During Nanjing’s two sessions held from January 11 to 14, a temporary petition window was set up at the site of the two sessions located on Nanjing’s Changjiang Road to provide visitors with the opportunity to reflect their problems. But regional governments have stationed stabilization personnel near the venue, intercepting and dragging visitors away whenever they see them and not allowing them to enter.
When Wu Juan and Chen Caixiang went to the temporary petition window to reflect their problems during the Nanjing sessions, they were both forcibly carried home by stability guards.
Wu Juan, a farmer from Jiangxinzhou in Nanjing’s Jianye District, has been unjustly imprisoned for three years for protecting her farmland. She told the Epoch Times, “I went there on the 12th, 13th and 14th, and on the 12th I was pulled back, and on the 13th I was forcibly carried away by the Nanjing Jianye District Government. They knew as soon as I swiped my ID card, but I swiped it and they couldn’t do anything about it.”
Wu Juan said, “The government employs dozens of stability guards, and when they see the visitors outside, they directly intercept them and do not allow them to reflect their problems. I was outside, and when they saw me, they forced me into a car and sent me home. There were still some visitors at the scene, all the visitors could not enter, many people were forcibly dragged away from the scene.”
Chen Caixiang, a farmer from Jiangxinzhou, Jianye District, Nanjing, spent one year and four months in jail for protecting her land after her house was forcibly demolished and her land was forcibly occupied. She also went to the site of the two meetings on the 14th, was forcibly blocked, she was unable to walk because she was crying and crawling on her knees towards the letter window, but was still taken away without access.
In September 2015, Wu Juan, Chen Caixiang and six other people were arrested by the police because the land on Jiangxinzhou was seized and they went to the site to stop the construction and negotiate with the sales office. The prosecutor’s office argued that the land had been expropriated. However, the verdict in their possession clearly states that the land had not been expropriated, but they were sentenced on suspicion of “gathering a crowd to disrupt social order”.
Recent Comments