hankyoreh

The Constitutional Court has ruled the Ministry of National Defense’s designations of “seditious books” to be constitutional. This means that the ministry can prohibit books with content it believes seriously diminishes the armed forces’ spiritual fighting strength. It is regrettable that the Constitutional Court, which should be serving as a bulwark protecting basic rights, has instead given a free pass to a clear violation of those rights.
As the court itself acknowledged, Article 16, Item 2 of the military service regulations, which the ministry took as its basis for designating the books in question, places restrictions on the “right to know.” As a result, freedoms of scholarship, thought, and conscience can also be violated.
Even if a soldier is in a special situation where he or she must have basic rights such as freedom of residence and relocation restricted to some extent compared to ordinary citizens, the rule is that those restrictions should be limited to what is strictly necessary, and that the essential content of basic rights cannot be infringed upon. Guaranteeing basic rights without exception is the beating heart of constitutionalism.
In spite of this, the Constitutional Court has sided with the designation of seditious books, claiming that it is intended to preserve the armed forces’ spiritual fighting strength, which is essential for national security. The logic is that the books in question, which are described as “harmful to national existence and security or liberal democracy, or beneficial to anti-state groups,” do such serious harm to the military’s spiritual fighting strength that it is neither arbitrary nor excessive to prohibit them. The court has closed its eyes to the fact that this effective censorship fundamentally violates basic rights such as the right to know.
A glance at the books on the list immediately shows how farfetched these claims are. They include works that have been recommended as valuable books by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, works chosen by television networks as recommended reading, texts in university general education courses, books by globally recognized scholars, and bestsellers chosen by various news outlets as books of the year.
There may be books critical of issues like the current administration’s economic policy, but nothing that could be said to threaten the nation’s existence and system or benefit North Korea. It is only the military that has claimed they are subversive. This is also the reason why not only civil society but even ruling Grand National Party lawmakers have criticized the military’s error. It is apparent that spiritual fighting power is even more severely diminished when the military regresses as it has done, failing to achieve the common wisdom and understanding of society at large.
Under these circumstances, the Constitutional Court’s argument that the seditious books were designated appropriately, not excessively, and according to clear criteria is unconvincing. When basic rights are restricted, principles of clarity and rules against excessive prohibition must be observed, but the Ministry of National Defense has arbitrary chosen to forbid even books that do not meet the standards of “seditous,” in the process violating the essential content of basic rights. How can this be called anything but unconstitutional?
　　
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]