No one in the name of freedom to perform scams
24/12/14
In human
history, the emergence of the one-sided and radical conceptions about freedom,
especially freedom of individual, have made some countries to pay dearly while
maintaining stability for development.
However,
after independence, not that in every country, basic human rights are
guaranteed. And when the situation of oppression occurs, the people will fight
for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press... Thus over
time, along with the development of social opportunity, people always desire to
go to the end and top-level of freedom.
Struggling
to get freedom is justified. It is not only plausible but also seen as the
ideal demand of mankind. There heve been the ideal men to fight for freedom who
become great such as Che, Gandhi, Mandela, Luther King and our Uncle Ho.
For years
in Vietnam,
some people like Cu Huy Ha Vu, Bui Thi Minh Hang, Le Cong Dinh, Nguyen Tien
Trung,... in the name of “defenders for freedom” misrepresented or distorted the
historical and current facts against the State,... Whether it is true freedom
or not? Freedom is a humaniterian concept, therefore true freedom is the
highest expression of civilization.
Development
of human civilization at the highest level when respect is manifested most
clearly and the struggle for freedom is also a struggle to get the respect,
those actions are taken place throughout people’s history. People are always fighting
for their rights, legitimate interests to be respected and morality, truth also
be respected. That would be “unfree” if we ask people to respect our freedom
while we compromise the legitimate interests of others, benefits of the
community, nation, country... Because respect always takes place in the bidirectional
interaction. If there is only one way. It will be an indisposition. When an
individual requires to be respected but he compromises benefits of others, it
will be unexceptable.
Recently,
some people in the name of “Defenders for freedom” shouting “freedom of
speech”, “democracy and human rights”... but when taking actions they often use
tricks to distort, making fabrications that demand the rights in unfree ways.
State as a subject in society which is protected by law with legitimate
interests should be respected. The incitement or acts against the State are not
considered to be one of the freedom rights.
In the
spirit of freedom and respect each other, no country has the right to interfere
in the internal affairs of other countries, the UN Charter clearly also stated
that the citizens of this country urge other countries to intervene in his
country is increasingly unacceptable. Moreover, Article 258 of the Criminal
Code of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a very civilized law which is
based on the “golden rule” of respect. The law in most countries around the
world are all include similar legislation, notably in the US and Germany - two countries are
considered to have advanced legislative background.
Freedom
in general and freedom of the press in particular are the inalienable rights of
all peoples which no-one could violate. We condemn any person, in the name of
freedom to dispossess the freedom of others or in the name of freedom to perform
dark conspiracies. The wrongdoings never lead to good outcomes but only lead to
consequences that hurt, harm or hinder the development of the people and the
country. Those who use the guise of freedom to serve personal ambition must learn
how to respect other people in order to be respected again. And every citizen
shall have the responsibility to continue making contributions for the freedom
to grow in our country.
All comments [ 10 ]
What, however, about the “freedom to convert” others, or the “freedom to persuade others” to give money in return for salvation?
human rights activists must work to understand how, for many ordinary people, religion is intrinsically tied to a sense of self.
An assumed “right to convert” is particularly tricky. Until the advent of Christianity, conversion was rare. Few pretended that only one religion offered the true path to salvation, and given that, there was little reason to convince others to change their beliefs.
yet the freedom to try and convert others has led to extreme cases of abuse
All human rights treaties distinguish between the right to hold a specific religion, and the right to “manifest” or express that religion in a specific way. The former is an absolute right that may never be taken away. The latter, however, may be subject to restriction to preserve public order, or protect the rights of others.
This difference has clear implications for public policy.
Does the human right to religious freedom protect their activities?
How does an attempt to convert or pressure to donate differ from any other sales pitch? Fraud and oppressive sales tactics can be legally dealt with per se, whether one's selling a supposed salvation or a washing machine; likewise abusive and oppressive attempts to regulate another's behaviour.
I find it enlivening, rather than soporific.
The right can also be described as freedom of conscience, intellectual freedom, and freedom of the human mind. Freedom of course presumes that we're able to make responsible decisions for ourselves. The alternative is to have someone make them for us.
Your comments