China Change

Home » Posts tagged 'political prisoners' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: political prisoners

Hu Shigen: The Prominent Yet Obscure Political Prisoner

Ren Bumei, August 2, 2016

In 2005, when Hu Shigen was serving the 13th year of his 20 year prison sentence for forming the Chinese Free Democratic Party, he was awarded that year’s Outstanding Democracy Activist Award by the California-based Chinese Democracy Education Foundation. This is an excerpt of a speech given by exiled dissident Ren Bumei (任不寐) titled “Hu Shigen and the Highest Aspirations of Our Age” (《 胡石根与我们时代的精神高度》), upon accepting the award on Hu’s behalf. Hu, among the first four of the July 9, 2015 detainees to be indicted, is being put through a show trial today (August 3, Beijing Time) in the Tianjin Second People’s Intermediate Court. This is our first post in a series about Hu Shigen. — The Editors.

 

Hu ShigenI’m grateful for the trust and confidence placed in me by Hu Shigen’s family and friends that allowed me, unworthy as I am, to share the honor bestowed on Mr. Hu. As a matter of fact, I can hardly represent Mr. Hu to say anything to the jury or the public. He’s spent 13 dark years in prison, and this award will add little to his suffering or glory. Instead, it is an opportunity for us. So today, I’d rather speak as an independent intellectual, recognizing the value of Hu Shigen’s existence for our time, and what it symbolizes for China’s cause of freedom.  

Mr. Hu Shigen was born in the countryside of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, on November 14, 1954. His father, extremely impoverished, died when Hu was five — after putting up for adoption the three youngest of seven children. Hu Shigen didn’t begin his schooling until he was nine years old, when he enrolled in the Shitou Street Elementary School in Nanchang. As the oldest boy, at age 16 Hu began working at the Jiangxi Automobile Manufacturing Factory to support the family. In 1979 he passed the national college entrance exams to become a student at Peking University in Beijing. From 1979 to 1985, Hu Shigen studied at PKU, majoring in Chinese language (中国语言专业).* After graduate school, he was assigned to a teaching position at Beijing Language College (now Beijing Language and Culture University). He was quickly promoted to be an associate professor and vice department chair. He would have lived as a comfortable professor, but the arrival of the Tiananmen Movement and the June 4th massacre changed his life forever.   

Hu didn’t exhibit much political passion during the “soul-racking 56 days” of protest and repression. But it was in the post-Tiananmen period, when droves of student leaders and participants like myself were fleeing Beijing, telling of our escapes at every opportunity, and the entire country was shrouded in terror, that Hu Shigen came into his own.

Thus, June 4, 1989, became a dividing line. Those who continued to resist in the midst of the terror lock-down were the real political heroes of China. The manner of Hu Shigen’s resistance was regarded by many as radical. I don’t know until this day whether this was a scholarly, rational assessment, or just a cover for cowardice. Hu Shigen initiated the Chinese Free Democratic Party (中国自由民主党), the Chinese Progressive Alliance (中华进步同盟) and the Chinese Free Workers’ Union (中国自由工会) with Wang Guoqi (王国齐), Wang Tiancheng (王天成), Kang Yuchun (康玉春), An Ning (安宁), Liu Jingsheng (刘京生), Chen Wei (陈卫), Chen Qinglin (陈青林), Xing Hongwei (刑宏伟), Gao Yuxiang (高玉祥), Zhang Chengzhu (张承珠), Xu Dongling (许东岭), Zhao Xin (赵昕) and many more. They printed, posted, and mailed thousands of fliers promoting freedom and democracy, condemning dictatorship, and calling for a redressal of the June 4th Massacre.

They were planning to rain down fliers on Tiananmen Square from a remote-controlled airplane on the third anniversary of June 4. But their plans were leaked, and on May 28, 1992, Hu was arrested as the “principal organizer of a counter-revolutionary ring.”

Those who were tried with him told us how, in the fascist court, he roared thunderously, like a lion. We learned from eyewitnesses that he and his accomplices adopted a no-compromise, no-cooperation stance in court, and that he and Wang Guoqi, Wang Tiancheng, and Chen Wei, even shouted “Long Live Freedom and Democracy!” and “Down with the Chinese Communist Party!” Even today I still feel a quiver when I imagine the scene. What gives us pause is this: Why are these commonsense convictions still so shocking and unnerving?

