Tuesday, May 11, 2021

An Early Precedent for Prosecuting "Historical Nihilists"

 For more information about how this case shaped the future of China's jurisprudence around people's expressions of views relating to deceased individuals and historical events deemed by the Communist Party of China to be beyond reproach, see "Supreme People's Court Website Explains Why Courts Found Author Guilty of Defaming Dead Heroes " http://blog.feichangdao.com/2016/11/supreme-peoples-court-website-explains.html.

Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou
Administrative Judgment
(2011) Sui Intermediate Judicial Administrative Final No. 570


Appellant (the plaintiff in the original trial ): Zhang Guanghong, residing in Guangzhou.

Entrusted Counsel: Zhang Peng, Beijing Zhongyingkai Law Firm.

Entrusted Counsel: Ge Yongxi, Guangdong Anguo Law Firm.

Appellee (the defendant in the original trial): The Yuexiu precinct of the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou. Location: Guangzhou.

Legal representative: Cai Wei, Position: Director.

Entrusted Counsel: Hu Jiaqiang and Zhou Peixin are both civilian police officers of the precinct.

In connection with an administrative punishment case, appellant Zhang Guanghong did not accept the People's Court of Yuexiu's (2013) Sui Yue Judicial Administrative First Instance No. 368 administrative judgment, and raised an appeal with this Court. This Courtformed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and tried this case. The trial in this case has now concluded.

The case was tried by the original court which found: At about 12:15 am on August 27, 2013, the plaintiff in the original trial Zhang Guanghong was in Room 103, No. 1, Wenhuali, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, and used his laptop to post a microblog on Sina Weibo (screen name: Nianhuaxiaofo223, address: http://weibo.com/lianhuaxiaofo223) with this content: "Teacher Yuan Tengfei was filming the movie 'The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain' and went to the local area to learn the truth, and the villagers said: These five people are just a few stragglers traveling bravely along with the militia. After they came to the village, they called for food and drink, and they would beat people at the slightest provocation. Because several of them had guns in their hands, the villagers did not dare to provoke them. Later, someone figured out a way to secretly tell the Japanese their whereabouts. The Japanese came to surround them and put them down. The villagers deliberately led the five men to an escape route that would leave them cornered." After that, the plaintiff in the original trial pasted the content of the microblog into his Tencent Weibo (screen name: Nianhuashiping23_833, address: http://t.qq.com/lianhuaxiaoofo23). As of August 29, 2013, the content of the  Sina Weibo of the plaintiff in the original trial had been forwarded more than 2,000 times with more than 300 comments, while the content of the Tencent Weibo has been forwarded many times with more comments.

At about 8:00 pm on August 29, 2013, defendant the Yuexiu precinct of the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou apprehended the plaintiff in the original trial and seized a laptop computer at the scene. The defendant investigated the aforementioned facts and investigated the verified Sina Weibo "YuanTengfeiV" (URL: http://weibo.com/yuantengfei). No relevant remarks involving the "The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" were found, so it was determined that the plaintiff in the original trial was spreading rumors about the "The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain," and that fictitious facts were disrupting public order, and informed the plaintiff in the original trial of the facts, reasons, and basis of the punishment decision that would be made, as well as his right to make a statement and defense.

On the 30th of the same month, on the basis of the provisions of Articles 25(1) and 11(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China," the defendant decided to impose a punishment of seven days administrative detention on the plaintiff in the original trial and confiscate the laptop computer used in this case. The plaintiff in the original trial did not accept the aforementioned punishment decision, and applied to the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou for administrative reconsideration. That bureau issued the Sui Public Reconsideration Decision (2013) No. 154 "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" on October 30, 2013, and decided to sustain the aforementioned penalty decision made by the defendant.

The plaintiff in the original trial again did not accept this, and thereupon filed the lawsuit in this case.

The court in the original trial held that Article 25 of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" provides: "A person who commits one of the following acts shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and may, in addition, be fined not more than 500 yuan; and if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be detained for not more than 5 days or be fined not more than 500 yuan: (1) intentionally disturbing public order by spreading rumors, making false reports of dangerous situations and epidemic situations or raising false alarms or by other means . . . " And Article 11(1) provides: "Contraband seized in dealing with cases of public security such as drugs and pornographic objects, gambling devices, money for gambling, devices used for ingesting or injecting drugs, and the instruments owned and directly used by the persons in their acts against the administration of public security shall be taken over, and shall be disposed of according to relevant regulations." In this case the plaintiff in the original trial submitted that the microblog about "The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" originated from "Teacher Yuan Tengfei," the content had been spreading for many years, and did not originate with the plaintiff in the original trial. Even if the fictitious content was not made up by plaintiff in the original trial, the defendant's investigation of the verified Sina Weibo "YuanTengfeiV" found no relevant remarks involving The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain. Therefore, the defendant determined that the plaintiff in the original trial made up fictitious facts on Weibo, and the facts were clear and the evidence was copious that he had produced and spread rumors. The aforementioned illegal actions of the plaintiff in the original trial caused adverse effects on the Internet and disrupted public order. Therefore, the defendant's punishment decision made after the illegal facts of the plaintiff in the original trial were uncovered was found to comply with the aforementioned provisions. The plaintiff in the original trial has insufficient basis to request that the penalty decision be revoked, his computer be returned, and he receive compensation, and his requests should not be granted.

In summary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56(4) of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the 'Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China'" and Article 33 of the "Supreme People's Court Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Trials of Administrative Compensation Cases" the judgment of the court in the original trial was as follows: 1. The claims of the plaintiff in the original trial Zhang Guanghong were rejected; 2. The request for compensation of the plaintiff in the original trial Zhang Guanghong was rejected.

Appellant Zhang Guanghong did not accept this judgment in the original trial and appealed to this court as follows:
1. The trial of first instance ignored the facts of the case and hastily dismissed the appellant’s petition, and a correction is in order.

(i)  In this case, the appellant was sentenced to seven days administrative detention on the grounds that the appellant spread rumors that violated historical facts. The court of first instance should find out what the historical facts involved in the case are, and if the facts underlying the history involved in this case cannot be determined, it is impossible to determine whether the content of the microblog posted by the appellant is a rumor. Since it cannot be judged whether the content of the microblog posted by the appellant is a rumor, the punishment decision imposed on the appellant is incorrect.

(ii) The appellant’s actions on Weibo did not cause any socially harmful consequences. The appellee believed that the appellant’s microblog disturbed public order, but in fact there was no evidence to prove that social order was disrupted by the appellant’s actions on Weibo, or by the appellee’s microblog being reposted more than 2,000 times and commented on more than 300 times. As for the determination that the appellant’s actions vilified the shining image of revolutionary martyrs, the appellant believed that the number of times the microblog was reposted and commented on was not an actual socially harmful consequence. If the social public order is disturbed, it will definitely show specific harmful consequences, such as causing casualties, forced landings, road blockages, and soaring prices, but the appellee did not produce any evidence to prove it. If social public order is disrupted, it will definitely manifest in specific harmful consequences, such as causing casualties, forced landings for airplanes, road blockages, and soaring prices, but appellee did not provide any evidence to prove this.

(iii) The content of the microblog at issue in this case was not the appellant’s original content, but was what the appellant saw on a microblog called "Teacher Yuan Tengfei." This microblog was a Netease Weibo. The appellee took no steps whatsover to examine the "Teacher Yuan Tengfei" microblog and instead went and examined a microblog called "Yuan Tengfei V." With respect to this, the appellant's entrust counsel repeatedly emphasized in the trial of first instance that "Teacher Yuan Tengfei" microblog and the "Yuan Tengfei V" microblog are two fundamentally different microblogs.

(iv) In posting the microblog the appellant did not deliberately disturb public order. When the appellant was questioned by the appellee, he made it very clear that he posted the microblog because he believed that the content of the microblog might be true, and had not desire to disturb the social order.

(v) The administrative punishment decision made by the appellee has the following problems: the case acceptance procedure, the summoning procedure, the inspection procedure, and the seizure procedure were illegal, the time for interrogation and verification exceeded the time limit, the appellantwas not informed of his rights and obligations at the time of the summons or before the interrogation, the police handling the case did not sign the inquiry transcript.

(vi) The appellee seized the plaintiff’s laptop computer without any factual basis. Even if the appellant’s microblog posting was a violation of public security administration, when the appellee seized one of his laptop computers, it should also have checked whether the seized silver-white 14-inch Shenzhou laptop with the model EUS5 was the computer directly used to post the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" microblog, and should have ascertained whether the computer was directly owned by Zhang Guanghong himself. The appellee did not do any of this.


2. The appellee applied the law incorrectly. The legal basis cited by the appellee and the court of first instance in this case was the provisions of Article 25(1) of the "Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People’s Republic of China." However, according to that article, "A person who commits one of the following acts shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and may, in addition, be fined not more than 500 yuan; and if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be detained for not more than 5 days or be fined not more than 500 yuan: (1) intentionally disturbing public order by spreading rumors, making false reports of dangerous situations and epidemic situations or raising false alarms or by other means." The appellant believes that the following conditions must be met to apply the first clause of that law: (i) There must be evidence to prove that the punished person fabricated and spread rumors; (ii) The content of the rumors must be terrorist information that is capable of causing the public to panic as well as cause disruption in the social order; and (iii) The publisher of the rumors intended to disturb public order. In this case, these three conditions were not met. Obviously, the appellee's application of the law in the trial of first instance was entirely incorrect.

In summary, the judgment in the trial of first-instance was rendered without ascertaining the facts of the case and applying the law incorrectly. Therefore, the appeal requests: 1. Revoke the (2013) Sui Yue Judicial Criminal First No. 368 Administrative Judgment, and amend the judgment in accordance with the law to sustain the entiriety of the appellant's petition filed in the trial of first instance; 2. The litigation costs of the first and second instance trials of this case be borne by the defendant.

Appellee the Yuexiu precinct of the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou argues:

1. The facts of the appellee's administrative punishment decision on the appellant are clear and the evidence is conclusive. At 12:15 am on August 27, 2013, Appellant Zhang Guanghong was in Room 103, No. 1, Wenhuali, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, using his laptop computer to access Sina Weibo. He spread rumors about "The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" on the Internet, intentionally disrupted public order, and afterwards was taken into custody. The aforementioned facts were confirmed by relevant evidentiary materials such as the offender's statement and defenses, physical evidence, and inspection transcripts.

2. The punishment decision procedure made by the appellee was legal, the law was applied correctly, and the punishment was appropriate. Based on the aforementioned facts and evidence, the appellee believes that the deeds of the "Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain" are well-known historical facts. Appellant Zhang Guanghong nevertheless used his own Sina Weibo to spread rumors and posts about the "Five Heroes of Langya Mountain" and twisted the  image of those revolutionary martyrs. The rumors were reposted more than 2,500 times, and commented on more than 300 times, which caused a bad influence on the Internet and disrupted public order. Appellant Zhang Guanghong's actions violated Article 25 of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China," constitute acts of spreading rumors that disturbed public order, and should be punished in accordance with the law.

Prior to rendering the administrative punishment decision, the appellee had notified appellant Zhang Guanghong of the facts, reasons, and basis for the administrative penalty decision, and informed him of his legal rights. On August 30, 2013, the appellee rendered the Sui Public Yue Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 03759 "Administrative Punishment Decision" in accordance with Articles 25(1) and 11(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" deciding to subject appellant Zhang Guanghong to seven days administrative detention and to confiscate a laptop computer used as a tool in commission of the offense. In summary, the Sui Public Yue Administrative Punishment Decision (2013) No. 03759 "Administrative Punishment Decision" rendered by the appellee was based clear facts, conclusive evidence, legal procedures, appropriate punishments, and correct application of laws. The facts determined in the judgment of the trial of first instance were clear, the procedures were legal, and the application of the law was correct. It is requested the court reject the appellant’s claims in accordance with the law.

It was ascertained at trial that, the facts determined in by the court in the original trial were clear and were substantiated by corresponding evidence, and are affirmed by this Court. Upon further examination, the appellant submitted two new items of evidence in the trial of second instance hearing proceedings:

1. A report from Caijing Net, to prove that even the appellee's claims about the Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain in elementary school textbooks are not consistent with the facts; and

2. The appellant's searches for comments about the Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain on Sina Weibo.

