Saturday, July 22, 2017

Fr. Nguyen Van Ly (continued)





Repressive Measures

   Fbe Press Campaign

Beginning on March 3, 2001, a press campaign was launched against the priest. The official daily Ha Noi Moi (Hanoi Today),  published the first article on the incident. It opened attacks on Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, concentrating mainly on the report the priest sent to the Internationl Commission of Religious Freedom. That was the report in which, according to the author of the article, the priest denigrated the Communist Party and the leader Ho Chi Minh, who was portrayed  as  a “war criminal.” The priest even went so far as to urge on the United States to help the people  overthrow the regime. The priest thus committed the serious crime as prescribed by Article 13 of the Constitution defining the punishment against those who conducts “activities and plots (of sabotage) against the independence, suzerainty, reunification and integrity of Vietnam.” The following day, February 4, 2001, the  Quan Doi Nhan Dan, a journal of the army, took the relay, furiously poured charges on the priest in an article entitled “The Traitor of the People Is Demasked.”  Among other accusations, the journal stressed the magnitude of the crime. “The priest deserves heavy punishment, but the regime has showed clemency for humanitarian purpose. The authorities only decided to take an administrative measure to reeducate the priest and adjust  him to the civil and religious laws.” Then, in the days that followed, all the big headings on the subjet along with meticulous articles appeared in the official press. For two consecutive days February 7-8, the journal  Lao Dong of the Union of Workers, charged the priest with undesirable crimes.  In March 2001, the official daily Nhan Dan, in a series of articles  entitled “Under the Cover of Religion, an Evil Acti” elaborated  the priest’ s acts of confrontation with the State, accusing him of committing crimes of treason against the nation. It nevertheless committed grave mistakes, not only giving an eclesiastic curriculum vitea of  the priest with gross errors of clumsiess but also a wrong account of the days Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was in prison, and a tabulation of unfounded subversive activities. On March 9, 2001, in a maneuver, it collected unfavorable opinions of the so-called  Catholic adepts “indignant of the conduct of Nguyen Van Ly.

 The outpouring of accusations of the official press against the promotor of the campaign for religious freedom raised doubts as to whether the authorities intended to impose stricter measures on the dissident priest. Why did the authorities impose a house surveillance sentence on the priest on February 27, 2001.  Second, the accusations  by the officical press were vague as they failed to qualify Fr. Nguyen Van Ly‘s confrontation as crimes. Still, they could not produce evidenc but plain accusations, showing the authorities’ abuse of power, making false accusations and groundless fabrications. In addition, the prescriptions for this crime are even bias and unclear. The definitions  for  crimes of treason against the fatherland by the Penal Code, in fact, were subject to revision in Decamber 1999. pecifically, Article 78, concerning the defiinitions of the penalty, the terms in prison, the perpetuity of life imprisonment, and the condemnation to death .

The tone of the campaign became increasingly critical as Fr. Nguyen Van Ly received strong support from rights international organizations and government agencies. The priest was accused of undermining the ratification the Trade Agreements between Vietnam and the United States. On March 13, 2001, in a communication to the international press, authorities publicly made allusion to the “subversive” appeals by Fr’ Nguyen Van Ly and the campaign for religious freedom conducted by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly and the priests of the archdiocese of Hued, They condemmed these activities as concerted acts of sabotage. In he weekly press conference, the spokewoman of the Foreign Affairs Ministry Nguyen Phuong Nga responded with firmness to the critics in the article of the Asian Wall Street Journal, published on February 9, 2001, saying that religious repression would certainly jeopardize the ratification of the trade accords between Vietnam. She nevertheless affirmed that the bilateral trade accord, which is an effort to join the interests of the two countries, would not be affected by the people who deliberately sabotage the relations between the two countries. She also added that the government of Vietnam “neither restricts nor repress religious activities and the liberty of faith in a religion and that those who abuse the rights and utilize religion to cause social disorder and undermine national unity will be severely punished.” Again, the accusation was unfounded. The measures taken against Fr. Nguyen Van Ly had nothing to do with religious repression. As regards the government policy, the spokewoman said that the Vietnamese Communist official information agency already specified that “the priest commits acts of violation against the laws of Vietnam. Large layers of the population among which are religion practioners express their indignation over and criticize those acts that go against the interests of the country.” The trade accords between Vietnam and the United States, in reality, was signed in June 2000 after years of negotiation. The ratification of the accords was subject to deliberation at the U.S. Congress following reports on measures of relegation taken against Fr. Nguyen Van Ly. The analysis of the crime attributed to the priest weighed in by the Foreign Ministry spokewoman certainly accentuated the seriousness of the confrontation of the priest with the State.

The press campaign accelerated. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was repeatedly accused of crimes of sabotage, having undrmined the nationial interests by sending  to the  International Commission on Religious Freedom of the U.S. Congress a report denouncing the situation of the religions in his country. Although the text was not officially read in the meeting of the Commission that took place on February 13, 2001, an Englih translation had been laid into the hands of the participants. Among other things, the report  recommends the commission not to accord support to the Vietnamese communists, an act that, according to the priest, would only “prolong religious repression and reinforce totolitarian dictatorship.”

