The OC Register’s Deepa Bharath has a nice and sweet story here about Madalenna Lai and her Freedom Boat being at Westminster yesterday and today. Photo above is by the Register’s Bruce Chambers.
Madalenna Lai runs the Vietnam Culture House in Pomona. In 2002, the Vietnam Culture House successfully won a place in the Rose Parade for the first (and so far only) float representing the Vietnamese-American community. Read here.
The “Freedom Boat” is an actual boat used by Vietnamese refugees to flee communist Vietnam. This particular boat carried 15 people who landed in the Phillipines.
If you talk to other boat people, you will hear that having 15 people on a boat that size is something of a luxury. A boat of that size would typically cram more than 70.
The Freedom Boat has been to Little Saigon before. The last time it was here was in March 2007, for the World Premiere of the movie “Journey from the Fall.” Pictured below is the boat at that time, in front of the Rose Center; photo taken by Benjamin Vu.
It’s so ironic that these freedom loving boat people want freedom for themselves only but don’t respect freedom of others who have different opinions, and worse off, they don’t have any consideration for the greater good of the country that opened arms to them! (Evidences: 50,000 protested against freedom of speech and expression in Truong Tran incident, 47,000 votes for taking the VN flag down at USC -against academic freedom and independence, 2,000-5,000 protested against a city council person in San Jose -against freedom of elected official’s independent judgment, hundreds currently protest against freedom of the press in OC and San Jose, etc…) –Tien Huynh
it’s so ironic that your name is Tien Huynh, a vietnamese name. yet you turn your back and look at your community as though they’re losers. you don’t even understand who they are. should we respect the freedom of terrorists? should we go to war and bomb Al-Queda? Or should we just respect them and let them do whatever they want? that’s why we had the Vietnam War, because no one can respect the freedom of the VietCongs to take over the country, because respecting communists freedom means giving them the power to oppress the freedom of 80million people in Vietnam.
Why don’t u ask the Commies in Vietnam to respect the Freedom of 5,000 catholics in HaNoi, protesting to get their lands back? or the thousands of people who beg to get their houses back from the commies officials who stole from them? Or the 75% of the Vietnamese population living in poverty, with no chances whatsoever to improve their lives?
These refugees risked their lives to run away from that Red bloody Flag, it is only their instinct to fight back whenever they see it. They may be verbally loud and embarassing, but at least they know who they are and what they’re fighting for.
There is no such thing in the world as “Respecting the Freedom of everybody”. the world is full of struggles and conflicts. and that’s the way it is. Duhhh!!!
An ethical person should fight the communists wherever she encounters them. However unethical the communists’ tactics are, we must not allow ourselves to become them by using their unethical tactics. –Tien Huynh
One more note: Respecting our enemy’s freedom of expression will guarantee our own freedom of expression. It’s wise, isn’t it? – Tien Huynh
>> Respecting our enemy’s freedom of expression will guarantee our own freedom of expression. It’s wise, isn’t it?
Not so sure about that. While I recognize and respect the principle of respecting the rights of others who we disagree with, that does not lead to this guarantee that “respecting our ENEMY’s freedom of expression WILL GUARANTEE our own freedom of expression.” The logic is simply flawed. And impractical to apply in reality in many situations.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (12/10/1948) Article 19 provides: “EVERYONE has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. “
Under current settings of time and place (in the USA territory), reasonable people in the USA would understand that EVERYONE includes communists, pro-communists, anti-communists, big people, little people, friends, ENEMIES, left wing, right wing, etc…
Since we are IN THE USA TERRITORY right now, any fight, game, protest, struggle, etc., must be in compliance with the spirit and the law of this free land!
-Tien Huynh
I am in absolute agreement with your comment/declaration #6 (and against any unlawful obstruction of the peace by certain extremist protesters/activists), but I still can’t comprehend the logic of ““respecting our ENEMY’s freedom of expression WILL GUARANTEE our own freedom of expression.” Care to englighten me?
