I just browsed the headlines and saw another person wearing a Japanese flag swaggering on the street, and I was beaten.
This unexpected "what", how do you look like you came out to find a beating. What are the other reasons? I can't even think of it if I want to break my head.
I can understand the matter of looking for a beating. When something doesn't go well, some people will spill their grievances on others, and some people hope to be beaten, and their hearts will be happy, which is about ** psychology. What I can't understand is that there are ways to find a beating, why do you choose to be beaten wearing a Japanese flag? Could it be that he is too patriotic, and when he lets others beat himself, he also plays the Japanese flag? Kill two birds with one stone?
Needless to say, the comments almost unanimously believe that it should be hit. Of course, there are exceptions to everything, and there are big ones who say that they cannot fight and that they should be dealt with according to law.
This time I'm standing big.
But at the same time, I advocate that there must be blood. Couldn't say more.
This matter will probably have to be dealt with somewhat. I think the person in charge of dealing with it, even if he gives a thumbs up in his heart or behind his back, has to have a straight face on the surface, "How can you hit someone casually?" What does the law do? A fine of two hundred. ”
As for "what", I think it can be dealt with in accordance with Article 26 (4) of the current Public Security Administration Punishment Law, "other acts of picking quarrels and provoking trouble". In other words, it can be determined that it is picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
If you can explain something in plain language, you don't have to use legal jargon to make it seem like you're powerful. "Picking quarrels and provoking trouble", in the words of the common people, means "looking for trouble", "looking for beating", and "looking for scolding". Looking for a beating, Confucius said, ask for benevolence and get benevolence, why complain? Alas, much more. The swaggering of the Japanese flag on the streets of China is in line with this rule.
When soliciting opinions on the revision of the law last year, there was a sentence in the draft for comments, "in a public place or forcing others to wear or wear clothing or symbols that are harmful to the spirit of the Chinese nation or hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation in a public place", this sentence is more in line with the behavior of "what", but it has been strongly opposed by some legal experts and other people in the legal circles, and the draft has not yet been adopted.
At that time, the reason for the opposition was that the meaning of "harming the spirit of the Chinese nation and hurting the feelings of the Chinese nation" was not specific and uncertain, and it was easy to be expanded, and the administrative organs were prone to abuse their power. However, it did not say how to express it more specifically and definitely, and did not propose a plan to prevent the abuse of power by the administrative organs. The result of such an objection was that the provision could not be adopted.
Legal texts are abstract expressions of the common characteristics of countless concrete events, and such abstract expressions cannot be completely and thoroughly concrete and definite at any time. People in the legal profession know this.
For example, if a provision intends to regulate containers such as bowls, basins, cups, bottles, jars, night pots, etc., if it intends to be more specific, it will talk about the material, shape, size, with or without lid, etc., and if it is a little more extensive, it can only talk about containers.
If someone takes a towel and soaks it in water to water the flowers, whether the towel is a container or not, it is necessary for law enforcement or judicial personnel to understand the true meaning of the legal provisions before applying them.
If something must be regulated, but it cannot be expressed specifically and definitely for the time being, and the provisions must be a little more extensive, it is also necessary to leave room for law enforcement and judicial personnel to understand and apply, otherwise it is to oppose the adjustment of a certain act by law. In this case, it is an act of opposing sanctions draped under the Japanese flag.
Besides, how can the wording of the revised draft be more specific and definite than the expression of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" in the current law? Why do we have to oppose the revised draft?