The People's ** Working Committee stopped the relatives of the criminals from "sitting together".
It was made clear that "constitutional common sense must be defended." "If we put this determination on punishing adultery, eliminating evil, and punishing corruption, it will be more immeasurable than stopping the joint sitting.
The People's Working Committee believes that the restriction of the rights of the relatives of the persons involved in the crime violates the principle of self-conceit, which is not in line with the spirit of Chapter II of the Constitution "Provisions on the Basic Rights and Duties of Citizens", and that the mistakes made by the persons involved in the crime should be borne by themselves and should not be linked or extended to others, which violates the principles of the Constitution.
This shows that the Legislative Affairs Commission's attitude of stopping the joint sitting is clear and firm.
At present, the Legislative Affairs Commission has urged the repeal of the circular with relevant departments, and has carried out self-correction throughout the country to prevent and avoid similar situations. This further illustrates that it is imperative to stop the sitting, and that action is already underway.
So how should we look at this matter correctly, and should the "joint sitting" of the relatives of the criminals be abolished?
There is a saying: If you do too much injustice, you will kill yourself, and if you know why you should be in the first place today, if the influence of the joint sitting can curb crime, then it has the meaning of existence.
But this must exist in a range, in a dimension of degrees.
I've collected a lot of comments online, and the public opinion is that it is necessary to exist, that is, it is divided. This is normal, and what the public is worried about is - grafting flowers and trees, changing faces, and treating the symptoms but not the root cause.
If there is a law, it must be followed, and if it is violated, it is not a contradiction, but a lineage. Connivance and countering violence with violence are two extremes. The extreme will inevitably lead to the other, this is the basic law.
In order to put the matter of stopping the joint sitting in perspective, I think we should consider it from three dimensions. One is within the system, the second is outside the system, and the third is normal basic human rights.
Let's start with the first system:
To put it simply, if you don't want to enter the system, there are actually no restrictions. If you are afraid of being co-op because you are a person in the system, then why do you want to step on the red line of the law?In other words, there is no ghost in your heart, you are afraid of hair.
The body is not afraid of the shadow, and the seven-foot man dares to act.
If you're running for the red line, then I think you deserve to be like this!Corruption and corruption have always been a big mountain pressing on the system, but as long as more than 50 percent of the people are honest and honest, this is not a problem.
Only those who have ghosts in their hearts and want to earn money are the most afraid of sitting together.
Here's the problem!If you're afraid, why do you do it, and why do you complain if you do it?Therefore, from this point of view, whether it is deterrence or alerting those who have intentions, it is by no means superfluous in itself.
Because most of the people know a truth: the old ones go and the young ones go, and they can't let him form a cycle.
Resource allocation should be appropriate, not always in the hands of a subordinate.
Only by always respecting the law can justice be better upheld.
Let's talk about the second outside the system:
This is a multiplicity of criminals and a list of cases. The surging content shows that some places have implemented continuous disciplinary measures for the minor children of relatives of those involved in wire fraud, such as: restricting enrollment in urban areas, restricting enrollment and enrollment, and suspending spouses, parents, and children from enjoying serious illness insurance and subsidy policies.
Cool or not?Some people think it's very cool, very comfortable, and the results are immediate.
Some people think it's too harsh.
From ancient times to the present, people's attitude towards the wicked has always been that they want to drink their blood and eat their flesh, and everyone will be punished for it. Because the wicked must have violated the rights of others to a certain extent, which can be personal safety or property safety.
From a subjective point of view, if the person involved in the crime makes a mistake, the relatives should limit their corresponding rights.
From an objective social perspective, restricting or even depriving them of their basic rights as human beings is certainly not in line with the principle of fairness in the law and the humanistic spirit of society.
Should you agree with the joint sitting?This needs to be linked to the first one, one is inside the system and the other is outside the system. The biggest difference between these two is that one holds power beyond the basic rights of ordinary people, and the other has only basic rights.
Then this great relationship comes out.
The third normal basic human right:
The so-called normal basic human rights refer to the basic social rights that a person has. For example, enjoy medical insurance subsidies, enjoy normal pensions, and children enjoy normal school study. This is a right that all people have.
From this point of view, neither within nor outside the system should affect close relatives.
Because it is the basic right to exist as a human being.
I think the core of what the People's Working Committee wants to emphasize is also this, it is better to block than to sparse, and appropriate guidance and correction is the best way to prevent the further development of mistakes. This should also be the reason why the Legislative Affairs Commission believes that the modern society has abandoned the system of "joint sitting" and "joint sitting".
For example, restricting the children of "laid-backs" from enrolling in "fee-paying private schools" is to prevent the transfer of property, not to restrict their children from receiving normal education.
The Legislative Affairs Commission's suspension of the "joint sitting regulations" will, to a certain extent, promote social fairness and rationality, correct the infringement of citizens' rights, and abolish local unreasonable regulations.
On the whole, there is a basis and rationality for the people's working committee to stop the "joint sitting".
However, again, the root of the law is for people to better protect their own legitimate rights and interests, and the law still depends on how people implement it. Especially in the case of joint sitting, the abolition of the rule does not mean that some people can breathe a sigh of relief.
It doesn't mean you can do nothing.
What the people are worried about is the abuse of power, as well as the transfer of a large amount of assets and connections from their parents. The purpose of the original restriction was to prevent the second Zhao Gao from appearing, but now that it has been stopped, whether Haiqing Heyan can return depends on the final implementation effect.
Therefore, I believe that the suspension of "joint sitting" should be viewed from multiple angles.
In that position, your opinion is which.
But one thing must be understood
Relaxation is not the same as a litmus test for unscrupulousness
Not to mention the arrogant and rampant capital. People are watching the sky, today you don't care, tomorrow waiting for regret.
What do you think about this?You are welcome to leave me a message to discuss.
100 help plan