UPP’s Lonely but JUST Struggle against Korea’s “Lady Hitler”: Another …
페이지 정보
작성자 최고관리자 작성일14-03-08 00:04 조회5,453회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
UPP’s Lonely but JUST Struggle
against Korea’s “Lady Hitler”: Another US-installed Fascist Dictator in Seoul
by
Lee Jung-hee / Kiyul Chung | March 7, 2014 12:41 pm
A
US-installed Fascist Dictatorship in Seoul has tragically resulted a
terribly-unwanted political nemesis to Korean society, the “Lady Hitler.”
The
following statement was made by Dr. Lee Jung Hee who has become last two three
years one of the most respected progressive Korean politicians. She is indeed
the respected Chair and the leader of the most seriously “laborer- and
farmer-oriented” and “anti-imperialist, peace and anti-war” political party who
is determined to work for a “peaceful, self-determined reunification,” called
the Unified Progressive Party(UPP).
However,
ever since the Lady dictator Park has come to power in February 2013, the UPP
has been THE TARGET of the most severe, heinous and cunning political and legal
oppression. Moreover the UPP has been repeatedly singled-outed for the
viciously-calculated political persecution and isolation. The conservative and
traditionally pro-regime corporate medias have also joined the Lady dictator to
demonize the UPP, particularly the leader Dr. Lee.
Tragically
and unfortunately the other “reform-oriented” (so-called) opposition parties
like the Democratic Party, as a result of America’s ongoing “Divide and
Conquer” strategy for over 60 years, have also joined the Lady Hitler to
isolate and demonize the REAL and GENUINE opposition party, the UPP. Dr. Lee
who is a brilliant and down-to-earth lawyer herself over the years made the
following statement on January 28 at her First Defense at a Seoul local court
against the “illegally-elected President” Park who’s lately earned a very much
dishonorable, disrespected and despised nickname the “Lady Hitler.”
The
Seoul local court, like most other Korean courts which have also earned for
over half a century a notoriously dishonorable nickname the “faithful servants
of the power,” sentenced one of the most prominent leaders of the UPP, Representative
Lee Seok-gi for 20 years in jail and 5 other local leaders of the party for 15
and 10 years respectively for a politically-motivated thereby
-framed/manufactured “anti-state” crime, so-called the “conspiracy of a
rebellion.”
Even
before she’s moved into the powerhouse, called the Blue House, the Lady Hitler
is determined to destroy the UPP by any means necessary, specifically Dr. Lee
who’s often miserably humiliated Park in a number of public settings,
particularly at the public Presidential Debates in December 2012. After all the
miserably humbled Lady Hitler even asked the Korea’s Constitution Court to
disband the UPP that be dissolved for their allegedly “pro-North,
pro-Communist, anti-state political platform and activities.”
An
extremist version of the 21st Century McCarthyism in South Korea(however, made
and directed by the masterful US) has been used to arbitrarily wield its
craziest “witch-hunt” by expelling anybody who’s against the Lady Hitler, like
the horrible period of Nazi Hitler in 30s-40s of Germany. This time the
Hitler’s Nazism has resurrected in Seoul, not in the 1930s or 40s in Germany
but in the 21st Century in Korea!
The
UPP and its nationally-respected humble leader Dr. Lee has been named THE ENEMY
NUMBER ONE of the Lady Hitler.
Prof.
Kiyul Chung, Editor in Chief, The 4th Media
[The
first statement of the defense on the case – request of the dissolution of the
Unified Progressive Party]
“Requests
of the dissolution of the UPP is violation of the spirit of the Constitution”
By
Representative Lee Jung-hee at the first defense statement
-
Date: 14:00 January 28, 2014
-
Venue: Grand chamber of the Constitutional Court
1.The
Constitution of 1987 was the expression of the national people’s will not to
retreat to the past of dictatorship
The
case – request of the dissolution of the UPP clearly demonstrates the radical
retreat of democracy in Korean society. Democracy begins from recognizing there
are different ideas from mine. It is the minimal condition for democratic politics
that the ruler recognizes the existence of the opposition political parties
which have different political opinions from the ruling power. Meanwhile, the
first sign of dictatorship which is certainly conflicting with democracy is the
ruler’s disrupting and prohibiting activities of the opposition political
parties.
Korean
society had long period of times under the dictatorship which sought to
eradicate the opposition political parties. Examples include the Rhee Seung-man
administration’s cancellation of the Progressive Party in 1958, the Park
Jung-hee administration’s prohibition of political activities of 4,374
opposition politicians through the Act on Political Activities Purification in
1962 and the Chun Doo-hwan administration’s winding up of opposition political
parties and deprivation of opposition politicians’ political rights by
restricting 835 politicians from engaging in political activities through the
Act on Politics Practices Reform in 1980.
