Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts

Friday, July 9, 2021

The 7.09 Prosecutions: Zhai Yanmin Trial Testimony Transcript

 No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin

Trial Transcript

[Judgment Citation Unavailable]


****

Translator's Summary: On August 2, 2016, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin published a series of three posts on its verified official Sina Weibo microblog under the title "Zhai Yanmin Case First Instance Tried in Open Court in Tianjin" (翟岩民案一审在津公开开庭审理). This text is taken from those three posts. https://weibo.com/3919910570/E1G3g1Dbn, https://weibo.com/3919910570/E1GP0h3UO, and https://weibo.com/3919910570/E1GXojrJE. The court found Zhai guilty. Zhai told prosecutors who questioned him in court that he met Hu Shigen as member of the unregistered "Ahavah Covenant Church," and that he had no "anti-party and anti-government ideas" until Hu "brainwashed" him.

****

Prosecutor: Since 2012, have you made any statements on the Internet to subvert state power?

Defendant: I have made such statements.

Prosecutor: Did you ever join the Ahavah Covenant Church?

Defendant: I did join that.

Prosecutor: Who "baptized" you?

Defendant: Hu Shigen.

Prosecutor: What kind of church is this?

Defendant: The "church" is actually an unregistered church. Hu Shigen used the time during meals at the "church" to hold group discussions, and told us about the ideology of pushing the wall and made reactionary statements, and indoctrinated the church's so-called disciples.

Prosecutor: Who is in the "church"?

Defendant: There are some lawyers like Li Heping, and then there are people with reactionary thoughts, people who are dissatisfied with society, the government, and the Party. Hu Shigen gathered these people together and used them. This church instilled ideas in us in order to achieve the purpose of his "three major thoughts" and "five major transformations" plan in an attempt to overthrow the Party's leadership.

Prosecutor: Do you agree with the ideas Hu Shigen preached to you and the other religious people?

Defendant: I agreed at that time.

Prosecutor: Did Hu Shigen talk to you about paying attention to sensationalizing hot-button cases and the remarks that triggered street protests?

Defendant: He talked about that.

Prosecutor: Did you pay attention to the sensationalizing?

Defendant: I paid attention.

Prosecutor: Did anyone else pay attention to the sensationalizing?

Defendant: Yes. Wu Gan and others.

Prosecutor: What is the relationship among these people?

Defendant: They were divided into several circles. The first was the "Die Hard Faction" lawyers led by Zhou Shifeng, this was the "lawyer" circle, such as Zhou Shifeng, Wang Quanzhang, Liu Doe, and so on. Then there was another circle called the "church" circle. Wu Gan is the online promoter, and used the Internet to do some Internet sensationalizing, attracting everyone's attention, and attracting the attention of people who shared common ideas. Li Heping accepted funds from abroad, and he was a circle. There was also the "petitioner" circle, so a total of four circles. When there was nothing happening we would seem to be independent. As soon as an incident occurs, we would get in touch with one another and sensationalize together. Someone would make a post, Internet users would follow it, and some shouted and erected banners at the scene to confront the government.

The defense counsel questioned the defendant.

Defense Counsel: During the investigation, did the public security agency torture you to extract a confession?

Defendant: No.

Defense Counsel: Was your confession voluntary?

Defendant: It was voluntary.

Defense Counsel: Did you have anti-party and anti-government ideas before you met Hu Shigen?

Defendant: No, he brainwashed me.

Defense Counsel: During the "Seven Flavor Grill" process, the host presided over the entire meeting and spoke according to Robert's Rules of Order. According to the seating position, you should be the first to speak. Why did you not speak?

Defendant: On that occasion, my status was relatively low, and I also felt that I didn't have much knowledge, so let others talk about it first.

Defense Counsel: What remarks did you make in the end?

Defendant: Regarding the "workers" strike, I said that we should pay more attention to it, find some people with experience in resistance and let them join the "workers" movement group to strengthen their courage.

*********************
Prosecutor: At noon on February 1, 2015, there was a gathering at the "Seven Flavors Grill" restaurant. Did you participate?

Defendant: I participated.

Prosecutor: Who called the gathering?

Defendant: We had a "church" activity that day. After the event, Hu Shigen told me and Ge Ping (Gou Hongguo), please have a meal. I didn't know Ge Ping's real name. There were four people from the church, and Hu Shigen, Jiang Doe, Zhang Doe and others.

Prosecutor: What did you say during the gathering?

Defendant: We must pay attention to the "labor" movement. We should put some people who have had experience in resistance into the "labor" movement to give them strength and courage.

Prosecutor: What was the topic you discussed during the gathering?

Defendant: How to strengthen the "labor" movement and the sensationalization of sensitive cases.

Prosecutor: Did you agree with these two topics?

Defendant: I agreed at that time.

Prosecutor: Did Hu Shigen mention the "three major factors" that would subvert state power at the gathering?

Defendant: He mentioned it, and he also mentioned the "five major plans."

Prosecutor: Did other people who attended the gathering agree with Hu Shigen's views?

Defendant: I think I agreed.

Prosecutor: What kind of gathering do you think "Seven Flavors Grill" was?

Defendant: On the surface it was a meal, but in fact it was a gathering of "Die-Hard Faction" lawyers and representatives of the "church," like Hu Shigen, petitioners, and leaders of various circles. They were summing up some sensitive issues from 2014. They were still discussing, strategizing, and planning the direction for 2015. The goal of those people was to sensationalize sensitive cases and pay more attention to some "labor" movements. All these ideas were thinking of ways to overthrow the leadership of the Communist Party.
*********************
Prosecutor: In March 2014, Tang Doe and four others were administratively detained by the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang Agricultural Reclamation Area in Heilongjiang for disrupting social order, which is what you call the "Jiansanjiang Incident." Did you participate in and sensationalize this matter?

Defendant: I participated in and sensationalized it.

Prosecutor: In May 2014, ten people, including Yu Doe, were investigated by the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou, Henan in a case of disturbing order in public venues. This is what you called the Zhengzhou "Ten Gentlemen" incident. Did you participate in and sensationalize it?

Defendant: I participated in and sensationalized it.

Prosecutor: In December 2013, a person named Fan Mugen in Suzhou, Jiangsu, stabbed two people to death who were engaged in a demolition and was sentenced to eight years in prison for intentional injury.  Did you participate in and sensationalize it?

Defendant: I participated in and sensationalized it.

Prosecutor: In May 2015, in the waiting room of the railway station in Qing'an County, Heilongjiang, a person named Xu Chunhe was shot dead by a police officer for assaulting a police officer during the performance of their official duties in accordance with the law. This is what you call the "Qing'an Incident." Did you participate in and sensationalize this matter?

Defendant: I participated in and sensationalized it.

Public prosecutor: The Intermediate People's Court of Weifang, Shandong tried Xu Yonghe's corruption case in accordance with the law, made a final judgment and sentenced Xu Yonghe to ten years in prison. Did you participate in and sensationalize this case?

Defendant: I participated in and sensationalized it.

Prosecutor: Do these cases and incidents have anything to do with you?

Defendant: They have nothing to do with me.

Prosecutor: What did you do when you sensationalized the "Jiansanjiang Incident?"

Defendant: After I went there, I was appointed by Xiang Doe as the on-site commander to maintain order on the scene.

Prosecutor:  You were responsible for the scene?

Defendant: Correct.

Prosecutor: Did you publish a blog post about the "Jiansanjiang Incident" on the Internet?

Defendant: I published one.

Prosecutor: Have you ever said that Jiang Doe, who was detained, was a "righteous person who resolutely opposes dictatorship and tyranny in pursuit of democratic constitutionalism?"

Defendant: I have said that.

Prosecutor: What did you do to sensationalize the Zhengzhou case?

Defendant: There was Liu Xing, myself, and one other person. Zhang Doe called me and told me to go to Zhengzhou. We went to Zhengzhou from Guangzhou. The next day they called and asked me to go to a place called the Xiaoji Noodle Shop, and there were 7 or 8 people including Wu Gan, Zhang Doe, and Ma Doe. They discussed how to handle the Zhengzhou "Ten Gentlemen" incident and appointed me to be the overall coordinator on the scene at the Zhengzhou Third Detention Center.

