(1 May) The confrontation which pits the MPs and Senators of the government camp against a number of judges of the Constitutional Court is quickly escalating.
The situation hits a new level of tension when hundreds of Redshirt protesters start their
weeks-long rally in front of the Constitutional Court, demanding the judges to resign from their
seats.
The Constitutional Court, after being berated and criticized from the Redshirts rally
stage, retaliated by filing charges against the protest leaders.
Meanwhile, the protesters
doubled down by increasing their criticism and filing their own legal action against the
Court.
We believe that both the Constitutional Court and the citizens who disagree with the
Court′s roles are fully entitled to the rights to defend themselves, their reputation, and their
beliefs via legal means.
However, both sides still need to examine their stances and strive
to keep the extent of their expression within appropriate boundary.
The protesters must not
let the cause of the rally – rightfully a public issue – degenerate into libelous rant against
individuals.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court must be aware of its own anti-democratic
actions in the past that many citizens, inevitably, found unacceptable.
The Court′s assertion
that it must defend itself from ?the boxer who attacks the referee? should be seriously rethought,
because one can easily provide evidences that point to the reason why the allegorical boxer
eventually lost his temper and turned to challenge the referee.
The boxer is certainly not
alone, as there are so many audiences and commentators have echoed his opinion about the
referee.
If the Court still refuses to examine itself in
straightforward manner, the confrontation will only be prolonged
indefinitely.
