Ban on Night Rallies

Proposed Bill Reveals Total Neglect of Basic Rights

When the nation's 37-year-old curfew was finally lifted in 1982, Koreans felt it rather unreal to be outdoors past midnight. The curfew will likely come back soon, however, at least for people who want to hold outdoor meetings at night, if a bill sponsored by the governing Grand National Party turns into a law.

On the surface, the bill, which calls for prohibiting outdoor assemblies and demonstrations from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m., seems to be an improvement from the present law, which regulates such rallies from sunset to sunrise. Actually, however, the bill is a change for the worse: While the current law allows some night meetings on the condition of the presence of police, the new one bans all such gatherings, with or without police.

The bill is a follow-up to the Constitutional Court's decision in September, when it ruled the current ban on night gatherings didn't conform with the Constitution, as it was too broad and ran counter to the principle that ruled out the need for governmental permission on meetings. So, the GNP bill narrows the time belt subject to the ban a little, while ``abolishing" the need for asking permission by fundamentally prohibiting night rallies.

But would anyone think it conforms to the Constitutional spirit better? There was no denying that the top tribunal's ruling was aimed at better ensuring people's basic rights for assembly and demonstration by focusing more on the unconstitutionality of the law that required the police's permission than on fidgeting with the length of time to which such a ban is applied. The governing party's bill therefore is nothing but a glaring neglect ― intentional or not ― of the Constitutional spirit.

The police and governing camp officials cite the need for maintaining street order, including smooth traffic conditions, and reducing damage or inconvenience sustained by nearby stores and residents. But not only are these values far lower than the people's Constitutional freedom to assemble and demonstrate their views, but also can be sufficiently dealt with using various existing laws.

People know while the government pretends to control mass gatherings by the time and place they occur, it really intends to regulate them ``by the content" ― whether they are of a pro- or anti-government nature, in other words.

Since the police began to arrest the participants, including middle-school students and housewives, during the candlelit vigil of 2008 ― one of the most widely misunderstood events among not just foreigners but many Koreans who viewed it just as a protest against the non-existent dangers of mad cow disease ― it has become apparent the Lee Myung-bak administration has an abnormal hatred ― and fear ― of views critical of it. Otherwise, it is all but impossible to understand the administration's backtracking when it comes to ensuring basic rights, also including those of expression and labor.

Angrily reacting to some judges' ruling in favor of protesters and an Internet critic of the government's economic policies, the governing camp, with the aid of conservative media, ascribed it to a left-leaning group within the judiciary branch.

Just think, however: Most of these students, housewives and judges have been born, grown or studied since the nation's democratization in 1987, meaning their defense of basic rights has nothing to do with ideology and should be all but innate.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon recently said the conservatives should remain in power at least for a decade, which may explain the GNP's efforts to nip any criticism in the bud. Even if Oh's wishes come true, however, the democratic Republic of Korea they govern will then neither be a true republic nor a liberal democracy.