Sedition
March 16th, 2006 at 11:32 pm (General, National Politics)
Dictionary.com describes sedition as “Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state,” and “Insurrection; rebellion.”
Wikipedia.com describes it as
“a deprecated term of law to refer to non-overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.”
We have been hearing the word lately to describe the alleged crime of many who were arrested when Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP1017) was declared. And even after PP1017 has been lifted, people are still being investigated and accused of “sedition” or “inciting to sedition.” Most of those accused and being investigated are party-list legislators and journalists and/or media organizations.
True, most of these people, may have to a certain extent, has been trying to have Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo overthrown. However, if we look closely enough at the situation, I do not think that these people are the ones really guilty of masterminding sedition. Their very reason, and motivation for wanting overthrow Mrs. Arroyo is Mrs. Arroyo herself.
Mrs. Arroyo has been evading the election fraud and cheating issue, because the validity of her “presidency” is being rightfully and logically questioned, because she has been running the country poorly, because she has apologized but has not faced the consequences of her “lapse of judgment.”
Thus, the legislators, protesters, the opposition and even the media are forced to report and cry against these injustices that have been inflicted upon our country.
Therefore, if anybody has to be accused of sedition or inciting to sedition, it has to be Mrs. Arroyo herself. If Mrs. Arroyo sincerely wants our country to have some true sense of normalcy and stability, she should fully own up to her mistakes, and face its consequences.
Related Posts:
JDEspaldon said,
June 13, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Valid criticisms and differing opinions are the hallmark of a free society. The present government may be at risk of being ousted but the right of the government to continue in power is not an unbridled license to oppress the people and endanger their right to free speech. Precisely we have the Bill of Rights to guard the rights of every individual against the excesses of the government. And if we still have the rule of law in our country, government officials may be reminded that all government authority emanates from the people and sovereignty resides in them.
Threatening the people with the vintage crime of inciting to sedition will not silence the discontented crowd. The opposition will not keep quiet just because there is a hanging sword of Damocles in the hands of the Secretary of Justice upon those who may dare disparage the President. This administration will continue in, or be ousted from, power solely on the consent of people.
That is why I believe that it is about time that we repeal that provision on inciting to sedition. The American colonizers may justify the existence of that law. That law may protect the dictatorship of Marcos. Under the present system of direct election and popular representation, however, such law has no Constitutional basis. It also has no practical basis and never serves a deterrent to oppositionists from speaking. What is saddening though why this law should be repealed is that this law has long been abandoned in the western world yet we are still using it in our present times despite the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
Lord Erskine Thomas, in his defense of Thomas Paine after the latter was sued for libel in writing the book “The Rights of Man”, has argued it well why the right of the people to free speech whether for or against the government may not be repressed.
“Engage the people by their affections, convince their reason, — and they will be loyal from the only principle that can make loyalty sincere, vigorous, or rational, — a conviction that it is their truest interest, and that their government is for their good. Constraint is the natural parent of resistance, and a pregnant proof that reason is not on the side of those who use it. You must all remember Lucian’s pleasant story; Jupiter and a countryman were walking together, conversing with great freedom and familiarity upon the subject of heaven and earth. The countryman listened with attention and acquiescence, while Jupiter strove only to convince him: — but happening to hint a doubt, Jupiter turned hastily around and threatened him with his thunder. “Ah! Ah!’ says the countryman, ‘now, Jupiter, I know that you are wrong; you are always wrong when you appeal to your thunder.’”