On the eve of the novel Coronavirus epidemic that will plague the world in 2020, zhang Zhen, a citizen journalist who was arrested for going to Wuhan alone to disclose his experiences in the epidemic area, was sentenced to four years in jail in Shanghai for “provoking troubles”, which has been the common practice of the authorities for years. Zhang’s comments have drawn intense international attention and renewed scrutiny of the “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” that have long been reviled by the outside world and which have ensnared hundreds of people in society.
Say the truth is “pocketed.”
On December 28, the Court of Shanghai Pudong New Area held a hearing on Zhang Zhan’s case of “Searching for zi”, who was found guilty of speaking. After hearing the prosecutor’s charges of making “questionable comments” on weibo, WeChat and Youtube in a cursory manner, without listing articles or words or showing a video, the court sentenced zhang, who protested in silence, to four years in prison until May 14, 2024.
Mr. Zhang’s trial attracted overseas media coverage, and a number of activists who had traveled to Shanghai in support of Mr. Zhang were forcibly taken away by police. The verdict sparked outrage, with activists calling for all of Zhang’s handlers, including the state Security service, the prosecutor’s office, the collegial panel and the decision makers behind the case, to be held accountable for human rights violations in the future.
On February 1 this year, Zhang Zhen, a former lawyer in Shanghai, arrived in Wuhan, which had been sealed off due to the novel Coronavirus epidemic. She was not afraid of risks and got the first-hand information. She was arrested by wuhan police on May 14 and detained by Shanghai police the next day on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”. She was arrested on June 19 and her case was transferred to the court on September 18. Zhang has been on hunger strike since June and has been forced to feed himself, causing concern for his health.
Chen Jiangang, a human rights lawyer who faced repression and life threats for representing 709 Lawyers, fled China with his family in 2019. Chen told VOA Tuesday that under the Communist party system, the law is a political tool, and that no one will be allowed to challenge the regime’s lies, especially after the authorities have declared the fight a “great victory.”
“In this case, the Chinese are not allowed to explore the truth, to spread the truth,” he said. Zhang zhan, then, has violated the Communist Party’s taboo. She was unwilling to believe the lies of the Communist Party and to search for the truth. With just a few words, the Communist Party cracked down ruthlessly. It is essentially a cover-up of controlled speech and the suppression of the truth.”
Writing articles is also covered
Zhang Zhan’s case is one of the most influential cases in recent years. In other recent cases, Li Guibao, a Beijing-based writer, screenwriter and online writer, was sentenced to one year in prison by a Haidian Court for writing articles and was detained on December 24, according to Rightright.com.
“It’s All Over, No more Fear!” by Li Guibao before he was taken into custody. He wrote a 7,000-word article on April 9 this year, mostly for fun, about the epidemic. As a result, on the night of April 11, he was taken away and recorded many times. He was sent to the detention house on the night of April 12th. Due to high temperature, the detention house refused to accept the detention house. He was released on bail in the early morning of April 13th, pending trial.
Li guibao’s case began on December 3, and the trial ended in 3 to 40 minutes for sentencing. On December 21, I received the notice from the court and received the medical examination in Zhongguancun Hospital on December 24. At the end of the article, he said, “I’m sure everyone cares. What’s the charge? Find zi!”
Push features like also installed
In another recent classic case, Zhou Shaoqing, a software engineer in Tianjin, was sentenced to nine months in prison for Posting “likes” on Twitter. Zhou shaoqing was arrested on March 13, 2020 and arrested on August 17 for more than 120 tweets and thumb up posts. Zhou was falsely accused of being mentally ill, but the court also said he had full responsibility for sentencing him to nine months in prison until Dec 11. Zhou Shaoqing was released after serving his sentence.
In addition, xuchang, henan electrical vocational and technical college, a senior lecturer in Wen Changan accused from November 2018 to August 2019 in twitter, a large number of reproduced and comment on “slander, abusive leaders, and against China’s political system of the communist party of China” and other tweets 1500 article, was arrested on August 4, 2020, on October 14, was sentenced to a year, on charges of “troublemakers”.
