[Event Note] "Human Rights Advocacy in Taiwan: Reflections on the 40th Anniversary of TAHR"

"What Can Still Be Achieved by Taking to the Streets? the History of Assemblies and Protests in Taiwan's Democratic Journey"

Forty years ago, in a tumultuous era, Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) was established with the goal of promoting human rights protection and political democratization in Taiwan. Over the years, Taiwan's democratic progress has been evident, but the work for human rights never ceases. New challenges continuously arise, and the legacy of authoritarianism still exerts its influence. As we approach the next forty years, TAHR reviews its various endeavors through a series of seminars. Today, we begin with the right to assembly and protest (referred to as assembly rights), exploring the unfinished business in Taiwan's democratic journey."

The Forty-Year Entanglement between TAHR and Assembly Rights 
– Host: Si Wang, Deputy Secretary-General of TAHR

At the beginning of the seminar, the host Si Wang provided the audience with a comprehensive overview of TAHR's forty years of work, highlighting its significant role in Taiwan's democratic progress. The following are key events and the current status of assembly rights:

Si Wang pointed out that "the suppression of the people's right to assembly and protest" is a phenomenon that can occur regardless of the government or political party  in power. Taiwan's democratic process has demonstrated this. Although organizations like the TAHR and activists have continued to advocate for political openness and the protection of people's rights since martial law was lifted, government control has shifted accordingly, and any law can be used to restrict people's expression on the streets. In subsequent development of social movements, with the advancement of internet technology, the difficulty of information dissemination for people's mobilization has decreased, and ways of assembly and protest have become more diverse. It was only with some achievements in judicial reforms that the power of the state's hands--through its judicial and law enforcement system--has been significantly weakened. Si Wang, nonetheless, emphasized that the people's right to assembly and protest cannot be fully realized without the removal of restricted areas and the abolishment of the permit system for assemblies and protests.

The Next Step after 40 Years of Assembly and Protests Rights? 

– Yuxiu Zhou（Clarence Chou, Discussant/Executive Committee Member of TAHR, Lawyer

Building upon Wang Si's comprehensive overview, Yuxiu Zhou, an executive committee member of TAHR, delved deeper into the discussion. After 40 years of continuous advocacy for assembly and protest rights, what will be TAHR's next battlefield and strategy?

Yuxiu Zhou pointed out that there are areas for improvement in the current strategies adopted by Taiwanese social movement groups in handling issues related to the Assembly and Parade Act. Firstly, these groups typically provide legal assistance in lawsuits only after individuals are prosecuted, which--although garnering exposure through such events--is relatively passive and relies on supporting social atmosphere and morale within the activist community. This leads to a lack of coherence and cooperation among groups and activists focused on the issue of assembly rights, potentially resulting in stagnation for tasks that require long-term dedication.

In addition, Lawyer Zhou mentioned pathways such as constitutional interpretation and legislative amendments. However, the former often encounters reluctance from the grand justices to make progressive interpretations, and--even when they do so--they cannot compel action from the legislature. Consequently, they often opt for mild and conservative interpretations. The latter also faces issues of frequent interruptions and inconsistency in activism. Whenever there are changes in the positions of the supporting legislators, the momentum for amending the Assembly and Parade Act diminishes.

Not just the Assembly and Parade Act? Criticizing "Suppression" as the essence of state operation is the key.

Finally, Yuxiu Zhou cited the 2015 Hydis employees overseas protest incident as an example to illustrate that the practice of assembly rights being hindered is not just a problem with the Assembly and Parade Act itself. As long as the government intends to obstruct, various laws and regulations -- from the Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons, the Waste Disposal Act, to visa regulations for foreigners-- can be used to suppress activities of assembly and protest. The key issue lies in whether the ruling authority genuinely respects the people's right to express their opinions and assemble.

Taiwanese Police Administration and Assembly Rights

 – Ren-shuo Hsu, Discussant/Executive Committee Member of TAHR, Assistant Professor at Hokkaido University

The third discussant, Ren-shuo Hsu, focused on discussing issues within the police system. Professor Hsu mentioned that, compared to existing laws, police officers enforcing the laws on-site face greater pressure from superiors demanding aggressive actions. Therefore, educational and personnel appointment systems have more direct impacts on whether violent law enforcement occurs.

