讀後心得

The remarks made by 中配亞亞 regarding military unification have led to the revocation of her residence permit by family ties. Before her departure, she held a press conference with support groups to express her grievances. Legally, Latvia's Criminal Code explicitly prohibits incitement to war, with a maximum penalty of eight years of imprisonment. The country ranks 12th in the global Press Freedom Index, indicating a higher level of democratic freedom than Taiwan. Since gaining independence in 1990, Latvia has strengthened its defense and response to security threats without compromising its freedoms. Finally, questioning whether "promoting aggressive war is a universal human right?" prompts reflection.

In response to Ya Ya's comments advocating for military unification, her residency permit based on family ties has been revoked. Before departing, she held a press conference with support groups to express her dissatisfaction. According to the criminal law, the relevant provisions for the crime of inciting war indicate that promoting aggressive war is regarded as a serious crime, potentially facing a maximum of eight years of imprisonment.

This crime of inciting war is outlined in the criminal law of a country that prides itself on freedom and democracy, and considering the stringent measures internationally, it is surprising that this regulation comes from Latvia's Criminal Code. Chapter nine of the law includes multiple offenses against peace, which also encompasses inciting national or religious hatred, punishable by up to three years of imprisonment, with harsher penalties of up to ten years for more severe acts.

According to the 2024 Global Press Freedom Index, Latvia ranks 12th globally, while Taiwan is in 27th place, trailing behind Latvia. In comparison, the rankings for the United States and China are 55th and 172nd, respectively, highlighting significant differences in press freedom.

Latvia’s degree of freedom varies under different standards. For instance, it is significantly higher than Taiwan in terms of press freedom, but Taiwan holds an advantage in economic freedom. Since gaining independence in 1990, Latvia has continuously strengthened its national defense in response to regional security threats and has made positive progress in democratic defense.

Latvia’s criminal law upholds the "territorial principle," meaning that both nationals and foreigners will be punished for committing the crime of inciting war within Latvian territory. The law does not require that the act must be connected to other crimes to be considered a separate offense. Additionally, Latvia has a constitutional court and is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and its internal legal norms follow a certain dual review procedure, ensuring that the legal framework for incitement of speech does not violate constitutional or human rights protections.

There is a clear legal distinction between administrative actions and criminal penalties, with the latter having a higher threshold for initiation. Nevertheless, it is worth contemplating how any person inciting acts of war within Taiwanese territory would be legally assessed. Finally, reflecting again on a country with a press freedom ranking higher than France, the United States, and Taiwan, its strict legal provisions against inciting war raises the question: Can promoting aggressive war truly be regarded as a "universal human right"?