Shouting first leads to the fact that legal rights and property are different in different angles and time and space. The concept of legal rights is not always associated with the concepts of peace, tranquility and order, but also with struggle! The argument of this fact is the development history of customary law and statutory law. Faced with this fact, we have to think about one thing: the law is an endless struggle. The law is accompanied by pain. "All legal norms are based on trampled interests, and new legal norms must be produced at the expense of interests." The birth of a new legal norm means that a new right is about to be guaranteed! Ye Lin naturally proposed to fight for rights! If either state organs hinder this struggle, or for other reasons, some people lose the courage to fight for their rights, then they will also impose different burdens on others! Because everyone is the guardian and executor of the law! Therefore, as an obligation and responsibility, we should fight for rights!
Interest is not the only motive that drives us to fight for rights. The soul of rights is personality. When our rights are violated, it means that our personality is despised! For the sake of our personality, we must fight for rights! Examples that rights come from personality are common in our lives. The Beijing News once had two articles: a lawsuit caused by a pot of lard for more than ten years and a dispute caused by a dollar. We know that a pot of lard and a dollar are not worth our prosecution simply from the perspective of interests, but when they are linked with personality, we have to admit that this is a matter to be debated in the end! The goal is only the fuse of the power struggle, and the personality is behind it! The action to fight for rights is not only the level of an impulsive person involved in a dispute (lawsuit addiction), but also tends to the other side even if he actually has to pay a high price, but stems from a feeling of injury in law. The litigation and struggle here is no longer a purely interest calculation problem, but an ethical pain caused by illegal infringement. As the book "Struggle for Rights" said: "The purpose of the plaintiff's litigation to protect his rights from despicable contempt is not a trivial subject matter, but an ideal purpose of advocating personality itself and its legal feelings. Compared with this purpose, all the sacrifices and pains brought by litigation are nothing to the obligee-the means of purpose compensation. "
"The law is a constant effort. But this is not only the strength of the country, but the efforts of all citizens. " While fighting for our rights, we have also fulfilled our obligations as a member of society. Refusing to violate the law is the embodiment of personal responsibility and obligation entrusted by the state! In order to build a society that is more conducive to the survival of most people, we must fight for rights! And the courage of this struggle needs the support of moral strength. "A nation that doesn't have the courage to fight for justice in the low-level field of private rights, nor does it have the courage to fight when it comes to the country and its rights", so "maintaining the sense of right and wrong in private life is the most important task of political education, because the overall power that will determine the fate of the country will eventually emerge from it."
The state and legislation should maintain this sense of right and wrong! At that time, the legal defects in Germany became the topic of shouting and continuing to speak. He explained to us through the example of ancient Roman law: the mistakes and defects in legislation will undoubtedly bring more universal and fatal harm to rights, and the struggle against evil laws is an advanced form of "fighting for rights" and more fundamental. "The right of the state is to protect the rights of the people. Now that people's rights and feelings are violated by state power, people will give up legal channels. This is inevitable! "
We can divide law into substantive law and procedural law according to the different contents of legal provisions, but substantive law and procedural law are a pair of unified and contradictory classifications. Procedural law enables substantive law to be implemented, but sometimes substantive law must be abandoned in order to ensure the implementation of procedural law, which is the only best choice. Of course, when we talk about fighting for rights, we mean fighting for laws. We don't mean problems in the implementation of these laws, but removing unfair, unjust or one-sided things from the laws themselves! According to Marx's jurisprudence theory, law is a system of people's behavior rules formulated or recognized by the state, and its implementation is guaranteed. The law should serve the ruling class. China is a country under the people's democratic dictatorship, so the law should serve the people. Therefore, China's laws should be constantly improved, and then constantly improved, so as to better serve the people. Otherwise, the coercive power of the state ensures the implementation of laws that are harmful or conservative to the people.
Therefore, it is precisely because of this that we should learn to use the law and dare to "fight for rights". I believe that as long as each of us has this belief, our laws will be more perfect and our country will be stronger.
Reflection on The Struggle for Rights 2. I've been wanting to read an article about law since I went to college, but I don't know which one is better. Later, I asked my friends who studied law, and one of them recommended the article "Fighting for Rights" to me. So I read it, and after reading it, I felt a lot and had a new experience.
It is better to read strange books than flowers. This article is not only beautiful in form, but also includes six famous works: The Struggle of Rights, The Death of Contract, The Regeneration of Contract, People in Private Law, The Role of Private Person in the Realization of Law, and Trust Interest in Contract Damage Compensation. The power of' classics' is eternal, and it is really' too strong to melt', which melts many classics into one furnace. I can't help admiring my friend's level. Because this article is not as boring as the law book I imagined, on the contrary, I am deeply impressed by the master's meticulous writing, profound reasoning, surging passion and rigorous logic. In a word, the subtlety of the hidden words and sentences in this article makes people relaxed and happy, and there is no pain in studying it; Its strict logic and profound legal analysis make people wake up and have an epiphany.
To be honest, when I first read this article, I felt that "fighting for rights" was more like an empty concept or slogan. Although it is exciting, it is idealistic after all, like a skeleton without flesh and blood. As Ye Lin said, it was only after the manager did something that I really realized how exciting and heavy the word "fight for rights" was.
