The writer is a long-time specialist on Chinese law, is Distinguished Lecturer in Residence (ret.) at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
The criminal process remains a crude tool of Communist Party policy in China. The suppression of activists by the party-state continues with blatant repression of speech and conduct deemed dangerous to stability. Once again, the absurdly broad crime of “picking quarrels” has been linked with “gathering crowds to disrupt order in public places,” resulting in the conviction of a rights activist. In another case, a well-known lawyer and human rights activist is awaiting trial on the charge of “picking quarrels.”
Yang Maodong, better known by his pen name, Guo Feixiong, was last week convicted by the Tianhe District Municipal People’s Court in Guangzhou and sentenced to six years in prison. In the spring of 2013, he was involved in street protests that took place in eight cities and called for disclosure of officials’ assets. Later that year he and a co-defendant, Sun Desheng, began a campaign to urge China’s National People’s Congress to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Yang was arrested in August 2013 on suspicion of “gathering crowds.” He was then abused, tortured and kept indoors for more than 800 days in a cell with 30 other inmates, he and his lawyers have said. Although Yang and Sun were tried in November 2014, there was no verdict until one was announced on November 27th of this year.
To the surprise of Yang and his lawyers, the trial judge announced that “picking quarrels” was now added to the original charge and demanded that the lawyers immediately respond with a defense. The lawyers for both defendants argued that it was a violation of procedural rules for the second charge to be added abruptly and without notice before trial, according to their accounts posted on social media. The lawyers’ requests for time to prepare a defense and to discuss the new charge with the Procuratorate were denied, they said, and they were ordered out of the courtroom after they had spoken for only ten minutes.
Soon the lawyers were summoned back into the courtroom and the sentences were pronounced.
According to one of Yang’s lawyers, the sentence for the original charge against Yang was for 2 years, and the new charge was the basis for the additional 4 years. Sun was sentenced to 2.5 years for “picking quarrels.” This case is particularly outrageous because of the total disregard of any procedural rules relating to a defendant’s right to notice of the charge and the opportunity to defend against it.
In another case that also dramatizes the suppression of human rights lawyers, in late November the trial of one of China’s best-known human rights lawyers, Pu Zhiqiang, who has been imprisoned for the last 18 months, was once again postponed.
Pu was first taken into custody in May 2014 and formally arrested in June for “creating a disturbance” –which, in fact, was a small private meeting to discuss the Tiananmen events of June 1989. Last June, the charge of “illegally obtaining citizens’ information” was added. That was followed by the additional charges of “inciting splittism” and “inciting ethnic hatred” last November.
The court has repeatedly sent the case sent back to the police, each time extending Pu’s detention. In May 2015 procurators announced that he would be tried for “public disorder” and “ethnic hatred.” Most recently the trial date was delayed in August for three months, and yet again in November.
The treatment of these two men demonstrates the continuing use of authoritarian and arbitrary punishment of alleged sources of social unrest.
The use of the courts to punish activists is part of the broader campaign by the party-state to tighten control over society. Its focus on the media is clear: China was ranked 176th out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2015 index of worldwide press freedom.
Censorship of the internet has increased: earlier this year of a number of “virtual private networks” (VPNs), which are used to bypass Internet filtering and censorship, were blocked. And in August, nearly 200 people were punished for posting rumors on the Web that “misled society and the public, generated and spread fearful sentiment, and even used the opportunity to maliciously concoct rumors to attack [Communist] Party and national leaders.”
The anxiety over control may provide the answer to a question: Why has handling the activists’ cases taken so long? One possible reason is that the party became preoccupied with the threatened collapse of the stock market and other financial problems, and the leadership did not want to risk raising social discontent in a society already beset with anxiety and doubts about prevailing policies.
Whatever the cause, the handling of these cases demonstrates China’s use of the courts for purely political purposes. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/12/01/chinas-criminal-law-once-again-used-as-political-tool/
Comments are closed.