Contrary to Vietnamese law, the upcoming trial of eight Vietnamese Catholics are closed to the public. According to Vietnamese law, trials are open to all those who are over the age of sixteen except in cases, such as rape, where an open trial would harm the reputation of the victim.¹ The trial in this case stems from the dispute between Thai Ha parish in Ha Noi, Viet Nam and the communist government over the taking of the parish’s land. Thus, the victim whose reputation would be harm in this case is the government itself. 

The Thai Ha parish is operated by the Redemptorists, who arrived in Vietnam in 1925.² In 1928, they bought 60,000 square meters (approximately 14.826 acres), where they built a church, a convent, and a seminary. When the atheist Communist party came in power in the 1940s and 1950s, most parishioners and religious were prosecuted, imprisoned, or fled to South Vietnam. The parish was left vulnerable to the control of the Communist party, who converted the convent into a hospital and gave of the land to state companies and members of the party.³

The parish’s land has been reduced to 2,700 square meters (approximately 0.667 acres), an area that is no longer sufficient to serve the revival and expansion of the parish’s population. Currently, the parish holds seven weekend masses (five on Sunday and two on Saturday). Further, it is considering adding an 8:00 pm mass on Sunday. Therefore, since 1996, to serve its growing population, parish officials have been petitioning to the government to return the land. The faithful have gathered for demonstrations, especially on holy days.  At first, the government ignored the petitions and demonstrations. Later, it responded that it had bought the land in 1961 from Father Joseph Vu Ngoc Bich, who remained at the church during the war. The parish officials argued that Father Vu did not have authority to transfer the parish’s land and demanded to see evidence of such a transfer. However, the government refused to show any evidence claiming that such documents were “classified information.”⁴

The event that led up to the arrest of the eight parishioners occurred on August 15, 2008, on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Hundreds of people, parishioners and pilgrims, gathered at the church to celebrate the feast. In an attempt to reach the altar where a statue of the Virgin Mary and a cross stood to pray, the parishioners joined hands and knocked down a portion of a shabby wall. The wall was built in haste to serve as a fence between the church’s remaining property and the property that was taken. The wall had already been worn over the years and was partially damaged due to a recent storm. It took less than five minutes for the wall to fall, allowing the parishioners to enter and pray by the altar.⁵

The eight defendants were among those who knocked down the wall. They were charged with “damaging state property and causing social disturbance.” Neither of these charges is well founded. First, the defendants were not causing any social disturbance. The fall of the wall took less than five minutes, and the defendants along with hundreds of other companions were praying and singing before, during, and after the fall.  Second, if the land in fact belonged to the parish, property was not state property, and the defendants did not damage state property. Even if it were state property, a fine rather than an arrest would have been sufficient. The damage was estimated to be a measly 3.7 million dong ($218 USD). In October, the government destroyed the wall and built a flower garden in its place.⁶

The defendants will be tried on December 5, 2008. Many, including the attorney’s lawyer, Mr. Le Tran Luat, suspect that the trial is only for show and that the defendants’ sentences are already decided.⁷ Though this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is not unfounded. First, the trial will not be held publicly. According to Mr. Le Tran Luat, the defedants’ attorney, the court ordered that anyone, other than the defendants and their lawyer, who wished to attend the trial, must submit an application form.⁸ Second, the trial will not be held at the Ha Noi Courthouse. Instead, it will be held on the fourth floor of the People’s Committee Building. Third, the trial date, December 5, coincides with the consecration of the new auxiliary bishop of Ha Noi, Mgr. Laurence Chu Van Minh, an event was scheduled long before the trial date was set.⁹ Attempts to reschedule the trial date have been unsuccessful. Regardless of the motive behind the scheduling of the trial date, the effect is that many people, religious and laymen, will be occupied with the consecration and will be unable to attend the trial or engage in any sort of demonstration or protest outside the committee building. 

This case has been an uphill battle from the start. Mr. Le was not allowed to meet with two of the eight defendants, who are currently held at the Hoa Lo Prison, the same “Hanoi Hilton” where John McCain and other prisoners of war were held during the Vietnam War¹⁰ The government required proof of representation before allowing an attorney to meet with his clients. When Mr. Le presented his proof of representation to the prison guards, Mr. Le was still unable to meet with his clients because the guards forced the prisoners, one way or another, to refuse meeting with their lawyers.¹¹ Though the chance of acquittal before the tribunal is close to zero, Mr. Le hoped that he will succeed to prove his clients’ innocence before the eyes of the people.

Facing injustice is certainly not anything new with Catholics. This is not the first, nor will it be the last. Let us pray that God will continue to grant Catholics the strength necessary to champion for justice, truth, and Christ.

