitution lists rights such as freedom of speech. Even the constitutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the former Soviet Union.
In most cases, they don’t honor them. In the USSR, they were not considered individual rights granted by God, but rather “collective rights” administered by the state. In Iran those rights are specifically trumped by the rule of islamic law.
But they sure look nice in a constitution.
Our 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10th Amendments (at least) are largely either dead, deceased, departed, or “gone with the wind.”
Seems only the phuquing 16th Amendment remains alive and well?
Hey so does ours. That doesn’t stop the Left .................
"The Constitution of the People's Republic of China ... is nominally the supreme law within the People's Republic of China. The current version was adopted by the 5th National People's Congress on December 4, 1982, with further revisions in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. Three previous state constitutions—those of 1954, 1975, and 1978—were superseded in turn."
This is an excellent example of a "living" constitution that the liberals insist is so much better. When a constitution is so easily changed then the recognized rights of those supposedly protected by it are easily changed and it becomes just another tool of oppression, recognized and enforced only in situations convenient to a government at that time.
No, the PRC’s constitution merely says that the citizen “enjoy(s)” freedom of speech. The US Constitution’s First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging freedom of speech.
Communist constitutions always include mockeries of the USA’s First Amendment that do not hold the same meaning, spirit or power as the original; the USSR’s “freedom of speech” was stipulated with the caveat of having “conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system” (Article 125, 1936 constitution; Article 50 of the 1977 constitution changed this to being “[i]n accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system”).
Our constitution is becoming as relevant as that of the USSR.
Looks great on that old wrinkly paper though.
FWIW:
According to SCOTUS the Constitution only grants privileges not rights. Rights are only granted to the only specific people mentioned: the Treaty Indian Tribes.
All the rest of us suckers have mere privileges, which according to SCOTUS can be revoked at any given time. They found this notion in three cases. Sorry, the only one I can cite specifically does not exactly mention it, but it is there: Washington vs Fishing Vessel 1978.
Then the “alter or abolish” principle of the Declaration of Independence applies, if the USSC will not interpret the Constitution correctly.
Yeah, it’s like the US Constitution’s 10th Amendment. It’s right there between the ninth and eleventh yet no one can ever find it.
dude... it’s like North Korea and Cuba, their Constitution is a joke for external consumption only. I would bet that it is illegal to even read the Constitution of North Korea in that country.
Their Constitution is meaningless. North Korea is a democracy with free speech and stuff too, lol
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.