Neither party alternation or even changing the country's name could resolve—The parallel world in police education

Ren-shuo Hsu discussed that the reason why police do not respect human rights is related to their education and training. In theory, police officers should only maintain order at assembly sites. However, the long-term lack of acknowledgement of human rights in police education has led to law enforcement officers viewing their role as solely "preventing" public assembly activities, with no regards to transitional justice and multiculturalism. Additionally, the education system and practical training in the police force are extremely opaque, leaving little room for the introduction of human rights concepts and external oversight.

In such a closed system, it naturally leads to mutual protection within the police force and a high concentration of power. Therefore, when police officers engage in violence at protest sites, questions such as "Who gave the order?", "Who initiated the violence?", or "Where is the evidence?" are difficult to answer. Even if someone eventually takes responsibility, it is hard to determine whether they are the mastermind or a scapegoat.

The Long Road to Reform

In terms of institutional reform, Ren-shuo Hsu briefly proposed four main directions: identification, evidence preservation, oversight system, and personnel education. Firstly, identification and evidence preservation serve as the basis for identifying the instigators. Hsu believes that the names of officers at the scene and recordings should be made public. Secondly, reforms in the oversight system need to address issues of both professionalism and conflicts of interests to arrive at a mechanism that combines impartiality with professional competence. Lastly, personnel education should be adjusted in an open direction, putting an end to the monopoly over all aspects of law enforcement by the National Police Agency. All these issues remain to be addressed, and efforts will continue for the next forty years.

The Structural Changes of Public Forum Spaces

 - Hui-Jie Su, Discussant/Associate Professor in the Department of Law at National Taiwan University

The Importance of the Freedom of Assembly and Protest

According to J.Y. Interpretation No. 445, the freedom of assembly and protest is a constitutionally protected right. For individuals who have difficulty accessing or using the media to voice their opinions, assembly and protest serve as crucial avenues for public expression. It represents a low-cost method of expressing opinions and holds particular significance. However, for assembly and protest rights to be effectively realized, there must be appropriate public spaces for people to act. Besides passively ensuring that people enjoy this freedom without interference, the state also has an obligation to provide suitable venues for assembly and protest and to protect the safety of such activities, ensuring that they can proceed smoothly.

Theoretical and Practical Issues of the Assembly and Parade Act

Professor Su pointed out that access to public space is a fundamental requirement for exercising the freedom of assembly and protest. To increase visibility, assembly and protest sites are often chosen where crowds gather, aiming to reach bystanders and attract media attention. While J.Y. Interpretation No. 445 acknowledges the importance of the freedom of assembly and protest; its interpretation of regulations on the pre-screening of assembly sites is quite loose. Supervisory authorities may impose restrictions on matters such as time, location, and manner of assembly and protest, which are not directly related to the purpose or content of the assembly and protest, solely based on “the necessity of maintaining social order and promoting public interests.” For example, restricted areas are designated to protect the security of important national institutions or military facilities or to maintain smooth traffic, and assemblies or protests are not allowed within these areas without approval from the competent authority. In J.Y. Interpretation No. 806, it is advocated that public spaces have multiple functional functions. But when these functions conflict with each other, "non-intended functions" take precedence over "intended functions." J.Y. Interpretations No. 445 and No. 806 clearly underestimate the importance of public space for the freedom of assembly and protest.

In addition to the aforementioned issues, the privatization of public space also imposes limitations on assembly and protest. Many places that appear to be public spaces, where people freely come and go and gather, are actually private property. Therefore, it is difficult to exercise the freedom of assembly and protest in these spaces, such as shopping malls or privately owned shopping streets. Different countries have varying regulations regarding such spaces. From the US legal perspective, people are not allowed to assert the freedom of assembly and protest on private property. However, from the German legal perspective, regardless of ownership, as long as the space is open to the general public and serves as a social function for people to interact, exchange information, and express opinions, it should be considered a space for people to exercise their freedom of assembly.

Faced with these issues, the professor believes that we should return to the purpose of "providing appropriate assembly venues" as stated in J.Y. Interpretation No. 445. We should revise the overly loose scrutiny positions in J.Y. Interpretations No. 445 and No. 806 and address the changing structure of modern public gathering spaces. Giving greater protection to public spaces is essential to truly safeguard the freedom of assembly and protest for the people.

Mandarin ver. https://www.tahr.org.tw/news/3519

Translated by: Ya-ju, Edited by: Mina and Jackson Wu