After keeping their promise to Taiwan Legislative Yuan Speaker, Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), the students in the “Sunflower” movement who had occupied the nation’s legislature since March 19 demonstrated evidence that contradicts a long-standing, worldwide precedent in court rulings, police action, and decisions made by executive heads of state. This incident may be history’s first evidence, supporting either position, that “constitutional rights”, “individual liberty”, and “protecting national sovereignty” can be talking points of non-terrorist, peaceful citizens of a given country.
This directly contradicts the need for police action against such protests in the past, as has been seen countless times through history. This indicates that police who use force against such demonstrators may be the actual culprits. Should violence eventually break out between police and peaceful protesters with these talking points, the police may be eventually understood to have incited said violence.
According to a trend of reports from US law enforcement such as from Rawls on March 30, 2011 8:28 PM, reports from State police such as Missouri highway patrol in March, 2009, law enforcement “training” is being influenced by publications such as an unclassified report “Rightwing Extremism” from April 7, 2009, from the Department of Homeland Security, with a recurring list of similarities that allegedly identify “domestic terrorists”. Those “indications of a domestic terrorist” happen to include many of the same talking points as the students, who peacefully occupied Taiwan’s legislative chamber from March 19 through April 10, 2014, as indications for a person to be suspect of “domestic terrorism” in the United States. However, there have been no incidents to suggest that this training from DHS is more than speculation, which remains consistent with the argument that police could be responsible for inciting any eventual violence where unarmed protests are concerned.
The now proven-peaceful occupancy of Taiwan’s legislature by unarmed demonstrators who highlighted “constitutional law,” “liberty,” and “national sovereignty,” among many other talking points, could be an argument used in international courts proving that any police force against unarmed protesters is unnecessary and, therefore, a violation of internationally recognised human rights. It has yet to be determined whether a case could be filed against the US Department of Homeland Security in international courts if their reported recommendations have not yet been acted upon by the law enforcement officials they have been instructing.
Where there is no current documentation indicating that “constitutional law”, “national sovereignty”, and “liberty” have resulted in actual “domestic terrorism”, WWII provides significant documentation concerning rising dictatorships. Identifying individuals who resemble the profile of the proven-peaceful occupants of Taiwan’s legislature as “domestic terrorists” is documented as an indication of a rising dictatorship that eventually commits domestic violation of human rights and war crime. DHS’s now defunct pre-dictator-resemblant speculation could be the basis for filing a brief against the US Federal government in international courts as potentially being staffed by personnel who would cooperate with human rights violations if a dictator were to rise to power in their jurisdiction. Evidence of such staff could include David Brown’s now defunct criticism and recommendation of force used against the Taiwan’s recent peaceful protests.
By contrast to Wang, Premiere of Taiwan’s Executive Yuan, Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), ordered use of force against unarmed protesters from the same peaceful movement, resulting in bloodshed and ill will. Unlike with DHS, the fact that force was already used in Jiang’s incident may be a basis on which to bring charges against Jiang in an international court, even now.
Wang’s decision as a head of the legislature, not to use force against occupying protesters, has foreseeable ramifications that are unprecedented in world history. These ramifications not only include that unarmed protesters with “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” talking points can remain peaceful if force is not used against them, but they also highlight a contrast between legislative and executive branches. The trend is that legislatures tend toward successful non-force, while executive branches tend toward force that results in conflict and eventual internationally recognised overthrow of the same executive administration.
Adolf Hitler rose to his seat of power after Germany’s legislature was dispatched. DHS has been facing criticism from many in US Congress. And the executive and legislative branches in Taiwan have also proven to have conflict, both between their ideologies where use of force by police is concerned, as well as other internal political disputes between Wang and the executive branch. This not only refers to Jiang, but also includes conflict between Wang and Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Concern over “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” talking points from unarmed protesters is now proven to be unwarranted. Any future evidence to the contraire should be investigated as being potentially fraudulent, with motive of such potential fraud from the relevant executive branch.
Wang’s choice of non-force and the resulting peace demonstrates that “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” talking points indicate less likelihood of “domestic terrorism”, not more. International courts should keep a watchful eye for executive branches that oppose unarmed “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” protests, especially when coupled with rising conflict between that nation’s legislative and executive branches. Such activity should be reported in the form of a brief filed with a relevant international court as a historically-supported indication of a potential rising dictatorship.