The appellee issued a cross-examination opinion in court, stating that according to the Supreme People’s Court's  "Regulations on Several Issues of Evidence in Administrative Litigation," the aforementioned evidence was not new evidence and should not be accepted, and the aforementioned  evidence could not be seen clearly, and could not be cross-examined by the appellee.

This Court finds that Article 25 of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" provides: "A person who commits one of the following acts shall be detained for not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and may, in addition, be fined not more than 500 yuan; and if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be detained for not more than 5 days or be fined not more than 500 yuan: (1) intentionally disturbing public order by spreading rumors, making false reports of dangerous situations and epidemic situations or raising false alarms or by other means." Article 11(1) provides: "Contraband seized in dealing with cases of public security such as drugs and pornographic objects, gambling devices, money for gambling, devices used for ingesting or injecting drugs, and the instruments owned and directly used by the persons in their acts against the administration of public security shall be taken over, and shall be disposed of according to relevant regulations."

In this case, at 12:15 am on August 27, 2013, the appellant was in Room 103, No. 1, Wenhuali, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, and used his laptop computer to post a microblog on Sina Weibo (screen name: Nianhuaxiaofo223, address: http://weibo.com/lianhuaxiaofo223) to post a microblog about "The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain." After that, he  pasted the content of the microblog into his Tencent Weibo (screen name: Nianhuashiping23_833, address: http://t.qq.com/lianhuaxiaoofo23). As of August 29, 2013, the content of the  Sina Weibo of the plaintiff in the original trial had been forwarded more than 2,000 times with more than 300 comments, while the content of the Tencent Weibo has been forwarded many times with more comments.

The appellee believes the appellant used the Internet to post a made up story about "The Five Heroes of Wolf Tooth Mountain," twisted the image of revolutionary martyrs, causing adverse effects online, and this constitutes an act of spreading rumors and disturbing public order, and should be punished for his involvement in the case in accordance with the aforementioned provisions. In addition, in accordance with the law before rendering the administrative punishment decision, the appellant notified appellant Zhang Guanghong of the facts, reasons, and basis for the administrative punishment decision, and informed him of his legal rights in accordance with the law. Therefore, the court in the original trial was justified in finding insufficient basis to grant the appellant's request to revoke the administrative punishment, return the computer and provide compensation, and this is sustained by this Court.

Regarding the issue of the appellant’s claim that the seizure of his laptop computer was without factual basis, an investigation found that the appellant had stated in the questioning transcript that he used his own laptop computer to go online and post the microblog in question and that he was the only person to use that laptop computer in his home. This Court does not sustain the appellant’s afformentioned claims. Regarding the appellant’s opinion that the appellee violated relevant regulations in the process of receiving the case, summons, inspection, seizure, inquiry and verification, etc., an investigation found that the appellee had submitted relevant evidence to prove the legality of the administrative punishment involved in the case, whereas the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim, and this Court does not accept it.

As regards the two new pieces of evidence submitted by the appellant in the trial of second instance, Article 7 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Administrative Litigation" provides: "A plaintiff or a third party shall provide evidence before the hearing or on the day of the exchange of evidence designated by the People's Court. Those who apply for an extension for providing evidence due to legitimate reasons may be granted permission by the People’s Court in court investigations. If evidence is provided after the deadline, the right to submit evidence is deemed to have been waieved. Where a plaintiff or the third party in the first trial proceedings submits evidence in the second trial proceedings which was not submitted in the first trial without legitimate reason, the People's Court will not admit it." An investigation found that the appellant in the trial of second instance submitted new evidence. That evidence existed prio to the proceeding in the trial of first instance, and the appellant did not submit the aforementioned evidence udring the trial of first instance and did not have any justification. Therefore, the two pieces of aforementioned evidence are not deemed to be new evidence, and in accordance with the law this this Court does not accept them.

In summary, the facts found in the original judgment were clear, the law was applied correctly, the procedures were legal, and are sustained by this Court. The appellant’s reasons for appeal are not established and are rejected by this Court. In accordance with the provisions of Article 89(1) of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China," and after discussion and decision by the adjudicative committee of this Court, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal is rejected, and the judgment in the original trial is sustained.

The trial of second instance case acceptance fee is 50 yuan, which shall be borne by appellant Zhang Guanghong.

This judgment shall be the final judgment.

Chief Adjudicator: Zhu Lin
Adjudicator: Xiao Xiaoli
Acting Adjudicator   Yao Wei

May 20, 2015

Clerk    Zhou Wenjing 



广东省广州市中级人民法院


行 政 判 决 书


(2011)穗中法行终字第570号


上诉人(原审原告):张广红,住广州市。


委托代理人:张鹏,北京众赢凯律师事务所律师。
委托代理人:葛永喜,广东安国律师事务所律师。


被上诉人(原审被告):广州市公安局越秀分局。住所地:广州市。


法定代表人:蔡巍,职务:局长。


委托代理人:胡佳强、周培新,均系该分局民警。


上诉人张广红因行政处罚一案,不服广州市越秀区人民法院(2013)穗越法行初字第368号行政判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,审理了本案。本案现已审理终结。


案经原审法院审理查明:2013年8月27日0时15分许,原告张广红在广州市越秀区文化里1号103房内,使用其本人笔记本电脑在新浪微博(网名:拈花笑评223,地址:http://weibo.com/lianhuaxiaofo223)上发布一篇微博,内容为:“老师袁腾飞拍‘狼牙山五壮士’电影编剧,邢某去当地了解实情,村民说:这五人只不过是几个散兵游勇土八路,来村里后要吃要喝,稍不如意就打人。由于几人手上有枪,村民们也不敢惹。后来有人想出了个办法,偷偷地把他们的行踪告诉日本人。日本人就来围剿了。村民故意引5人绝路逃跑。”之后,原告又将该微博内容粘贴至其腾讯微博(网名:拈花时评23_833,地址:http://t.qq.com/lianhuaxiaofo23)。至2013年8月29日止,原告的新浪微博中该条微博内容被转发二千多次,评论三百多条,其腾讯微博中该条微博内容被转发多次,评论多条。2013年8月29日22时许,被告广州市公安局越秀区分局将原告抓获,现场缴获笔记本电脑一台。被告经调查查明上述事实并查阅了新浪认证微博“袁腾飞V”(网址:http://weibo.com/yuantengfei),未有发现涉及狼牙山五壮士的相关言论,遂认定原告散布关于“狼牙山五壮士”的相关谣言,虚构事实扰乱公共秩序,告知原告拟作出处罚决定的事实、理由、依据及陈述和申辩的权利。同月30日,被告依据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五条第(一)项及第十一条第一款之规定,作出穗公越行罚决字(2013)第03759号《行政处罚决定书》,决定对原告处以行政拘留七日,收缴作案工具笔记本电脑一台。原告对上述处罚决定不服,向广州市公安局申请行政复议。该局于2013年10月30日作出穗公复决字(2013)154号《行政复议决定书》,决定维持被告作出的上述处罚决定。原告仍不服,遂提起本案诉讼。


原审法院认为,《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五条规定:“有下列行为之一的,处五日以上十日以下拘留,可以并处五百元以下罚款;情节较轻的,处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款:(一)散布谣言,谎报险情、疫情、警情或者以其他方法故意扰乱公共秩序的;……。”第十一条第一款规定:“办理治安案件所查获的毒品、淫秽物品等违禁品,赌具、赌资,吸食、注射毒品的用具以及直接用于实施违反治安管理行为的本人所有的工具,应当收缴,按照规定处理。”本案原告提出关于“狼牙山五壮士”的微博源自“老师袁腾飞”,内容已传播多年不是原告的原创,即使内容失实也不是原告虚构的,但经被告调查新浪认证微博“袁腾飞V”后未发现涉及狼牙山五壮士的相关言论,因此被告认定原告在微博中虚构事实,制作并发布谣言的事实清楚、证据充分。原告的上述违法行为在网络上造成了不良影响,扰乱了公共秩序,故被告查明原告该违法事实后作出的处罚决定符合上述有关规定,原告请求撤销该处罚决定并发还电脑及赔偿的理由不充分,应不予采纳。综上所述,依照《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第五十六条第(四)项、《最高人民法院关于审理行政赔偿案件若干问题的规定》第三十三条的规定,原审法院判决如下:一、驳回原告张广红的诉讼请求;二、驳回原告张广红的赔偿请求。


上诉人张广红不服原审判决,上诉至本院称:一、一审罔顾本案事实,草率驳回上诉人的诉请,依法应当予以纠正。(一)本案中被上诉人以上诉人散布违背历史事实的谣言为由,对上诉人处以七日行政拘留,那么原审法院应当查明本案所涉的历史事实到底是什么,若不能查清本案所涉历史事实是什么,就无法判定上诉人所发的微博内容到底是谣言。既然不能判决上诉人所发的微博内容是不是谣言,那么对上诉人作出的处罚决定就是错误的。(二)上诉人发微博的行为,没有造成任何的社会危害后果。被上诉人认为上诉人发微博扰乱公共秩序,但实际上没有证据证明社会秩序因上诉人发微博的行为而产生混乱,被上诉人仅以上诉人的微博被转发了二千余次、评论三百多条,而认定上诉人的行为诋毁革命先烈的光辉形象,上诉人认为微博被转发、评论的次数不是实际的社会危害后果。若社会公共秩序被扰乱,那一定会表现出具体的危害后果,比如造成人员伤亡、飞机迫降、道路堵塞、物价飞涨等情形的发生,但被上诉人没有拿出任何的证据来予以证明。(三)本案所涉的微博内容不是上诉人的原创,而是上诉人在一个叫“老师袁腾飞,的微博上看到的,此微博是一个网易微博。被上诉人根本没有去查“老师袁腾飞”的微博,而去查一个叫“袁腾飞V”的微博,对此上诉人的代理人在一审时已经反复强调,“老师袁腾飞”与“袁腾飞V”,根本就是两个不同的微博。(四)上诉人在发该微博没有故意扰乱公共秩序的故意。上诉人在接受被上诉人询问时,已经说的很清楚,其发该微博的是因为其认为该微博的内容可能是真实的,而不是想扰乱社会秩序。(五)被上诉人作出的行政处罚决定存在以下问题:受案程序、传唤程序、检查程序、扣押程序违法,询问查证的时间超过了时限,未在传唤时或者询问前告知上诉人的权利义务,办案民警没有在询问笔录上签字。(六)被上诉人收缴原告的笔记本电脑一台没有任何的事实依据。即使上诉人发微博是违反治安管理的行为,被上诉人在收缴其笔记本电脑一台时,也应当查清楚被收缴的型号为EUS5的银白色14寸神舟笔记电脑是不是直接用于发有关于“狼牙山五壮士”微博的电脑,查明该电脑是不是直接为张广红本人所有,而被上诉人根本没有做这些。二、被上诉人适用法律错误。本案中被上诉人及一审引用的法律依据是《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第25条第1款的规定,但根据该条规定“有下列行为之一的,处五日以上十日以下拘留,可以并处五百元以下罚款;情节较轻的,处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款:(一)散布谣言,谎报险情、疫情、警情或者以其他方法故意扰乱公共秩序的”。上诉人认为,适用该法条第一项的规定,必须要具备以下条件:(1)、有证据证实被处罚人捏造、散布了谣言;(2)、谣言的内容必须是恐怖信息,能引起社会公众的恐慌,也能造成社会秩序的混乱。(3)、谣言的发布者有扰乱公共秩序的故意。而本案中根本不具备这三个条件,显然被上诉人及一审适用法律完全是错误的。综上,一审判决是在没有查明本案事实、适用法律错误的基础上作出的,故上诉请求:一、撤销(2013)穗越法行初字第368号行政判决书,依法改判支持上诉人在一审时提出的全部诉请;二、本案一、二审诉讼费由被告承担。
 