The campaign for religious freedom of Fr. Nguyen Van Ly received support from the international press. To mete out influence, the official Press launched a campaign of crimes relevations against the priest, who had been, in reality, assigned to residence surveillance since November 2000. The authorities had stripped off him all means of communication, the at Nguyet Bieu and at An Truyen as well. The campaign continued with hissing tone. On March 26, 2001, the journals of the police and the People’s Army attacked him with all violence. The daily of the military, Quan Doi Nhan Dan, aiming without doubt to give a blow at certain leaders of the Vietnamese Communist Party judged to be much indulgent to the pastor of An Truyen, raised the question: “Why Didn’t We Rapidly Taken Measure to Force Nguyen Van Ly to Put an End to His Religious Propaganda Immediately?”  The journal continued, ascertaining that the measure taken against him on February 27, 2001, two years of assignment to residence, had  only little effect on him since he “continues to desperately devote himself to his activites, sabotaging, provoking, and defying the power.” The article also called into question, for the first time publicly, the attitude of  the ecclesiastic superiors and was indignant with the priest in that whether or not he would be suspended from his functions in the Catholuc Church. Certain observers saw in this diatribe the prelude of an arrest and condemnation. Others saw in it the sign of hesitation of the Vietnamese Communist Party, embarassed by the critical situation created by the campaign for religious freedom animated by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, diffused on the netwok of internet, supported by the Vietnamese diaspora, and increasingly leant on for propaganda by the clergy in Hue .

The Quan Doi Nhan Dan, then, had reason on one point: the strict control to which the pastor of Antruyen was subjected and the deluge of accusations that befell him had not prevented the priest neither from comtinuing his activities nor reviewing the literary mode of expression he adopted from the beginning. Since November 2000, he had expressed his protest with appeals for religious freedom, denouncing the infringes of the authorities on the freedom of cult and demanding the dissolution of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the holding of general elections. The official press could not dissimulate furor when Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, in a letter sent to the priests of Hue who were in retreat for Lent, March 13-16, 2001,  presented the alarming the situation. He even came up with a new process of claims. Reversing the role, it was from him and not the authorities to draw up reports. In the “Report No. 1 entitled “Serious Violation of Human Rights” handwritten by the priest on March 20, 2001, reproduced on scanner and diffused throughout the world on the internet, he informied of the world the suffocationg suppression under which he was suffering. The system of sonorization of the commune An Tuyen was unsustainable. Everyday since February 27, 2001, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, 17 o’clock in the afternoon, diffused by loud-speakers 5 speeches  accusing the priest  of m of ungrounded charges. Still, inumerable articles and radio and television emissions of the same natured were repeatedly blared out.
 
However they had already assigned Fr. Nguyen Van Ly to residence surveillance, the authorities multiplied their acts of repression in the christendom of Nguyet Bieu where the priest still  had strong support. After the first  raid the police tore off the bannes on which were inscribed slogans of  protest by  Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, a troop of 500 agents, police and workers, on March 14, 2001, without a notice came to concrete a trench of irrigation running through the ground of the Church and the ricefields in the presence of the parishioners who supported Fr. Nguyen Van Ly in his fight for faith and rights. The non-violence opposition by the parishisioners came to no result in face of a police force that instantly disbanded the protest.  Sixteen priests of the archdiocese of Hue, who were in retreat during the Lent celebration at Hue, wrote and signed a letter of protest against the dealings of the police and expressed their support for Fr. Nguyen Van Ly and the parishioners. The call was echoed widely. At An Truyen, police  multipled raids. They took place at night and seemed to sow terror in the mind of the parishers and the pastor.

Reactions from Overseas Rights Organizations

 On February 13, 2001, personalities of the Vietnamese diaspora came to testify the situation of religions in Vietnam before the International Commission on Religious Freedom  of the U.S. Congress, creating a strong effervercence in many milieus  of Vietnamese immigrants abroad as well as contestant circles in the country. Anong the participants who came to testify on the situation  of religion in Vietnam was Fr. Tran Cong Nghi, director of the press agency Vietcatholic News Network. The long report he read before the commission presents a tabulation of constraints that weigh on the exercise of religious freedom in Vietnam. In particular, he stressed, the various limitations, imposed on the exercise of cult, the formation of priests, abuses of power the exercise of the authorities, and the State’s unlawful confiscations of properties of the Churches. Vo Van Ai, director of the International Buddhist Bureau of Information whose siege is in Paris, wished that the question of human rights and democracy be raised in the negotiations that were taking place between the United States and Communist Vietnam. According to him, the advantages that Vietnam would benefit from the future accords with the United States must be taken into consideration  and be materialized with reforms accomplished in the domain of religious freedom and human rights. Having not obtained the necessary permission from the State, certain personalities in the countrycould not respond to the invitations. Among them were the Venerable Thich Thai Hoa of Hue and Fr. Nguyen Van Ly.

The press organ of the Vietnamese Communist Party Nhan Dan (The People)  put itself right with the Party, accusing the United States of making the most of religion to grossly meddle in the internal affairs.” The jounal contended that  “the off-the-point critics”  launched by “hostile forces” had  only the objective “to calumniate and denigrate the shining image of Vietnam.” According to the journal, “eloquent proofs belie the allegations of those who have the habit to calumniate Vietnam by accusing it  of repressing the religions.” Then, it affirmed: “In Vietnam, no one is arrested for reasons of religion and faith. The situation of certain  religious adepts is due to their violations of the law and those people must evidently judged according to the Vietnamese law.” In conclusion, one could also read: “It is clear that those who give themselves the right to judge the religious situation of Vietnam have intentionally closed their eyes before reality and fail to understand the trend towards improving the relations of Vietnam with the countries of the international community one of which is the United States.”The Foreign Affairs spokewoman finally doubled  attack against the Commission of the Religious Freedom, affirming that by giving themselves the right to judge the religious situation of another country, the commission committed gross interference in the internal affairs of another country, and thus is in contradiction with the Charter of the United Nations.

No comments:

Post a Comment