10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

回覆文章
JuliaHo
Member
文章: 8
註冊時間: 週三 10月 21, 2020 9:05 am

10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 JuliaHo »

Dear all,

Let's talk about amazing street performers and the Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation).

Have fun !

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan ... 2003761780
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4106905
https://news.pts.org.tw/article/482669


Session 1

1. Do you enjoy street performance? What’s the most impressive street performance you have ever seen?

2. Have you ever donated money to buskers? How much money did you donate to buskers in average? From your perspective, how to properly reward buskers?

3. Do you support the regulation that street performance groups and individual entertainers who have passed the street performance exam and been granted with licenses are allowed to perform in the city? Why or Why not?

4. Do you agree that art is subjective? Or do you follow the old saying that “the layman sees the excitement while the expert sees the tricks of the trade”?

5. The singer and songwriter, 潘美辰, failed the street performance test in 2017. What do you think about the result? Do you think she is qualified to be a street entertainer? From your point of view, what are the criteria for judging arts?


Session 2

1. “…the right of work… shall be guaranteed to the people” (Article 15 of constitution of Taiwan), which refers to people are at liberty to choose their own profession. Do you support the idea that government imposes the less restriction on freedom to choose an occupation, the better? Why or why not?

2. From your point of view, can anyone freely be a pilot, accountant, attorney, physician, teacher, busker, farmer, taxi driver, engineer, technician, priest, civil servant or fortune teller? Why? Do you think that it’s better for some job takers to equip themselves with some professional skills or knowledge beforehand? Why?

3. What kind of jobs which currently require specific qualification but you think the qualification is not necessary and can be eliminated? What kind of jobs which currently have no limitations but you prefer them to have some? Why?

4. In your opinion, which of the following job-related practices are appropriate or inappropriate: limit the color of taxis to be yellow? limit the distance between video game stores/amusement arcade and schools? allow the non-visually impaired person to join the massage industry? dismiss a misbehavior school teacher? restrict the total amount of physicians, cable TV operators and civil servants respectively? Why?


Agenda:
3:45 ~ 4:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
4:00 ~ 4:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
4:10 ~ 4:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
4:50 ~ 5:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
5:10 ~ 5:15pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
5:15 ~ 5:55pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
6:00 ~ 6:20pm Summarization (20 mins)
6:20 ~ 6:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements

*****************************************************************************************************************************
Meeting Date: As shown in the Subject Line
Meeting Time: 4:00pm – 6:30pm
Meeting Venue: 丹堤咖啡 Dante Coffee (Minimum Order $80)
Address: 台北市濟南路三段25號-捷運忠孝新生站3號出口步行3分鐘
Important Notes:
1. Participants are recommended to print out the questions for the discussion. Also, the supporting articles, if preferred not to access them via their own mobile phone.
2. Please read the articles and discussion questions provided by the host and write down your thoughts in English in advance.

For Newcomers:
1. Please prepare a two-to-three minute introduction of yourself in English. You may also be asked to give brief feedback at the conclusion of the meeting.
2. The entire meeting is conducted in English. All participants should at least have moderate English conversation skills and be able to articulate your ideas for each discussion question.
3. Newcomers are welcome to attend the meeting and join the discussion up to three times. Formal membership with a lifetime membership fee NT$1000 is required afterward.
李昰翰
YOYO member
文章: 34
註冊時間: 週一 12月 17, 2018 8:37 pm

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 李昰翰 »

Hi, Julia, thank you for this interesting and in-depth topic “street performer: constitutional interpretation No.806” focusing on the freedom to choose an occupation.
For the evolution of human society, from jungle rule gradually migrates into a supreme entity by having people sign a social contract to grant a powerful government as the representative of entire people to fulfill the solidarity of whole people’s wills for providing services to her people such as defense, society security, education, economy, welfare, public infrastructure., etc. Further, governance over the consent of being governed comes out from the essence of the democracy in logic by form of separating powers into executive, legislative, and judicial government branches, so that the individual authority can counterbalance against each other, avoid power-abusive and bring well-beings to her people in the meantime. That’s the legal framework on a democratic society. In another form of meaning, it is a mechanism to solve conflicts among people and propels harmonious life in commune.
The social contract, so called “constitution” prescribed the supreme guidance to protect people. The freedom on choosing an occupation was prescribed on the constitution; then, this raises an issue why some jobs were required with licenses supervised by the governmental agencies while some jobs no needs. Perhaps, the reasoning can be broken down into three parts: Firstly, what’re the universally moral values recognized by common perception in a society? Will those unrestrictive jobs likely be harmful for common good? On one hand, for those jobs such as pilots, accountants, attorneys, physicians, teachers, taxi drivers, technicians, civil servants, and so forth, they probably match up the criteria entailed with public benefits. On the other hand, for those occupations engaged with buskers, farmers, engineers, priests, or fortune tellers, they are probably not suitable to intervene by the governmental authorities. The participants might have different opinions over triggering interesting discussions. Secondly, if the social consensus anticipates the government to meddle in specific occupation management, or the authority subjectively think it is necessary to intervene an occupation by setting up some sort of rules or licenses. Then, it needs to look back at the principle of governance over the consent of being governed in logic for which a due process ought to be scrutinized by the acknowledgement of the legislature, a fundamental procedure of the representative democracy. Thus, if the government wants to overlook at specific freedom of occupation, it must have the grant of the law or indirectly through “legal order(法規命令)” conferred by law, as taking reference from article 150 of “Administrative procedure act” in Taiwan. An academic terminology “Statutory reservation (法律保留)” illustrates such logic above-mentioned, especially on fields of life, freedom restriction. Finally, how to identify whether those jobs are associated with the public benefits can be taken referential criteria from article 23 of “Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)” to sort out if the government has the legitimacy to meddle in people’s freedom on jobs.