被上诉人广州市公安局越秀分局辩称:一、被上诉人对上诉人作出的行政处罚决定事实清楚,证据确凿。2013年8月27日0时15分许,上诉人张广红在广州市越秀区文化里1号103房内,使用其本人笔记本电脑在新浪微博上散布关于“狼牙山五壮士”的相关谣言,故意扰乱公共秩序,后被查获。上述事实有违法人的陈述和申辩、物证、检查笔录等相关证据材料予以证实。二、被上诉人做出的处罚决定程序合法、适用法律正确、处罚恰当。根据上述事实与证据,被上诉人认为“狼牙山五壮士”事迹是众所周知的历史事实,上诉人张广红却利用其本人的新浪微博,散布关于“狼牙山五壮士”的谣言帖子,歪曲革命先烈的形象。该谣言被转发两千五百余次,评论三百余条,在网络上造成了不良影响,扰乱了公共秩序。上诉人张广红的行为违反《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五的规定,构成散布谣言扰乱公共秩序的行为,依法应当受到处罚。在作出行政处罚决定前,被上诉人已依法向上诉人张广红告知拟作出行政处罚决定的事实、理由及依据,并告知其依法享有的权利。2013年8月30日,被上诉人根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五条第一项、第十一条第一款之规定,作出穗公越行罚决字(2013)第03759号《行政处罚决定书》,决定对上诉人张广红处以行政拘留七日,收缴作案工具笔记本电脑一台。综上所述,被上诉人做出的穗公越行罚决字(2013)第03759号《行政处罚决定书》事实清楚、证据确凿、程序合法、处罚适当、适用法律正确。一审判决认定事实清楚、程序合法、适用法律正确。请求法院依法驳回上诉人的诉讼请求。


经审理查明,原审法院认定事实清楚并有相应的证据予以证实,本院予以确认。另查,上诉人在二审审理过程中提交了两份新证据:一、财经网的报道,拟证明即使被上诉人主张小学课本的狼牙山五壮士也是与事实不符的;二、上诉人在新浪微博搜索狼牙山五壮士的评论。被上诉人当庭发表质证意见称,根据最高人民法院《关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》,上述证据不属于新证据,应不予接纳,且上述证据无法看清,被上诉人不予质证。

本院认为,《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五条规定:“有下列行为之一的,处五日以上十日以下拘留,可以并处五百元以下罚款;情节较轻的,处五日以下拘留或者五百元以下罚款:(一)散布谣言,谎报险情、疫情、警情或者以其他方法故意扰乱公共秩序的;……。”第十一条第一款规定:“办理治安案件所查获的毒品、淫秽物品等违禁品,赌具、赌资,吸食、注射毒品的用具以及直接用于实施违反治安管理行为的本人所有的工具,应当收缴,按照规定处理。”本案中,上诉人于2013年8月27日0时15分许在广州市越秀区文化里1号103房内,使用其本人笔记本电脑在新浪微博(网名:拈花笑评223,地址:http://weibo.com/lianhuaxiaofo223)上发布一篇关于“狼牙山五壮士”的微博,后又将该微博内容粘贴至其腾讯微博上(网名:拈花时评23_833,地址:http://t.qq.com/lianhuaxiaofo23)。至2013年8月29日止,上诉人的新浪微博中该条微博内容被转发二千多次,评论三百多条,其腾讯微博中该条微博内容被转发多次,评论多条。被上诉人认为上诉人利用网络发布了虚构的“狼牙山五壮士”故事,歪曲革命烈士形象,在网络上造成了不良影响,构成散布谣言、扰乱公共秩序的行为,对其作出涉案处罚,符合上述规定。且被上诉人在作出行政处罚决定前,已依法向上诉人张广红告知拟作出行政处罚决定的事实、理由及依据,并告知其依法享有的权利。因此原审法院以上诉人主张撤销该行政处罚并发还电脑及赔偿的请求理据不足,并无不当,本院予以支持。对于上诉人主张收缴其笔记本电脑无事实依据的问题,经审查,上诉人在询问笔录中已陈述是用自己的笔记本电脑上网并发布涉案微博,该笔记本电脑在其家里只有其一人使用,故对于上诉人的上述主张,本院不予支持。对于上诉人认为被上诉人在受案、传唤、检查、扣押、询问查证等过程中违反相关规定的意见,经审查,被上诉人已提交相关证据证明其作出涉案行政处罚的合法性,而上诉人对其主张并未提供充分证据予以证实,对此,本院不予采纳。

关于上诉人二审提交的两份新证据,《最高人民法院关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》第七条规定:“原告或者第三人应当在开庭审理前或者人民法院指定的交换证据之日提供证据。因正当事由申请延期提供证据的,经人民法院准许,可以在法庭调查中提供。逾期提供证据的,视为放弃举证权利。原告或者第三人在第一审程序中无正当事由未提供而在第二审程序中提供的证据,人民法院不予接纳。”经审查,上诉人二审提交的新证据,系一审诉讼之前形成,上诉人在一审期间并未提交上述证据,且无正当理由,因此,上述两份证据不属于新证据,本院依法不予采纳。

综上,原审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,程序合法,本院予以支持;上诉人的上诉理由不成立,本院不予采纳。依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第八十九条第(一)项规定,并经本院审判委员会讨论决定,判决如下:


驳回上诉,维持原判。


二审案件受理费50元,由上诉人张广红负担。
 

本判决为终审判决。


审 判 长  朱 琳
审 判 员  肖晓丽
代理审判员  姚 伟
二〇一五年五月二十日
书 记 员  周文静

Thursday, April 29, 2021

How China's Top Search Engines Censor Results About Chloe Zhao's Oscar Win

On April 26, 2012, the state sponsored Global Times reported:

On Sunday, the film Nomadland directed by Chloe Zhao won the awards for best picture and best actress at the 93rd Academy Awards. Zhao also won best director for the film. This is good. When Zhao's film won the Golden Globe Awards in February, the Chinese public cheered for her. Later, people learned of her previous interview in which she made inappropriate remarks on China. Opinions about her changed. This is understandable.

The screenshot below was taken on April 29, 2012, and shows the report, originally available here - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1222108.shtml - had been deleted.

The report can still be viewed here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210426075846/https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1222108.shtml.

The screenshots below show that as of April 29, the Baidu, Qihoo, and Sogou search engines were returning no results for searches for "Chloe Zhao Oscar" [赵婷 奥斯卡]. 



This is extremely unusual. Normally this level of censorship is reserved for only the most politically sensitive individuals and events, such as:



Saturday, April 3, 2021

How China's Top Search Engines Censor Results for "Xinjiang Concentration Camps"

Let's start with the easiest example - below is a screenshot taken on April 3, 2021 of the search result page for the query "Xinjiang Concentration Camps" (新疆集中营) on Qihoo's 360.com search engine:


Qihoo returns no results. Instead, Qihoo tells users "Apologies, did not find web pages relevant to 'Xinjiang Concentration Camps'." (抱歉,未找到和 "新疆集中营"相关的网页。)

Next is a screenshot taken on April 3, 2021 of the search result page for the query "Xinjiang Concentration Camps" (新疆集中营) on Sogou's search engine:

The censorship here is relatively easy to spot - every result is from a whitelist of about a dozen sources, all of which are under the direct control of the central government or the Communist Party of China. As the screenshot below shows, even Party mouthpieces like the Global Times did not make the cut for  Sogou's whitelist.

Finally, below is a screenshot taken on April 3, 2021 of the search result page for "Xinjiang Concentration Camps" (新疆集中营) for Baidu's search engine:

Ever since Baidu stopped showing a censorship notice in 2016 (See: China's Search Engines (Except One) Stop Notifying Users of Political Censorship, http://blog.feichangdao.com/2016/06/chinas-search-engines-except-one-stop.html) Baidu's censorship is often difficult to spot. This is because it often restricts search results for politically sensitive terms to a broader whitelist that includes many websites that are licensed by the PRC government to report news. For example, unlike Sogou, in this case Baidu has included the Global Times in its search results ("huanqiu.com" appears twice in the screenshot above).

One way to spot censorship on Baidu is to compare search results over time. In this case, below is a screenshot taken on October 17, 2018 for the same query ("Xinjiang Concentration Camps" (新疆集中营):

One could be forgiven for thinking that because Baidu only showed 1.57 million search results in 2018 as opposed to 5.72 million results in 2021 that there was no censorship. The 5.72 million number is deceptive, however, because as the screenshot below taken on April 3, 2021 demonstrates, a search for "Xinjiang Concentration Camps" (新疆集中营) in quotes shows that Baidu has in fact only 10 results that contain that specific term.

 

By comparison, the screenshot below of search results for the same query taken on the same day shows that Microsoft's Bing search engine returns over 36,000 search results:


 Another indication that Baidu is censoring search results is that in 2018 Baidu was showing not only organic search results, but also a side-bar of "Relevant People" and "Popular Searches" - there is no sidebar in Baidu's 2021 search results. 

The clearest evidence of Baidu's censorship, however, is that it no longer shows any results from the  social media websites blog.sina.com.cn, tianya.cn, and Baidu's own PostBar - tieba.baidu.com - that appeared in the first page of its search results in 2018. The screenshots below were taken on April 3, 2021, and show that Baidu now tells users that it does not find any relevant web pages for searches for that query on any of those websites (e.g., 抱歉没有找到与“新疆集中营 site:blog.sina.com.cn”相关的网页).


Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Translation: The Writings of Liu Fenggang Deemed "Intelligence" by China's Courts

On August 6, 2004, the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang found Liu Fenggang guilty of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and sentenced him to a fixed term imprisonment of three years  and three years deprivation of political rights. See: https://blog.feichangdao.com/2004/08/liufenggang-espionage-judgment.html

The court's judgment stated: "The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets verification opinion proved that the three articles 'What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning,' 'Reports from the Motherland,' and 'Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing" are intelligence.'"

In order to provide context for Liu's conviction, a translation of the article "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," is provided below.

Source: https://www.cclifefl.org/View/Article/608

What I Understand About the Facts and History of the "Cult" case of Li Baozhi in Anshan, Liaoning

Liu Fenggang

Life Quarterly, No. 20, December 2001
 
Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, I'm here to tell you about something. In Anshan, Liaoning, some brothers and sisters in the Lord were gathering at someone's home. As a result, three brothers and sisters were subjected to re-education through labor. Many brothers and sisters were fined for the offense of being "cultists." They say that our brothers and sisters are cultists, simply because someone (maybe someone at the public security agency who thinks that they are cultists) has the contact information of one of our sisters and a notice from a higher-level public security agency requested assistance in an investigation. These brothers and sisters in the Lord deny that they are "cultists." They have defended themselves through reconsideration, litigation, appeals, and other legal channels, and they are currently appealing. The detailed process is as follows.
 
1.

There is a Christian church on Lvhua Street, Tiexi District, Anshan, Liaoning. There are more than 2,000 believers. In 1993, the believers were dissatisfied with the "Three-Self Society" because it went against the wishes of the believers. Arrangements were made for Elder Zhang Doe, who had serious financial problems, and Father Shi Doe, a fourth-ranked priest who had been expelled from the Catholic Church, to serve as president and secretary of our church, and some believers left the church. People met in their own homes and studied the Bible.
 
On November 11, 2000, when the brothers and sisters were meeting at Niu Zhongfang's home, some police officers from the Anshan Public Security Bureau arrived and took the brothers and sisters who were gathering to the Religious Affairs Department of the Anshan City Public Security Bureau to interrogate the brothers and sisters.

Later, I learned that the host of the meeting, Sister Li Baozhi, had contact with a person named Ma Yanling in Weihai. She had met with Ma Yanling once or twice about a job for her son. Ma Yanling may be regarded as a member of the "All Ranges Church" or involved in the "All Ranges Church." Until now, no one knew what kind of person Ma Yanling was. It's just that Li Baozhi's name was in Ma Yanling's address book. For this reason, the Public Security Bureau determined that the gathering of these brothers and sisters was also a gathering of the " All Ranges Church." These brothers and sisters had never heard of any "All Ranges Church." Their gatherings are completely organized in an orthodox Christian manner. They study the Bible together, and there engaged in anything evil or twisted. We talked with these brothers and sisters, and everyone is also critical of heretical and extreme religious activities.
 
