Sunday, August 9, 2020

Man Claims He Intended to Insult Republican, Not Communist, Party; Still Gets 5 Days In Jail

 First, a summary of the facts of the case:

  • September 23, 2019: Zhang Zhixiang posted the following statement to a Wechat group: "文明社会,暴政的共匪不会长期存." The English translation of this would be along the lines of "In a civilized society, tyrannical [WORD IN DISPUTE] will not survive for long." More about the "WORD IN DISPUTE" later.
  • September 24, 2019: the Public Security Bureau of Dongzhi launched an investigation and summoned Zhang to the Nixi Police Station for questioning on suspicion that his post had constituted a disturbance of the peace (涉嫌寻衅滋事).
  • November 22, 2019:  the Public Security Bureau of Dongzhi issued an administrative penalty notification to Zhang Zhixiang, informing him of the matters which would be subject to punishment, and asking him whether he wished to submit a statement and defense. Zhang stated he would not make a statement in his defense.
  • November 23, 2019: the Public Security Bureau of Dongzhi issued an administrative penalty decision ordering Zhang to serve five days in administrative detention.
  • January 13, 2020: Zhang filed an appeal with the People’s Court of Dongzhi, Anhui requesting the administrative punishment decision be revoked. 
  • The People’s Court of Dongzhi rejected Zhang's appeal, so Zhang appealed again to the  Intermediate People's Court of Chizhou, Anhui, which also rejected his appeal.

So far there is nothing special about this case.  Arrest and imprisonment by police without trial or legal representation for insulting the Communist Party of China and its leaders is so commonplace that this case would normally not warrant any particular comment. Nor is it unusual for those who are jailed by the police for their speech to file an appeal in court. And they almost always lose. See, for example "At Least 10 People Convicted in China in 2019 for Twitter Posts that "Disturbed the Peace."

What makes this case noteworthy is Zhang's basis for requesting the courts revoke the Public Security Bureau's punishment. Here is how the People’s Court of Dongzhi summarized it:

Because the New Rural Cooperative Medical Insurance Company failed to reimburse plaintiff Zhang Zhixiang in a timely manner after he suffered from a malignant tumor of the right kidney, he posted inappropriate political statements like "In a civilized society, tyrannical  [WORD IN DISPUTE] will not survive for long" on the "B-Side Observation Group 1" (344 people in total) which was clearly illegal and constituted other acts of disturbing the peace. Plaintiff argued that the remarks he posted on the Internet had nothing to do with the governing party or government of China, and that what was online referred to the Republican government of the United States.

本案原告张志祥因患右肾恶性肿瘤后新农合医保未能及时报销,在“B彼岸观察1群”(共344人)的微信群里,发布了“文明社会,暴政的共匪不会长期存在”的不当政治言论,其行为明显违法,构成其他寻衅滋事行为。原告辨称其在网上发布的言论与本国政党政府无关,网上所指是美国共和党政府。

And here's how the Intermediate People's Court of Chizhou, Anhui summarized it (this time apparently with Zhang referring to himself in the first person):

I was referring to the current United States President and Republican Party leader Donald Trump's government's supporting "Hong Kong Independence" activists, damaging "One Country Two Systems," bring chaos to my China, and furthering the realization of global hegemonism. The statements I posted online had nothing to do with China's governing party or government, and what was online was referring to the United States Republican Party government. 

指的是现任美国总统共和党领袖特朗普政府支持“港独”分子,破坏“一国两制”,乱我中华,从而实现世界霸权主义。本人在网上发布的言论与本国政党政府无关,网上所指是美国共和党政府。

Zhang's argument had some basis, at least from a purely linguistic perspective. He was claiming that the word "共匪" refers to "Republican Bandits" and not "Communist Bandits." There no dispute that the second character "匪" refers to "bandits." So the only question is whether the first character "共" could possibly refer to "Republicans."  

As the screenshot below shows, in Chinese "Republican Party" and "Communist Party" share the same first character - "共." 

So the word "共匪" could, in theory, refer to either "Republican Bandit" or "Communist Bandit."

Unfortunately for Zhang, neither court was prepared to accept this argument. The odds were always against Zhang, because the term "共匪" has a long history of being used to refer to the Communist Party of China. Historical roots for the term "共匪" go back to the Kuomintang government in the 1920s, and Chiang Kaishek used that term several times in his book "Soviet Russia In China" - (苏俄在中国). 

Even today the term is censored on PRC websites. For example, this screenshot shows that Baidu will not even provide a translation for the term.

Baidu also tells users of its "Postbar" (Tieba) social media product who search for that term "Apologies, in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, related search results cannot be displayed." (抱歉,根据相关法律法规和政策,相关结果不予展现)
And searches for the term on Baidu's search engine only return results from websites under the direct control of the central government.
As for the judgment in Zhang's case, as of the posting of this article it appears to have been removed from the Supreme People's Court judgment database. As this screenshot shows, it was originally available at this URL: https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?docId=0b19bd66a0024fc4a2bcabec004072a6.

