[Report File] What the Democratic Party Missed by Amending Article 80 of the Party Constitution

The Democratic Party is noisy over the revision of Article 80 of the Party Constitution ahead of the national convention on August 28.

When the National Convention Preparatory Committee decided to revise Article 80 of the Party Constitution, which required the suspension of the duty of watchers at the same time as the indictment of corruption, to be suspended if sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or higher in the first trial, the conflict between the pro-Lee Jae-myung and the non-Jae-myung was again intensifying. look.

While there were opinions in favor of easing the suspension standards, saying that the Yoon Seok-yeol administration's prosecutors would randomly prosecute opposition figures, while opposing the 'bulletproof amendment' for a specific person that retreats from the party's innovation efforts and the will to fight corruption Opinions are conflicting.

The Emergency Response Committee decided not to revise the provision for suspension of duty upon prosecution, but changed the person who can cancel or suspend disciplinary action to the duty committee, not the ethics judge.

In particular, the non-captain has newly established party constitutional regulations on the requirements for constituting a non-captain in emergency situations within the party.

In the event of a vacancy between the party leader and the 'majority' of the top members, the content is to form a non-captain.

However, while attention was focused on the issue of amendment to Article 80 of the Party Constitution, the Democratic Party missed one important issue.

It is a story about the past of the Democratic Party, which called victims of sexual violence a 'victim complainant'.

In July 2020, the Democratic Party referred to the victim of the sexual harassment case of former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon as a 'victim complainant', sparking controversy over the second persecution and internal fire.

Criticisms have been pouring in that it is an inappropriate expression based on the premise that the sexual assault victim is making a one-sided claim.

It was the shameful bare face of the Democratic Party, which advocated for women's empowerment, gender sensitivity, and victim-centredism.

All those within the party who mentioned the expression apologized, and in March, Rep. Lee Jae-myung, who was the then-Democratic presidential candidate at the time, also said, "The heads of regional organizations belonging to the Democratic Party commit power-based sex crimes, and the party also participated in the second persecution under the name of 'victim complainant'. In the end, many people are hurt and criticized for failing to take full responsibility and even being nominated,” he apologized, saying, “I’m sorry.”

There is a reason to retell the controversy that seemed to be forgotten.

This is because revisions to the Democratic Party's platform and constitution and bylaws are in progress.

For ten days from June 21 to 30, the Democratic Party received a letter of opinion related to the revision of the party constitution and party rules from party members.

One female lawmaker suggested that the term 'victim' should be removed from the phrase 'victim complainant' specified in the Democratic Code of Ethics.

That was why she had to uphold the principle of victim-centredism.

She said, "If you're a victim, you're a victim, you don't need to use the word appeal."

will be

The word 'complainant' appears twice in the Democratic Code of Ethics.

Article 14 of the Democratic Party Code of Ethics (Prohibition of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence, etc.

) Personal information such as name and resident registration number, as well as the contents, shall not be leaked except in cases where it is necessary for processing, etc.

④ Watchers and Party officials shall not continuously tell the victim themselves about the damage, etc. or seek confirmation from them against the will of the victim (including the complainant).

In addition, you must not disclose facts about the victim openly or inform an unspecified number of facts that are not objective facts.

However, this issue has not even been properly discussed.

The National Convention Preparatory Committee, which is in charge of revising the Code and the Party Constitution and Party Bylaws, says, “The Code of Ethics is not the task of the previous level in the Party Constitution.”

Article 77 of the Constitution, matters concerning the enactment, revision, and implementation of the Code of Ethics are determined by the Ethics Tribunal's authority.

It was not possible to revise and there was no need to discuss it because it was not under our jurisdiction.

It seems that the individual opinions of lawmakers have not been properly delivered to the Ethics Tribunal through all levels.

A lawmaker affiliated with the Ethics Tribunal said, "I don't know. It's the first I've heard of it." 

It is the same with Jeon, who gave up on the formal logic that it is not his business, or the ethics judge who said he was unaware of the inappropriateness of the word 'victim' in the code of ethics, or that he was irresponsible.

The victim of former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon's sexual harassment case said this at a press conference ahead of the 4.7 by-election last year (March 17, 2021).

Democrats need to reconsider.

While concentrating on the revision of Article 80 of the Party Constitution, we need to check whether there is anything missing.

Because it's already too late.