Internet speech is still the same
In addition, Liu Yanli, a 45-year-old human rights activist from Jingmen, Hubei province, was sentenced to four years in prison on April 24 for “picking quarrels and provoking troubles.” The verdict said Ms. Liu’s online comments attacked and insulted party and state leaders and damaged the government’s image. Liu’s relatives and defense lawyers said the case involved comments posted or reposted online, which are free speech protected by the Constitution and do not constitute a crime.
Liu Yanli was detained on September 27, 2016. She was arrested on November 2, 2016 and held for eight months before being released on bail on May 27, 2017. He was placed under residential surveillance in May 2018. On November 22, 2018, he was arrested after being summoned on suspicion of making unauthorized contact during the bail period. The trial began on January 31, 2019, and will not be decided until 15 months later.
Wang jiangfeng, a resident of zhaoyuan city in shandong province, was sentenced to 2 years in prison on April 7, 2017 for “picking quarrels and causing trouble” for forwarding sensitive comments on WeChat and qq. According to some analysts, the Case of Wang Jiangfeng should be the first case in which the authorities crack down on citizens who express their opinions online with the crime of “searching for the mouth” after the new law stipulates that “information posted on online platforms can be used as evidence in court” in criminal cases in September 2016.
Not even overseas
Some, even while abroad, have been threatened, harassed, jailed and even affected family members at home for making statements deemed “damaging to party and state leaders” by the authorities.
Luo Daiqing, 20, was sentenced to six months in jail in November after being arrested last July after returning to Wuhan for a holiday, after tweeting satirizing Chinese leaders while studying at the University of Minnesota in 2018-2019, “creating a negative social impact.”
The review of the literary inquisition is startling
In recent years, ordinary Internet users, dissidents, university teachers, experts, scholars and rebels have been the victims of “crimes of speech”. A large number of people have been held accountable for comments critical of the government or a particular leader, or for information about rights, current affairs or even history.
The review of Chinese Literary Trials was launched on October 12, 2019. By the first anniversary, about 400 verdicts of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” cases that were “convicted of speaking” had been collected, most of which were obtained through the Website of Chinese Judicial documents.
In addition, the tweet collected 1,818 cases of receiving various “search” penalties for online comments from July 2013 to December 14, 2020, most of which occurred in the nearly three years since 2018.
In response to international criticism of China’s human rights situation, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in its “Fallacies and Facts on China-related Human Rights Issues” on July 2 this year that “no one in China can be punished or punished just for making remarks”.
The mouth is full of people
But the reality of China’s human rights situation is that citizens are reprimanded, detained or otherwise convicted and sent to prison simply for criticizing the government and a national leader, according to CnCA. Large numbers of people have also been “picked a fight” for their rights and petitioning.
It is also reported that many local authorities in 2019 are focusing on cracking down on “fine day” rhetoric that tarnishes the country’s image, with many people being put into the pocket of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”.
In September 2020, the promotion of bilingual education and the abolition of Mongolian language teaching in Inner Mongolia triggered the discontent of the Mongolian people, and many of them boycotted and protested in various peaceful ways. As a result, hundreds of people have been arrested, summoned and punished for “disruptive behaviour”.
Expert: looking for SINS is the shame of criminal law
Chinese jurists, punishment law professor at China university of political science and law, punishment law institute Luo Xiang in speaker “thick solution test” when it comes to “troublemakers” crime in criminal law, said “troublemakers to belong to the tiger balm crime”, China actually can only keep a crime, criminal law is troublemakers, “everything is a belligerent, as long as a reasonable explanation of criminal law”. He says picking quarrels is a bit like the ancient Chinese saying “don’t be guilty” : “You just can’t do it, and what you do is picking quarrels and provoking troubles. So it’s funny.”
Luo Xiang, also a practicing lawyer, also said in his speech that the law on conviction and sentencing should be as clear and clear as possible, not too vague, otherwise the judiciary would not know how to use it. Then they “would use it, he would use it whatever he wanted, he would enforce it selectively.”
Luo Said, for example, the crime of hooliganism in the criminal law of 79 was broken down into a number of charges in 1997, but all of them remained vague. Among them, the most notorious crime is the familiar crime of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”.