However, these police officers determined that these brothers and sisters were gathering as the "All Ranges Church" and a "cult." They resorted to "fascist" tactics against these brothers and sisters, extorting confessions by torture, and beating them. Various punishments were used including slaps, punches and kicks, "small ropes," wooden sticks, bamboo poles, electric batons, and electric grills. I will not go into details here because we have the materials from the brothers and sisters. In the end, on December 25, 2000, the Anshan Public Security Bureau sent sister Li Baozhi to reeducation through labor for two years, and brothers Sun Derong and Hou Rongshan for one year each, and fined many brothers and sisters between 1,000 and 4,000 yuan, all for participating in the "All Ranges Church" cult.

Sisters Li Baozhiand Sun Dexiang, and Brother Hou Rongshan were dissatisfied with this, and on February 20, 2001, applied to the Provincial Re-education through Labor Committee for reconsideration. On March 19, 2001, the Provincial Re-education through Labor Committee decided to affirm the imposition of reeducation through labor in the name of illegally organizing cult activities. Sister Li Baozhi was dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative lawsuit at Anshan Lishan District People’s Court. On July 20, 2001, Anshan Lishan District People’s Court held that "the actions of the plaintiff completely violated the 'Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs of Liaoning Province' and seriously interfered with the normal order of religious life in the city, and created a somewhat bad influence." Sister Li Baozhi refused to accept this and appealed to the Anshan Intermediate Court.

2.

For this reason, I, Liu Fenggang, an ordinary Christian in Beijing went to Anshan to participate as an observer.
 
The Anshan Intermediate People's Court is located on the north side of the northwest corner of the Anshan Center Square. The hearing time was 1:00 pm, October 18, 2001, and I arrived at the gate of the courthouse on time. There were three or four believers looking up at the main entrance, and I asked them if they had come to attend Li Baozhi's court hearing. They said yes. I went up to the third floor with them. When we got to the third floor, we found that the whole corridor was full of believers who were attending as observers. There were more than 100 people. After a while, the lawyer came to tell everyone that because there were too few seats, it was changed to the sixth trial hall on the fourth floor. When everyone arrived on the fourth floor, everyone stood quietly on both sides of the passage so as not to affect the offices in the building. About ten minutes later, it was reported that because the hall was still too small, it could only accommodate more than 20 people. The lawyer would not agree to that and went to contact the court officials again. Finally, it was changed to a hall on the second floor that could accommodate more than 100 people. Everyone entered the hall, and there were no empty seats in the auditorium.
 
In the courtroom, there were three seats positioned above the rest. On the left was a male judge, and on the right was a female judge. The presiding judge in the middle had not yet arrived. The clerk had not yet arrived. The appellant and lawyer Hao Qinghua and Liu Chaodong sat on the right. The appellant and sister Li Baozhi had not arrived. The police said that there were insufficient police present and Li Baozhi could not appear in court. The appellee's representative, Ma Yi from the first section of the Public Security Bureau, and another policeman sat on the left.
 
At 1:40, the clerk and the presiding judge came in. The presiding judge announced the opening of the hearing. He first asked the clerk to announce the court rules, and then he read the court procedures, and then asked the appellant and appellee whether they wished to request the recusal of any trial court personnel. Then, let the appellant and lawyer Hao Qinghua read out the letter of appeal on behalf of the appellant Li Baozhi.
 
The appeal statement stated: (1) The appellant never participated in the "All Ranges Church," and the appellant cannot be deemed to have participated in a "cult" just because the appellant's name is in a certain address book. The decision on reeducation through labor, the reconsideration decision on reeducation through labor, and the administrative judgment of the People's Court of Lishan did not provide facts and evidence of the "cult" activities that the appellant participated in. (2) The decision on reeducation through labor and the reconsideration decision on reeducation through labor penalized the appellant on the grounds of cult activities, but the court of first instance maintained the punishment on the basis of the "Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs of Liaoning Province" which has nothing to do with cults. The two contradict each other. (3) The court of first instance found that the plaintiff's "wailing and spiritual dancing" violated the "Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs of Liaoning Province" and severely disrupted social order, which was inconsistent with the facts. The appellant never behaved in this manner.
 
The appellee stated that their handling of Li Baozhi was done in accordance with top-secret documents issued by the Ministry of Public Security which could not be produced, that the legal procedures were reasonable, and the court was requested to uphold the original verdict.
 
The lawyer asked: "Did you have any real evidence when you were investigating Li Baozhi's participation in the ‘cult’ organization? Is it because she had the two books "The Key to the Mountain" and "Morning Light" in her home?"
 
The police said: "We sentenced Li Baozhi to reeducation through labor because she disrupted social order, not because of those two books."
 
The lawyer once again asked the police to give evidence of Li Baozhi's involvement in a "cult."
 
The police said: “When we captured Li Baozhi and others, they were organizing believers to cry and laugh, and dance a spirit dance.” Then, the police read a someone's confession.
 
At this time, the lawyer asked the presiding judge to call witnesses in the courtroom. The presiding judge asked: "Can your witnesses prove that Li Baozhi did not participate in the cult?"
 
The lawyer said: "The appellee's representative maintains that Li Baozhi was participating in the cult. They should produce evidence. My witnesses can only prove that they did not cry and laugh or dance a spirit dance on the day they were arrested."
 
The presiding judge pondered for a while and agreed to call witnesses.
 
Witness Sister Doe came to the courtroom, and the presiding judge said word by word: "You will be legal liability for your testimony."
 
Our sister said: "I know."
 
The lawyer asked the witness: "When did you and Li Baozhi leave the church and start to run a house church?"
 
Answer: "It was 1993 when the church was fighting (dialect: fighting) when we left."
 
Question: "Do you know the ‘All Ranges Church’?"
 
Answer: "No, I don't."
 
Question: "Did Li Baozhi cry, laugh, and danced in your meetings?"

Answer: "No."
 
The presiding judge also asked the police officer (the appellee's representative) to question the witness.
 
The police officer came up and their first question was: "Is your meeting place approved and registered by the government?"
 
Answer: "I don't know."
 
Question: "Your home is so close, why go to a house so far away for a meeting?"
 
Answer: "Big churches and home gatherings - I go to both."
 
Question: "Have you never cried during a gathering? Christians should not lie."
 
Answer: "I haven't cried."
 
The presiding judge ordered the witness to step down. The lawyer again called up a believer, and the presiding judge told him in the same harsh tone: "You have to bear legal responsibility for your words." After that, the lawyer asked: "Please tell us about the situation on the day you were arrested."
 
The believer said: "After we were arrested, we were all locked up in different rooms of the Religious Affairs Office on the eighth floor of the Public Security Bureau. They tortured us and screams were often heard from the rooms."
 
The lawyer asked: "Was there crying? Was there screaming?"
 
Answer: "It was the screams caused by beatings."
 
The lawyer said, "Go on."
 
The believer said: "I saw Ma Yi (Religious Affairs director) walking in the passage holding the female believer's hair with his hands. They also slapped my face and made me sign a confession that they had already written out."
 
Question: "Did you sign?"
 
Answer: "If I didn't sign, they would beat me. It was all forced."
 
The presiding judge said to the witness: "Step down." Then he asked the judge to read a transcript of an interrorgator who came to the church to question the elder Zhang Doe:
 
Question: "What position do you hold in the church?"
 
Answer: "I am the elder of the church."
 
Question: "Is Li Baozhi a believer in your church?"
 
Answer: "Since leaving the church in 1993, she has not been our congregant."
 
Question: "Do you know whether Li Baozhi participates in the 'All Ranges' cult?"
 
Answer: "After she left the church what she participated in had nothing to do with us."
 
Question: "Are the "Morning Light" and "the Key to the Mountain" confiscated from her books from your church?"
 
Answer: "Believers read the Bible, and there are no other church books."
 
After reading, the lawyer immediately produced a receipt showing that the book was sold by the church, and handed over to the court an  audit report regarding the elder Zhang Doe's serious economic problems.
 
The presiding judge was obviously a little impatient. He took out the notice from the Ministry of Public Security instructing the Provincial Public Security Department to investigate Li Baozhi's cult and read one section. The lawyer pointed out that this notice only ordered an investigation, and there was no conclusion. It did not say that Li Baozhi was a cultist. The Municipal Public Security Bureau designated Li Baozhi as a cultist solely because she had the name of Ma Yanling from Weihai, which is not right.
 
The presiding judge said the court would now hear final arguments.
 
The lawyer said: "In the above trial process, the appellee never produced any piece of evidence that Li Baozhi participated in a cult. China is constantly improving its legal system and has signed the the United Nations' 'Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' and the 'Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.' It is hoped that the court's adjudication will be just and this Christian will be given a clean slate."
 
The appellee stated: "The nature of the cult is anti-government. The characteristic of anti-government is that it does not comply with the administration of the "Three-Selfs." Although the State allows believers to gather in their own homes, they are limited to their own homes. We believe that Li Baozhi's treatment was legal."
 
The lawyer immediately pressed the question, since it was a disturbance of social order, she would only be fined a fine of less than 1,000 yuan, and she should not be re-education through labor.
 
The presiding judge interrupted the lawyer's speech and announced that the court had listened extensively to the opinions of the appellant and appellee. A judgement would be rendered after review and discussion, and the court trial had concluded.
 
3.
 
On October 23, 2001, before dawn, Li Baozhi's son and I went to the Anshan Railway Station to visit his mother in the correctional home. At this time, the sky was already bright. Although the weather was fine, the sun was shining, and there were no clouds in the sky, my mood was always heavy. I couldn't stop thinking about the scene of the court hearing on the 18th. Why did the public security agency not have any evidence, and rely solely on a higher-level public security agency's co-investigation notice to sentence our sister to two years of reeducation through labor? Why was an elderly sister who is a mother subjected to humiliation and beatings? Why is normal religious life being tarred as a cult?
 
The train moved forward rhythmically. Sister Li Baozhi’s son had gotten up too early and so took a nap on a small table. This child who had lost his mother's love did not have a job after graduation. His father was an honest man working as a gatekeeper at a factory. His mother was arrested. His father was always afraid and did not dare to appear in court. He is the only one who travels between Shenyang and Anshan every month taking with him the warmth of the brothers and sisters in the church.
 
At nearly ten o'clock in the morning the train pulled into Shenyang Station. We took a bus in front of the square to the suburbs, and then we changed to a small bus going to the Masanjia Correctional Institution 30 kilometers away from the city.
 
There is no high-walled electrified fence and no armed police standing guard. The sign says "Ideological Education Base of Liaoning Province." Two security guards sat in the front room. We greeted them and entered the gate of the "base."
 
After entering the gate and walking a long way, we came to the First Brigade of the Reeducation-through-Labor Women's Institute where Sister Li Baozhi was located. After negotiating with the police, the police promised that we could see Sister Li Baozhi. At about 12 noon, Sister Li Baozhi was taken to the canteen by a "captain" who did not wear a police uniform and handed her over to the female policeman in charge of the canteen. The policewoman pointed to the table where we were sitting, and Li Baozhi came over. She is not a tall woman, she had a round face, and her small eyes showed a gentle joy. I hurried forward, held her hand, and hurriedly introduced myself, and said: "I am a brother from Beijing. I was invited by your church and entrusted by our brothers and sisters in Beijing to come to Anshan to participate in your appeal court hearing. I am here to visit you today."
 
At this time, I noticed that Sister Li Baozhi's eyes were welling up. My hand is held tightly.
 
I asked Sister Li to sit down and told her in detail the whole process of the hearing at the Anshan Intermediate Court on October 18. When she heard that the lawyer went all out to ask the other party for evidence of Li Baozhi's involvement in a cult, but the other party still could not produce it, Li Baozhi said: "I did not appeal on behalf of myself. I suffered and was beaten for the Lord. I can bear it.  But to call the Lord’s church a cult, I will never agree to that."
 
I asked Sister Li Baozhi: "Have they beaten you?"
 
Answer: "I was beaten in the Religious Affairs Office of the Public Security Bureau, but I was never beaten in the correctional center. Ma Yi from the Religious Affairs Office came to the correctional center and threatened me twice."
 
I said to Sister Li, "Would you please tell me about the assault in the Public Security Bureau?"
 
Answer: "Very well. On November 11, 2000, I was arrested during a gathering and detained in the Religious Affairs Office on the eighth floor of the Public Security Bureau. That night, I heard the screams of two brothers, Hou Rongshan and Sun Dexiang, accompanied by the sound of electric shocks, and two sisters were beaten by them that night. Sister Zhang Yaru was taken to the hospital for resuscitation that night and then brought back to the Public Security Bureau, and the used handcuffs on sister Niu Zhongfang."
 