The
current Constitution which was the fruit of the June Struggle of 1987
guarantees the political parties’ activities as well as other political rights.
It is the expression of the people’s clear will not to repeat the past of
dictatorship. Korea people were confident that under the Constitution, regardless
of whoever takes power, Korean society would never be back to dictatorship.
However
Park Guen-hye administration destroyed this confidence by proceeding requests
of the dissolution of the UPP in eight months of its inauguration. Of course,
the final decision of the case will rely on the judgment of the Constitutional
Court in terms of legal sphere.
However,
in terms of political sphere, the government already derailed from democratic
politics by declaring it would not accept the existence of opposition political
parties as long as they promote independence, democracy, equality and peaceful
reunification.
2.
The significance of the case
(1)
The dictatorship conducted under the name of democracy even more severely
undermines democracy.
Whether
the lost democracy in political sphere can be recovered and revived at least in
legal sphere, or whether the law is no more than a technique to provide formal
legality cover to political acts without limits: the prolonged tensional
relations between the law and politics are demonstrated in the case of requests
of the dissolution of the UPP in its extreme.
I
think, this case may be the most political case in the history of the
Constitutional Court since it was first established. The principles of a
law-governed country which are the fundamental principle of the Constitution
are based upon the premise that the law serves not as a technique to legitimize
political acts but as a firm justice to redress unjust political abuses. The
rule of law is one of the principles for realization of democracy and the
Constitutional Court is one of the tools to realize democracy.
Democracy
is our people’s direction and desire. Co-existence of different views is the
premise of democracy. The so-called “defensive democracy” which was justified
against political powers not hesitating to commit even crimes against humanism
such as Nazism is often compared to fighting against a robber with a gun, with
a knife. However today, the case is different. Seeking to dissolve a political
party which shares the values of the dignity of life, peace and co-existence
under the excuse of defensive democracy just because its views seem to be
dangerous to the incumbent regime only can be compared to cruelly slashing a
person who just wanted to initiate a conversation.
In
this situation, defensive democracy is no more than a tactic of dictatorship to
cover itself with the skin of “democracy.” The dictatorship done under the name
of democracy undermines democracy even much more severely. I ask the judges to
accurately identify and distinguish this point and make a right decision. The
trial is historically significant in whether it will be recorded as the best
practice to realize the rule of law for the effective accomplishment of
democracy or as the notorious political trial legitimizing the retreat of
democracy.
(2)
We should not confine the Constitution to the past of the Cold War
This
trial is also very significant in the progress of the Constitution of the ROK.
What judgment comes out will decide the fate of our Constitution whether it
retreats to the one of the outdated Cold War era or progresses to the one of
the future with diverse co-existence.
The
incumbent government attempts to apply the decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court of Germany in the 1950s to dissolve the German Communist
Party to this case. The government first requested to dissolve the UPP for the
so-called conspiracy of an insurrection case as it was confirmed and later is
strongly arguing that regardless of the outcome, it is necessary to dissolve
the UPP in terms of preventing future danger.
It
is also attacking the platform of the UPP as a camouflage tactic though the
platform was decided through wide discussion of 100,000 members of the Party,
reflecting reform demands of the majority of the people. In addition, it is
stubbornly questioning hidden intentions and long-term purposes of the UPP
though there are no such things. All of these attacks are derived from the
government’s intention to dissolve the UPP like the German Communist Party.
However,
adopting other country’s past case as a golden rule is no more than an
irrational argument to go back to the past. Every judgment in the past has its
limitations in the situation of the times. It is an inherent limit of human
society. What makes the history progress is the capacity of mankind to
correctly recognize the limitations of the past, reanalyze the past judgment,
face the limitations of the present time, and seek for ways to usher in a
better future.
However,
the incumbent government is in the anachronism, applying the judgment of the
1950s when the entire world was dominated by intensive tension of the Cold War
immediately after the World War 2 to the case of 2014, 60 years later and when
reconciliation and cooperation between the two Koreas have been sought for
after the end of the Cold War. If we cannot stop this, our Constitution will
retreat to the Cold War era of the 1950s.
Rather,
we painfully recognize the limitations of the times where the legacy of the
Cold War which has been overcome globally still remains as a painful old
division system in Korean society, hindering the progress of democracy. How
much longer should we keep a rigid society where citizens, religious leaders
and political parties who are against the extreme policies of the government
are attacked and condemned as following North Korea just because the South is
conflicting with the North? While it is critical to change the present division
system into peaceful reunification in order to move toward a better future,
even more important thing is our efforts not to postpone the progress of
democracy under the excuse of division.
