Tue, Mar 25, 2025 page3

• Justice ministry mulls whether advocating war is a crime

  • By Shelley Shan / Staff reporter
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The Ministry of Justice yesterday said it would listen to the public’s input on whether “advocating war” should be made a crime before proposing any legislation.

  “Criminal cases are handled based on the offenses stated in the Criminal Code, such as incitement, intimidation and defamation. As to whether there should be a specific law against advocacy of war, or whether a person would be deemed as committing a crime or should be subject to administrative penalty for making such statements, we have to carefully study this issue by listening to the public first,” the ministry said.

  The ministry’s statement came after the National Immigration Agency (NIA) revoked the residency permit of Chinese influencer Liu Zhenya (劉振亞) — who is married to a Taiwanese and runs an online channel “Yaya in Taiwan” on YouTube and Douyin — for advocating the use of force by Beijing to unify with Taiwan.

  

  Chinese influencer Liu Zhenya is pictured in an undated screen grab.

  Photo: Screengrab from Liu’s YouTube channel

  The immigration agency ordered her to leave the country by today. The Taipei High Administrative Court subsequently overruled Liu’s request for an injunction of the NIA’s order.

  The agency also revoked the permanent residency permits of two other Chinese-spouse-turned-influencers — Hsiao Wei (小微) and En Chi (恩綺) — who also called for unifying with Taiwan by force.

  Both were asked to leave the country before designated deadlines. They are also banned from applying for residency as spouses of Taiwanese citizens for five years, an official familiar with the issue said, adding that their access to Taiwan’s national healthcare system and their right to work in Taiwan would all be canceled.

  National Chung Cheng University communications professor Lo Shih-hung (羅世宏) questioned the High Administrative Court’s ruling, saying it was flawed because it cited Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as the basis for rejecting Liu’s request for an injunction.

  The article states that one, “any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law,” and two, “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

  The court subsequently held that Liu’s statement constituted war propaganda, Lo said.

  “The court confused legal obligations that were imposed on countries that signed the international treaty with domestic laws that can be directly applied to cases involving individuals,” Lo said.

  Although Taiwan has since 2009 incorporated principles stated in the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into domestic regulations, the government has yet to have a specific domestic law in place defining or prohibiting war propaganda.

  “If the government believes that war propaganda should be banned, the legislature should have first passed a law defining behaviors that constitute war propaganda and listing conditions in which the law applies,” Lo said.

  Instead, the court only considered Liu’s advocacy of unifying Taiwan by force as equivalent to promotion of war, without examining whether her statement actually incited violence, was an instant safety threat and mobilization for war, Lo said.

  Liu expressed an extreme political view, but there has yet to be evidence that her statements helped organize, sponsor, plan and mobilize violence, nor has it cited an instant and direct war, Lo said.

  The court might have overinterpreted the international treaty and how it might apply in domestic cases, which would weaken freedom of political speech in the Constitution, he said.

  The UN Human Rights Committee has also stated that countries should observe the principles of necessity and proportionality if they believe freedom of speech must be restricted for national security reasons, Lo said, adding that they should prove that these statements do indeed cause direct and instant threat.

  Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Puma Shen (沈伯洋) wrote on Facebook that stricter restrictions on freedom of speech should be applied to people coming from hostile countries.

  The problem is how much restriction is considered appropriate, he added.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Coast guard flags about 1,900 Chinese vessels

  • 2

    Saudi Arabia’s UAE ‘mudslinging’ threatens new crisis

  • 3

    ‘French Spider-Man’ praises Honnold’s Taipei 101 climb

  • 4

    Doncic sparks Lakers over the Bulls in Chicago

  • 5

    US climber Alex Honnold free soloes Taipei 101