|首頁 › 分欄目 › 要聞 | 專題 › 文章：|
在4月20日，法論功的修煉者王文怡站在媒體拍攝所在的地方，用言語抗議中共政權對法論功的迫害。就此事，聯邦檢察官指控王文怡恐嚇 (intimidating)、強迫(coercing)、威脅 (threatening)和騷擾(harassing)外國官員。我們認為這種行為是不公正的，而且我們認為王女士是在合理的運用美國憲法所賦予的她的權利。
再則，美國憲法保證公民的言論自由，憲法第一修正案“宗教，出版，言論自由”中寫道“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.”王女士所作的正是合法的言論自由。她的講說很直率，而且簡短，僅有3分鐘左右。她的抗議也只在於言論之間而已。她沒有使用任何粗暴的言語，也沒有使用肢體上的暴力。因此，這些指控是錯誤的或者不合理的。我們相信她的清白。
We are U.S citizens who would like to plead for Mrs.Wang’s innocence who protested for human rights before white house April 20th.
April 20th, Wang Wenyi, a practitioner of Falun Gong, stood in the area where all cameramen were assembled and linguistically protested for human right and persecution of Chinese government over Falun Gong, a spiritual belief group which was banned and oppressed in China since 1999. And now federal attorney had accused her of intimidating, coercing, threatening and harassing foreign public officials. We all think this accusation is injustice, and sincerely believe that Mrs.Wang was appropriately excising her nature rights under the constitution of America.
Firstly, we think the accusation is neither true nor justice. Mrs.Wang did not have the intention of harm nor threatening, instead, she merely protested verbally against inhuman acts Chinese government had manipulated or authorized. What is really interesting was the things she protested about are probably the truth we had all known; however fear not to speak out publicly. It was not threat in any sense. If she would like to threaten Chinese President Hu, why did not she find a better chance to do so privately so that she could avoid public broadcasting and criticizing? On the contrary, she did exactly the opposite to that because what motivated her is not the goal of intimidating but peaceably protests. Her acts not only conveyed a sense of hope but also sent a message to President Bush to urge Chinese government to stop the violation of human rights and nation-wide oppression over religious group.
Secondly, we believe we should re-consider this matter from her point of view also, especially from her career and her past experience. Mrs.Wang is a doctor, who goal is to save as many people from dying as possible. However, later she found the reality happened in China does not match her morality as a doctor.
There happened to many Falun Gong practitioners in China that they were forced to “donate organs” to the government without donor’s permission. In fact, these organs were sold for personal benefits and usually to be those public officials. It is outrageous act that how Falun Gong practitioners were treated with discrimination in contrast to their peaceful meditation. Since she is a devoted doctor, a sense of animosity probably arose toward those inhuman acts which the Chinese communist party had directly involved in. On the basis of her moral sense, she was determined to embark on a length of 7 year investigation. She had appealed numerous times to Chinese Judicial System. For the entire endeavor she undertook, she did not hear anything back from Chinese government. It would be perfectly understandable that her protest on April 4th was with a sense of bitterness and gravitas, or even rage and anguish accumulated in the past .However ,by no means these behaviors could create threatening or intimating to Chinese President Hu because they are nothing but a way to express personal opinion of discontent., a efficient way.
Thirdly, the U.S constitution ensures the rights of freedom of speech. The amendment 1 “freedom of religion, press and expression” from U.S constitution stated “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”. What Mrs.Wang did was exactly to exercise freedom of speech; her speech was explicit and about one minute long. Moreover, she did it peacefully and verbally only. She did not use any phrases of profane nor cause any violence physically during her speech. Hence, the accusation seems to be falsified and void, we believe in her innocence for justice’s sake.
To extent her case in a broader sense ,it’s remarkably important to make a justice choice on whether the Judicial System of America find the dictatorship of Chinese Communist Party favorable or the human rights under the Republic of Democracy more valuable.
Chinese communist party (CCP) was an unauthorized party which dictator over its people by means of reign of terror. It would be surprising to find out that CCP not only is a party not registered in countries it had diplomatic activities with, but also a party not even registered in China, the land it rules. If it’s not even registered in its own country, how could CCP stand on behalf of its peoples? In another word, Chinese President Hu is not a legal president in a sense of the party is not legal.
Also china adopted the reign of terror over its people. In the past 50 years, over 80 millions Chinese were executed or died in other unusual ways. In that sense, CCP pretty much resembles the Nazi Party of Germany during the WW2 in terms of reign of terror and the surprisingly high numbers of people died within its rule. So the act of Mrs. Wang’ protest was part of the effort to call for stopping the reign of terror in China .And this effort in turn is a way to demonstrate the spirit of Democracy and human morality, which also was the reason America fought a war against Nazi during WW2.
As American citizens, we cherish the precious Democracy which empowers us human rights which half of the world still had not a chance to take a glimpse on .We believe in the Democracy under U.S constitution, we believe in the exercise of freedom of speech, we also believe in the right decision the Judicial System would make on the case of Mrs.Wang.