Please
don’t confine our Constitution to the past of the Cold War. Please pave the way
for our Constitution to move toward the future of peace, reunification and
democracy. I believe that preventing the Constitution from being displayed as a
remain of the past and developing it as the one living and breathing and
ushering into the future is the way the Constitutional Court, the fruit of the
June Struggle of 1987 to fulfill its mission to protect the Constitution.
3.
The effective realization of the sovereignty of people is what the UPP has
promoted
I
am Representative of the UPP and a lawyer at the same time. The activities of
the UPP to realize the effective sovereignty of people declared by the
Constitution of 1987 are not different from what I wanted to achieve as a
lawyer.
Article
1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea prescribes that “the Republic of
Korea shall be a democratic republic. The sovereignty of the Republic of Korea
shall reside in the people, and all state authority shall emanate from the
people.” However, in reality, the sovereignty resides in the people only during
the election campaigns. Campaign pledges are too easy to cancel and the people
fall to the ignorant mass too easy to deceive.
Moreover,
during the last presidential election, a range of state agencies including the
NIS illegally intervened in the election through attacking the opposition as
pro-North Korea. The people who casted a vote after watching false
investigation reports of the police were in fact targets for another deception.
They were not respected as the sovereign. The UPP requested the government to
be held accountable for the rigged election.
It
was to realize the sovereignty of the people. However, the UPP only ended up
with the charge of bidding an insurrection and the request of the dissolution
of the Party.
The
Constitution prescribes the principle of the sovereignty of the people. However,
if irregular workers lose their job just because they organized a trade union
though the Constitution guarantees the right to organize, can we say the
sovereignty of the state resides in them? Are the farmers who only find
themselves in increasing debts as they cannot earn even the cost of production
how hard they work really the sovereign of the ROK? Is there actually the right
to live as a decent person guaranteed for a father who kills himself to allow
his handicapped child eligible for governmental livelihood support.
Unlike
what the Constitution says, it is undeniable truth that Korean society is
divided into the privileged and the underprivileged. The UPP values the
realization of the genuine sovereignty of the people most. To that end, we
believe unjust and unfair privilege should be eliminated and workers, farmers
and low-income group whose fundamental rights have been violated should be
capable of exercise their rights as a sovereign.
It
is the world the UPP has consistently promoted and the world where working
people are the owner. The UPP has always promoted the elimination of the unfair
privilege and guarantee of equal sovereignty. The UPP has never said to invest
sovereignty to a certain group of people or deprive fundamental rights of
another group of people.
If
a country cannot protect its territory with its own military, it is like
lacking complete sovereignty. Therefore, in its platform, the UPP said the
phased withdrawal of the U.S. troops stationed in Korea as well as stepping up
the establishment of peace and reunification is necessary for the complete
realization of the sovereignty.
Regardless
of the opinion of the Korean people as a sovereign, the U.S. and the Soviet
Union drew a line to divide the nation right after it was liberated from the
Japanese colonial rule, resulting in the Korean War.
The
UPP has presented for the two Koreas to recognize pains and differences of each
other and achieve the peaceful reunification in accordance with the principle
of peaceful reunification described in the Constitution, thereby overcoming the
damage of confrontation caused by the conflicting super powers in the past
without any more pains.
However,
the incumbent government insists that the UPP is unconstitutional as it doesn’t
suggest reunifying the Korean Peninsula by the South absorbing the North.
However, I believe the claim to absorb the North will only cause another armed
conflict and intervention of super powers and so it is the violation of the
Constitution which declares the peaceful reunification. I believe the claim is
unconstitutional with risks of triggering restrictions on other sovereignties.
Most
of the evidence that the government collected to accuse the activities of the
UPP to realize the sovereignty of the people as unconstitutional is prejudices
and misunderstandings on the UPP created by the NIS through internet postings
and comments as well as groundless rumors and assumptions based on them.
The
rest of the evidence provided by the government is mostly documents on private
activities of individuals unrelated with the UPP or already excluded evidence
in related criminal cases due to its illegality in collection. Some are even
interpreted by contraries.
The
government has insisted that the Democratic Labor Party, predecessor of the UPP
revised its platform according to the orders from North Korea. But today, the
government admitted it could not tell how and through whom the order was
delivered to the party.
The
government suggests Representatives, staff, and executives of the UPP were selected
by the orders from North Korea. I strongly wonder by whom such orders were
delivered.
Accusing
the UPP of being unconstitutional based on groundless assumptions should be
over. Nevertheless, again in today’s proceeding, the government side is referring
to false allegations with doubtful admissibility of evidence or those that
cannot be found in any evidence provided by the applicant as if they are
confirmed facts.
It
is really regretful that the proceeding of today shortly before the Lunar New
Year’s holiday when political issues have greater ripple effect than usual is
clear to be deliberately scheduled by the government of ill political intention
to infuse distorted false ideas into the people via the media.