Of course no one was more shocked by such resolve than the authorities. At the end of the “trial,” Mr. Hu Shigen was sentenced to 20 years in prison for “the crime of organizing a counter-revolutionary ring” and “the crime of  counter-revolutionary propaganda.” He and his peers were among the few democracy activists to receive such lengthy sentences in the post-June 4 years.

In 1995 Mr. Hu Shigen was sent to Beijing Second Prison to serve his term. That prison became notorious because of him. He fasted on June 4 every year to commemorate the massacre and the dead. For nine years he was locked up in a brig cell (禁闭室) for “rejecting reform” and “inciting disturbances.” Because of police brutality, his hands and feet are permanently crippled. This year The Washington Post interviewed John Kamm of the Dui Hua Foundation. According to Mr. Kamm, the Chinese government told him that Hu Shigen was not qualified for parole based on his attitude toward reforming himself. So Mr. Hu Shigen is continuing his one man defiance of the state.  

I agree with the assessment of others: Hu Shigen is a prominent political prisoner that few know about. Even though over 20 people across China were thrown in jail in the case of the “Chinese Free Democratic Party,” and it has been declared the biggest “counter-revolutionary ring” since 1989, the case has received little media attention, and few have paid attention to Mr. Hu Shigen’s conditions. Early last year, a friend googled “胡石根” and found only 600 or so results.    

Just as the prophets of the Old Testament said: misfortunes doubles down on those who were chosen to be the light and the salt, and put through tribulations. Hu Shigen and his like are not only the enemies of tyranny, they have also been forgotten by our times and rejected by their contemporaries — in particular by their dearest loved ones. The latter is so destructive that it resembles the work of Satan. Zhao Xin, a close friend of Mr. Hu Shigen, vividly recalled how Hu was slashed by his wife with a knife, eleven slashes in all, for not listening to her demands that he cease his activities. The marriage fell apart after 12 years, and he has met his daughter only once over the years since.

Hu Shigen_brothers

Hu Shigen’s two younger brothers traveled to Tianjin to attend his trial on August 1. Upon arrival, they were seized by security police and sent back to Nanchang, Jiangxi province.

Having spent 13 years in prison, he has developed health conditions that have never been effectively treated, such as hepatitis B, lumbar disc herniation, rheumatoid arthritis, and migraines. On October 17, 2004, his older sister Hu Fengyun wrote to the prison authorities voicing her concern about his health. On December 9, 2004, his younger brother Hu Shuigen wrote me that his health had been deteriorating rapidly and he was afraid that Hu Shigen might die in prison. He called on the international media and human rights groups to “save” Hu Shigen.

In May last year, I met someone in Zhengzhou who was a “criminal” in the same case as Hu Shigen. That was when I began to learn of his story, and I was shaken to the core. While I was ashamed of myself, it was also the first time since 1989 that I felt so proud of China: in this society of victims of political disaster, we have Hu Shigen. I hugged this friend and bid him goodbye, determined to speak out for Hu Shigen.  

I don’t mean to create a Hu Shigen myth, for the story of Hu Shigen is already a myth of our times.

Hu Shigen seems to be the post-Tiananmen Wang Weilin — but he’s not. That photograph of Wang as The Tank Man hangs on the office walls of numerous political activists around the world — but no one has heard of Hu Shigen. And yet, Hu Shigen is the Wang Weilin of the post-Tiananmen era. Hu Shigen, also, both is and isn’t the Václav Havel of China. After the June 4 crackdown, China’s intellectuals placed their hopes in a Havel-like figure, and yet no Chinese care to mention the Havel of China. Hu Shigen is also the Lin Zhao after Lin Zhao, the young women executed in custody during the Cultural Revolution, after a prison sentence of 20 years for two poems she wrote. And yet he’s not that, either. At a time when everyone is tearfully searching for Lin Zhao, Hu Shigen has assumed the same suffering, and the same propensity to shock the soul as she — and yet no one has written a word about him. In the peculiar age we live in, not only has Lin Zhao become a hero (which is as it should be), those who memorialize her have also become heroes (which is also of course as it should be), but Hu Shigen is the post-Lin Zhao Lin Zhao. Hu Shigen is also the Sophie of China — but also not. In China Sophie’s Choice has become a code word for the misery of the Cultural Revolution, in ways parallel to the misery of the Holocaust. Hu Shigen, on the other hand, is right now being tormented by his own choice, yet is absent from all this lofty discussion. Yet, Hu Shigen is the Sophie of China. Hu Shigen is China’s Aung San Suu Kyi  — but also not. Aung San Suu Kyi received the attention and support of the world, including the adulation of China’s intellectuals — yet Hu for over a decade has not received an ounce of similar respect. But all the same, Hu Shigen is China’s Aung San Suu Kyi.