Prosecutor: What were you responsible for?

Defendant: I was also responsible for order and organizing a hunger strike. There were some things I couldn't arrange, and they had a "coordination group."

Prosecutor: After the incident, did you sensationalize the case online?

Defendant: I seem to have posted "The Zhengzhou authorities brutally cleared the scene, illegally arrested and detained people. The wicked will be brought down by their own wickedness."

Prosecutor: After the "Qing'an Incident" what did all of you do?

Defendant: Liu Xing, myself, and some others assembled some petitioners, we contacted some petitioners, and sent about a dozen of them out in three batches. Before going, Liu Xing told me that these people were petitioners who had no money, and could use some help with some money. So we got some money for the petitioners.

Prosecutor: Where did Liu Xing and the others go?

Defendant: To the train station, and held up some A4 paper which had pre-printed "I am a petitioner, shoot at me."

Prosecutor: Did you post Weibos on the Internet such as "You can kill me because you have a gun; you can say that I attacked the police because you have the final say; you can do things your way because you are cruel; you can oppress because you have prisons. I want to fight with my life"?

Defendant: That was a repost, it was posted on my Weibo.

Prosecutor: In sensationalizing the case of Fan Mugen did you publish blogs online with content such as "Witness how the Suzhou authorities brutally 'govern the country according to law'" and "This is evil clamoring again"?

Defendant: That was reposted.

Prosecutor: What did Liu Xing and others do in the Weifang case?

Defendant: Erected banners there and shouted slogans.

Prosecutor: Just now you said that these cases had nothing to do with you. Why did you organize petitioners to gather together to commit affrays and interpose yourselves and sensationalize these cases?

Defendant: After failing in business, I was dissatisfied with the government. In addition, I joined Hu Shigen's church and brought some people into the church, in  order to achieve a strengthening of civic power. I was also influenced by Hu Shigen, who instilled in me how to achieve big things, causing average people to take to the streets and causing the international community to intervene. These cases were brought to fruition because of Hu Shigen's guiding ideology, and his thoughts were reflected in his actions. In these incidents, I felt that I was a pawn of Hu Shigen, and I became their accomplices.

Prosecutor: Are all your statements during the investigation phase true?

Defendant: They are true.

The Defense Counsel questioned the defendant.

Defense Counsel: You were the coordinator on the scene in the "Jiansanjiang" and Zhengzhou incidents. Did you take the initiative to do that?

Defendant: I was appointed by Xiang Doe. During a meal, Xiang Doe told me to act as on-site commander. When I was in Zhengzhou, Wang Doe appointed me.

Defense Counsel: Does the coordinator have the right to decide what happens at the scene?

Defendant: No. Banners and T-shirts must be submitted to the "coordination group," and the people in it must get their approval before they can make this decision.

Defense Counsel: Did you contact Liu Xing in the Fan Mugen incident?

Defendant: He contacted me.

Defense Counsel: When you were contacted were you clear about the "Fan Mugen Incident?"

Defendant: I wasn't clear.

Defense Counsel: Did you benefit from these incidents?

Defendant: Seventeen to eighteen thousand yuan. Ten thousand yuan was for the "Weifang incident," and I gave it all to Liu Xing. The "Zhengzhou incident" provided a subsidy of 2,000 yuan because I was detained. My sister and brother-in-law went to Zhengzhou to get me out on bail, and the Zhengzhou "coordination group" gave me another two thousand yuan. The "Jiansanjiang incident" gave me 1,600 yuan.

天津市第二中级人民法院官方微博

公诉人:2012年以来,你在互联网上发表过颠覆国家政权的言论吗?

被告人:发表过。

公诉人:你加入过雅和博圣约教会吗?

被告人:加入过。

公诉人:谁给你“施洗”的?

被告人:胡石根。

公诉人:这是什么教会?

被告人:“教会”实际上是没有注册过的教会,胡石根利用“教会”吃饭的时间,分组讨论的时候,胡石根给我们说一些推墙的思想和反动的言论,灌输给教会的所谓的教徒。

公诉人:“教会”里都有什么人?

被告人:有一部分是死磕派律师,像李和平等,然后还有一些有反动思想的人,对社会、对政府、对党,有不满情结的人,胡石根把这些人纠集在一起,利用这个教会给我们灌输思想,以达到他的“三大思想”,“五大转型”方案的目的,妄图推翻党的领导。

公诉人:胡石根向你和其他教民宣讲的思想,你认同吗?

被告人:当时认同。

公诉人:胡石根是否向你讲过关注炒作热点案事件,引发街头抗争的言论?

被告人:说过。

公诉人:你关注炒作过吗?

被告人:关注过。

公诉人:关注炒作的还有谁?

被告人:有。吴淦等人。

公诉人:这些人之间是什么关系?

被告人:分几个圈。首先是死磕派律师,是以周世锋为首,这个是“律师”圈,像周世锋、王全璋、刘某某等。然后还有一个圈是“教会”圈。吴淦是网络推手,利用网络来做一些网络呼、炒作,引起大家的关注,引起有共同思想的人的注意。李和平是受境外资助,他是一个圈。还有就是“访民”圈,一共四个圈。没事的时候我们好像是独立的,一旦发生事件,我们就会互相联系,共同炒作。有发帖,有网民跟进,有呼喊的,在现场拉横幅,和政府作对。

辩护人对被告人进行发问。

辩护人:侦查过程中,公安机关对你是否有刑讯逼供了

被告人:没有。

辩护人:你的供述是否是出于自愿?

被告人:是出于我的自愿。

辩护人:你在认识胡石根之前是否有反党反政府的思想?

被告人:没有,他给我洗脑。

辩护人;在“七味烧”过程中,主持人主持整个会议中,根据罗伯特会议规则发言,根据座次你应该是第一个发言,你为什么没有发言?

被告人:在那种场合,我的地位比较低,再加上也觉得自己没有什么知识,先让别人说了。辩护人,最后你又发表了什么言论?

被告人:关于“工人”罢工的,我说要多关注,找一些有抗争经验的人让他到“工人”运动的群里面,壮大他们的胆量。
********************
公诉人:2015年2月1日中午,在“七味烧”餐厅有一次聚会,你参加了吗?

被告人:参加了。

公诉人:聚会谁召集的?

被告人:我们那天做“教会”活动,活动之后,胡石根跟我说,戈平(勾洪国)请吃饭,我当时不知道戈平的真名,教会一共去了四个人,还有胡石根、姜某某、张某某等人。

公诉人:聚会中你说了什么话?

被告人:我们要关注“劳工”运动,我们要把一些曾经有抗争经验的人安插到“劳工”运动中,给他们壮大力量和胆量。

公诉人:聚会时你们讨论的主题是什么?

被告人:如何加强“劳工”运动和敏感案事件炒作。

公诉人:这两个话题你认同吗?

被告人:当时是认同的。

公诉人:胡石根在聚会上是否提出颠覆国家政权的“三大因素”?

被告人;提到了,也提到了“五大方案”。

公诉人:其他参加聚会的人对胡石根的观点认同吗?

被告人:我觉得认同。

公诉人:你觉得“七味烧”是一次什么样的聚会?

被告人:表面上是聚餐,实际上是“死磕派”律师和“教会”的代表,像胡石根,还有访民,各个圈子的领军人物聚在一起,他们在总结2014年的一些敏感案事件,他们还在商量、策划、计划2015年的方向。他们这些人的目的就是炒作敏感案事件和多关注一些“劳工”运动,所有这些思想都是想推翻共产党的领导。
********************
公诉人:2014年3月份,唐某某等四人因扰乱社会秩序被黑龙江省建三江农垦公安局依法行政拘留,即你们所谓的“建三江事件”。这件事情你参与炒作了吗?

被告人:参与炒作了。

公诉人:2014年5月份,于某某等十人因扰乱公共场所秩序被河南省郑州市公安局依法立案侦查,即你们所称的郑州“十君子”事件。你参与炒作了吗?

被告人:参与炒作了。

公诉人:2013年12月份,江苏省苏州市有一个叫范木根的人,因拆迁捅死两人,被法院以故意伤害罪依法判处有期徒刑八年。你参与炒作案件了吗?