For a simple example, I remember watching the news that a man spent more than 20,000 yuan on a subway ticket dispute over 2 yuan money, and finally won a double fine of 4 yuan. At that time, I just thought this man was sick. However, after reading the book Struggle for Rights, I understand the significance of his behavior: his behavior is not only confined to an impulsive person (litigation lawyer) who tends to the other side even though he actually has to pay a high price, but is rooted in his injured legal feelings. The litigation and struggle here is no longer a purely interest calculation problem, but an ethical pain caused by illegal infringement. "The plaintiff's purpose of filing a lawsuit to protect his rights from despicable contempt is not a trivial subject matter, but an ideal purpose of advocating personality itself and its legal feelings. Compared with this purpose, all the sacrifices and pains brought by litigation are insignificant to the obligee-the means of purpose compensation. " I really understand why Ye Lin put "intolerance of lawlessness" before "not doing lawlessness". By comparing them, I can contact people's general compromise with evil forces, and I can't be angry at the "excusable" defeat. I can't help but lament the weakness of our national character, and I hope more people like him will stubbornly adhere to the principle and seek an explanation. However, sometimes, as an incredibly stubborn client of the cotton team, I have to wonder whether to draw a clear line for "fighting for rights", at least in line with the existing reasonable laws, enough is enough, so as not to be in vain. Because sometimes, giving up rights properly may bring better consequences.
People's appreciation of Struggle for Rights seems to be limited to the proposition of "Struggle for Rights", as well as the discussion of legal feelings and law enforcers, rather than the criticism of German legal defects at that time. In my opinion, this is the part that benefits me the most. If Ye Lin used to fire at a lower-level infringer for the obligee, then in the sixth chapter of this book, The Struggle between Modern Roman Law and Rights, Ye Lin criticized the existing law and strongly criticized its two fundamental mistakes. This kind of criticism is undoubtedly of the most practical significance, because the mistakes and defects in legislation will undoubtedly bring more universal and fatal harm to rights, and the struggle against evil laws is an advanced form of "fighting for rights" and more fundamental. "The right of the state is to protect the rights of the people. Now that people's rights and feelings are violated by state power, people will give up legal channels. This is inevitable! "
For example, equating illegality with lack of consent in evidence. One of the requirements of evidence is legality. China's judicial interpretation stipulates that evidence obtained by illegal audio and video recording without the consent of the other party cannot be used. Here, "illegal" and "without consent" are equated, and as long as there is no consent, it is considered illegal. But the question is, why is it illegal without consent? Except for a few cases of invasion of privacy, it is not illegal for creditors to confirm the existence of creditor's rights by audio and video recording without consent, and it can also prove the facts of the case. Why can't it be used as evidence? If in the past, the law tilted the balance of the law in order to protect the weak debtors, then let's reflect, in the modern China society of credit crisis, which is the creditor or the debtor in the advantage? It can be seen clearly from the sentence "Uncle borrows money, grandson asks for money": Now Yang Bailao has turned over as the master, and Huang Shiren has become an amazing wretch after borrowing money. Therefore, in today's superior position of creditor's rights, how to strengthen the protection of creditors has become the focus of legislation, as can be seen from the provisions of the Contract Law on creditors' subrogation and cancellation rights. The procedural law insists on the legislation of "illegal = without consent", which is not conducive to protecting creditors. If strict creditors don't write IOUs when lending money, and they can't prove it by telephone recording afterwards, and they can't get the protection of the court, it is really a disaster for creditors and a fluke for debtors. Such a provision is an abuse of the debtor's tolerance and a blatant disregard for the interests of creditors, which will make the debtor lose confidence in the law and turn to self-help and lead to crime. The author once heard of a case where a creditor was angry and hired someone from the society to kidnap the debtor and force him to write an iou, so he was jailed because his private recording was not accepted by the court and his debt could not be recovered. We can't just blame the debtor's weak legal consciousness here. It seems that the law itself should also examine whether it is too partial to debtors and too harsh to creditors. In addition, some scholars pointed out that this equation also violates international practice and is a misunderstanding of the "exclusionary rule of illegal evidence". This rule usually only applies to criminal trials, not to the preservation of private evidence in civil proceedings. In the west, as long as the act of private preservation of evidence does not constitute a crime, the obtained evidence can be used even if there are illegal factors. In civil litigation, the principle of "whoever advocates gives evidence" is adopted. If the audio and video recordings made privately by citizens are not recognized as evidence, it directly limits the resources for the parties to provide evidence and reduces the rights of the parties to preserve evidence, so many facts cannot be proved and the interests of creditors cannot be protected.
For another example, there is little research on the applicable rules of indirect evidence in China's civil procedure law, which is often used in practice. The application rules of opinion evidence in civil litigation should not be as strict as in criminal litigation, and there is no need to form an uninterrupted chain of evidence, but to what extent should it be proved? How should the main evidence rule be applied? There is no doubt about it. This just proves that the lack of theory to guide judicial practice in the study of civil procedure law is a bad phenomenon. In addition, in order to strengthen the protection of creditors, it is necessary to further study and improve the application of indirect disproof, the reasonable sharing of burden of proof, the procedure of property preservation, the creditor's right of subrogation and cancellation.