Hu Shigen has also fallen into a spiritual prison that’s been built around him — this is the shame of our entire generation of “public intellectuals.” The fact that they are not even ashamed of this makes it all the more shameful. Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, lamented in a famous speech: “When the historian of the future assembles the black record of our days, he will find two things unbelievable: first, the crime itself; second the reaction of the world to that crime. He will sift the evidence again and again before he will be able to give credence to the fact that, in the twentieth century of the Christian era, a great and cultivated nation put power into a band of assassins who transformed murder from a secret transgression into a publicly avowed government policy to be carried out with all the paraphernalia of State. He will find the monstrous story of the human slaughterhouses, the lethal chambers, the sealed trains, taxing the powers of belief… But when that historian, overwhelmed by the tragic evidence, sets down the verdict of the future upon this savage phenomenon, unique in the annals of mankind, he will be troubled by still another circumstance. He will be puzzled by the apathy of the civilized world in the face of this immense, systematic carnage of human beings…”

But allow me alter those famous words for our use: “When the historian of the future assembles the black record of our days, he will find two things unbelievable: first, the Hu Shigen case itself; second, the fact that this age produced a such a ceaseless number of outstanding public intellectuals in China. He will sift the evidence again and again before he will be able to give credence to the fact that, in the twentieth century, a nation that has produced so many public-spirited intellectuals, has put power into a band of assassins who transformed violence and imprisonment into a publicly avowed government policy to be carried out with all the paraphernalia of State — and where matters of such great import never became the topic of open discussion among the country’s intellectuals. He might find that the story of the persecution of Hu Shigen, for establishing the Chinese Free Democratic Party, taxes the powers of belief. But when that historian, overwhelmed by the tragic evidence, sets down the verdict of the future upon this savage phenomenon, unique in the annals of China, he will be troubled by still another circumstance. He will be puzzled by the apathy of China, international human rights organizations, and public intellectuals, in the face of this immense, systematic persecution of Hu Shigen.”

 

*Hu Shigen was a college classmate of Hu Chunhua (胡春华), the Chinese Communist Party Politburo member and current Party Secretary of Guangdong province. According to Mr. Wu Renhua, the researcher of the 1989 Tiananmen Movement, who shared the same bunk-bed with Hu Shigen in graduate school, since his release in 2008, whenever Hu Chunhua attended class reunions, Hu Shigen was excluded.

 

Ren Bumei is an exiled Chinese dissident living in France.

 

 

Prominent Dissident Makes a Criminal Complaint Against Three Judges in Guangdong

By Guo Feixiong, published: January 8, 2016

On November 27, a year after the trial of Guo Feixiong and Sun Desheng, the Tianhe court in Guangzhou sentenced Guo Feixiong to six years in prison by adding a last-minute charge in order to procure a lengthier sentence. On January 7, 2016, Guo Feixiong filed the following criminal complaint (in Chinese) with the  Guangzhou Municipal People’s Prosecutorate against judges involved in the sentencing.  – The Editors

Guo Feixiong: A Criminal Complaint

 

Plaintiff: Yang Maodong (杨茂东), also known as Guo Feixiong (郭飞雄), male, born on August 2, 1966 in Wuhan, Hubei Province. Han ethnicity. University educated. Currently being wrongly held in the Tianhe District detention center in Guangzhou.

Defendant: Zheng Xin (郑昕), presiding judge in the Tianhe District Court, Guangzhou. Judge Zheng made false charges against, and unjustly sentenced, the plaintiff to imprisonment for six years.