If the enemy group’s freedom of expression is respected, then no group will be deprived of freedom of expression. If no group is deprived of freedom of expression then OUR GROUP will not be deprived of freedom of expression, which means OUR GROUP’s freedom of expression is guaranteed! -Tien Huynh
Hi,
I believe Tien Huynh is saying something akin to the quote widely attributed to Voltaire:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
(From Beatrice Hall, “Friends of Voltaire,” 1906)
Another problem with your explanation.
>> If the enemy group’s freedom of expression is respected, then no group will be deprived of freedom of expression.
Just with the first component, you already made many assumptions.
1) There are only two groups in your scenario. In reality, there are always many players fighting for the same block of audience/voters.
2) Even in a two-group scenario, you made the assumption that as long as we respect the enemy group’s freedom of expression, the enemy group also respects ours. I suppose by mentioning “enemy group” you mean “the commies.” But if the commies have their way over here, do you think OUR (meaning American) freedom of expression and way of life would be respected? And if your answer is Yes, then why do our laws specifically restricting the admission of Communist Party members into the United States which, without any doubts, would restrict their exercising of their universal/United Nations-backed right to freedom of expression on American soil? Another scenario: democracy activists in Vietnam have so far respected the “freedom of expression” of the communnist government (not that they really have any other option), but does that lead to your conclusion that “then no group will be deprived of freedom of expression”? Does logic cease to exist in these two scenarios or is it simply something missing in your logic?
i suppose what Tien Huynh wants to see, is whenever the community have a protest, say, 50,000 people against 1 Red flag of Tran Truong, then that same community should be polite, be respectful, and organize another group to support Tran Truong, to show that they respect his freedom of expression. Does that make sense or does that sounds illogically ridiculous?
Is it the fault of 50,000 people that nobody stand up for Tran Truong? does that mean they’re oppressing him? should they help him organize another group to speak up for him?
Sorry if no one else in the community feels strongly enough to go out there and publicly protest back for the Red Flag supporter.
And when some one did go out with a different opinion, like at the Viet weekly protest, one lone guy stand out there with a sign, supporting Viet weekly, and nobody gives him any trouble! nobody attack him! They know he has just as much rights as they do. That’s fair enough isn’t it?
So what’s this whole ridicule and accusations that the vietnamese protestors doesn’t respect the freedom of others? Did they murder someone yet? Did they burn down any businesses yet?
And, how about this quote : “if you don’t love yourself, how can you love others?”
An anology of that is “if you don’t exercise your own rights of freedom, how can you support other people’s exercise of freedom?”
That is how the vietnamese protestors can be very sympathetic to the Tibetians protest. (and they have alot to learn from the Tibetians as well.)
May be “protest” is no longer the way to fight for freedom. but even then, how about you respect other peoples ideas, instead of condemning and bad-mouthing the whole community in which your own self is connected to! (and let me assume, making a living off of this community.)
“If the enemy group’s freedom of expression is respected, then no group will be deprived of freedom of expression. If no group is deprived of freedom of expression then OUR GROUP will not be deprived of freedom of expression, which means OUR GROUP’s freedom of expression is guaranteed! – Tien Huynh.”
wow. that does make sense!! if nobody will hurt anybody, then everyone is guaranteed to be safe!!
Awesome! I’m going to keep my door open at night, walk through dark alleys alone, tell the government to get rid of their Law Enforcement and Prisons and the government itself! no need for anything! Anarchy will be great, because everybody will respect each other’s freedom!!
Isn’t that how the theory of communism works? Everybody will be equal and happy, because everybody will respect each other and share with each other..no more poverty, no more class and hierachy, no more oppression from the big guys..
How about visiting a communist country like Vietnam to see how happily that theory works out.
We are talking about freedom of expression here IN THE USA only which comprises many different groups. The argument for enemy’s freedom of expression is neither logical nor valid in communist or dictatorial countries. It’s logical and valid under the assumption that the US law will protect all groups’ freedom of expression which in fact it does. The Communist Party and other Nazis parties or associations were legally recognized and allowed to advance their ridiculous propagandas. The criteria for admission of immigrants to the US is a different matter which does not have anything to do with the rights of people in the USA. ONCE IN THE USA SOIL legally, EVERYONE will have her freedom of expression (and may other freedoms) accorded and protected by the US Constitution and law. Since the US is a sovereign nation, no foreign groups will be able to “have their way over here”, thus, there is no sense to discuss that illusion for the time being. –Tien Huynh
>> The argument for enemy’s freedom of expression is neither logical nor valid in communist or dictatorial countries.