The
government should present the facts composed of strict evidence to the judges
of the court. However today the government side is only referring to the
distorted second evidence without any further explanation such as the
transcripts that the NIS which created the transcripts already admitted
hundreds points were fabricated or distorted as well as reports on the comments
of the staff members of the UPP, meanings and intentions of which were also
distorted.
For
example, the government’s argument that communism was referred to in revising
the platform of the UPP is a typical distortion. In fact, the actual comments
made at the Party Conference in June 2011 were to persuade delegates and
members of the UPP who raised opposition to deleting the statement that the
party succeeds ideals and values of socialism from the platform.
As
there were a significant number of people who opposed the removal, on the
premise that “though there would not be anyone who promotes communism within
the UPP,” “communism” was only referred to say, even self-declared communists
who ultimately aim to liberate people may agree with the revision of the
platform though there are some points that they don’t agree with, so please
give your motion rather than protest. Interpreting the comments as the revised
platform represents or implies communism is totally absurd.
The
government’s behavior repeating and adding distortion to distortion reminds me
of Paul Joseph Goebbels, notorious propaganda minister in the Nazi Germany.
Joseph
Goebbels said “give me just one sentence, then I can make anyone a criminal.” I
wonder what is different between the attitude of the Korean government of today
and that of this propaganda minister of the Nazi Germany, the origin of “ the
defensive democracy”.
If
careful and strict evidence-based investigations are made, the distortion and
exaggeration of the government will be clearly revealed at the court to the
public.
4.
Requests of the dissolution of the UPP is causing the deprivation of workers,
farmers and low-income group’s political rights and the violation of the
people’s fundamental rights
Though
I stand here today as Representative of the UPP, the defendant, what I try to
protect is not just the constitutional protection of the UPP as a political
party. Rather, I feel much more responsibility to prevent the violation of each
individual citizen’s fundamental rights resulted from the dissolution of the
UPP.
The
UPP has dedicated itself to creating the politics where workers, farmers and
low-income group can have the ownership. The vast majority of the membership is
workers and farmers. Most of the staff members, nominated representatives and
representatives of the UPP are from workers and farmers.
In
the UPP, there are no local notables who inherited the politics as a family
business, no big company owners who entered the politics with the enterprises
as a foothold, and no opportunists who tried to buy nomination with money. The
UPP has identified itself as a political party to help those who have neither
asset nor academic backgrounds can enter politics. The UPP has proactively
proposed bills for workers and farmers including the bill to eliminate the
dispatched workers system and change the status of all the irregular workers to
regular and the bill to protect farmers and self-employed people affected by
the FTAs.
The
request of the dissolution of the UPP violate the rights of workers, farmers,
and low-income group to organize political opinions who express their opinions
by providing support to the UPP. The dissolution of the UPP will also lead to
derivate workers, farmers, and low-income group of the tools to realize their
political rights in accordance with their own will when they try to participate
in political party’s activities and be elected to public posts.
In
addition, the already vulnerable attempts for workers, farmers and the
low-income group to execute their rights as a sovereign by proposing and
legislating necessary laws through the UPP will be prohibited. Therefore, in
balancing conflicting interests, the court should consider not only the UPP’s
rights to political activities but also the violation of the citizen’s
fundamental political rights realized through the UPP significantly.
5.
Filing for an injunction is to prevent the UPP from participating in the June 4
local elections
The
government is encouraging the politicalization of the trial, by filing for an
injunction to prevent the UPP from running candidates in the upcoming June 4
local elections.
Your
honor, as you know, the local elections are not changing political authority like
the presidential election. It is to facilitate local governments and guarantee
residents’ participation.
The
UPP has contributed more actively and positively than any other political
parties to effective realization of a local self-governing system and local
residents’ participation by proposing ordinances to change the status of
irregular workers to regular, pay dry field subsidy, and establish citizens’
participatory budget system.
In
this regard, the government’s attempt to completely prevent the UPP from
participating in the local elections through an injunction is no less than a
political suppression against political opponents to take the initiative in the
political situation while totally neglecting the merits and nature of thelocal
elections, the effective realization of the local self-governing.
6.
The government should withdraw the request to dissolve the UPP and publicly
present the direction of democracy.
Your
honor,
Due
to the case – request of the dissolution of the UPP, first of its kind in
history since the beginning of the constitutional government, today all of us
are at a crossroads of having a country which forcefully dissolves a political
party to eliminate political opponents or a country which develops democracy
through free exchange of various opinions and people’s evaluation via
elections.
I
ask the government to withdraw the requests and declare publicly to take the
direction of democracy before too late. If the government insists the request,
I hope the judge will make a wise decision to dismiss the request so that it
becomes the last case of an attempt to dissolve a political party.
Thank
you for your attention.
Representative,
Chair of UPP and Lawyer herself Ms. Lee Jung-hee
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.