[Pechino] Sulla libertà di parola

Ho
trovato tradotto in inglese un articolo comparso oggi sul Beijing
Daily News. E’ sulla libertà di parola. Molto interessante per
i riferimenti storici che usa…e molto cinese, direi.

"Freedom
of speech" is written into the constitution of our nation. 
But some comrades do not have a deep understanding about it. 
For example, does "absurd speech" enjoy the freedom of
speech?  That is a frequently asked question.  If you reply
without thinking that "How can absurd speech be given the
freedom?" you will fallen into a "trap."  This
"trap" is an unanswerable question: "Please tell me
how do you know that an unspoken speech is ‘absurd’ or not, so that
you can take away its freedom of speech beforehand?"  I
think that unless you claim that you are an omniscient god who can
judge unspoken speech, you will have fallen into this impossible
"trap."

I
want to to remind people about a piece of common knowledge: A certain
speech (here, I am referring to rational speech with some basis as
opposed to irrational invectives without any basis) cannot be judged
as absurd versus not (or progressive versus reactionary) before it is
articulated.  The pursuit of truth is only possible if it is
allowed to be articulated and then people can think, classify and
judge its nature.  I think this is freedom of speech.  This
is also the famous saying of Mao Zedong about letting one hundred
schools speak.

This
leads to another piece of common knowledge: when a certain speech
comes out, people begin to think and classify, but they may not be
able to judge its nature yet.  This is particularly true of
certain ideas that appear unconventional or are unacceptable to the
majority of the people at the time.  Frequently, it will take a
certain period of time in history before people become convinced of
its veracity (or absurdity).  During this process, the worst
thing is for some "authorities" to emerge and make a "truth
judgment" in the form of a single conclusion about the rights
and wrongs of the matter.  Then everybody hears that call and
engage in either "effusive praises" or "mouth-and-pen
condemnations."  The reason why this is the "worst
thing" is that the price may be huge, possibly including
bloodshed and loss of lives.

The
most unforgettable and outstanding episode is the population theory
of Mr. Ma Yinchu.  If it had not been declared as
"counter-revolutionary Malthusian population theory" and
subjected to mass criticisms, there might have been 300 million
people fewer in China today.  Instead, the actual population
pressure will be with us for at least a century.  All the
problems today about job opportunities, universal education,
healthcare insurance and so on are related to this population
pressure.

Another
unforgettable and outstanding episode is the doubts that Zhang Zhixin
raised about the Cultural Revolution.  The relevant leaders
determined that this was "counter-revolutionary speech that
maliciously attacked the Cultural Revolution" and it was also
routine at the time to condemn people on the basis of speech alone. 
This resulted in the tragedy of Zhang Zhixin having her throat cut
and executed by a firing squad.  This tragedy could be avoided
if each Chinese person had the freedom of speech as opposed to "the
highest directives" being issued from above and followed closely
from below.  The ten years of calamity resulted in the collapse
of our culture, the loss of morality and the creation of all the
habits of totalitarianism.  These remaining ills are still being
eradicated with difficulty in certain domains today.

This
shows that whether a speech is absurd versus not, or progressive
versus reactionary, cannot decided solely by the authorities. 
Historical practice will decide.  Over the last thirty years,
the biggest spiritual achievement of the Chinese people is to bring
back the perspective on truth in Marxism — practice is the sole
standard for determining the truth.  Without this achievement,
we cannot begin to discuss any other achievement.  There are two
keywords here.  First, it is about ‘practice’ without any
reference to any authority.  Secondly, it is the ‘sole’
criterion to the exclusion of all others.  So we now understand
the speech of Ma Yin-chu, we understand the speech of Zhang Zhixin
and we understand what those speeches against them were.  We
also know how to use freedom of speech to realize the pursuit of
truth, to protect the security of the people of China, to advance and
develop healthily and to avoid the path that we once treaded and for
which we paid a heavy price.

Finally,
I should point out one fact: those who opposed the speeches of Ma
Yinchu and Zhang Zhixin actually enjoyed the maximum freedom of
speech themselves.  Based upon the standard of freedom of speech
today, we need to continue to give freedom to those kinds of speech. 
If there is only one voice, then truth cannot be recognized and
developed.  All speeches exist at the same level (but that does
not mean that they will all be acted upon or carried out) and they
enjoy the right to be expressed freely.  We should earnestly
follow these important requirements concerning the freedom of speech
according to our constitution.