Defendant: Luo Cheng (罗成), judge in the Tianhe District Court, Guangzhou. Judge Luo made false charges against, and unjustly sentenced, the plaintiff to imprisonment for six years.

Defendant: Lu Xiao(鲁肖), judge in the Tianhe District Court, Guangzhou. Judge Lu made false charges against, and unjustly sentenced, the plaintiff to imprisonment for six years.

The plaintiff demands that the prosecutors pursue the criminal responsibility of the three defendants for abusing the law to favor their own associates (徇私枉法罪), and sentence the defendants each to a minimum of five years imprisonment.

Facts and reasoning on which this complaint is based:

Guo Feixiong meeting with lawyer in early 2015.

Guo Feixiong meeting with lawyer in early 2015.

The three defendants comprise the collegiate bench of the Tianhe District Court in Guangzhou in the sentencing of the plaintiff. In trying the case of the plaintiff being falsely accused of “gathering a crowd to disrupt public order,” (聚众扰乱公共场所秩序), they willfully circumvented the law in making a decision that was contrary to both the facts and the law. The circumstances were severe, leading the entirely innocent plaintiff, and the individual Sun Desheng, to be unjustly and wrongly sentenced on framed-up charges to six years and 2.5 years imprisonment respectively. The details are as follows:

1) The three defendants identified the plaintiffs’ exercise of free speech and assembly, guaranteed by the PRC constitution (for their participation in an assembly of citizens outside of the offices of the Southern Weekend newspaper, in which they made statements in support of the right to publish freely by the editors and journalists of that newspaper), as the crime of “gathering a crowd to disrupt public order.” Using a trial whose basis directly violates the constitution to pronounce guilty verdicts upon the plaintiffs—that is, pronouncing that freedom of speech is a crime, and that freedom of assembly is a crime—is itself criminal conduct which undermines the constitution and tramples upon the political rights of citizens.

2) Using false and far-fetched evidence, the three defendants determined that the plaintiff was guilty of “gathering a engaged in any disruption of the public order,” while the said assembly and public speeches during the assembly had not disturbed any public order. Moreover, even if the so-called evidence stands, it does not prove that the plaintiff engaged in, or caused, any disruption of the public order. Therefore, the three defendants’ made a decision in deliberate contravention of the facts and the law.

3) In addition to the charges brought by the Tianhe District Procuratorate, the three defendants added to the plaintiff the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (寻衅滋事). This was a naked criminal act which infuriated the public, profaned and undermined the law in China, and violated the most basic principles of jurisprudence.

4) The three defendants took the true information posted on the Internet by the plaintiff about “flash demonstrations” in eight cities to be evidence of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” This is a case of the three defendants abusing their judicial authority.  On page 22 of the judgement of first instance, it says: “Later, he [Guo Feixiong] fabricated false information about the above activities and spread it on the Internet, triggering numerous people to ‘gather around and watch,’ leading to severe chaos in public order.” Here, the three defendants took what was said in virtual Internet space as if it were real physical space, and, at the same time, took behavior that can statutorily only happen in real, physical space, and simply extended it to the Internet, treating the ‘gathering around and watching’ by Internet users the same as if it were people in the real world doing so. They also treated the ideational and thought activities of the people that thus gained the information as “a severe disturbance of public order,” equating the legally-nonexistent “Internet order” to legally-defined “public order,” and on this basis charged the defendant with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

Whatever the recitations from judicial documents or legal explanations provided by the defendants, they have no way of obscuring the fact that they engaged in ideological persecution. And no matter how they attempt to avoid it, the three defendants have no way of concealing that their rendering of this decision constituted the criminal act of “intentionally going against facts and laws in criminal trials to render judgments that misuse the law” (故意违背事实和法律作枉法裁判).

As indicated above, the three defendants are hereby accused of “intentionally going against facts and laws in criminal trials to render judgments that misuse the law,” thus violating the effective enforcement of Article 399 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. This constitutes bending the law to favor their own associates, and has resulted in the plaintiff being sentenced to prison for six years, and Sun Desheng being sentenced for 2.5 years. Given the grave circumstances of the case, they should be sentenced for a minimum of five years imprisonment.