被告人:参与炒作了。

公诉人:2015年5月,在黑龙江省庆安县火车站候车室,一个叫徐纯合的人因袭警被依法执行公务的民警击毙,即你们所谓的“庆安事件”。这件事情你参与炒作了吗?

被告人:参与炒作了。

公诉人:山东省潍坊市中级人民法院依法对徐永和贪污案进行审理,做出终审判决,判处徐永和有期徒刑十年。这个案件你参与炒作了吗?

被告人:参与炒作了。

公诉人:以上这些案件、事件和你有关系吗?

被告人:没关系。

公诉人:在炒作“建三江事件”上,你都干什么了?

被告人:我去了之后,被向某定为现场指挥,维持现场秩序。

公诉人:现场是你负责的?

被告人:对。

公诉人:你在网上发过有关“建三江事件”的博文吗?

被告人:发表过。

公诉人:你说过被拘留的姜某某为“坚定的反独裁反暴政追求民主宪政义士”吗?

被告人:说过。

公诉人:在炒作郑州案件上你干什么了?

被告人:我和刘星,还有一个人,张某某给我打了一个电话,说让我去郑州一趟,我们从广州到了郑州,第二天他们就打电话让我去一个叫肖记面馆的地方,当时有吴淦、张某某、马某某等7、8个人,他们商议如何运作郑州“十君子”事件,把我定为郑州第三看守所现场的总协调人。

公诉人:负责什么?

被告人:也是负责秩序,组织大家绝食。有些事情我是定不了的,他们有一个“协调群”。

公诉人:事后,你在网上对该案进行炒作了吗?

被告人:好像发过“郑州当局野蛮清场,非法抓捕羁押,多行不义必自毙”等内容。

公诉人:“庆安事件”发生后,你都干什么了?

被告人:我和刘星几个人召集了访民,联系了一些访民,分三批去了十几个人。刘星在去之前跟我说这些人都是访民没有钱,要不然帮忙弄点钱。于是,为访民弄了一些钱。

公诉人:刘星等人都去了什么地方?

被告人:去了火车站,打出印好的“我是访民,向我开枪”等,用A4纸印的。

公诉人:你在网上发过“你可以把我击毙,因为你有枪;你可以说我袭警,因为你说了算;你可以一意孤行,因为你残暴;你可以打压,因为你有监狱;我要用生命抗争”等微博吗?

被告人:转发,是用我的微博发的。

公诉人:在炒作范木根案上,你在网上发过“见证苏州当局如何野蛮'依法治国'”、“这是邪恶的再次叫嚣”等内容的博文吗?

被告人:转发的。

公诉人:在潍坊案件上,刘星等人都干了什么?

被告人:在那里拉横幅,喊口号。

公诉人:刚才你讲这些案事件跟你没有关系,你为什么组织访民非法聚集滋事,插話炒作这些案件?

被告人:做生意失败后,对政府有不满情绪,再加上入了胡石根的教会,又拉了一部分人进入教会,实现了壮大公民力量。也是受胡石根的,他灌输我如何做大,造成百姓上街,引起国际社会介入。这些案件因为胡石根主导思想完成,也是他的这种思想体现到行动上,这些事件中我感觉到我是胡石根这些人的一个棋子,成为了他们的帮凶。

公诉人:你在侦查阶段的供述都属实吗?

被告人:属实。

辩护人向被告人进行发问。

辩护人:在“建三江”和河南郑州事件中你是现场的协调人,是你主动做的吗?

被告人:是向某指定的。在一次吃饭过程中,向某说让我做现场指挥,在郑州的时候是王某指定的我。

辩护人:协调人对现场发生任何事情是否有决定权?

被告人:没有。做横幅、文化衫都要提交给“协调群”,里面的人最后要大家通过才可以作出这个决定。

辩护人:范木根事件是你联系的刘星吗?

被告人:他联系的我。

辩护人:联系的时候你对“范木根事件”清楚吗?

被告人:不清楚。

辩护人:这几起事件中你是否获利?

被告人:一万七、八千块钱。有一万元是“潍坊事件”的,我全部给刘星了。“郑州事件”发了二千元补助,因为被拘留了。我姐姐和姐夫去郑州给我取保,郑州“协调群”又给了我二千元。“建三江事件”给了我一千六百元。
 

 

The 7.09 Prosecutions: Hu Shigen Criminal Judgment

 No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin

Criminal Judgment

[Judgment Citation Unavailable]


****

Translator's Summary: On August 3, 2016, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin published a series of five posts on its verified official Sina Weibo microblog under the title "Hu Shigen Case First Instance Tried in Open Court in Tianjin" (胡石根案一审在津公开开庭审理). This text is taken from the fifth post in that series: https://weibo.com/3919910570/E1QHv8aNM. The court found Hu guilty on the grounds that he "enlisted people to spread ideologies that subverted state power, and actively cultivated spokespeople and action forces for his subversive concept of 'color revolution,'" "cooperated with others to plan strategies, methods, and means of subverting state power," and "incited and directed others to sensationalize hot-button incidents."

****

Defendant Hu Shigen, male, Han ethnicity, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1955 in Nanchang, Jiangxi, unemployed. On December 16, 1994, he was sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of twenty years and five years deprivation of political rights for the crime of organizing and leading a counter-revolutionary group, counter-revolutionary propaganda, and incitement. He was released on August 26,  2008 he was released upon completion of his sentence. He is currently being held in detention at the Tianjin No. 1 Detention Center.

It was ascertained at trial that:

Defendant Hu Shigen was previously sentenced and criminally punished for crimes that jeopardized national security.  After being released following completion of his sentence he attracted illegal petitioners and a few lawyers with the goal of subverting state power and, using illegal religious activities as a platform, proceeded to spread an ideology that subverted state power. He actively cultivated and developed forces for action, planned subversion of state power with others, proposed strategies, methods, and means of subverting state power, incited and directed others to sensationalize hot-button incidents, and carry out illegal activities to subvert state power and overthrow the socialist order, jeopardizing national security and social stability. The specific facts are as follows:

1. On April 24, 2014, the "Ninth InterEthnic InterFaith Leadership Conference"1 was held abroad. Participants included separatist forces such as "Tibet Independence" and "Xinjiang Independence." In order to launch long-term criminal activities to subvert state power and cultivate talents and leaders of the so-called "non-violent social movement," defendant Hu Shigen assigned Gou Hongguo to participate and receive theory and method training on subverting state power.

2. At noon on February 1, 2015, defendant Hu Shigen participated in a gathering to subvert state power organized by Gou Hongguo at the "Seven Flavor Grill" restaurant in Chaoyang District, Beijing. Zhou Shifeng and Li Heping with the status of lawyers, Liu Moyi, an administrator of the law firm, Liu Doe Jia, a member of an "underground church," and Zhai Yanmin, who had long been illegally organizing petitioners to create disturbances, all participated in the gathering. The individuals at the gathering spoke in turn around a set of topics, and specifically discussed lawyers intervening in "labor movements" in order to have a direct impact on the State regime, and the necessity and feasibility of sensationalizing hot-button issues in order to divide and disrupt the State's political institutions, as well as specific methods and methods of operation. They jointly plotted using the aforementioned channels to promote carrying out a "color revolution" in China, and realize the goal of subverting state power and overthrowing the socialist system. Among them, Hu Shigen systematically elaborated on the "three major factors" and "five plans" of his subversion of state power, and also proposed the use of modern communication methods such as "WeChat groups" to advocate ideologies that subverted state power, and encouraged "uprisings" and other specific strategies to subvert state power. Zhou Shifeng, Li Heping, Gou Hongguo and others also actively plotted and proposed measures to subvert state power measures.

3. On May 2, 2015, Xu Chunhe was shot and killed by the public security civil police in accordance with the law for disturbing the peace, assaulting the police, and theft of police equipment at the train station in Qing'an County, Suihua, Heilongjiang. Defendant Hu Shigen circulated statements that Xu Chunhe was murdered, and proposed people should pay attention to, and show solidarity about, the incident. Under Hu Shigen's instructions, Zhai Yanmin directed others to organize individuals to go to Qing'an County in batches and go to the square in front of the railway station and the front of the county government and raise placards, shout slogans, hand out leaflets, commit affrays, confuse public opinion, attack the government, and incite those who did not know the truth to confront and oppose State agencies.