Sister Li Baozhi cried and couldn't speak anymore. I put some food in Sister Li's bowl and let her calm down.
 
Sister Li went on to say: "They handcuffed Sister Niu's hands to the heating pipes, and her feet were tied. The hateful thing is that the policemen sat on Sister Niu's body and shocked Sister Niu's upper body and the soles of her feet with electric batons. In the second half of the night, they used a small rope to tie the sister's shoulders, so that the sister vomited blood, they forced her to confess that I once said, "The church cannot be saved", and when we gathered I cried and danced. Sister Niu was tortured like this just because she would not say anything. Since you came you can go and ask about it."
 
I nodded. Then I asked: "How did they treat you?"

Answer: "They also used electric shocks, slapped my face, and slapped my mouth. The interrogators knew that I had a heart condition and had prepared a box of rescue medicine for me. Religious Affairs Office Director Ma Yi also said: 'Do you know what fascism is?' the implication was to let me know that he was a fascist, so all I could do was succumb. I was held for a month without confessing, and then I was interrogated for three days and two nights, and I was not allowed to sleep, and my hands were handcuffed until I could no longer bear it. In my delirium, they wrote out a statement and had me sign it without letting me read the contents, and even said: 'You can only revise it, you can't rewrite it. So just sign it!'"

Time passed quickly, and our visit with Sister Li was over.
 
Saying goodbye to Sister Li Baozhi, we walked out of the door of the labor camp.
 
Liu Fenggang, a Christian from Mainland China, now living in Beijing.

 

我所了解的辽宁省鞍山市李宝芝“邪教”一案的事实和经过

刘凤钢

生命季刊 第20期 2001年12月

    亲爱的主内弟兄姊妹,在这里我向您述说一件事情。在辽宁省鞍山市,一些主内弟兄姊妹因为在家中聚会,结果三个弟兄姊妹被劳动教养,很多弟兄姊妹被罚款,罪名是“邪教”。说我们弟兄姊妹是邪教,仅仅因为在某个人(可能公安部门认为他是邪教的)的通讯录上有我们一个姊妹的名字和上级公安机关要求协查的通知。这些主内弟兄姊妹否定自己是“邪教”,他们已通过复议、诉讼、上诉等法律途径为自己申辩,目前正在上诉之中。详细过程如下。
 

 
    辽宁省鞍山市铁西区绿化街有所基督教堂,有信徒二千多人,1993年信徒不满“三自会”违背信徒心愿,安排有严重经济问题的长老张XX和被天主教开除的四品神甫史XX到本堂担任会长和秘书,一部分信徒离开了教堂。大家自己在家中聚会,学习圣经。
 
    2000年11月11日,正当众弟兄姊妹在钮中芳家聚会时,一些鞍山市公安局的警察到来,将聚会的弟兄姊妹带到鞍山市公安局宗教科,对弟兄姊妹进行审讯。
 
    事后得知,聚会的主持人李宝芝姊妹以前曾和威海的一个叫马燕玲的有过接触,曾为儿子工作的事情找过马燕玲,见过一、两面。马燕玲可能被认为是“全范围教会”的,或者与“全范围教会”有关,到现在大家也不知道马燕玲是什么样一个人。只是在马燕玲的通讯录中有李宝芝的名字。为此,公安局认定这些弟兄姊妹的聚会也是“全范围教会”。这些弟兄姊妹从来没有听说过什么“全范围教会”,他们的聚会完全是按照正统的基督教方式聚会的,大家在一起学习圣经,从来没有什么邪的歪的。我们曾与这些弟兄姊妹交谈过,大家对异端、极端的宗教活动也是持批评态度的。
 
    可是这些警察就是认定这些弟兄姊妹的聚会是“全范围教会”,是“邪教”;对这些弟兄姊妹采取了“法西斯”式的手段,刑讯逼供,屈打成招。打嘴巴、拳打脚踢、“上小绳”、木棍打、竹竿抽、电棍、烤电等,用了各种刑罚,因有弟兄姊妹的材料,我这里不再细说。最终,2000年12月25日鞍山市公安局以参与“全范围”邪教活动为名,将李宝芝姊妹劳动教养两年,孙德荣、侯荣山两位弟兄各劳动教养一年,并对众多弟兄姊妹予以罚款,少的一两千元,多的三四千元。
 
    李宝芝姊妹、孙德祥和侯荣山弟兄对此不服,2001年2月20日向省劳动教养委员会申请复议;2001年3月19日,省劳动教养委员会以非法组织邪教活动为名维持劳动教养的决定。李宝芝姊妹对此不服,到鞍山市立山区人民法院提起行政诉讼,2001年7月20日,鞍山市立山区人民法院以“原告的行为完全违背了《辽宁省宗教事务管理条例》,严重干扰了我市正常宗教生活秩序,造成较坏影响”为由,维持劳动教养的决定。李宝芝姊妹对此不服,到鞍山市中级法院提起上诉。

 
    为此,本人,刘凤钢,北京一个普通的基督徒去鞍山参加了这次旁听。
 
    鞍山市中级人民法院坐落在鞍山市中心广场的西北角的北侧,开庭时间是2001年10月18日,下午一点,我按时来到法院的大门前。大门口有三四个信徒仰头张望,我问他们是来参加李宝芝开庭的吗?他们说是,我和他们上了三楼,到了三楼一看,整个楼道内,已站满了参加旁听的信徒,有一百多人。过了一会儿,律师来告诉大家,因座位太少,改在四楼第六审判厅,大家到了四楼,大家安静地站在通道两侧,以免影响楼里的办公。大概又过了十分钟,传出因该厅还是小,只能容下20多人旁听,律师不同意,又去找院方联系。最后改在二楼能容下 100 多人的大厅。大家进了大厅,旁听席上座无虚席。
 
    在公堂上,上面有三个位子,左边坐着一个男审判员,右边坐着一个女审判员,中间的审判长还没有来。书记员也还没有来。上诉代理人、律师郝庆华和刘朝东坐在右侧,上诉人李宝芝姊妹没有来,警方称警力不够,李宝芝不能到庭。被上诉代理人,公安局一处的马义和另一个警察坐在左侧。
 
    一点四十分,书记员和审判长先后来到。审判长宣布开庭,他先让书记员宣读了一下法庭纪律,然后由他宣读了法庭程序,又问了上诉人和被上诉人是否要求法庭审判人员回避。然后,让上诉代理人、律师郝庆华代替上诉人李宝芝宣读上诉书。
 
    上诉书申明:(一)上诉人从来也没有参加过“全范围教会”,不能因为某通讯录上有上诉人的姓名就认定上诉人参加“邪教”。劳动教养决定书、劳动教养复议决定书、鞍山市立山区人民法院行政判决书都没有提供上诉人参加的“邪教”活动的事实和证据。(二)劳动教养决定书、劳动教养复议决定书以邪教活动为由对上诉人进行处罚,而一审法院却以与邪教无关的《辽宁省宗教事务管理条例》来作为依据维持处罚,两者相互矛盾。(三)一审法院判决认定原告“大声哭泣和跳灵舞”违背了《辽宁省宗教事务管理条例》严重扰乱社会秩序,是与事实不符的,上诉人没有这些行为。
 
    被上诉人称,我们对李宝芝的处理是按照公安部有关下发的绝密文件作出的,不能出示,在法律程序上是合理的,请法庭维持原判。
 
    律师发言问:“在你们侦察李宝芝参与‘邪教’组织,有没有真凭实据?是否是因为她家中有《上山之钥》和《晨光》这两本书。”
 
    警察称:“我们判李宝芝劳动教养是因为她扰乱了社会秩序,不是因为这两本书。”
 
    律师再次请警察举出李宝芝参与“邪教”的证据。
 
    警察称:“在我们抓获李宝芝等人时,他们正在组织信徒又哭又笑,跳灵舞。”接着,警察念了某某某的口供材料。
 
    这时律师请求审判长传证人到厅。审判长问:“你们的证人能证明李宝芝没参加邪教吗?”
 
    律师说:“被上诉代理人认定李宝芝参加邪教,应由他们拿出证据,我的证人只能证明他们被抓的那天,他们没有又哭又笑,也没有跳灵舞这件事。”
 
    审判长沉思一会儿,同意传唤证人。
 
    证人某某某姊妹来到厅上,审判长一字一句地说:“你的证词是负法律责任的。”
 
    我们的姊妹说:“我知道。”
 
    律师问证人:“你和李宝芝是什么时候开始从教堂出来办家庭教会的?”
 
    答:“是1993年,教堂打仗(方言:打架)时出来的。”
 
    问:“你知道‘全范围教会’吗?”
 
    答:“不知道。”
 
    问:“李宝芝与你们聚会时是又哭又笑又跳吗?”
 
    答:“没有。”
 
    审判长又请警察(被上诉代理人)问证人。
 
    警察上来第一句就问:“你们的聚会点是经过政府批准登记的吗?”
 
    答:“不知道。”
 
    问:“你家离这么近,为什么到很远的家庭聚会?”
 
    答:“大教堂,家庭聚会我都去。”
 
    问:“你们聚会时没哭过吗?基督徒不要打谎话。”
 
    答:“是没哭过。”
 
    审判长令该证人下去。律师又叫上来一位信徒,审判长用同样严厉的语调告之:“你的言辞,要负法律责任。”之后,由律师问话:“请你把被抓当天的情况讲一下。”
 
    这位信徒说:“我们被抓后,都分别关在公安局八楼宗教科不同的房间内,他们对我们进行拷打,房间里时常传出叫喊声。”
 
    律师问:“是哭声?是喊声?”
 
    答:“是被打发出的喊叫声。”
 
    律师说:“继续说。”
 
    信徒说:“我看到马义(宗教科长)用手抓着女信徒的头发在通道里走,他们还扇我的脸,让我在他们写好的供词上签字。”
 
    问:“你签了吗?”
 
    答:“我不签,他们就打,全是他们逼的。”
 
    审判长对证人说:“下去吧。”然后请审判员念一份法院到教堂询问长老张XX的笔录:
 
    问:“你在教堂担任什么职务?”
 
    答:“我是教堂的长老。”
 
    问:“李宝芝是你们教堂的信徒吗?”
 
    答:“自从1993年离开教堂就不是我们的信徒了。”
 
    问:“李宝芝参加‘全范围’邪教,你知道吗?”
 
    答:“她离开教堂,参加什么,跟我们无关。”
 
    问:“从她那里收缴的《晨光》、《上山之钥》是你们教堂的书吗?”
 
    答:“信徒除了读《圣经》,都不是教会的书。”
 
    念完后,律师立即出示,此书是教堂卖过的书的发票,而且交给法庭有关长老张XX有严重经济问题的审计报告。
 
    审判长明显有些不耐烦了,拿出了公安部责令省公安厅协查李宝芝邪教的通报,念了一遍,律师指出,此通报只下令协查,并没有结论,并没有说李宝芝是邪教,市公安局仅凭李宝芝有威海马燕玲的名字,就定为邪教,这是不对的。
 
    审判长说,现在法庭最后陈诉。
 
    律师说:“以上审理过程,被上诉人始终没有拿出一条李宝芝参加邪教的证据,我国正在法制轨道上不断健全,又在联合国签署了《经济、社会、文化权利公约》和《公民权利和政治权利公约》,希望法庭公正审理,还基督徒一个清白。”
 
    被上诉人称:“邪教的本质是反政府,反政府的特点是不服从‘三自’的管理,国家虽然同意信徒在自己家里聚会,只限于在自己的家里,我们认为,李宝芝的处理是合法的。”
 
    律师紧接着逼问,既然是扰乱社会秩序,也只处罚1000元以下罚款,也不应劳动教养。
 
    审判长打断了律师的讲话,宣布法庭在广泛地听取了上诉人和被上诉人的意见,经核议后择日宣判,法庭审理结束。
 

 
    2001年10月23日,天还没有亮,我与李宝芝的儿子来到鞍山火车站一起到教养院看望他的母亲。这时候天已经大亮,虽然天气很好,阳光明媚,万里无云,但我的心情总是沉甸甸的。18日法院庭审的场面,总使我挥之不去。为什么公安机关没有任何证据,只凭一张上级公安机关的协查通知,就判我们姊妹两年劳动教养?为什么已为人之母的老姊妹惨遭侮辱和殴打?为什么正常的宗教生活,却被打成邪教?
 