OK.
>> It’s logical and valid under the assumption that the US law will protect all groups’ freedom of expression which in fact it does.
Sure, under the rule of law, all groups’ freedom of expression ought to be and will be protected. Those who violate the law, no matter which side they belong to, will be prosecuted in a court of law. That means, as long as those 50,000 Vietnamese Americans protesting against Tran Truong for his public display of Ho Chi Minh portrait carried out their protests PEACEFULLY AND LAWFULLY, then their freedom of expression ought to be protected.
No freedom is absolute. Often enough, one group’s exercise of its rights to freedom of expression will conflict with another group’s. Tran Truong has every right under American law to display Ho Chi Minh portrait, and he was protected to do so (numerous city and state resources were consumed in the process to protect his right and ensure his safety too). But a rational and educated observer, with a clear understanding of Vietnam War and the history of Vietnamese American commmunity, cannot say that Tran’s action was reasonable. Against the collective rights and interests of a community in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands Vietnamese Americans, the action of one individual, in the form of a provocative act – displaying Ho Chi Minh portrait in a public shop, must yield. You may choose to view the mass protest as a restraint on Mr. Tran’s right and it might come out as such in result. But does that mean that the mass protest in itself was unlawful or unethical under our Constitution and the spirit of the United Nations Declaration? No. If the people want to protest and do it lawfully, they shall have the right to do so.
I am not from Orange County and I am not sure how many individual protesters were arrested for violent acts against Tran Truong but it is simply ridiculous to make the following sweeping statement:
“It’s so ironic that these freedom loving boat people want freedom for themselves only but don’t respect freedom of others who have different opinions, and worse off, they don’t have any consideration for the greater good of the country that opened arms to them! (Evidences: 50,000 protested against freedom of speech and expression in Truong Tran incident, 47,000 votes for taking the VN flag down at USC -against academic freedom and independence, etc.)
And as members of a free society, we should and must respect others’ right to freedom of expression. As freedom-loving Vietnamese Americans, we should also do everything we can, within our power and under the law, to fight for what we believe in.
The protesting campaign against Nguoi Viet has gone too far, in my opinion, b/c of the lack of clarity in thought and judgment of those who led it. A few who institgated violence and harrassment against others will have to answer for their actions in a court of law. Meanwhile, what will guarantee our freedom is continue building and organizing our community, including political organizing which requires baby steps like mass protest against Tran Truong, the flag campaign, to develop our strengths.
Respecting others’ freedom is a principle that we all should aspire to. The law provides that kind of protection and if anything, IT IS THE RULE OF LAW AND OUR DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT that provide the GUARANTEE to our freedom of expression.
Respecting our enemy’s freedom of expression is simply a class act that should be encouraged among us. If you have put this as a principle like the Bolsavik said above, I would concur. But surely, under no scenario, that it, in and by itself, will GUARANTEE our own freedom of expression.
Grandstanding talk is for the political novice and the uninvolved. Helping and building your community cannot be done if you do not understand its history and try to feel what the people feel. I think the Bolsavik tried to explain your view, and if that is correct, then I think we have many things in common. Nonetheless, I think your first statement was quite sweeping and offensive with its condescending tone.
I like the Bolsavik’s quote from Voltaire and would like to share one of my favorite quotes, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” -Noam Chomsky
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That is a good quote. what’s an example of how that quote should be carried out in reality?
The vietnamese community disapprove of Tran Truong’s Red Flag, but they defend to the death his right to express himself, by making very sure that the “Right to Express Oneself” is respected by the government. In protesting and expressing their freedom of speech, these 50,000 people made sure that the Rights to Express yourself is protected under the law, for everyone.
Although they disapprove of “what Tran Truong say”, by protesting him, they are defending the “Right to say things”, which covers everyone, including him. but not solely for him.
