Foreigners and freedom of speech

I know foreigners can’t take part in demonstrations or publicly voice opinions during elections, but we must have some rights to freedom of speech or forumosa wouldn’t exist. I’m not trying to be contrary, I just really need to understand the boundaries. If, for example, a foreign resident expressed political opinions in a play or a song or a novel, would that foreigner be within his rights?

While I’m here, does anyone know the name or number of the law that requires foreigners to get a permit to perform in public?

Thanks.

pssst!..hey buddy…wanna buy a balaclava?
3 hole models are preferred by the smart demonstrator for todays social situations.
Available in a variety of colors.

:laughing: :bravo:

I don’t get it…it seems like we aren’t allowed to say anything negative. So we are free to say anything positive:)

Not exactly true. See earlier threads in the Human Rights forum, especially posts made by myself and Linda Arrigo.

Yes, Linda is famous for protesting. She is considered a hero by many here.

Thanks Tainan Cowboy, I needed that. Now we’ve all got our balaclavas on.

[quote]Taipei, Taiwan June 16, 2004 Police surveillance and threats of arrest and deportation continue to shadow the hunger strikers protesting at China Synthetic Rubber Company and Taiwan Cement over the environmental pollution and three-year lockout at the companies subsidiary, Continental Carbon Company.

Three of the hunger strikers–Todd Carlson, Dave Westerman and Ralph Mangrum–are members of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers (PACE) International Union who have been locked out of their jobs for three years at Continental Carbon Companys facility in Ponca City, Okla. The other two hunger strikers are PACE Intl. Union officials. All five are entering their seventh day of the hunger strike.

The Taiwan Foreign Ministry has threatened the hunger strikers with arrest and deportation for displaying any indication of their hunger strike in public. Police also have closely followed them.

Joe Drexler, PACE director of special projects; Greg Schulz, an AFL-CIO representative; and Melinda Newhouse of the United Steelworkers of America were met by over 30 police when they arrived at the American Institute in Taiwan for a meeting. The institute serves as the U.S. shadow embassy since the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

A similar incident happened the same day at another meeting attended by all the hunger strikers at the agency that regulates Taiwan’s corporations.

“There is obviously a problem with free speech in Taiwan,” said Drexler.[/quote]

overseasamericans.tripod.com/ove … index.html

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]pssst!..hey buddy…wanna buy a balaclava?
3 hole models are preferred by the smart demonstrator for todays social situations.
Available in a variety of colors.[/quote]

Pan-blue and pan-green color available? :laughing:

Are those illegal? I could have fun with one of those. Run down the middle of the street and into stores freaking people out. Then off to school and freak out all the children.

I would probably get shot.

“Ok. Don’t move! Give me all your dumplings!”

I believe that you need to contact the CLA for such a permit.

Is that true?

As far as I know foreigners can say whatever they want in Taiwan as well as participate in protests provided that they are neither subversive, violent, nor preaching illegal activities.

As for Eric Lier’s addition to this thread, well you would be best served to ignore that post as it is very misleading. The people who were deported in that case were deported for being in breach of their visa conditions and for failing to obtain a permit to protest. They were not deported for what they said, they were deported for what they did!

They were visitors on visitors visas who came to Taiwan with the sole intention of protesting. In not declaring their true reasons for coming to visit Taiwan they were in breach.

Additionally residents in Taiwan (this includes local Chinese and foreigners) are required to first apply for and obtain a permit to hold a public demonstration. I have no idea of what grounds such a permit may or may not be refused, but judging by some of the protests that are permitted I can’t imagine that the requirements are that strict. These foreign visitors did not obtain the relevant documentation for the protest that they held.

Regardless of who you are or where you are from you need to follow the laws of Taiwan if you are going to live in Taiwan. If you choose not to follow those laws for whatever reason then you run the risk of getting arrested and/or deported. So quite clearly there was no breach of these individuals rights, they had waived their right to protest when they failed to obtain the relevant permission for their actions.

Thanks for brining that up.
Not only did the American Hunger strikers protesting the abolition of their Union, pensions andthe wide spread environmental pollution by a Taiwanese company in the US, have a permit to protest. They also filed and obtained the additional requirement of special permission from the Ministry of Education for foreigners to speak in public.
They clearly stated that they were labor activist on their visa application form and were here on business.
Additionally this is not the first time they came to Taiwan to protest.
The difference this time is that the so called human rights government of Taiwan had them deported in direct contravention of their human rights.
The former government of the KMT which was in control at the time of the previous protest simply ask them not to obstruct traffic.
These victims of racially motivated persecution no more violated their visa any more than Scott Ezell or numerous other people who have been deported by the so called human rights government of Taiwan.
I personally believe Taiwan would be a much better place if they would simply deport the racist bigots advocating the deportation of minority rights activist.
But that would also be a human rights violation.

Once again Eric, would you PLEASE tell us how Scott did not violate the terms of his visa?

I am not a judge. I can not make those kinds of determinations and neither can you and neither should the police be allowed to do so.
There is a place where those kinds of determinations are made. It is called a court of law. There is a judge and the accused is permitted to appear and defend themselves. There is an appeals process and all the charges must be justified with evidence legally obtained and viewed by the accused.
A judge did rule to halt the immediate deportation of Scott Ezell. A ruling the local police chose ignore.
That in itself is evidence enough to me to show that the police were wrong and violated Scott Ezell’s human rights.

If they were justified in their actions why did the move so quickly to get him out of the country?
If Scott Ezell was in violation of the law surely the police would have wanted to avoid the kinds of criticisms they are not getting by having their case stand before a judge and presented by a prosecutor.
That was not what happened. The police admitted their mistake when they moved to circumvent the court ordered injunction prohibiting Scott Ezells immediate deportation and allowing him his day in court.