REF: Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Article 23
All the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Articles shall not be restricted by law except by such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare.

REF: Administrative procedure act
Article 150
The term "legal order" used in this Act means an abstract prescription with external legal effects, established by an administrative authority as enabled by law in respect of general matters and applicable to a multiple number of non-specified persons.
A legal order shall specify the authority conferred by law based on which it is established, and shall not transgress the scope of such authority or divert from the legislative purposes of the enabling law.

Enjoy great pleasures for you and all participants.
JuliaHo
Member
文章: 8
註冊時間: 週三 10月 21, 2020 9:05 am

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 JuliaHo »

Winston,
Thank you for your valuable feedback. You are the expert of this field.
Michael-liu
YOYO member
文章: 652
註冊時間: 週五 4月 24, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 Michael-liu »

This topic makes me wonder do people have freedom to choose prostitute or 牛郎 as an occupation?

I understand some may argue that is not really an "occupation"
Kooper
YOYO member
文章: 2653
註冊時間: 週三 4月 11, 2007 11:40 pm

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 Kooper »

Though the Constitutional Court stated that people have the freedom to choose their own profession, in this case, being a street performer, what they didn’t say is that the freedom isn’t unconditional. There are many occupations that require licenses or certificates before people can practice them – accountants, lawyers, doctors, insurance agents, to name but a few.

Why licenses are mandated in some professions while not in others is worth discussion. Even if a consensus has been reached to a particular occupation, it could evolve with time and isn't permanent.

:)
Kooper
YOYO member
文章: 2653
註冊時間: 週三 4月 11, 2007 11:40 pm

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 Kooper »

Street performers put on shows in public spaces. Since public spaces belong to everyone, it makes sense to take everybody’s well-being into consideration.

A fundamental difference between street performances and those at theaters, concert halls, or music bars is that people in the latter case chose to come and be the audience. They know the risks that the performance might not be their cup of tea, or in very unfortunate cases might even make them feel uncomfortable or offended. They came of their own free will and thus shall bear the consequences.

Street performance, be it entertaining or not, is basically uninvited or unexpected and inevitably disturbs others who happen to show up there at the same. When a performer has got many complaints, the local government has the duty to step up to the plate and correct it.

That doesn’t mean that I support the license system. After all, art is highly subjective and it is unrealistic to expect that a select few can represent the general public and judge beforehand who can perform and who can’t. In my opinion, registration system together with some kind of a disqualifying mechanism will just do the trick.

:o
頭像
Rock
YOYO member
文章: 2013
註冊時間: 週三 10月 31, 2007 9:03 am

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 Rock »

Do I need a license to be a begger? What if I'm begging and singing, is it illegal?
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Luis Ko
YOYO member
文章: 951
註冊時間: 週三 6月 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 Luis Ko »

Rock 寫:
週六 10月 30, 2021 2:33 pm
Do I need a license to be a begger? What if I'm begging and singing, is it illegal?
hey dude, that's why i admire you. you have got a lot of ideas, and your questions are always thought-provoking.

because of your question i found out that begging on the street is illegal, at least in Taiwan. people in Taiwan just can't be a beggar la~ :ccry:
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
頭像
Rock
YOYO member
文章: 2013
註冊時間: 週三 10月 31, 2007 9:03 am

Re: 10/30 (Sat.)Street Performer: Constitutional Interpretation No. 806 (focus on the freedom to choose an occupation)

文章 Rock »

Really? Good job, bro. People apparently are lacking of the knowledge of this. I even asked a law majored and she said that she thinks it's ok in Taiwan.

And the question is: why is it illegal?

https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/br ... ws/2047670

於公共場所乞討叫化不聽勸阻

This law is very tricky. It may actually make begging legal in certain way. I will leave it to our next beer time to chat about it.
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
回覆文章