The aforementioned facts were substantiated by evidence produced and examined during trial as well as documentary evidence, witness testimony, forensic opinions, audio-visual materials, electronic data, and defendant Hu Shigen's statement, all of which have been affirmed by this Court.

In response to the defense opinions put forward by defendant Hu Shigen's defense counsel, based on the facts and evidence ascertained at trial, this Court's determination is as follows:

1. Regarding the opinion that Hu Shigen's role in specific criminal acts and harm to society were relatively minor because (a) Hu Shigen was ignorant of the nature of the "study camp" in advance, that he "introduced" rather than "assigned" Gou Hongguo to participate in foreign training, and did not distribute the materials that Gou Hongguo brought back; (b) the "Seven Flavor Grill Gathering" was not convened by Hu Shigen. The "three factors" and "five plans" put forward by Hu Shigen in the gathering were not specially prepared for the gathering, but were just part of an impromptu speech and (c) Zhai Yanmin’s sensationalization of the "Qing'an Incident" was not done at the direction of Hu Shigen.

This Court finds:

(I) According to Gou Hongguo's witness testimony and defendant Hu Shigen's statement, Hu Shigen knew in advance the nature of the "study camp." Gou Hongguo going abroad to participate in the training was Hu Shigen's decision. Hu Shigen let Gou Hongguo participate in the training for the purpose of cultivating the backbone of his "color revolution." The circumstances should be deemed an assignment. An investigation found that the opinion that Hu Shigen did not distribute the materials from the "study camp" is factual, but that circumstance does not affect the determination of the criminal behavior of Hu Shigen's assigning Gou Hongguo to receive training abroad to cultivate action forces for the subversion of state power.

(ii) Notwithstanding that the Hu Shigen did not specifically prepare the "Three Factors" and "Five Plans" for the "Seven Flavor Grill Gathering," nevertheless, witness testimony of Zhai Yanmin, Gou Hongguo and others proved that Hu Shigen often used various occasions to repeatedly advocate his aforementioned ideology on subversion of state power. In that gathering, he once again elaborated on it systemically and comprehensively, which further expanded and deepened the impact, and objectively caused social harm.

(iii) The testimony of witnesses Zhai Yanmin and Liu Doe Jia in this case proved, after the "Qing'an Incident," Hu Shigen circulated statements that Xu Chunhe was murdered by the police and made it clear to Zhai Yanmin and others that they should go and express solidarity. The facts charged by the public prosecution agency that Hu Shigen instructed Zhai Yanmin to sensationalize the "Qing'an Incident" are clear, and the evidence is copious.

In summary, for the purpose of developing and cultivating the backbone forces for criminal activities to subvert state power, Hu Shigen played a major role in criminal activities that subverted state power by instructing others to go abroad to participate in trainings on the theory and methods of subverting state power; actively participating in subversion of state power gatherings, and instructing others on how to conduct specific activities such as "raising awareness" and "pushing the wall."

2. Regarding Hu Shigen's opinion that he should be granted leniency owing to his profound appreciation of his criminal behavior, his confession and repentance, and his imploring the collegial panel to consider his old age and illness.

This Court finds that after Hu Shigen was brought to justice, he made truthful statements about the crimes he committed, and wrote a lot of materials in which he expressed regrets. He has demonstrated a good attitude of confession and repentance. In accordance with the law, he can be shown leniency. The aforementioned defense opinions have a factual and legal basis, and this Court accepts them.

This Court finds defendant Hu Shigen did, with the goal of subverting state power and overthrowing the socialist order, enlist people to spread ideologies that subverted state power, and actively cultivate spokespeople and action forces for his subversive concept of "color revolution." He cooperated with others to plan strategies, methods, and means of subverting state power. He incited and directed others to sensationalize hot-button incidents, his actions jeopardized national security and social stability, and constitute the crime of subversion of state power. The facts charged by the public prosecution agency that defendant Hu Shigen committed the crime of subversion of state power are clear, the evidence is reliable and copious, and the offense is establish.

Based on the specific circumstances of Hu Shigen's crime, he is deemed to have been an active participant in the crime of subversion of state power, and in accordance with the law should be sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of more than three years and less than ten years. Hu Shigen had previously been sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment for crimes that jeopardize national security, and after the execution of his sentence he proceeded to commit those crimes again. He is a recidivist, and in accordance with the law should be severely punished.

After Hu Shigen was brought to justice, he was able to make truthful statements of his crimes, and spoke frankly of the circumstances and expressed repentance. In accordance with the law he can be shown leniency.

Based on the facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm to society of Hu Shigen’s crime, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 105(1), 56(1), 54, 55(1), 58, 61, 67(3), 66 and 65(1) of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:

Defendant Hu Shigen committed the crime of subversion of state power, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of seven years and six months, and five years deprivation of political rights.

天津市第二中级人民法院官方微博

被告人胡石根,男,汉族,1955年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]出生于江西省南昌市,无职业。1994年12月16日因犯组织、领导反革命集团罪,反革命宣传煽动罪被判处有期徒刑二十年,剥夺政治权利五年,2008年8月26日刑满释放。现羁押于天津市第一看守所。

经审理查明:

被告人胡石根曾因危害国家安全犯罪被判处刑罚,刑满释放后,吸纳具有颠覆国家政权目的的非法上访人员及少数律师,以非法宗教活动为平台,继续散布颠覆国家政权思想;积极培养、发展行动力量;同他人策划颠覆国家政权,提出颠覆国家政权的策略、方法和手段;煽动、指使他人炒作热点事件,实施颠覆国家政权,推翻社会主义制度的犯罪活动,危害国家安全和社会稳定。具体事实如下:

1、2014年4月24日,“第九届族群青年领袖研习营”在境外举行。参加人员包括“藏独”、“疆独”等分裂势力。”被告人胡石根为长期开展颠覆国家政权犯罪活动,培养所谓“非暴力社会运动”人才和领袖,指派勾洪国参加并接受了颠覆国家政权的理论和方法培训。

2、2015年2月1日中午,被告人胡石根参加勾洪国在北京市朝阳区“七味烧”菜馆组织的策划颠覆国家政权的聚会。具有律师身份的周世锋、李和平,律师事务所行政人员刘某乙,“地下教会”成员刘某甲,长期非法组织访民闹访滋事的翟岩民等均参加了该聚会。聚会人员围绕设定的议题依次发言,具体讨论了律师介入“劳工运动”直接冲击国家政权,借炒作热点案事件分化、瓦解国家政治体制的必要性、可行性,以及具体的操作方法和手段。共同策划通过上述途径,推动中国进行“颜色革命”,实现颠覆国家政权,推翻社会主义制度的目标。其中,胡石根系统阐述了其颠覆国家政权的“三大因素”、“五大方案”,还提出运用“微信群”等现代通讯手段宣扬颠覆国家政权思想,鼓动“揭竿而起”等具体颠覆国家政权的策略。周世锋、李和平、勾洪国等人也积极策划,分别提出了颠覆国家政权的措施。

3、2015年5月2日,徐纯合因在黑龙江省绥化市庆安县火车站滋事、袭警并抢夺警械,被公安民警依法击毙。被告人胡石根散布徐纯合系被谋杀的言论,提出应对该事件进行关注和声援。在胡石根授意下,翟岩民指使他人组织人员分批次前往庆安县,在火车站站前广场、县政府门前打标语、喊口号、发传单,聚集滋事,混淆视听、攻击政府,煽动不明真相的与国家机关对抗。

上述事实,有经庭审举证、质证并经本院确认的书证、证人证言、鉴定意见、视听资料、电子数据、被告人胡石根的供述等证据予以证实。

针对被告人胡石根的辩护人提出的辩护意见,根据庭审查明的事实和证据,本院评判如下:1、关于胡石根事先对“研习营”的性质并不知情,是“介绍”而非“指派”勾洪国参加境外培训,对勾洪国带回的资料并未进行扩散;“七味烧聚会”并非胡石根召集,胡石根在聚会中提出的“三大因素”、“五大方案”并非为该聚会专门准备,只是即兴演说;翟岩民炒作“庆安事件”并非受胡石根指使,故胡石根具体犯罪行为所起作用及社会危害性较小的意见。