    列车有节奏地前行着。李宝芝姊妹的儿子,因起的过早,扒在小桌上小睡。这位失去母爱的孩子,毕业后没有工作,父亲是一个老实巴交的人,在一家工厂看大门,母亲被抓,父亲一直很怕,开庭时也没敢到庭。每个月只有他,带着教会弟兄姊妹的温暖往返于沈阳和鞍山之间。
 
    将近上午十点,列车驶进了沈阳车站,我们在广场前乘坐一辆公共汽车到了郊区,然后,换乘一辆小公共汽车到了离市区30公里远的马三家教养院。
 
    这里没有高墙电网,也没有武装警察站岗,牌子上写“辽宁省思想教育基地”,门前屋里坐着两个保安,同他们打了招呼,就进了“基地”大门。
 
    进了大门,走了很长一段的路,我们来到李宝芝姊妹所在的劳动教养女所一大队。经过与警察交涉,警察答应我们可以见李宝芝姊妹。中午12点左右,李宝芝姊妹被一名没有穿警服的“队长”带到食堂,交给了管食堂的女警察。女警察指了一下我们坐的桌子,李宝芝走了过来,她身材不高,圆脸盘,不大的眼睛里露出温和喜乐,我快步上前,握住她的手,忙自我介绍,说:“我是北京来的弟兄,受你们教会的邀请,和我们北京的弟兄姊妹的委托来鞍山参加您的申诉庭审的,今天特来看望您的。”
 
    这时我发现李宝芝姊妹的眼睛湿润了。我的手被握得很紧。
 
    我请李姊妹坐下,详细地向她讲述了10月18日鞍山中级法院开庭的全过程。当她听到律师为她全力以赴追问对方拿出李宝芝等参与邪教的证据,对方始终拿不出来时,李宝芝讲:“我上告不是为了我自己,我受苦挨打,是为了主,我可忍受。但把主的教会说成是邪教,我决不答应。”
 
    我问李宝芝姊妹:“他们打过你吗?”
 
    答:“在公安局宗教科打过我,在教养所没有打过我,宗教科的马义到教养所威胁过我两次。”
 
    我对李姊妹说:“请把在公安局被打的事情讲述一下好吗?”
 
    答:“好。2000年11月11日,我在聚会中被抓,关押在公安局八楼的宗教科,五个人关在不同的房间内,当天晚上,我听见侯荣山、孙德祥两弟兄的叫喊声,伴随着电击声,还有两个姊妹当晚被他们打得很厉害,张雅如姊妹当晚被送到医院抢救后又带回公安局,钮中芳姊妹被他们用手铐┅┅”
 
    此刻李宝芝姊妹哭着说不下去了。我往李姊妹碗里夹了菜,让她平静一下。
 
    李姊妹接着说:“他们用手铐将钮姊妹的双手分别铐在暖气管上,双脚被绑,可恶的是那些警察们坐在钮姊妹的身上,用电棍电击钮姊妹的上身和脚心,后半夜用小绳勒姊妹的双肩,直打得姊妹口吐鲜血,硬逼着她交代我曾说过‘大教堂不得救’,和我们聚会的时候,哭过跳过。钮姊妹就是不说,才如此被折磨。你这次来,可以去问问。”
 
    我点了点头。然后我问:“他们是怎么对待您的。”
 
    答:“他们也同样用电击,扇耳光,扇嘴巴,审讯人员知道我有心脏病,给我准备了一盒抢救药。宗教科长马义还说:‘你知道什么是法西斯吗?’言外之意,让我知道他就是法西斯,让我只能屈服。我被抓了一个月没有口供,然后对我连提审三天两夜,不让我睡觉,两手被铐得让人难以忍受,在我神志不清的情况下,做笔录,不让我看内容就签字,还说:‘我只能轻写,不能重写。你就签了吧!’”
 
    时间过得很快,我们和李姊妹的见面结束了。
 
    告别了李宝芝姊妹,我们走出了劳教所大门。
 
 
 
刘凤钢  中国大陆基督徒,现居北京。

Monday, March 22, 2021

Translation: The Writings of Ilham Tohti Deemed "Separatist" by China's Courts

On September 23, 2014, the Intermediate People’s Court of Urumqi found defendant Ilham Tohti guilty of separatism in the (2014) Wu  Intermediate Criminal First Instance No. 100 Criminal Judgment, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property. See: Ilham Tohti Criminal Judgment as Summarized by the Supreme People's Court. In its summary of the judgment, the Supreme People's Court cited three articles used as evidence  against Tohti in his trial:

  • The article "A Group of Han Students Assaulted Uyghur Students at the Central University for Nationalities," which it said "maliciously created ethnic tension."
  • The "Summary of Typical Cases of Deprivation and Violation of the Freedom of Religious Belief of Xinjiang Uyghur People," which it said "libeled the Chinese government as engaging in long-term repressive suppression and restriction of religious freedom in Xinjiang, and infringing on legal religious rights" and "aggressively attacked China's ethnic and religious policies."
  • The article "The 6.26 Incident and the Myth of Multi-ethnic Harmonious Coexistence," which it said  attacked the government, distorted the truth, and incited ethnic hatred. 

In order to provide context for Ilham Tohti's conviction, translations of what is believed to be those articles are provided below. The original Chinese language sources for these articles were:

A Group of Han Students Assaulted Uyghur Students at the Central University for Nationalities

Time: 2013/04/26 Column: News Editor: admin

Uyghur Online Newsletter (Correspondent Tömür)

On the 24th, a group of Han students beat Uyghur students at the Central University for Nationalities. A Uyghur student was severely injured.

A Uyghur student from the Central University for Nationalities revealed to Uyghur Online that on the 24th a Uyghur student named Maimatijiang was beaten by four Han roommates in the dormitory. Maimatijiang was severely injured. He is now receiving treatment in the hospital. His eye was severely injured and the doctor said that he might be permanently blind.

It is understood that the victim was a student from the Uyghur Language and Literature Department of the Central University for Nationalities, and the perpetrators were Han students from the Uyghur Language and Literature Department. There were eight people in the dormitory, all of whom were students from the Uyghur Language and Literature Department. Four of them were Uyghur students. The other 4 people were Han nationality. On the 24th, the two sides had a quarrel in the dormitory and four Han students beat Maimatijiang. The other three Uyghur students in the dormitory were not there at the time of the incident. Four violent Han students were taken away by the police. Three of them were released and one was still in the police station.

The Department of Uyghur Language and Literature of the Central University for Nationalities began to recruit Han students beginning in 2011. The classes these Han students attend are separate from ordinary students in the Department of Uyghur Language and Literature. They are called "level zero classes." However, these Han students live together with the Uyghur students.

It was reported that after the incident, a counselor at the Uyghur Language and Literature Department hid the violent Han students and tried to conceal the evidence at the scene. As a result, the scene of the crime was disturbed. The counselor also sheltered three other Han students and said, "If anyone asks about it, just say that you were breaking up a scuffle."

After the incident, the emotionally excited Uyghur students of the Central University for Nationalities asked the school to deal with the incident and punish the perpetrators, but the school has not yet given a convincing explanation or disposition. It is reported that the Central University for Nationalities is worried about group conflicts between Uyghur and Han students and strictly blocked the news.

According to another source, on the 22nd, about 30 Han students ganged up on a Uyghur student at Beijing Jiaotong University.

In fact, these two cases are not isolated cases. In recent years, Uyghurs in the Mainland have been beaten from time to time, including Uyghur merchants doing business in the Mainland. The Uyghur students at the Central University for Nationalities were beaten until they were seriously injured one day after the "Bachu Incident." It is currently not clear whether this incident is related to the "Bachu Incident."

Uyghur Online Report: The Current Status of Uyghur Religious Freedom

Time: 2013/03/09 Column: Yiliham Tohti

A Brief Discussion of the Status Quo of Religious Freedom of the Uyghur Ethnic Group

Uyghur Online Report

Ilham Tohti, Erhat

[Abstract]: In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang authorities regard religious beliefs as "disharmonious factors," and in the name of stopping "illegal religious activities," they have strengthened their religious control and pressure on Uyghurs. This approach of the authorities has long been met with dissatisfaction and opposition from Uyghurs. These practices and policies of the Xinjiang authorities have created antagonisms between the Uyghurs and the government, and has intensified the conflicts between Uyghurs and Han. Many Uyghurs have always been dissatisfied with the authorities' policies, but due to the general environment, they dare to be angry but dare not speak out. While the policies of the Xinjiang authorities seem to have played a deterrent effect, in fact these policies are accumulating dissatisfaction among Uyghurs. If the Xinjiang authorities continue this extreme religious policy, even if it will not cause strong resistance from Uyghurs for the time being, in the long run it will deepen the barriers between ethnic groups and deepen the dissatisfaction of Uyghurs, which may eventually lead to a series of resistance and conflicts with Uyghurs.

[Keywords]: Uyghurs, religious freedom, restrictions

China is a multi-religious country. Chinese religious believers mainly believe in Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Christianity. According to incomplete statistics, there are more than 100 million believers of various religions in China, more than 85,000 venues for religious activities, about 300,000 religious clerics, and more than 3,000 religious organizations.[1]

Chinese officials say that citizens can freely choose, express their beliefs, and show their religious identity. In the "Constitution of the People's Republic of China," freedom of religious belief is a basic right of citizens. Article 36 of the Constitution stipulates: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China have freedom of religious belief." "No state agency, social organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in or not to believe in a religion, or discriminate against citizens who believe in religion or citizens who do not believe in religion." "The state protects normal religious activities." It also stipulates: "No one may use religion to engage in activities that disrupt social order, harm the health of citizens, or hinder the national education system." "Religious groups and religious affairs are not subject to the domination of foreign powers."[2]

China's "Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law," "General Principles of Civil Law," "Education Law," "Labor Law," "Compulsory Education Law," "People's Congress Election Law," "Village Committee Organization Law," "Advertisement Law," and other laws also stipulate that citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, have the right to vote and to be elected; the legal property of religious groups is protected by law; education is separated from religion, and citizens regardless of religious beliefs have equal opportunities to receive education in accordance with the law; people of all ethnic groups must respect each other's language, customs, and religious beliefs; citizens shall not be discriminated against in employment because of different religious beliefs; advertisements and trademarks must not contain content that discriminates against ethnic groups or religions.

However, for a long time the restrictions on, and suppression of, religion by the Xinjiang authorities has become more prominent and serious. The Xinjiang authorities’ restrictions on Uyghurs’ freedom of religion and their own local regulations and policies are contrary to China’s Constitution, relevant laws and regulations, and China’s ethnic policies.

1. The Current Situation of Restrictions on the Religious Freedom of the Uyghurs

In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, religious control and suppression policies against Uyghurs have existed for a long time. The Xinjiang authorities regard religious beliefs as "disharmonious factors" and in the name of stopping "illegal religious activities", they have strengthened their religious control over, and pressure on, Uyghurs. Since the "July 5 Incident," the Xinjiang authorities have strengthened restrictions on the religious freedom of Uyghurs, and the religious freedom situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has rapidly deteriorated. In recent years, the Xinjiang authorities have continuously strengthened their religious suppression, and their religious control policies have been continuously upgraded. The Xinjiang authorities' religious suppression has increased in breadth and depth.

As the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’s religious control policies continue to escalate, it not only restricts Uyghurs from growing beards and wearing headscarves, but also links these policies with the ability to enjoy subsistence allowances, and prohibits non-governmental organizations from the Hajj, and strictly restricts the number of Hajj. Only government personnel can go to Hajj. The authorities also forced individual employees of private enterprises to sign a pledge that interferes with citizens’ freedom of religious belief. Forcing employers and employees in some places in Xinjiang to sign a guarantee banning fasting, including that they and their relatives are not allowed to participate in Ramadan activities, and offenders will be expelled from public office. It also organized Ramadan stability maintenance teams at the village and county levels to strictly check gatherings and religious activities during Ramadan. In addition, Communist Party cadres are assigned to be stationed in mosques, mosques are subjected to official interviews every week, and the government stipulates the content of the Friday sermons.