1. http://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/justice-and-truth-for-thai-ha-11252008172040.html?searchterm=None
2. http://groups.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/browse_thread/thread/544534f82dd50d5e?pli=1
3. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11463
4. http://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/interview-with-Reverend-Gioan-NguyenNgocNamPhong-in-Hanoi-NTran-08192008155709.html?searchterm=None
5. http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Clients/ReadArticle.aspx?Id=61478
6. http://www.theindiancatholic.com/report.asp?nid=11833
7. http://www.theindiancatholic.com/report.asp?nid=11833
8. http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Clients/ReadArticle.aspx?Id=61410, http://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/justice-and-truth-for-thai-ha-11252008172040.html?searchterm=None
9. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13874&size=A
10. http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/vietnam/story/2008/11/081124_hanoicatholictrial.shtml
11. Id. See also http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=16862&t=Vietnam:+Catholics+on+trial+denied+lawyer+access

The convention was a well-organized and smoothly executed event. The event schedules were full of remarkable CLEs, plenary sessions, and social events for both attorneys and students. Choosing which event and CLEs to attend can be difficult because they were all interesting and fun. Even when the events are not at conflicting times, thought attending all events though tempting would be too exhausting. For eager students who were full of energy, playing on the Xbox at a gaming event sponsored by Microsoft until midnight and waking up early the next morning to volunteer at the registration desk at 7:45 am was well within their capacity.

The number of attendees was impressive. They come from across the country representing many firms, companies, and law schools. Most notably, NAPABA recognizes attorneys and judges who are trailblazers and who are “best under 40.” These honorable men and women are exemplar role models for the younger generation.

Together NAPABA, the National Asian Pacific American Law Student Association (NAPALSA) helped ensure and encourage its member to succeed. The NAPALSA, which held a concurrent conference with NAPABA, offered students a mock interview and resume review program. Students were given a mock interview, at the end of which the interviewer gave students advice on how to improve their interviewing skills and their resumes. Though most students are aware to a certain degree their strengths and weaknesses, interviewers not only point out weaknesses that students were unaware of but also teach students learn ways to eliminate their weaknesses. Students who attended the mock interview found it to be extremely helpful.

Overall, the convention was successful in meeting the missions of NAPABA. Law students and attorneys are encouraged to attend the convention next year, which will be held in Boston.

Visit NAPABA and NAPALSA.

The Summum Pyramid, located in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Being a party to a lawsuit that will be decided by the United States Supreme Court is probably the best way an unknown religion can market itself. Yesterday, not many people knew about Summum, a religion created in 1975. But after tomorrow, more and more people will google “Summum” because tomorrow the religion will come before the Supreme Court to argue its case against Please Grove City.

Summum wants to achieve the same status that Christianity has. It petitioned to the city of Please Grove to allow it to erect a monument commemorating its Seven Aphorisms in the same park where a Ten Commandments monolith was located. The city responded, “Thanks, but No Thanks.” Actually, the city was more diplomatic than that. It rejected Summum’s petition because it was not “directly relate[d] to the history of Pleasant Grove” or “donated by groups with long-standing ties to the Pleasant Grove community.” Summum sued the city for abridging its free speech rights.

The Court decision will determine much more than whether to allow an unknown religion its philosophy to park-goers. The Court will decide whether a monument donated by a private party for public display becomes the government’s speech or remain the private speech of the donor. If the speech becomes the government’s speech, the city does not have to maintain viewpoint neutrality. It has the freedom choose a message that it considers more favorable. If the speech remains the private speech of the donor, then the city’s rejection of the Seven Aphorisms would be considered content-based discrimination, which is subject to strict scrutiny. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of Summum stating that the Seven Aphorisms monument would be a private speech displayed in a public forum and that the city’s reason for rejecting the monument was not a compelling interest. Because this holding is contrary to holdings of other circuits, Supreme Court’s decision will hopefully clarify the government speech doctrine.

Regardless of the outcome of the Court’s decision, Summum would have benefited in its “marketing” effort. Even if the Court gives the city the right to reject the Seven Aphorisms monument, the unfamiliar religious organization can still display it on its private property. However, if the Court requires the city to display the Seven Aphorisms, then does a city become a cheap advertising firm where everything that is sent its way has to be publically displayed?

SpeechGuard Homeland Security

My nephew loves the Pendragon Adventure series by DJ MacHale, and being a good aunt, I read the books with him so we could discuss them with each other. Even though I think Bobby Pendragon is by far inferior to Harry Potter, I do admire Bobby’s ability to understand other people’s speech as if it were spoken in his own language, English, and to speak English in a way that other people understand it as if he were speaking their language. (I also admire Jesus’ disciples’ ability “to speak in different tongues” as well, but I guess some people including me find it easier to “believe” fictional characters than real ones.)