Here is how that page appears now.

I have pasted the full text of the judgment below.

安徽省池州市中级人民法院
行 政 判 决 书
(2020)皖17行终31号


上诉人(一审原告)张志祥,男,1964年2月28日出生,汉族,住安徽省池州市东至县。

被上诉人(一审被告)东至县公安局,住所地安徽省东至县政务新区至德大道,统一社会信用代码113418210032868681。法定代表人陆骏,局长。

上诉人张志祥与被上诉人东至县公安局因治安管理行政处罚一案,不服安徽省东至县人民法院(2020)皖1702行初2号行政判决,向本院提出上诉。本院依法组成合议庭审理了本案。本案现已审理终结。

一审法院经审理查明:原告张志祥系安徽省池州市东至县泥溪镇河庙村王畈组村民,2019年1月25日因(右侧)肾恶性肿瘤在安徽医科大学第一附属医院住院治疗,2019年1月30日行腹腔下右肾根治性切除术,2019年2月4日出院。2019年9月23日池州市公安局网安支队在网安工作发现,原告张志祥以网民“东方不亮西方亮”在微信群称其近几日准备办出入证到香港去,并发表:“文明社会,暴政的共匪不会长期存在”等言论。池州市公安局网安支队将该涉嫌违法线索交由东至县公安局予以核查。2019年9月24日东至县公安局泥溪派出所接警后,以原告张志祥涉嫌寻衅滋事依法履行了受案、调查,并将原告张志祥传唤至泥溪派出所进行了询问。2019年9月25日,被告东至县公安局对原告张志祥涉嫌违法行为载体华为畅享8手机一部予以扣押保全。2019年9月26日被告东至县公安局在泥溪财政分局依法调取原告张志祥病情相关材料。2019年11月22日被告东至县公安局向原告张志祥作出行政处罚告知笔录,对拟处罚事项向其进行告知,并征询其是否提出陈述和申辩,原告张志祥在笔录上表示不陈述申辩。期间、因案情复杂,被告决定延长办案时间三十日。2019年11月23日被告东至县公安局作出东公(泥)行罚决字[2019]第698号行政处罚决定书,决定对原告张志祥予以行政拘留五日并于2019年11月24日向原告张志祥进行了送达。原告张志祥不服行政处罚决定书,于2020年1月13日诉至一审法院请求撤销东公(泥)行罚决字[2019]第698号行政处罚决定书。

一审法院认为,被告东至县公安局作为地方公安机关有依法维护辖区治安秩序的职责,对寻衅滋事行为作出治安处罚,是其享有的法定职权。《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十六条规定: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;情节严重的,处十日以上十五日以下拘留,可以并处一千元以下罚款:(一)结伙斗殴的;(二)追逐、拦截他人的;(三)强拿硬要或者任意损毁、占用公私财物的;(四)其他寻衅滋事行为。本案原告张志祥因患右肾恶性肿瘤后新农合医保未能及时报销,在“B彼岸观察1群”(共344人)的微信群里,发布了“文明社会,暴政的共匪不会长期存在”的不当政治言论,其行为明显违法,构成其他寻衅滋事行为。原告辨称其在网上发布的言论与本国政党政府无关,网上所指是美国共和党政府。但从原告的询问笔录、“悔过书”、手机存储器中提取电子数据的内容可以看出,原告辩解无任何依据可以支持,故对原告辩解不予采信。被告东至县公安局依据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》的规定履行了受案、传唤、调查、询问、告知、裁决、送达等一系列法律程序,根据原告的违法情节轻重等因素综合作出对原告张志祥行政拘留五日,事实清楚、证据确实充分,适用法律正确,程序合法,处罚适当。综上,原告张志祥请求撤销东公(泥)行罚决字[2019]第698号公安行政处罚决定书的理由不能成立,一审法院不予支持。案经该院审判委员会讨论决定,依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第六十九条之规定,判决驳回原告张志祥的诉讼请求。案件受理费50元,由原告张志祥负担。

张志祥上诉称,上诉人于2019年9月24日以“东方不亮西方亮”的网民在“B彼岸观察1群”发布的言论、内容(21世纪现代文明社会,共匪不亡,天理不容)指的是现任美国总统共和党领袖特朗普政府支持“港独”分子,破坏“一国两制”,乱我中华,从而实现世界霸权主义。本人在网上发布的言论与本国政党政府无关,网上所指是美国共和党政府。故提起上诉,请求二审法院依法确认东至县公安局作出的东公(泥)行罚决字[2019]第698号行政处罚违法,适用法律错误并予以取消(撤销)。