本院认为:(1)根据勾洪国的证言和被告人胡石根的供述,胡石根事先明知“研习营”的性质,勾洪国赴境外参加培训,系胡石根决定,胡石根让勾洪国参加培训的目的也是为了培养其“颜色革命”的骨干力量,此情节应认定为指派;关于胡石根未扩散“研习营”资料的意见经查属实,但该情节不影响对胡石根指派勾洪国赴境外培训,培养颠覆国家政权行动力量犯罪行为的认定。(2)胡石根,在“七味烧聚会”中提出的“三大因素”、“五大方案”等内容虽非为聚会专门准备,但翟岩民,勾洪国等证言证明,胡石根经常利用各种场合,反复宣扬其上述颠覆国家政权思想,在本次聚会中再次进行了系统、全面的阐述,进一步扩大,加深了影响,客观上造成了社会危害。(3)在案证人翟岩民、刘某甲的证言证明,“庆安事件”发生后,胡石根散布徐纯合被民警谋杀的言论,并明确向翟岩民等人提出应该去声援,公诉机关指控胡石根授意翟岩民炒作“庆安事件”的事实清楚,证据充分。综上,胡石根出于发展、培养颠覆国家政权犯罪活动骨干力量的目的,指使他人赴竟外参加有关颠覆国家政权理论、方法的培训;积极参加旨在颠覆国家政权的聚会,授意他人具体实施“围观”、“推墙”活动,在颠覆国家政权的犯罪活动中起主要作用。

2、关于胡石根对自己的罪行有了深刻认识,认罪、悔罪,恳请合议庭综合考虑胡石根年老多病,对其从宽处罚的意见。本院认为,胡石根归案后,如实供述所犯罪行,书写了多份悔过材料,认罪态度较好,有悔罪表现,依法可以从轻处罚。上述辩护意见有事实和法律依据,本院予以采纳。

本院认为,被告人胡石根以颠覆国家政权,推翻社会主义制度为目的,网罗人员散布颠覆国家政权思想,积极培养其“颜色革命”颠覆国家政权理念的代言人和行动力量;伙同他人策划颠覆国家政权的策略、方法和手段;煽动、指使他人炒作热点事件,其行为危害了国家安全和社会稳定,已构成颠覆国家政权罪。公诉机关指控被告人胡石根犯颠覆国家政权罪的事实清楚,证据确实、充分,罪名成立。根据胡石根犯罪的具体情节,其属于颠覆国家政权犯罪的积极参加者,依法应在三年以上十年以下有期徒刑幅度内量刑。胡石根曾因危害国家安全犯罪被判处有期徒刑,在刑罚执行完毕后又犯本罪,系累犯,依法应从重处罚。胡石根归案后能够如实供述自己的罪行,有坦白情节和悔罪表现,依法可以从轻处罚。根据胡石根犯罪的事实、性质、情节和对于社会的危害程度,依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第一款、第五十六条第一款、第五十四条、第五十五条第一款、第五十八条、第六十一条、第六十七条第三款、第六十六条、第六十五条第一款的规定,判决如下:

被告人胡石根犯颠覆国家政权罪,判处有期徒刑七年六个月,剥夺政治权利五年。

Sunday, June 27, 2021

Translation: Court Judgment in Case of Man Acquitted for Spreading Rumors, Disturbing the Peace, with "Patriotic" Intent

Translator's Summary: Police subjected Wang Doe to five days administrative detention for posting the following "factually incorrect statements" in a QQ chat room: 
 
"There has just been a riot in Xinjiang, Muslim Uyghurs killed Han people in Xinjiang. The Hui, who are also Muslims, go to Xinjiang and are subjected to high levels of interrogation and investigation by the police. Is that a problem?" 
 
A court rescinded that punishment on the grounds that "the subjective purpose of the plaintiff’s posting of the aforementioned statements was to persuade Internet users in the same chat group, not to spread rumors." Wang's stated intent was to post "patriotic and government-loving statements in the hope that during these extraordinary times Hubei people would understand and cooperate with the actions of the government." 
 
Even though the police stated in their administrative punishment decision that Wang had "disrupted the order of a public venue," the court said the police's decision was "lacking in primary evidence" and: 
 
"Although the statements contain sensitive words and language, they were not sufficient to constitute the circumstances of an illegal action that should be subjected to a public security administrative punishment."

Compare the results of this case with these cases where individuals were found guilty based on similar fact patterns:
  • Ilham Tohti Criminal Judgment as Summarized by the Supreme People's Court, http://blog.feichangdao.com/2021/03/Ilham-Tohti-Uyghur-Criminal-Judgment.html - Ilham Tohti was found guilty based in part on the grounds that "On April 24, 2013, an ordinary case of assault among ethnic and Han students occurred at the Central University for Nationalities. After learning about the case, Ilham Tohti instructed the group members to distort the facts and wrote articles such as 'A Group of Han Students Assaulted Uyghur Students at the Central University for Nationalities," maliciously creating ethnic tension.'"
  • Man Claims He Intended to Insult Republican, Not Communist, Party; Still Gets 5 Days In Jail, http://blog.feichangdao.com/2020/08/man-claims-he-intended-to-insult.html - the Court upheld the police's decision to jail a man, even though he claimed "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."
  • Man Given Ten Days in Jail for Tencent QQ Posts That "Openly Insulted Leaders of the Party and the State," http://blog.feichangdao.com/2017/02/man-given-ten-days-in-jail-for-tencent.html - The court upheld administrative punishment for someone who posted the following statement: "Seven wolves will convene the 18th street burial clock plenary session; the meeting will discuss the liberalization of the lambs being put out to pasture; local  beasts of prey will be responsible for a portion of the flock's expenditures; give the sheep more sovereignty over their grazing; continue reducing the approvals required for being put out to pasture; resolve the problem of mutton allotment; reform the sheep registration system, with no division between black mountain sheep and plains sheep, they are one and the same; demarcate the reform routes for Xi big wolf and Li little wolf; bring universal happiness for the shepherds,  and keep the sheep ignorant of their fate; let the chorus ring out: Fuck your mother, Damn!"
  • At Least 10 People Convicted in China in 2019 for Twitter Posts that "Disturbed the Peace," http://blog.feichangdao.com/2020/05/at-least-10-people-convicted-in-china.html.

 Intermediate People's Court of Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region

Administrative Judgment

(2020) Ning 01 Administrative Final No. 282


Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial) Wang Doe #1, male, born December 12, 1979, Han ethnicity, refused to answer question regarding profession, living in Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.

Appellee (defendant in the original trial) Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, domiciled at Yinzuo Road, Lijing Street, Xingqing District, Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.

Legal Representative Wang Jianrong, Director.

Retained Counsel Zhou Jianing, police officer of the bureau (upon special authorization).

Appellee (the defendant in the original trial)the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, domiciled at Helan Middle Road, Nanfeng District, Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.

Legal Representative Wu Qidong, Director.

Retained Counsel Liang Qiufeng, police officer of the bureau (upon special authorization).

Appellant Wang Doe #1 filed an appeal with this Court on the grounds that he did not accept the administrative punishment and administrative reconsideration cases by appellees the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan Xingqing Division (hereinafter the Xingqing Division) and the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan Public Security, and did not accept the Yinchuan Railway Transportation Court (2020) Ning 8601 Administrative Punishment No. 145 administrative judgment. This Court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and held hearings in this case. The trial has now concluded.

During the trial of first instance the court found that at about 4:35 pm on March 5th, 2020, a user named "Natural Bastard" posted statements in the chat history of the QQ group "K-PAX": "There has just been a riot in Xinjiang, Muslim Uyghurs killed Han people in Xinjiang. The Hui, who are also Muslims, go to Xinjiang and are subjected to high levels of interrogation and investigation by the police. Is that a problem?" and "He said that he heard that the Hui people went to Xinjiang and were ordered by Xinjiang police to lay down on the ground and be searched."