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” -Noam Chomsky
“if we don’t believe in Al-Queda’s freedom of expression to attack the twin towers, we don’t believe in it at all”.
How does that philosophy sound to you, SmartyPants?
So even if a group of Al-Queda’s supporters in America are protected under the U.S constitution, try displaying and worshipping a picture of Osama bin Laden right in New York, and see how that act will emotionally attack millions of New Yorkers, and see how that community will react.
(and if you don’t think the Vietcongs were as bad as 9-11 terrorists, then why does 500,000 Vietnamese have to die at sea, while trying to escape them 33 years ago? not to mention all the other atrocities and crimes that they’ve committed?)
May be you should realize that there’s a difference between Respecting the Freedom of Expression, and Respecting What that Expression is!
People has a right to fight against a form of expression, that doesn’t mean they’re against the Freedom of Expression!
Just because i hate that one stupid painting, doesn’t mean i don’t believe in Arts. Duhhh!!!
So, Noam chomsky, sorry i don’t know you personally or what you mean exactly by that quote, but based on my analysis, i think your quote has absolutely no value whatsoever in the real world.
and it’s sad for me to see certain people who use your quote as a way to ridicule certain Vietnamese people who goes out to exercise their freedom of expression. it’s sad to see how he could parade your quote around as a way to shake his finger in their faces. may be he doesn’t believe in freedom of expression himself. and he has no love for his own people.
“It’s so ironic that these freedom loving boat people want freedom for themselves only but don’t respect freedom of others who have different opinions, and worse off, they don’t have any consideration for the greater good of the country that opened arms to them! — evidence : 2,000-5,000 protested against a city council person in San Jose -against freedom of elected official’s independent judgment”..
-tien huynh-
Let’s not open that can of worms. when the truth is : 2,000 – 5,000 protested against a city council person in San Jose – because she ignored the democratic system, by disregarding a 90% votes for the name “little saigon”, and decided to impose a name that doesn’t have any “political connotation”, to please the wealthy merchants who have ties with communist vietnam, but wants to make money off of Vietnamese who ran away from Viet Congs 33 years ago.
No, she wasn’t acting on an “independent judgment”, in order for her to go against the very group of people who gave her a seat in the council, she has the support of some wealthier forces who wants her to make a judgment that is beneficial to their special interest. and not the interest of the community which she serves.
Even if her judgment is completely independent, then it becomes a “selfish judgment”. Why would anybody want a council member to make a selfish, random judgment that goes against the 90% wish of the community that she serves?
What’s in a name anyway? then why wouldn’t the city council honor a democratic vote of 90% who just want to call it “little saigon”? they can call it “little F.O.Bs” or whatever they want! it shouldn’t matter! the proposal was to “dedicate something to honor the vietnamese Americans and make it into a tourist attraction to make lotsa money for the city” so why can’t the vietnamese Americans have a say?
So would 5,000 people protest if the council member respect Democracy in America?
And c’mon..why does those wealthy merchants have to make up a fraudulent list of 92 business names in a petition, saying they don’t want the name Little Saigon? 3 days later, like 40 (and more) businesses declare they never signed such petition! they understand the simple idea of “customers are always right”. so if their customers wants “little saigon”, then it should be “little saigon”.
So you tell me who are the ones that have no consideration for the greater good of this country? the 5,000 protestors? or the city council who stepped on Democracy for their own personal gain?
Seriously! If you were someone of any importance, i’d ask for an apology to the Vietnamese community whom you’ve insulted, but really, your ignorance doesn’t matter in the big picture.
So, whatever.
I respect your Freedom of Speech. and to prove that I really do, I spent all this time to dignify your comment with my response.
Just found another quote that may befit this discussion:
“Freedom of speech is not just being able to say what you want and speaking your mind. That dear friends, is the easy part. TRUE Freedom of speech is that AND more so: listening to someone yap about something you disagree with, something you might morally or politically abhor, and grinning and bearing it.”
From Ky-Phong Tran, Little Saigon’s Very Drawable but Unspeakable Problems, http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=274ca260a278f8d4f63eaba327550fc2