Luo Xiang said the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” would not be tested in the general law exam because it was “a disgrace to the criminal law”. He stressed that the law of conviction and sentencing should not be too vague, because vagueness must become a basis for selective enforcement, and he could decide whether he wanted to decide or not.
“Crime in the mouth” has become a weapon of repression
Mr Chen, who has represented many sensitive cases, said the authorities were using the law as a political tool to maintain rule.
“The Communist Party puts into this category all the actions that they think need punishment, repression, individuals,” he said. Even if we follow the laws made by the Communist Party, it does not constitute a crime. If lawyers are allowed to defend, and there is a fair court, none of these acts constitutes a crime. Or is it that such cases are political cases, governed by rules of struggle and repression rather than law? Including comments on the Internet and so on, directly under the mouth of this crime to be punished. These [charges] are tools of The Communist party’s rule, and it is used as a knife and an axe to suppress it.”
William Nee, a China researcher for the international human rights group Amnesty International, told VOA On Wednesday that Zhang’s sentence for his comments violates not only international human rights law, but also civil rights guaranteed by Chinese law.
“Sentencing her to four years is an offence under international law,” he said. This charge is also a mouth crime, any act, any act on the Internet, can also apply to this charge, can go into this pocket. There is a great deal of arbitrariness in this, and they can have the court or the prosecutor’s office do what you do, and they think it’s harmful, and they can sentence you. But there is no objective standard for what is harmful. Basically, the Party has the final say.”
The crime of hooliganism
The crime of “picking quarrels and causing trouble” originated from the crime of hooliganism, which is itself a classic crime of the mouth. Hooliganism is a crime under Article 160 of China’s Criminal Law, which was enacted in 1979. It includes overt defiance of state law and social ethics, affray, provoking troubles, insulting a woman or disrupting public order, and other acts of gross misconduct.
In 1983, the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Severe Punishment of Criminals Who Seriously Endanger Public Security stipulated six types of crimes that would increase the range of punishment, with the crime of hooliganism ranking first. In that year’s “Strike hard”, some people, including women, were executed for hooliganism simply for organizing family dances or “black lantern dances”.
According to some analyses, due to its general nature, the crime of hooliganism is difficult to be defined in actual law enforcement. The arbitrary nature of the crime of hooliganism is very large when there is no explicit provision in the criminal law for acts that are detrimental to social management order, and the excessively wide range of penalties can easily lead to the drawbacks in sentencing. Therefore, the crime of hooliganism is truly a “mouth crime”.
Therefore, the criminal law amended in 1997 abolished the crime of hooliganism and divided it into such crimes as compulsory indecent assault, indecent assault on children, gathering people to engage in fornication, gathering people to fight, causing trouble and disturbing public order.
The “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” crime became notorious as the “mouth crime.” Loosely defined and vaguely worded, the charge has been widely used against human rights activists, activists, petitioners and more.
Article 293 of the criminal law of the People’s Republic of China provides that anyone who commits any of the following acts of provoking troubles, thus disrupting public order, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention or public surveillance :(1) beating another person at will, if the circumstances are flagrant; (2) chasing, intercepting or abusing another person, if the circumstances are flagrant; (3) to take forcibly or forcibly, damage, destroy or occupy public or private property, if the circumstances are serious; (4) causing disturbances in a public place, thus causing serious disorder in the public place; (5) other circumstances.
Judicial interpretation covers the Internet
The SPC and SPP expanded the legal definition of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” in 2013 to include online behavior, saying that anyone using information networks to “abuse and intimidate others” and spread false information could be sentenced to up to five years in prison for the first time.
The interpretation also makes it illegal for any “defamatory message” to be forwarded 500 times or viewed more than 5,000 times, although such actions are not controlled by the publisher. The draft Cybersecurity Law, which came into effect on June 1, 2017, restated this definition in July 2015.
In addition, there are Internet users gathered in recent years, with “troublemakers” some “unusual” behaviors of crime punishment cases, including interest, accidentally, the police, online articles shame schadenfreude, hurt feelings, dirty leaders portraits, online hate speech ultra, a 85 – year – old woman frequently petition, 20 years old guy graffiti street building walls, etc.
Recent Comments