Around 3:58 pm on March 9, 2020, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct received this 911 call:"An Internet user in our city ‘Natural Bastard’ (QQ No.:×××, Name: Wang Doe #1, male, Han ethnicity, ID No.:×××, Household Registration: ×× District, Yinchuan, Ningxia) posted sensitive statements that implicated terrorism in Xinjiang in the QQ group "K-PAX" (Group No.: 64621635, Members: 6)." Later, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct determined that plaintiff Wang Doe #1 was in fact suspected of having posted non-factual information in a QQ group, and issued the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Case Acceptance (2020) No. 10124 "Case Acceptance Registration Form," and decided to bring the plaintiff back to the precinct for investigation, and accept it as an administrative case.

On the same day, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct issued the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Summons (2020) No. 10007 "Summons," summoning the plaintiff to appear at the precinct before 4:40 pm on March 9, 2020 for questioning. It also issued the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Summons (2020) No. 10009 "Notice to Family Members of Summons," notifying Wang Quanyi, father of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had been summoned to the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct on suspicion of disturbing order in a public venue.

At about 4:40 pm on March 9, 2020, the plaintiff arrived at the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan,  Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct to be questioned. At 11:08 pm on March 9, 2020, the defendant Xingqing Division made an "Administrative Penalty Notification Record" informing the plaintiff of the facts, reasons, and basis for the administrative penalty, and informed him of his right to make a statement and proffer a defense. The plaintiff raised an objection in that record. Later, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct in accordance with the provisions of Article 83(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" issued the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Extension Summons Authorization (2020) No. 10002 "Authorization for an Extension to the Time for Questioning and Verification," deciding to exten the time to question the plaintiff and verify evidence.

On March 10, 2020, the defendant Xingqing Division issued the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186 "Administrative Punishment Decision," which read: ……, It is a fact that at about 4:00 pm on March 5, 2020, Wang Doe #1 posted in the QQ group "K-PAX" that "There has just been a riot in Xinjiang, Muslim Uyghurs killed Han people in Xinjiang. The Hui, who are also Muslims, go to Xinjiang and are subjected to high levels of interrogation and investigation by the police. Is that a problem?,..." and other factually incorrect statements, ... It has been established that Wang Doe #1's illegal actions disrupted the order of a public venue. In accordance with the provisions of Article 25(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" it is decided to impose an administrative punishment on Wang Doe #1 of five days administrative detention.…….and proceeded to serve it on the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff left the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct. On the same day, the defendant Xingqing Division issued the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Suspend Detention Decision (2020) No. 10069 "Decision on the Suspension of Administrative Detention" deciding to temporarily suspend carrying out the plaintiff's administrative detention (Original Document Number (2020) No. 10186).

On March 10, 2020, the plaintiff did not accept the defendant's Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186 "Administrative Punishment Decision," and applied to the defendant Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan for administrative reconsideration. The Defendant, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, submitted a "Notice of Reply" to the defendant Xingqing Division on the same day, requesting the defendant Xingqing Division to file a written defense within 10 days from the date of receipt, and submit the evidence and basis for the original administrative act and other related materials.

On April 15, 2020, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan issued the Yin Public Administrative Reconsideration Decision (2020) No. 11 "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" deciding to uphold the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186 "Administrative Punishment Decision" issued by the defendant Xingqing Division. The plaintiff did not accept this and filed a lawsuit with the court requesting that a judgment in accordance with the law ordering:

1. Rescission of the Yin Public Administrative Reconsideration Decision (2020) No. 11 "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" issued by the defendant the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan;

2. Rescission of the Yin Chuan Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186 "Administrative Punishment Decision" issued by the defendant Xingqing Division; and

3. The litigation costs in this case be borne by the defendants.

The court in the trial of first instance held: Article 25(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China" that intentionally disturbing public order by spreading rumors, making false reports of dangerous situations and epidemic situations or raising false alarms or by other means may be punished by detention of not less than 5 days but not more than 10 days and, in addition, a fine not more than 500 yuan; and if the circumstances are relatively minor, detention for not more than 5 days or a fine of not more than 500 yuan. The court held that so-called "spreading rumors" refers to the subjective and deliberate act of fabricating and spreading lies without facts to confuse members of the public who do not know the actual situation and disrupt the public order of society. In this case, the facts on which the defendant Xingqing Division made the decision on administrative punishment involved in the case were based on this post by the plaintiff in a QQ group: "There has just been a riot in Xinjiang, Muslim Uyghurs kill Han people in Xinjiang. The Hui, who are also Muslims, go to Xinjiang and are subjected to high levels of interrogation and investigation by the police. Is that a problem?" and other statements.

The aforementioned statement is not able to indicate clearly whether or not the plaintiff had the intent to spread rumors, and combined with the QQ chat records submitted by the plaintiff and the facts uncovered in the case, it can be determined that the subjective purpose of the plaintiff’s posting of the aforementioned statements was to persuade Internet users in the same chat group, not to spread rumors.

Although the statements contain sensitive words and language, they were not sufficient to constitute the circumstances of an illegal action that should be subjected to a public security administrative punishment in accordance with the law under the provisions of Article 95(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China." In summary, the administrative punishment decision issued by the defendant Xingqing Division and the administrative reconsideration decision issued by the defendant the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan are lacking in primary evidence and should be rescinded.

In accordance with Article 70(1) of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" the judgment is:

1. The Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186 "Administrative Punishment Decision" issued by the defendant the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division on March 10, 2020 is rescinded;

2. The Yin Public Administrative Reconsideration Decision (2020) No. 11 "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" issued by the defendant the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan on April 15, 2020 is rescinded.

The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan shall be borne by the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division.

After the judgment was announced Wang Doe #1 did not accept it, and filed an appeal with this Court claiming:

1. Appellant submitted the reconsideration application and related materials to the Administrative Reconsideration Committee of Yinchuan Municipal People's Government on March 10, 2020, and the staff of the Yinchuan Judicial Bureau received the materials. On March 11, 2020, appellant received the Yin Public Administrative Reconsideration Acceptance (2020) No. 6 "Administrative Reconsideration Acceptance Notice" mailed by Yinchuan City Judicial Bureau. On April 17, 2020, appellant received Yin Public Administrative Reconsideration Decision (2020) No. 11 "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" from the Yinchuan Judicial Bureau. Therefore, the agency that accepted the application for administrative reconsideration of appellant was the Reconsideration Committee of the People's Government of Yinchuan, and appellant had not applied for administrative reconsideration to appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan. But was received was an administrative review decision made by appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan.

2. The trial of first instance judgment stated that appellant's remarks were just to persuade some Internet users in the same group, but that was not entirely correct. What appellant posted was patriotic and government-loving statements in the hope that during these extraordinary times Hubei people would understand and cooperate with the actions of the government during these extraordinary times.

3. Appellant's name appears in neither the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Administrative Summons (2020) No. 10009 "Notice to Family Members of Summons" nor the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Suspend Detention Decision (2020) No. 10069 "Decision on the Suspension of Administrative Detention" and they are based on illegal procedures. In summary, the facts found in the trial of first instance judgment were wrong and the procedure was illegal. It is requested that the court in the trial of second instance:

(i) Rescind the Yinchuan Railway Transportation Court (2020) Ning 8601 Administrative Punishment No. 145 administrative judgment, conduct a full retrial of this case jointly adjudicating criminal and civil liability;
(ii) Rescind the Yin Xing Public (Fenghuang) Criminal1 Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186 "Administrative Punishment Decision," issued by appellee Xingqing Division;
(iii) Rescind the Yin Public Administrative Reconsideration Decision (2020) No. 11 "Administrative Reconsideration Decision" issued by appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan;
(iv) Compensate appellant for all financial losses and emotional suffering in this case.

Appellee Xingqing Division argued that the facts as determined in the judgment of the trial of first instance were clear and the law was applied correctly. It requests the court in the trial of second instance reject the appeal and uphold the judgment in the original trial.

Appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan argued that the facts as determined in the judgment of the trial of first instance were clear and the law was applied correctly. It requests the court in the trial of second instance reject the appeal and uphold the judgment in the original trial.