As the Xinjiang authorities stepped up their religious pressure, there were even serious violations of human rights that prohibited women wearing veils from entering public places such as hospitals, state agencies, and shopping malls. In addition, the Xinjiang authorities have also strengthened the investigation and punishment of youths in the Uyghur Autonomous Region who participate in religious activities. They have not only strengthened the atheism education for Uyghur youths in schools, but also adopted compulsory measures such as requiring students to sign a pledge not to participate in religious activities. It is not uncommon for Uyghur college students to be warned, suspended, or even expelled from school because of their worship.

In recent years, the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has also seen strong suppression and dilution of people’s freedom of religion. For example, in December 2011, Dunmaili Street in Yining City launched a propaganda campaign called "Reduce Religious Consciousness, Advocate a Civilized and Healthy Life," the goal of which was to "completely eliminate" local ethnic minority women and young people wearing clothing with obvious Islamic colors (such as long robes or black clothing, etc.) and "abnormal phenomena" such as men growing long beards and people going about veiled. In addition, in the Uyghur Autonomous Region inspections of mosques and other religious venues are extremely strict. If minors are found entering the mosque, the Imam and the person in charge of the mosque will be punished.

In addition, the Xinjiang authorities have also delineated 26 manifestations of "illegal" religious activities. The content, which already violates the  Constitution and laws, includes: unauthorized editing, translation, publishing, printing, copying, distribution, sale, ​​and dissemination of illegal religious publications and audio-visual products; using the Internet and mobile phones to spread religion; using satellite receivers to watch overseas religious radio and television programs; going abroad for Hajj without authorization; and accepting religious donations from foreign organizations or individuals.

Such unilateral and extreme local policies issued by the Xinjiang authorities not only violate the Constitution and related laws, but also seriously violate the human rights of the Uyghurs. Such extreme practices by the Xinjiang authorities continue to arouse dissatisfaction among Uyghurs.

2. Restrictions on the Religious Freedom of the Uyghurs are Different from those for other Muslims

In the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, the Xinjiang authorities have stepped up religious suppression, but other domestic Muslims will generally not be subject to such restrictions and suppression. Take the Hui Muslims in the Hui area as an example. Although the inland Hui people are also facing a series of problems such as the Hajj, there are not as many restrictions on religious activities of inland Hui Muslims as there are in Xinjiang. For example, inland Hui Muslims will not be forced to eat during Ramadan; the airports and other public venues in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region have worship rooms exclusively for Muslims; and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region also has Islamic Banks. Compared with Turkic Uyghur Muslims, the treatment of Hui Muslims in terms of religion is relatively relaxed, and the religious atmosphere and religious policies in the Uyghur region cannot be compared with the Hui regions.

In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the Xinjiang authorities’ regulations on restricting religious freedom appear to target Uyghurs. Muslims such as Kazakh, Kirgiz, and Hui in Xinjiang do not face such restrictions.

3. The Impact of Restrictions on Uyghur's Religion

The Xinjiang authorities have been taking the wrong path on religious issues, and they have moved further and further to the left. All kinds of measures to strengthen restrictions and suppress religious freedom have put significant pressure on people of faith, and there is a strong correlation between these policies and many of mass incidents in Xinjiang in recent years.

China's State Administration of Religion recently issued a letter saying that it prohibits the use of administrative orders to deal with religious issues, and that simple and brute means cannot be used when with people of faith and believers. Nevertheless, in the Uygur Autonomous Region the use of administrative orders to deal with religious issues in a simple and brutal manner has become the modus operandi of the Xinjiang authorities.

In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the Xinjiang authorities regard religious beliefs as "disharmonious factors" and strengthen their religious control and pressure on Uyghurs in the name of stopping "illegal religious activities." This approach of the authorities has long been met with dissatisfaction and opposition from Uyghurs. These practices and policies of the Xinjiang authorities have created antagonisms between the Uyghurs and the government, and intensified the conflicts between Uyghurs and Han. Many Uyghurs have always been dissatisfied with the authorities' policies, but due to the general environment, they dare to be angry but dare not speak out. While the policies of the Xinjiang authorities seem to have played a deterrent effect, in fact these policies are accumulating dissatisfaction among Uyghurs. If the Xinjiang authorities continue this extreme religious policy, even if it will not cause strong resistance from Uyghurs for the time being, in the long run it will deepen the barriers between ethnic groups and deepen the dissatisfaction of Uyghurs, which may eventually lead to a series of resistance and conflicts with Uyghurs.

At the same time this is happening, the Xinjiang authorities are wantonly suppressing the religious, cultural, and political life of Uyghurs, which has caused anger and dissatisfaction among Uyghurs. If the Xinjiang authorities continue to restrict the freedom of religious belief of the Uyghurs, continue to suppress and marginalize Uyghurs, and Uyghurs cannot obtain channels to express their dissatisfaction, it may prompt more Uyghurs to become radicalized, and some Uyghurs may resort to violence. A series of incidents in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in recent years have proved this point.

4. Conclusion

In real life, due to the special cohesive power of faith, Islam has penetrated into all aspects of Uyghur culture. Uyghurs have believed in Islam for thousands of years. Uyghurs’ ideology, historical legends, language, literature and art, architecture, sculpture, astronomical calendar, medical techniques, etc. are all deeply imprinted with Islam. At the same time, Islam has also become an important element of Uyghur psychology. Islam has been deeply immersed in the spirit of the Uighur people over the course of its long history. Therefore, Islam is not only a belief for the Uyghurs, but also a part of the Uyghur ethnic culture and way of being, to the point of being a way of life.

But at present, the policies adopted by the government of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to suppress freedom of religious belief and some local policies are not only disrespectful to Uyghurs and their culture, but also violate China's Constitution and related laws. Xinjiang authorities use of a series of brutal means to deal with Uyghurs, restricting and suppressing the religious freedom of Uyghurs, is inconsistent with the country's ethnic and religious policies.

In today's world, the trend  in the international community is to protect the rights of ethnic minorities. "The protection of the rights of ethnic minorities is not only an issue of human rights and development in the world today, but also an issue of the unity, stability, and world peace of sovereign states. 3] In the international community, the content of ethnic minority rights is more extensive and specific. In addition, all sovereign countries have strengthened their legislation to protect the rights of ethnic minorities. Today, when the protection of the rights of ethnic minorities has become a trend, the Xinjiang authorities' restrictions and suppression of Uyghurs in all aspects, including religion, runs counter to this trend.

Therefore, in summary, the Xinjiang authorities should stop restricting Uyghurs’ peaceful religious activities, stop their gross interference in Uyghurs’ traditional religious activities, respect the Constitution and relevant laws and regulations, and allow all people with religious beliefs throughout the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, including Uyghurs, to have the right to freedom of worship as stipulated in the Constitution and related laws.

Reference Materials:

1. Hu Xingdong, "Trends in the Protection of Minority Rights in the International Community," Journal of Yunnan University for Nationalities, Vol. 23, No. 4, July 2006.

2. "Overview of Religions in China": Government Portal of the PRC (http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-06/22/content_8406.htm).

3. "Uyghur Online" website (uighurbiz.net).

[1], [2] "Overview of Religions in China": Government Portal of the PRC (http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-06/22/content_8406.htm)

[3] Hu Xingdong (Trends in the Protection of Minority Rights in the International Community)

Supplement: An Overview of Typical Cases of Deprivation and Violation of the Freedom of Religious Belief of Xinjiang Uyghurs

Author: Ilham Tohti

Respecting and protecting freedom of religious belief is a long-term basic policy of the government of China in dealing with religious issues. As a citizen’s right, freedom of religious belief is guaranteed by the Constitution and laws.

As an autonomous ethnic group in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, almost all the people believe in Islam. According to the Constitution, they should have the right to freedom of religious which should not be subject to interference by any organization or individual.

Religion occupies a very important position in Uyghur culture and in the daily life of Uyghurs. Since the 1950s, the Xinjiang government has attempted to eliminate the ethnic consciousness, culture, and religious heritage of the Uyghur people. The government has adopted various measures to interfere with Uyghur's religious freedom. For a long time, authorities have interferred in the religious rights of Uyghurs, and Xinjiang authorities have imposed religious pressure on Uyghurs and other religious people on the grounds of cracking down on “illegal religious activities” to restrict their legal religious rights. The deprivation and violation of the freedom of religious belief of Uyghurs in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region can be summarized as follows:

1. The Formulation of Unconstitutional Local Policies and Regulations

As defined in Article 26 of the "Illegal Religious Activities," this provision violates the relevant provisions of the "Constitution" on religious freedom. See the link for details: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/10660.

2. Prohibitions on Prayer

Prayer is one of the five pillars of Islam, and one of the religious obligations that believers must fulfill. In addition, Islam recommends that children be familiarized with prayer at the age of seven and begin praying at the age of ten.

There is a warning sign in front of every mosque in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region: State officials, party members, league members, people under 18, and women are prohibited from entering the mosque to engage in religious activities. (See photo below)

 


Photo: Minors and school students are not allowed to enter

In addition, local departments in Xinjiang also prohibit believers from praying in public places. The picture below is a "warm reminder" formulated by the Xinhe County Health Bureau: Naimazi (prayer) and reciting scripture are prohibited in public places.




(An announcement from Kezhou People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.)

In addition, there has never been dedicated spaces for prayer in government departments, public security departments, schools, hospitals, various business halls, and office spaces in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. This is very inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, and it can be said that the right of believers to engage in religious activities is not respected at all.

Case: Two students from Shisanhu Village, Samuyuzi Village, Yining County, entered the mosque to worship. The authorities imposed punishment on the Beizhuang Mosque and the people involved. (News link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/7167)

3. Interference in Fasting

The ninth month of the Islamic calendar is Ramadan. According to the teachings of Islam, every healthy adult Muslim must fulfill the obligation of fasting (from dawn to sunset) during this month.

Cases:

1) According to the Associated Press report on August 3, 2012, several municipal, county, and township governments in Xinjiang posted orders on their websites to prohibit or prevent members of the Communist Party of China, civil servants, students, and teachers from fasting during Ramadan. The official explanation is that they are prohibited from fasting for health reasons. (Associated Press: China Prevents Uighur Muslims from Fasting http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/4414)

2) The content of the notice issued by the Akto County Discipline Inspection Commission on August 21, 2009: Party members, cadres, public officials (including retirees), and school students are strictly prohibited from participating in religious activities such as fasting. Once the participants are investigated and punished, they will be dealt with strictly. No exceptions will be tolerated. Party members will be expelled from the Party regardless of whether they are in office or retired, public officials will be fired, and "the four seniors" will lose their qualifications as "the four seniors." Notice on the Supervision of Social Stability Work and the Compliance with Political Discipline by Party Members and Cadres During the "Ramadan" Period (http://www.swdj.gov.cn/10017/10051/10002/2009/736326.htm)

3) Xinjiang authorities forced Uyghur restaurant to open during Ramadan (News Link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/1879) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130901201323/http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/1879]

4. Restrictions the Freedom of Believers to Dress

According to Islamic rules, except their hands and feet, women's bodies, including their hair, are "intimate." They are not allowed to be seen by any man except their biological parents and their husband. They must wear a veil or a hijab when they go out. Uyghur Online’s commentary believes that the religious implications of Uyghur women wearing a headscarf and wearing a veil have some similarities, but wearing a veil is more focused on pursuing a religious belief, whereas wearing a headscarf is more focused on pursuing a kind of beauty, and the religious implications have taken a back seat.

However, various departments in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region restrict women’s freedom to dress in different ways and discriminate against women wearing veils. For example, the slogan of a certain place in Xinjiang: Women wearing veils and giribafu costumes are not welcome in Baghchi Town.





Kashgar City Library prohibits women wearing headscarves, veils, and shawls from entering the library.

(Photo note: There is a discrepancy between Uyghur and Chinese in the picture. The Uyghur says: Those wearing a headscarf, wearing a veil, and wearing a shawl are prohibited from entering the library.)