Even though normal humans do not have the ability of Bobby or the disciples to communicate with people who do not speak our language, ECTACO had offered us a device that would allow some of us to compensate for our plebeian limitation. This device is called SpeechGuard. It is “[t]he world’s first handheld speech-to-speech multilingual translator.” SpeechGuard, however, is not meant for the general public, but it is specifically designed for professions in these four areas: (1) Law Enforcement; (2) Medical, Fire, and Rescue; (3) Military; and (4) Transportation Security.

SpeechGuard is programmed with a set number of phrases, provided by professions in the areas SpeechGuard was designed to serve. The Law Enforcement modification of SpeechGuard obtained its phrases from over 50 law enforcement agencies, the Military from US Armed Forces agencies, and the Transportation Security came from Transportation Security Agency officials.  The user would speak a phrase into SpeechGuard, and it will repeat a phrase (in a different language) that is the closest match to what the user speaks into it. Users can add new phrases into SpeechGuard if the users have interpreters who can record the translated phrase.

The shortcoming of SpeechGuard is it is a one-way interpreter—meaning SpeechGuard does not translate from another language into English. Thus, it is designed to allow users to communicate with people when the user want to issue concrete directives or orders and do not have time to wait for a human translator. The questions contained in SpeechGuard are questions that ask for a yes/no response and questions that ask the listener to write down the answer, or make gestures. This is probably why ECTACO did not make a SpeechGuard for lawyers.

Currently the device is being sold for almost $1000. But many law enforcement agencies are willing to pay the price to overcome language barriers. Our world would be a much better place if we can all talk to Bobby Pendragon, but for now SpeechGuard will do.

Sources:

1. http://www.ohio.com/news/ap?articleID=1065873&c=y
2. http://www.speechguard.com/index.html

Cindy from Central NC and Her Family

This is not another pro-life or pro-choice argument. The purpose of this entry is to warn a woman who is unable to carry her own baby or a gay couple against obtaining a gestational mother for their child. The reason the word “abortion” is part of the title is that the rate abortion greatly diminishes the availability of children for adoption. In turn, this may influence a person’s decision to seek the service of a gestational mother.

Since the mid 1970s, children relinquished for adoption have declined from nearly 9 percent to under 1 percent of births to never-married women. This decline could result from the legalization of abortion, the social acceptance of single mother, or the financial ability of single mothers to support their children. Regardless of the cause, the availability of children for adoption in American has become “virtually nonexistent.”

Because of the lack of children available in the U.S. for adoption, many people have adopted foreign children. Others simply disregard foreign adoption and turn to assisted reproduction because the cost of adopting a foreign child can be as costly as using a gestational mother, not to mention the benefit of “creating” one’s own child. What most people need to know when considering whether to use the service of a gestational mother is that adoption law is much more settled than laws regarding the right of parents when the “intended parents” are not carrying their own babies. The law surrounding assisted reproduction is lagging behind the advancement of medical capabilities. Therefore, the law does not provide the same legal protection to intended parents as it would to adopted parents.

The most important thing to worry about is the danger of a breach—that is, the gestational mother’s unwillingness to give up the baby after she cared for the baby for more than nine months. Parting with someone that has been with you for more than nine months is not easy, regardless of whether it was your baby, your friend, or your pet. Even though this would upset the intended parents, one can hardly blame the gestational mother. Even if the parents (both intended and gestational) live in a state where the law in this area is somewhat established, the gestational mother can always run to a state where gestational mothers are deemed the legal mother.

In the end, those who want children can spend more money than anticipated because not only they would have to pay for the expensive medical procedures but also for the cost of litigation. They also have to pay for the pain and headache of disappointment. Thus, please bless the world and its abandoned children and seriously consider adoption, here or overseas.

Sources: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_place.pdf, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf

Robert Frank, a Cornell University economist and visiting scholar at the Stern School of Business at NYU, wrote an article in the NY Times in favor of a consumption tax. Mr. Frank suggested that consumption equals income minus savings. In other words, a consumption tax is an income tax that let you deduct savings from your taxable income.

This is a great way to encourage consumers to save. The more money consumers keep in their bank account, the less taxable income there is. So naturally, people would save money to avoid paying higher taxes.

However, certain consumptions are investments. For instance, investors purchase stocks and real estate. Under the consumption tax, these purchases would surely be taxed. But it makes no sense to tax investments either because investments are the force of our economic growth. Would the addition of tax on the investment equates to adding more risk to the investment and therefore deter people from making the investment?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/business/09frank.html

With the availability of free online dictionaries, the decrease in sales of print dictionary is not surprising. Like any other publication companies, dictionary companies found ways to reach the users online. However, have these companies forgotten about the Canadians?

Oxford University Press laid-off the Canadian’s entire staff (which is only four) because of low demand for print Canadian dictionaries. At the same time, most online dictionaries are written for American English or British English. I googled “Canadian Dictionary” and came up with definitions of “Canadian” rather than a Canadian dictionary. One must wonder whether the Canadians will be able to preserve their non-British, non-American English nuances.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/532174