During the trial of second instance in this Court, the parties submitted evidence around the appeal request in accordance with the law. This Court organized the parties to conduct exchanges and cross-examination of evidence. Appellant submitted the following evidence to this Court:

Evidentiary Material One: One photograph. The contents show the "Administrative Punishment Decision"(Yin Chuan Public (Fenghuang) Criminal Punishment Decision (2020) No. 10186) issued by appellee Xingqing Division. Probative value: There is no appellant’s signature, stamp, and date of signature on the decision letter, and it is not legally valid. On March 10, 2020, the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct only gave the appellant a copy, it did not give him an original.

Evidentiary Material Two: Two videos. Probative value: Appellant only obtained the original of the March 10, 2020 "Administrative Punishment Decision" from the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct on April 20, 2020.

Evidentiary Material Three: One photograph. Probative value: The Yinchuan Municipal People's Government arbitrarily made a complaint to the police in a manner that violated human rights.

Evidentiary Material Four: Seven photographs. Probative value: Appellant objects to the identification of law enforcement officers. There is no person named Ma Yuelei at the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan, Xingqing Division, Fenghuang North Street Police Precinct.

Evidentiary Material Five: One audio recording. Probative value: Appellant suffered emotional distress as a result of the overall case.

Evidentiary Material Six: Two screenshots of the new web page of the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan. Probative value: There is a problem with the identity of law enforcement officer Ma Yuelei.

Appellee Xingqing Division believes that the cross-examination opinions for evidentiary material one in the trial of first instance should prevail. It has no objections to the authenticity, legality, or relevance of evidentiary material two, but it objects to its probative value. It believes that evidentiary material three is unrelated to the appellee, and did not cross-examine it. It did not cross-examine evidentiary material four. It has no objections to the authenticity, legality, relevance, or the probative value of evidentiary materials five or six.

Appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan believes that evidentiary material one is not new evidence, and the cross-examination opinions in the trial of first instance should prevail. It has no objections to evidentiary material two. It believes evidentiary material three is not relevant to this case.  It believes evidentiary material four is not relevant to this case, and the staff who made the posting may not have been updated, and it fails to provide the proof sought by the appellant. It has no objections to the authenticity, legality, relevance, or the probative value of evidentiary materials five or six.

Based on the evidence produced and examined in the trial of second instance, this Court finds that the first, second, and third evidentiary materials produced by the appellant cannot be deemed "new evidence" under the provisions of Article 12 of the "Supreme People's Court Rules Regarding Certain Questions Relating Evidence in Administrative Procedure," and the fourth, fifth, and sixth evidentiary items failed to achieve the appellant's probative goals, and this Court does not give them credence.

The facts uncovered in the trial of second instance were identical the facts uncovered in the trial of first instance, and are affirmed by this Court.

This Court finds, according to the provisions of Article 12(1) of the "Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China:" "An applicant who refuses to accept a specific administrative act of the departments under local people's governments at or above the county level may apply for administrative reconsideration to the people's government at the same level; an applicant may also apply for administrative reconsideration to the competent authority at the next higher level." Appellant Wang Doe #1 did not accept the "Administrative Penalty Decision" issued by appellee Xingqing Division and could apply for administrative reconsideration to either the People’s Government of Xingqing District, Yinchuan or to appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan. In this case, appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan acknowledge receipt of appellant’s application for administrative reconsideration and issued an "Administrative Reconsideration Decision." It is a qualified defendant for administrative reconsideration in this case.

The judgment in the trial of first instance found that the statements posted by the appellant in the QQ group were not able to indicate clearly whether or not the plaintiff had the intent to spread rumors, and that they were were not sufficient to constitute the circumstances of an illegal action that should be subjected to a public security administrative punishment in accordance with the law under the provisions of Article 95(1) of the "Public Security Administrative Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China." There was no error in its rescission of the "Administrative Punishment Decision" issued by appellee Xingqing Division in this case and the " Administrative Punishment Decision" issued by appellee the Public Security Bureau of Yinchuan in this case on the grounds of insufficient primary evidence. Therefore, appellant's appeal rationale cannot be sustained.

Appellant's first appeal request is not upheld by this Court. His second and third appeal requests have already been upheld by the court in the trial of first instance, and this Court need not review them again. His fourth appeal request was not raised during the trial of first instance, and can be raised in a separate cause of action, and will not be processed by this Court.

In summary, the facts in the judgment of the trial of first instance are clear, the law was applied correctly, and the procedures were legal. In accordance with the provisions of Article 19(1)(i) of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:

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

The trial of second instance case acceptance fee of 50 yuan shall be borne by appellant Wang Doe #1.

This judgment shall be the judgment of final instance.

Chief Adjudicator     Ding Jin
Adjudicator         Liu Yushan
Adjudicator         Ma Jianfei

October 14th, 2020

Clerk             Wu Jiamin


宁夏回族自治区银川市中级人民法院
行政判决书

(2020)宁01行终282号


上诉人(原审原告)王某1,男,1979年12月12日出生,汉族,拒绝回答职业信息,住宁夏回族自治区银川市。

被上诉人(原审被告)银川市公安局兴庆区分局,住所地宁夏回族自治区银川市兴庆区丽景街银佐路**。

法定代表人王建荣,局长。委托代理人周佳宁,该局民警(特别授权)。

被上诉人(原审被告)银川市公安局,住所地宁夏回族自治区银川市金凤区贺兰山中路**。

法定代表人吴琦东,局长。

委托代理人梁秋枫,该局民警(特别授权)。

上诉人王某1因与被上诉人银川市公安局兴庆区分局(以下简称兴庆区分局)、银川市公安局治安行政处罚及行政复议一案,不服银川铁路运输法院(2020)宁8601行初145号行政判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,对本案进行了审理,现已审理终结。

一审法院审理查明,2020年3月5日16时35分许,网名为“天生混蛋”的用户在QQ群“K-PAX”的聊天记录中发表了发布了“新疆刚发生暴乱了,穆斯林维族人在新疆杀汉人,同是穆斯林的回族,去新疆被警察高度盘查,有错吗?”、“他说,听说回族去新疆,被新疆的警察要求爬在地上被搜身检查”的言论。

2020年3月9日15时58分许,银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所接110指派警情:“我市网民‘天生混蛋’(QQ号:×××,姓名王某1,男,汉族,身份证号:×××,户籍登记住址:宁夏银川市××区)在QQ群“K-PAX”(群号:64621635,群成员:6人)发布涉疆涉恐敏感言论。”后,银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所以原告王某1涉嫌在QQ群散布不实言论属实,作出银兴公(凤凰)受案字行政复议[2020]10124号《受案登记表》,决定将原告带回所内接受审查,并受理为行政案件。同日,银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所作出银兴公(凤凰)行传字[2020]10007号《传唤证》,传唤原告于2020年3月9日16时40分前到该所接受询问。并作出银兴公(凤凰)行传字[2020]10009号《被传唤人家属通知书》,将原告涉嫌扰乱公共场所秩序被传唤到银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所接受调查一事告知了原告父亲王全义。

2020年3月9日16时40分许,原告到银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所接受询问。2020年3月9日23时08分,被告兴庆区分局作出《行政处罚告知笔录》,将作出行政处罚的事实、理由及依据告知了原告,并告知其有陈述、申辩的权利。原告在此笔录中提出异议。后银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第八十三条第一款之规定,作出银兴公(凤凰)延传审字[2020]10002号《延长询问查证时间审批表》,决定对原告延长询问查证时间。2020年3月10日,被告兴庆区分局作出银兴公(凤凰)行罚决字[2020]10186号《行政处罚决定书》,内容为:......,2020年3月5日16时许,王某1在QQ群“K-PAX”散布“新疆刚发生暴乱了,穆斯林维族人在新疆杀汉人,同是穆斯林的回族,去新疆被警察高度盘查,有错吗,......”等不实言论,情况属实,......王某1扰乱公共场所秩序的违法行为成立。依据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五条第(一)项之规定,决定给予王某1行政拘留五日的行政处罚。......。并向原告进行了送达。后原告离开银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所。同日,被告兴庆区分局作出银兴公(凤凰)缓拘决字[2020]10069号《暂缓执行行政拘留决定书》,决定对原告暂缓执行行政拘留(原文书文号[2020]10186号)。