   

Sincerely addressed to: Guangzhou People’s Procuratorate

   

Plaintiff: Yang Maodong (Guo Feixiong)

January 7, 2016

 

Attached: The three defendants’ criminal evidence – Decision of Guangzhou Tianhe People’s Court, No. 1255, 2014.  

———-

Related:

Lawyers’ Account: Court in China Adds Last-Minute Charge in Heavy Sentence Against Rights Leader Guo Feixiong, China Change, November 27, 2015.

My Final Reply in Court, Guo Feixiong, November 27, 2015.

Activist Guo Feixiong Held 743 Days Without Yard Time,  August 21, 2015.

Guo Feixiong, a Civil Rights Hero, by Xiao Shu, January 8, 2015

Guo Feixiong: The Sovereignty of the People – My Conviction and My Dream, November 28, 2014.

Guo Feixiong and Sun Desheng Indictment, July 7, 2015

 

Chinese original 《郭飞雄:刑事控告状》, translated by China Change.

 

Is Death Through Maltreatment Becoming Routine for Chinese Political Prisoners?

By Guo Baosheng, published: November 17, 2015

 

China claims that it doesn’t have any political prisoners, but in a broad sense all of those who have been jailed or imprisoned for challenging the Chinese Communist Party on behalf of human rights or political justice ought to be considered China’s political prisoners. Before the policy of “reform and opening up” in 1979, counterrevolutionaries and other political prisoners were put under strict guard and treated worse than other criminals, and it was common in those days for them to suffer abuse or die from maltreatment. For a long time after “reform and opening up,” political prisoners began to be treated a bit better relative to other criminals. But in the past few years—especially since Xi Jinping came to power—political prisoners have actually started to be singled out for abuse.

In fact, judging from reports of lawyers, media, and political prisoners themselves, abuse and even death through maltreatment has become routine for political prisoners.

Zhang Liumao. CCTV screen shot.

Zhang Liumao. CCTV screen shot.

Guangzhou citizen Zhang Liumao (张六毛), who turned 43 this year, was put under criminal detention for “provoking a disturbance” on August 15, 2015. First he was locked up in Guangzhou’s Tianhe Detention Center, and then transferred to the city’s Number Three Detention Center. When his lawyer applied to meet with Zhang, he was refused on the grounds that Zhang was “anti-Party” and “anti-State.” Later his lawyer was forced to withdraw from the case. On November 3, the Number Three Detention Center called Zhang’s family to notify them that he had died. Then they put up all sorts of obstacles to prevent Zhang’s family members and lawyers from viewing his body. And once again, state media ran articles intended to smear Zhang Liumao and his friends before any trial had taken place, a clear sign that Zhang’s death should be considered suspicious. Numerous human rights activists who have rallied together after Zhang’s death have expressed the same fear: “Today it was Zhang Liumao, tomorrow it could be any one of us!”

[Zhang Liumao update: family and at least one lawyer viewed his body on November 16 and reported numerous wounds and traces of blood, evidence that Zhang was tortured in custody. Lawyers hope to see interrogation videos and family vows to lodge complaints. But these attempts to seek truth and justice will more likely than not be stonewalled in China. – The Editors]

Zhang Liumao is neither the first nor the last human rights activist or political prisoner in China to die from maltreatment suffered in custody. One can also point to the recent and widely known cases of Li Hong (力虹), Li Wangyang (李旺阳), and Cao Shunli (曹顺利).

Li Hong (Zhang Jianhong), born in 1958, had been sentenced to three years of re-education through labor for taking part in a protest by Ningbo writers and journalists in support of the student movement in Beijing in April 1989. On January 12, 2007, Li Hong was sentenced to six years in prison for “inciting subversion of state power.” He suffered maltreatment in prison, where he contracted a rare neurological disorder that caused serious atrophy of the muscles in his arms. The authorities refused numerous requests by his relatives to release him for medical treatment before finally granting medical parole in June 2010. By then, Li was fully paralyzed and died soon after at the age of 52.