Bullshit. The police simply took the next step and issued another deportation order. That one was not overturned.

ANd what the hell is this about a court of law blah blah blah. When will you get it into your thick skull that this was a VISA VIOLATION. Not a criminal offence. An immigration offence.
You work according to the conditions of your visa. Scott chose not to. For six frigging years. And eventually it caught up with him. It is THAT simple.
You DON’T get “your day in court” for being an illegal immigrant. You get deported.

Well said. Just ask all those illegals entering the USA. Do they get their day in court? No, the get a free bus ride outta the land of human rights, liberty, justice and whatever else they are promoting over there in the USA

That is incorrect. Illegal immigrants in the US may waive their right to a hearing in exchange for expedited repatriation.
Having an ARC clearly defines migrants in Taiwan as lawful migrants.
Even unlawful migrants or immigrants who entered the country illegally must be afforded the right to judicial review.
Making a public statement does not constitute an illegal act and charging people and deporting them for doing so as Taiwan currently does is a clear violation of basic human rights.

[quote=“Eric W. Lier”] Not only did the American Hunger strikers…have a permit to protest. They also filed and obtained the additional requirement of special permission from the Ministry of Education for foreigners to speak in public.
They clearly stated that they were labor activist on their visa application form and were here on business. [/quote]

According to the news at the time what you say is inaccurate.

If it were true then it would be interesting but I just don’t believe you Eric. You have said so much stuff on this forum that was clearly wrong and clearly misleading, that I find it difficult to believe that you have finally got something right.

Assuming that what you say is correct however, I am wondering how you know it to be true?

Also, where on your visa application can you state that your purpose for entry is labor activism? To the best of my recollection you are either a student, a tourist, or a worker, so what do you tick to denote political activism?

Finally I am somewhat suprised that you never mentioned this before. It is certainly very important information that is very much relevant to the case. I have challenged you on this issue many times before and you always claimed that it was a freedom of speech issue. Why is it that you never mentioned these facts before?

You are not telling us porkies are you Eric?!

Again, assuming that this is true, then I assume that they were not deported the first time they came. So they were allowed to exercise their rights to free speech the first time round, but not the second time round. Doesn’t that suggest to you that this is not a freedom of speech issue but more an issue of them acting in breach of their visa conditions.

It is my understanding that they refused to move on when the police asked them to do so.

It probably doesn’t help your argument to group these two seperate events together.

With the exception of yourself, every one seems to accept that Scott was in breach of his visa conditions and was deported for this. You have failed to show otherwise and your claims about the case have been inconsistent at best.

I don’t think that there was ever any confusion there. Judges are generally intelligent people who make decisions upon the information at hand. They are not generally known to pursue wild theories that go against all common-sense and for which there is absolutely no proof of.

You do however judge things, possibly more than anyone else on this forum. Every one of us has opinions on matters, but you present your theories as being fact, when they clearly are not.

And if you are a criminal in Taiwan, regardless of your nationality, you are entitled to a court hearing. Deportations do not come before the courts unless there is an appeal and in that case your case would be heard by a court. This is exactly what happened in Scott Ezells case.

Where is that ruling? You have stated that it exists a number of times and in fact your argument is solely based upon this one claim, but you have never taken the time to prove this claim. It seems strange to me that you would be privy to such information that could prove your case but choose to withhold it. It seems more likely that you are telling us porkies again.

Here you go again. How exactly were his human rights violated?

Did they rush things through? I don’t think that they did.

By accounts he was here for six years, most of which was spent acting in contravention to the laws here. When he was finally given a deportation order he was given the standard two week warning. He then appealed and was given a further extension to remain here. Where is the rush? It seems pretty standard to me.

Once again, we don’t know that Scott did anything illegal but he most certainly did act in contravention to his purpose for being in Taiwan. Assuming that there were also illegal activities involved then the police most likely chose to pursue him for the visa matter as it was easier and quicker. At the end of the day it would have been far better for Scott also. Afterall it is better to be deported, than to be arrested, incarcerated, and then deported!

What mistake?

I gave up trying to post links to articles and documents on Forumosa because as Brian is well aware, he and the other moderators would simply delete them on the grounds that they are just links and not real post thus have no real value to this discussion.
Claiming that there is no evidence of the facts that have been well established then deleting links to documents that establish these points as facts does little for your credibility. This type of bias is also one of the reasons so many of the prominent figures in the expatriate community no longer come to Forumosa.
There are always going to be people particularly here on Forumosa who have such a strong bias that they will not except the fact that many people in the international community in Taiwan are being and have been very badly treated by a blatantly racist administration that current governs Taiwan.
Ignore it if you want. I will not.

[quote=“Eric W. Lier”]I gave up trying to post links to articles and documents on Forumosa because as Brian is well aware, he and the other moderators would simply delete them on the grounds that they are just links and not real post thus have no real value to this discussion.
Claiming that there is no evidence of the facts that have been well established then deleting links to documents that establish these points as facts does little for your credibility. This type of bias and is also one of the reasons so many of the prominent figures in the expatriate community no longer come to Forumosa.
There are always going to be people particularly here on Forumosa who have such a strong bias that they will not except the fact that many people in the international community in Taiwan are being and have been very badly treated by a blatantly racist administration that current governs Taiwan.
Ignore it if you want. I will not.[/quote]

Where and when were your links deleted? I have never once heard your name discussed in the moderators’ forums so the idea you are being targetted for suppression is nonsense. In addition, there are several moderators who are very passionate about preserving freedom of speech and would not stand to see a dissenting voice silenced. I think you are talking shit, to put it bluntly.