2020年3月10日,原告不服被告银兴公(凤凰)行罚决字[2020]10186号《行政处罚决定书》,向被告银川市公安局申请行政复议。被告银川市公安局于同日受理后,向被告兴庆区分局作出《提出答复通知书》,要求被告兴庆区分局收到之日起10日内提出书面答辩,并提交作出原行政行为的证据、依据和其他有关材料。2020年4月15日,被告银川市公安局作出银公行复决字[2020]11号《行政复议决定书》,决定维持被告兴庆区分局作出的银兴公(凤凰)行罚决字[2020]10186号《行政处罚决定书》。原告不服,诉至法院,请求依法判令:1.撤销被告银川市公安局作出的银公行复决字[2020]11号《行政复议决定书》;2.撤销被告兴庆区分局作出的银川公(凤凰)行罚决字[2020]10186号《行政处罚决定书》;3.本案诉讼费由被告承担。

一审法院认为,《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第二十五条第(一)项规定,散布谣言,谎报险情、疫情、警情或者其他方法故意扰乱公共秩序的,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。法院认为,所谓“散布谣言”,是指主观上出于故意,捏造并散布没有事实根据的谎言用以迷惑不明真相的群众,扰乱社会公共秩序的行为。本案中,被告兴庆区分局据以作出涉案行政处罚决定的事实依据是原告在QQ群中发布的“新疆刚发生暴乱了,穆斯林维族人在新疆杀汉人,同是穆斯林的回族,去新疆被警察高度盘查,有错吗?”等的言论,上述言论不能表明原告具有散布谣言的故意,且结合原被告提交的涉案QQ聊天记录及查明的事实,可认定原告发布上述言论的主观目的是为了劝说同群的网友,并非散布谣言。该言论虽含有敏感词语,但尚不足以构成《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第九十五条第(一)项规定的确有依法应当给予治安管理处罚违法行为的情形。综上,被告兴庆区分局作出的涉案行政处罚决定和被告银川市公安局作出的涉案行政复议决定主要证据不足,应当予以撤销。依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第七十条第(一)项的规定,判决:一、撤销被告银川市公安局兴庆区分局于2020年3月10日作出的银兴公(凤凰)行罚决字[2020]10186号《行政处罚决定书》;二、撤销被告银川市公安局于2020年4月15日作出的银公行复决字[2020]11号《行政复议决定书》。案件受理费50元,由被告银川市公安局兴庆区分局负担。

宣判后,王某1不服,向本院提起上诉称,一、上诉人于2020年3月10日向银川市人民政府行政复议委员会提交复议申请书及相关材料,银川市司法局工作人员接收材料。2020年3月11日,上诉人收到银川市司法局邮寄的银公行复受字[2020]6号《行政复议受理通知书》。2020年4月17日,上诉人收到银川市司法局送达的银公行复决字[2020]11号《行政复议决定书》。故受理上诉人行政复议申请的机关是银川市人民政府复议委员会,上诉人并未向被上诉人银川市公安局申请行政复议。拿到的却是被上诉人银川市公安局作出的行政复议决定书。二、一审判决称上诉人的言论只是劝说同群的网友,也不完全正确。上诉人发表的是希望湖北人在特殊时期理解、配合一下政府在特殊时期一些行为的爱国、爱政府的言论。三、银兴公(凤凰)行传字[2020]10009号《被传唤人家属通知书》及银兴公(凤凰)缓拘决字[2020]10069号《暂缓执行行政拘留决定书》上均无上诉人签字,均是建立在不合法的程序之上。综上,一审判决认定事实错误,程序违法。请求二审法院:1.撤销银川铁路运输法院作出的(2020)宁8601行初145号行政判决,全面重新审理此
案,附带民事、刑事责任;2.撤销被上诉人兴庆区分局作出的银川公(凤凰)刑罚决字[2020]10186号《行政处罚决定书》;3.撤销被上诉人银川市公安局作出的银公复决字[2020]11号《行政复议决定书》;4.赔偿上诉人此案一切经济损失和精神伤害。

被上诉人兴庆区分局辩称,一审判决认定事实清楚、适用法律正确。请求二审法院驳回上诉,维持原判。

被上诉人银川市公安局辩称,一审判决认定事实清楚、适用法律正确。请求二审法院驳回上诉,维持原判。

本院二审期间,当事人围绕上诉请求依法提交了证据。本院组织当事人进行了证据交换和质证。上诉人向本院提交以下证据:证据一、照片一张。拍摄内容为被上诉人兴庆区分局作出的《行政处罚决定书》(银川公(凤凰)刑罚决字[2020]10186号)。证明目的:该决定书上没有上诉人的签名、手印及签署日期,是不具法律效力的文书。2020年3月10日,银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所只给了上诉人复印件,没有给原件。证据二、视频两段。证明目的:2020年4月20日,上诉人才从银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所拿到2020年3月10日本该给上诉人的《行政处罚决定书》原件。证据三、照片一张。证明目的:银川市人民政府以侵犯人权的形式乱报警。证据四、照片七张。证明目的:上诉人对执法人员的身份有异议,银川市公安局兴庆区分局凤凰北街派出所就没有马跃雷此人。证据五、录音一段。证明目的:上诉人因整个案件受到精神伤害。证据六、银川市公安局网页新闻截屏两张。证明目的:执法人员马跃雷身份有问题。

被上诉人兴庆区分局对证据一的质证意见以一审意见为准。对证据二的真实性、合法性、关联性无异议,但对其证明目的有异议。认为证据三与被上诉人无关,不予质证。对证据四不予质证。对证据五、六的真实性、合法性、关联性及证明目的均有异议。

被上诉人银川市公安局认为证据一不属于新证据,质证意见以一审意见为准。对证据二无异议。认为证据三与本案无关。证据四与本案无关,张贴的工作人员可能是没有更新,不能达到上诉人的证明目的。对证据五、六的真实性、合法性、关联性及证明目的均有异议。

经二审举证、质证,本院认为,上诉人提交的证据一、二、三不属于《最高人民法院关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》中第五十二条规定的“新的证据”的情形,证据四、五、六不能达到上诉人的证明目的,本院均不予采信。

二审查明的事实与一审查明的事实相同,本院予以确认。

本院认为,根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第十二条第一款:“对县级以上地方各级人民政府工作部门的具体行政行为不服的,由申请人选择,可以向该部门的本级人民政府申请行政复议,也可以向上一级主管部门申请行政复议。”的规定,上诉人王某1对被上诉人兴庆区分局作出的涉案《行政处罚决定书》不服,可以向银川市兴庆区人民政府或被上诉人银川市公安局申请行政复议。本案中,被上诉人银川市公安局认可收到上诉人的行政复议申请并作出涉案《行政复议决定书》,系本案行政复议行为的适格被告。一审判决认为上诉人在QQ群中发表的言论不能表明上诉人具有散布谣言的故意,不足以构成《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第九十五条第(一)项规定的确有依法应当给予治安管理处罚违法行为的情形,以主要证据不足为由撤销被上诉人兴庆区分局作出的涉案《行政处罚决定书》及被上诉人银川市公安局作出的涉案《行政复议决定书》,并无不当。故上诉人的上诉理由不能成立。上诉人第一项上诉请求,本院不予支持。其第二、三项上诉请求,一审法院已经予以支持,本院无需重复处理。其第四项上诉请求一审审理时并未提出,可另案主张,本院不予处理。综上,一审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,程序合法。依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第八十九条第一款第(一)项的规定,判决如下:

驳回上诉,维持原判。

二审案件受理费50元,由上诉人王某1负担。

本判决为终审判决。

审判长        丁瑾
审判员        刘煜姗
审判员        马建菲

二〇二〇年十月十四日

书记员        吴佳敏

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 innocent Uyghurs!

"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.

Translation: Sun Daluo's Court Judgment for Sharing Books and Articles

The PRC government sentenced Sun Zhiming (孙志明, who wrote under the alias Sun Daluo (孙大骆)) to one year imprisonment for the crime of "di...