Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 23, 2009 11:24:39 GMT -8
Not good. Probably a lot better than in North Korea, but that is saying very little.
I checked the Wikipedia article on Vietnam and linked from that to the Vietnamese constitution. Here is an interesting secton. . .
Citizens are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press; they have the right to receive information and the right of assembly, association and demonstration in accordance with the law.
Notice the difference between this approach and that of the United States' Constitution. Here is the parallel language in ours. . .
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.
The Vietnamese language on this topic is meaningless. There is no definition of "freedom of speech," "right of assembly," etc., which means that the government can crack down on anyone's speech and justify it by whatever convoluted reasoning it chooses.
The genius of the Founders recognized that our freedoms can be guaranteed only by specifically limiting what the government can do. Fancy words and promises (of which the Vietnamese constitution is replete) are worthless if the government can decide which freedoms to allow and which not.
From the same Wikipedia article one can read this regarding the state of individual freedom in Vietnam. . .
In its 2004 report on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State characterized Vietnam’s human rights record as “poor” and cited the continuation of “serious abuses.” According to the report, the government has imposed restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
I wonder whether Sen. Kerry still gets a warm feeling about how he helped "normalize" realations between the U.S. and Vietnam. Too bad he does not seem in the slightest interested in improve the human rights situation in the latter company.
AzWm
I checked the Wikipedia article on Vietnam and linked from that to the Vietnamese constitution. Here is an interesting secton. . .
Citizens are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press; they have the right to receive information and the right of assembly, association and demonstration in accordance with the law.
Notice the difference between this approach and that of the United States' Constitution. Here is the parallel language in ours. . .
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.
The Vietnamese language on this topic is meaningless. There is no definition of "freedom of speech," "right of assembly," etc., which means that the government can crack down on anyone's speech and justify it by whatever convoluted reasoning it chooses.
The genius of the Founders recognized that our freedoms can be guaranteed only by specifically limiting what the government can do. Fancy words and promises (of which the Vietnamese constitution is replete) are worthless if the government can decide which freedoms to allow and which not.
From the same Wikipedia article one can read this regarding the state of individual freedom in Vietnam. . .
In its 2004 report on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State characterized Vietnam’s human rights record as “poor” and cited the continuation of “serious abuses.” According to the report, the government has imposed restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.
I wonder whether Sen. Kerry still gets a warm feeling about how he helped "normalize" realations between the U.S. and Vietnam. Too bad he does not seem in the slightest interested in improve the human rights situation in the latter company.
AzWm