Therefore, it is precisely because of this that we should learn to use the law and dare to "fight for rights". I believe that as long as each of us has this belief, our laws will be more perfect and our country will be stronger!
Some time ago, when I was thinking aimlessly, I watched the screaming "The Struggle for Rights". The author's views are resounding and inspire me a lot.
Because of my professional relationship, I have come into contact with many cases related to civil rights: they are unforgivable villains, but they have no right to a fair trial; They are honest and law-abiding ordinary citizens, but they are innocent and wronged; They strive for some opportunities for the needs of life and even survival, but they are discriminated against (such as height, gender and appearance discrimination in employment, etc.). ).
When rights are trampled on, some people choose to be patient, while others rise up and resist and are forced to "fight for rights". For example, the first case of "hepatitis B discrimination" in China and the first case of "appearance discrimination" in China both chose to stand up and defend their legitimate rights and interests with legal weapons when their rights were infringed.
1 More than 30 years ago, German scholar Gerling delivered a famous speech "Struggle for Rights", which later became the motto of Chinese and foreign jurists. The author starts with the origin of law, and the method of argument is formed in the struggle. Struggle is the life of law. Without struggle, the law is useless, and without struggle, the law cannot exist. The premise of all rights is to be ready to claim rights at any time. Right gave up on itself from the moment it gave up the struggle. Fighting for rights is not only to safeguard one's own rights, but also to safeguard one's personal dignity.
The goal of law is peace, and to achieve the goal of peace, we must struggle. The law itself is the result of long-term struggle, and it needs endless struggle to be truly implemented. Fighting for rights is not only the obligation of the obligee to himself, but also the obligation of the obligee to society. When individuals claim their due rights according to the provisions of the law, they will turn the issue of individual rights into the realization of the current national laws. He is not fighting for his own self-interest, but fighting for the realization of the law, fighting for the life of the law and fighting for the legal order of the country!
As a student who has just entered the legal hall, I feel that I should always use legal weapons to defend my rights! In the face of injustice, we should stand up bravely to uphold justice and defend the law! Although our strength is minimal, as long as we try our best to advocate, we will certainly get the response of the society!
"Fight for rights", freedom has never been given to you by the sovereign. You must advocate and fight. Only in this way can you defend your rights and the dignity of the law. Fighting for rights is a sacred duty entrusted to every citizen by law.
Reflections on Fighting for Rights 4 I read Feng's book Fighting for Rights at home these two days and was deeply touched by the things around me. I am ashamed that I have just finished reading this enlightenment book after spending my first semester in law school. This book really deserves to be widely recommended in the society we live in, because we are so lack of awareness of rights that when our rights are violated, we are not moved, or we are moved but dare not respond, or even don't know that our rights are violated. It is necessary for us to make up the lesson of rights.
The so-called rights are human rights, basic human rights and civil rights. Some people around me don't care about these rights, because they think that rights are stipulated by law. In countries with imperfect legal system, legal rights will be violated at will, so there is no need to take them seriously. But don't forget, power comes from struggle. From conceptual human rights to legal human rights to actual rights, there are struggles and blood at every step, such as slavery and its abolition. Therefore, even if you have legal rights and don't fight for them, you can only stay in the legal text. Law is a piece of paper with rights written on it, but its function is limited to a piece of paper. Although rights can be abandoned, as Ye Lin wrote in his book, "it is one's duty to safeguard rights." Since it is an obligation, you can't give it up easily. Without the struggle of rights, the scope of rights will be smaller and smaller in the face of infringement, and the last thing that hurts is yourself.
Our society has a certain aversion to litigation, and litigation is a disgraceful thing. Of course, there are quite historical reasons for this, but please don't forget that defending your rights is just like drawing a sword to help you when the road is rough, or just being brave (defending the rights of others), which is equally aboveboard and understandable. Because the above behavior is also a struggle to safeguard the rights of the whole country.
Some people may say that when individual rights are infringed by the public power of the state, individual power cannot compete with the public power, so it is helpless and wise to submit to humiliation. It is true that individual rights cannot be compared with public power, but the individual rights of 654.38+300 million people have become absolutely stronger than public power. A large part of the reason why individual rights are violated is the lack of supervision and restriction of public power, and the right of supervision is a part of civil rights (the constitution clearly stipulates the right of supervision of citizens). We are likely to enter a strange circle where our rights are violated by public power, but we give up the right to supervise, report and complain because of timidity and fear of trouble, thus making public power stronger without restriction and leading to further violations of rights. The way to jump out of the strange circle is to take up the weapon of law and safeguard your rights. "Sovereignty lies with the people" is not a decoration, public power comes from the people, and the purpose of granting public power by the people is to protect their rights and safeguard social justice. This is the ultimate goal of the existence of the government, and everything is for this. The strength of the United States lies in its democracy, and American democracy does not stem from its strength.
Finally, I want to advise you that those who stand up when others are in danger will get help from others when they are in danger.