东至县公安局答辩称,东至县公安局依法对上诉人张志祥作出的东公(泥)行罚决字[2019]698号公安行政处罚决定,认定的事实清楚,证据确实充分,适用法律正确,程序合法,量罚适当。东至县人民法院一审判决认定我局对张志祥的行政处罚事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律正确,程序合法,量罚适当,请求二审法院予以维持,驳回上诉人上诉请求,以维护法律的严肃性。需要向二审法院做出说明的是在我局依法对张志祥的违法行为作出处罚后,上诉人张志祥感念东至县公安局泥溪派出所在办理该案过程中对其帮教,于2019年12月17日向东至县公安局泥溪派出所送锦旗一面。但上诉人张志祥在没有新的事实和理由及证据情况下,仅凭自己一时想法提起一、二审行政诉讼,根据最高人民法院印发《关于进一步保护和规范当事人依法行使行政诉权的若干意见》(法发[2017]125号)等法治精神,可以看出上诉人张志祥在没有新的事实与理由,针对同一事项反复、重复提起诉讼,其行为一方面扰乱了正常诉讼秩序,损害了司法权威,另一方面也挤占了有限的司法资源,加大了行政机关依法行政成本,属于典型的滥用诉权行为,不应得到法院支持。
东至县公安局向一审法院提交了下列证据:
1、受案登记表、受案回执,证明被告依法受案;
2、传唤证,证明被告依法传唤违法人员到案调查;
3、行政案件权利义务告知书、行政处罚告知笔录,证明被告依法履行告知义务;
4、证据保全决定书、清单、领条,证明被告依法扣押、返还物证;
5、调取证据通知书及清单,证明被告依法调取张志祥病例书证;
6、延长办案期限审批表,证明被告依照法定期限办理治安案件;
7、张志祥的陈述和申辩,证明张志祥就其违法事实进行了陈述和申辩的事实;
8、冯茂林、高玉芳的证人证言,证明张志祥实施违反治安管理行为的事实;
9、张志祥提供的微信个人信息、B彼岸观察1群截图及实施违反治安管理行为时使用的手机,证明张志祥实施违反治安管理行为的事实;
10、电子证物检验报告及提取的电子证据(详见光盘1张),证明张志祥实施违反治安管理行为的事实;
11、张志祥住院病历书证,证明张志祥因病住院治疗客观事实;
12、张志祥悔过书,证明张志祥实施违反治安管理行为的事实;
13、张志祥违法犯罪记录,证明张志祥在被被告依法做出行政处罚前我局暂未发现其有其他前科记录;
14、张志祥、冯茂林、高玉芳户籍身份信息,证明张志祥等三人身份;
15、行政处罚决定书,证明被告依法对张志祥作出行政处罚决定事实;
16、池州市局网安支队交办函,证明张志祥违法线索来源;
17、附相关法律法规,证明被告依法对张志祥作出行政处罚决定相关法律依据。
上述证据材料均随案移送本院,二审中双方均未提供新证据,一审法院对证据的审核与认定符合法律规定,本院予以确认。
本院认为,公安机关有依法对违反治安管理的违法行为进行行政处罚的法定职责。本案中被上诉人对上诉人通过网络发表不当政治言论,借故生非,污蔑和诋毁中国共产党和人民政府,扰乱社会秩序的违法行为,依法进行受案、传唤、查证、告知、处罚、送达等程序,对上诉人的违法行为作出行政处罚,认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,处罚适当,程序合法。上诉人上诉认为其在“B彼岸观察1群”发布的言论、内容指的是现任美国总统共和党领袖特朗普政府支持“港独”分子,与本国政党政府无关,其辩解与事实不符,其上诉理由不能成立。对上诉人此辩解一审判决已充分阐述不予采纳的理由,二审不再赘述。据此,依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第八十九条第一款(一)项之规定,判决如下:
驳回上诉,维持原判。
二审诉讼费用人民币50元,由张志祥负担。
本判决为终审判决。
审判长 桂 群
审判员 叶光氢
审判员 钱跟东
二〇二〇年六月二十三日
法官助理陈利华
书记员田玉
附相关法律法规:
《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》
第八十九条人民法院审理上诉案件,按照下列情形,分别处理:
(一)原判决、裁定认定事实清楚,适用法律、法规正确的,判决或者裁定驳回上诉,维持原判决、裁定;
(二)原判决、裁定认定事实错误或者适用法律、法规错误的,依法改判、撤销或者变更;
(三)原判决认定基本事实不清、证据不足的,发回原审人民法院重审,或者查清事实后改判;
(四)原判决遗漏当事人或者违法缺席判决等严重违反法定程序的,裁定撤销原判决,发回原审人民法院重审。
原审人民法院对发回重审的案件作出判决后,当事人提起上诉的,第二审人民法院不得再次发回重审。
人民法院审理上诉案件,需要改变原审判决的,应当同时对被诉行政行为作出判决。

Translation: Xu Zhiyong's Statement in His Own Defense

 Source: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/694913.html China Digital Times: On April 10, 2023, Xu Zhiyong, a well-known human rights de...