A hospital in Xinjiang stipulates that people wearing veils, people wearing giribafu costumes, and people under 45 with long beards are prohibited from entering. Worship is prohibited in the hospital.

The Xinjiang authorities also regarded wearing a veil as having an influence on "modern civilized society" and openly discriminate against women who wear a veil. Women wearing veils are forbidden to ride in cars, and they are also forbidden to enter hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and homes for the families of state units. Insurance companies and other units refuse to handle business for women wearing veils.

(Slogan: Ladies, women, please lift the veil, please don't influence modern civilized society, the photo location is Urumqi.)

(Photo note: There is a discrepancy between Uyghur and Chinese in the picture. The Uyghur text says: Please lift your veil when you get on the bus and do not influence modern civilized society. The location of the photo is not specified.)

Case:

1) Kashgar prohibits those wearing headscarves and shawls from entering the library. (http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/10229) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130528194900/http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/10229]

2) A street in Yining, Yili Prefecture, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region launched a campaign to "dilute religious consciousness" to eliminate "abnormal phenomena" such as local ethnic minority women and teenagers wearing Arab costumes, the growing of long beards, and going about veiled. (News link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/1743) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130831050346/http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/1743]

5. Restrictions on Believers Studying Religious Knowledge

In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, except for the very few places designated by the government to study religious knowledge, other places for religious study are designated as "illegal" places for teaching scriptures. Moreover, the government-designated religious knowledge study sites are for the purpose of training Imams (religious affairs personnel of mosques), and ordinary people cannot enter to study.

In addition, local authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, especially southern Xinjiang, have recently begun conducting searches for religious books, and some places even confiscated the Islamic classic "Quran." Uyghur Online reported on January 13 that according to locals, a Yingjisha County government department used the pretext of offering condolences to conduct a search of the homes of some families, remove all books and pictures relating to Islam, and record the number of worshippers in the homes. (http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/7123)

Related Cases:

1) A Uyghur teenager was arrested for studying the Quran and died mysteriously in a detention center (News Link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/3193)

2) Yining People's Court sentenced 7 Hui citizens to three to four years in prison for "using superstition to undermine law enforcement." (News Link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/6924)

3) In Yining County, Uyghur Autonomous Region, Muslim children went to a mosque over the holy period (an event to honor the Prophet). After learning this news, the deputy county magistrate called all the Imams of the mosque to hold a meeting and conducted a Cultural Revolution-style struggle session. (News Link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/9727) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130306031954/http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/9727]

6. Limits on Hajj

Hajj is one of the basic tenets of Islam that all believers must abide by. Every adult Muslim who is financially and physically capable has the religious obligation to worship in Mecca.

There are many restrictions on Uyghur Muslims’ Hajj in Xinjiang, and the regulation of passports and cracking down on unorganized Hajj are the most important factors. (Related news: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/9002) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130831101915/http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/9002]

7. Forbidding Young People Under 18 to Participate in any Form of Religious Activities, While Schools Conduct Atheism Education

Case: Keqikebulake Primary School in Samyuzi Township, Yining County, Uyghur Autonomous Region issued the "Notice of Legal Provisions for Parents, Teachers and Students Not Allowed to Participate in Religious Activities," prohibiting students from participating in religious activities (News Link: http://www. uighurbiz.net/archives/8732)

 

8. Mandatory Imposition of Policies to Dilute Religious Consciousness

Case 1: A street in Yining, Yili Prefecture, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region launched a campaign to "dilute religious consciousness" to eliminate "abnormal phenomena" such as local ethnic minority women and teenagers wearing Arab costumes, the growing of long beards, and going about veiled. (News link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/1743 [https://web.archive.org/web/20130831050346/http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/1743])


(Screenshot of Yining Government Network.)

Case 2: In order to dilute the religious atmosphere and purify religious activities, Hotan City prohibited veiled women from entering shopping malls and prohibits shopping malls from selling religious clothing and audio-visual products. (News Link: http://www.uighurbiz.net/archives/3535) 


The 6.26 Incident and the Myth of Multi-Ethnic Coexistence

2009-07-01 23:05:29 Author: yarkant Source: Uighur Online

The conflict now appears to have been carried out according to a plan. Originally, it was rumored that it could be resolved after investigation, but no one thought that the matter would turn into a violent conflict. There were many doubts about it.

At present, it can be seen from video and other related materials that a factory in Shaoguan was already in a state of anarchy when the conflict occurred. This gave some extremists the opportunity to kill and loot, and there was no evil that was beyond them. It cannot be ruled out that there will be more ethnic vendettas between Uyghur and Han in the future. This is also the most serious conflict that has erupted since the Xinjiang government organized Uyghur rural laborers (most of whom are unmarried Uyghur women from rural areas) to work in Han areas, and this conflict is likely to continue in other areas. Similar conflicts have occurred between the Uyghur and Han nationalities in the past, but this time the conflict is different. It almost always happens in circumstances where Uyghur migrant workers come to a local area where they have no ties. This inevitably makes me think that these conflicts are all manipulated behind the scenes by a Han extremist organization or force. We have found that the 6.26 incident was more organized than the previous "conflicts." The people involved in the incident were quickly organized, held similar weapons and sticks, and brutally beat Uyghurs at the scene.

But no matter who is behind the organization of these conflicts, their goals have obviously been achieved, and much has been destroyed. Violence against individual ethnic groups is unacceptable. The Uyghur online webmaster issued a statement on the day of the incident, calling on Uyghurs to remain calm and restrained, and refrain from making remarks and statements that intensify contradictions. No one was expecting the 6.26 incident. I was like all kind people in being psychologically unprepared for this. Uyghur online webmaster Ilham Tohti said: This incident will change our thinking. The attack on the Uyghur ethnic group in Shaoguan was intended to "cleanse" and was a signal for Uyghur migrant workers to leave Shaoguan and other Han areas. One cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the violence was racially motivated. He also said that the local government has the responsibility to protect the rights of everyone. The Xinjiang local government’s policy of large-scale export of Uyghur rural labor to the inland is done for, as people’s lives are being taken in a most tragic way.

At present, Uyghurs have not held a funeral for the deceased (perhaps political interests require that the local government does not allow the funerals, or requires they be held in secret). However, people believe that even at the funeral, what they will hear will be how bad those mainlanders are, and how they should not respond to the government's call to send their children to the far-off lands of the Han... The anger in people's hearts may never subside. The events that took place on 6.26 highlighted the choice faced by the Uyghur people, either to build a society based on the values ​​of tolerance, democracy, and national autonomy, or to live in chaos and suffering.

To quote Ilham Tohti's speech on the 27th:

Suppose that “Xinjiang people stole from the Xuri factory in Shaoguan many times, and the first rape case occurred on June 14. After the victim reported the incident to the factory, the Xinjiang rapist was only fired. There was another rape just a few days later. A female worker in the dormitory area was forcibly dragged into the dormitory by Xinjiang people and raped. The Xinjiang people were released after being detained for only a few days after the incident. It seems that they can be exempt from legal controls. The matter had not subsided when a third rape occurred again. When the case was reported to the security department, the security department refused to accept it."

These statements are true, and the subsequent reaction and mob behavior was simply a crime against the innocent Uyghur criminals!

"In the end, all the Han Chinese could no longer stand it. At around 22:00 on June 25, dozens of people rushed to the Xinjiang people's dormitory with iron rods to beat the Xinjiang people. As soon as the violence broke out, the Xinjiang people also brought out regulated knives to fight. The number of Han people increased from dozens of people at the beginning to more than 300 people. Every Han person was desperate to retaliate against the Xinjiang people. Many Xinjiang people broke through the fences and fled back to the mountains. This continued until three o'clock in the morning when the anti-riot team arrived and fired their guns. The anti-riot team had about 20 military cars and more than 30 police cars. Dozens of people from both groups were seriously injured. According to reports, several Xinjiang people died! The scene was a mass of wolf thorns, with semi-human-sized pools of blood in dozens of places. There are more than 100 dormitory windows broken in the dormitory area, and the fire extinguishers in four dormitories had been taken down to use in the fight, and each dormitory had a total of 7 floors. There were about 200 steel bars scattered on the ground. More than one hundred fire extinguishers were all beaten up and dented. No one could sleep that night. Many people who had just entered the factory and summer workers packed up their bags and left. At 6 o'clock we were near the factory entrance and noticed a Xinjiang person sneaking out. By that time, it seemed that in addition to the factory workers, everyone in the surrounding neighborhoods understood the evil deeds of the Xinjiang people. All the men present surrounded him and beat him, pummeling him with bricks like basketballs! We hadn't been beating him 20 seconds when the anti-riot team rushed to the scene, and when we heard the police we scattered. The Xinjiang guy who had been beaten had fallen down in a pool of blood. It took over 100 sanitation workers in the dormitory area of ​​the Rising Sun Factory two hours to wash away the bloodstains. Lanjz Published on 2009-6-26 17:03 ”

What happened with these Han people? Should the crime of one person (assuming that the situation of reposted by the moderator was true) be borne by all Uyghur migrant workers in the factory or by all Uyghurs? Is it true that "every Han person was desperate to retaliate against the Xinjiang people" even "a Xinjiang person sneaking out" wasn't let go and "all the men present surrounded him and beat him, pummeling him with bricks like basketballs!" To the point where "The Xinjiang guy who had been beaten had fallen down in a pool of blood. It took over 100 sanitation workers in the dormitory area of ​​the Rising Sun Factory two hours to wash away the bloodstains."

What is the logic? A racial vendetta?

———————

According to the information released by the government in the last two days, the alleged rape of Han girls by Xinjiang people was purely a rumor! But can we conclude from this that the cause of this incident is entirely due to a rumor?

Beijinger Yang Jia killed several policemen in Shanghai. Many Han people supported him online and offline, and even regarded him as a hero in their hearts. A Han surnamed Zhou in Shache County, Xinjiang (where he is still a teacher) molested several Uyghur girls, and  when the incident was posted on the Internet by Uyghur Internet users (Xinjiang is the most severely blocked area in China, especially for Uyghurs), there were still many Han people making "cynical remarks." I don’t know how many murders, arson, robberies, rapes...etc. happen every month in Han society? Why haven't we seen mass vendettas due to the different ancestral homes of the "criminals." The reason is simple, they are all Han people!!

So why did the Shaoguan incident (I call it the 6.26 incident) turn into a vendetta against the Uyghurs because of "rumors"? There were  rumors of a large-scale ethnic vendetta among two ethnic groups in Kosovo. It was later confirmed that there was an organization behind the rumors and it was all premeditated. So what is hidden behind the 6.26 incident?

I think that the recent blizzards in Guangdong, the natural disasters (earthquakes) in Sichuan, Gansu and other places, as well as the man-made disasters that occur every day in various parts of China, and the vendettas in Shaoguan, have at the very least debunked this myth for us: "That the People’s Republic of China is a paradise for people of all ethnic groups, where society is stable, ethnic groups are harmonious, and there is no ethnic discrimination. Each of the 56 ethnic groups is a flower."

However, as everyone has seen so far, in China's Guangdong, the most typical Han Chinese settlement area, and the so-called most open province in China, under natural and man-made disasters, extremely serious ethnic conflicts have broken out. Is it because they have been whitewashing peace and concealing contradictions in the past? Or is it as the Han people say, "We are all birds of feather who fly our separate ways in the face of difficulties?"

In fact, I think China is just like the Soviet Union, it is something deliberately sculpted by individuals. On the surface, it seems that all ethnic groups are living together in harmony. If there is a foreign attack, all ethnic groups will work together to resist. But the problem is that if the external pressure disappears, the conflicts between various groups and communities will emerge again, and even reach the point of irreconcilability.

For such a country, in order to maintain its own domestic stability, then the managers must find an external pressure. But if this pressure proves to be unreliable or if there are differences in domestic opinions, the conflicts between various groups and communities will suddenly reemerge, and even reach the point of irreconcilability.

Their ethnic unity and friendship are all strategic moves to create conformity to their own ethnic requirements and accomodate their models. Therefore, when you look at these countries' laws regarding ethnic groups, you see the systems never get implemented. On the surface, there is a sense of harmony, but domestically there is mutual suspicion and caution. There is a veneer of unity over a base of division, which is to say there is no confidence in, or ambition for, true respect for all ethnic groups.