Li Wangyang, born in 1950 in Shaoyang, Hunan, was one of the earliest members of China’s independent labor movement. In 1989 he was sentenced to 13 years in prison for “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement.” In 2001, he was again sentenced to 10 years in prison for subversion, resulting in 22 years total spent behind bars. On May 22, 2012, shortly after accepting an interview with a Hong Kong Cable TV reporter, his family discovered him dead from an apparent hanging at a Shaoyang hospital. Members of the public raised a number of doubts about the authorities’ claim that Li had committed suicide. All over the world—especially in Hong Kong—the “suicide” of Li Wangyang led to widespread protests and demonstrations.

Cao Shunli (曹顺利)

Cao Shunli (曹顺利)

Cao Shunli, born in 1961, was sentenced to a year of re-education through labor in 2008 for organizing a “Beijing Rights Defense Walk.” In 2010, just 16 days after her release, she was sentenced to another 15 months of re-education through labor to prevent her from protesting at the Shanghai Expo. Then, on September 14, 2013, Cao Shunli was detained at the Beijing Airport while on her way to Geneva for human rights training at the United Nations. At the detention center, her health worsened, but the authorities refused her timely medical treatment. She was taken to a hospital for emergency treatment after losing consciousness on February 19, 2014, and died less than a month later, on March 14.

Zhang Liumao, Li Hong, Li Wangyang, and Cao Shunli—this is just the tip of the iceberg for political prisoners and human rights activists who have died after being mistreated in places of incarceration. If you count human rights activists from Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, or Tibet (where, for example, the well-known monk Tenzin Delek Rinpoche died in July 2015 under mysterious circumstances after 13 years in prison) or individuals imprisoned for their belief in Falun Gong or Christianity, the number of people who have died from mistreatment in places of incarceration is truly staggering.

In addition to the steady rise in cases of political prisoners who have been mistreated to the point of death in recent years, there has also been a sharp increase in the use of torture, abuse, and humiliation of political prisoners in places of detention. As the recently released Zhao Changqing (赵常青) put it: “Conditions in prison are extremely bad. I can tell you that the amount of suffering I endured this last time was far more than during all of my previous jailings combined.”

Human rights organizations have reported comprehensively on the maltreatment of political prisoners. For the moment, let’s just consider the example of yard time. Yard time is a basic right of all prisoners, but lately many political prisoners have been denied this right. Ever since his detention on August 8, 2013, Chinese democracy activist Guo Feixiong (郭飞雄, also known by his original name, Yang Maodong [杨茂东]) has been locked up in Guangzhou’s Tianhe Detention Center for more than two years without being given yard time. Numerous protests by his lawyers have had no effect. His lawyer has reported that, during their most recent meeting, Guo Feixiong’s memory, speech, and cognitive ability all showed signs of impairment.

Liu Yuandong (刘远东) in front of a banner that reads "Liberty, Democracy, Constitutionalism."

Liu Yuandong (刘远东) in front of a banner that reads “Liberty, Democracy, Constitutionalism.”

Another Guangzhou activist named Liu Yuandong (刘远东) was detained on February 23, 2013. On August 19, 2015, his lawyer reported that Liu had been locked up for more than two years without any yard time. He hadn’t once seen the sunlight, and was locked up together with so many other people in a packed cell that he began to suffer intestinal disorders and skin disease.

Lawyer Tang Jingling (唐荆陵), chief organizer and activist in the Chinese Citizens’ Non-Cooperation Movement (公民不合作运动), has been in jail ever since being put under criminal detention on May 16, 2014. Books and letters sent to him have all been confiscated and returned by the Guangzhou Number One Detention Center. For over a year since their arrest, Tang Jingling and fellow political prisoners Yuan Xinting (袁新亭) and Wang Qingying (王清营) haven’t been granted any yard time. Instead, they have been forced to work, including night shifts. They’re locked up in a 20 m2 cell with 20–30 other detainees. They are humiliated by their cellmates and guards and forced to wear shackles on their hands and feet.

I was detained in the Shenzhen Detention Center for 3-1/2 years in late 1990s. Each cell in that detention center has a metal gate, outside of which is a small exercise yard surrounded by walls on three sides and iron bars high above. Usually, yard time would be from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. This was the time when detainees were the happiest. We were always given yard time except when it was raining or when the guards decided to punish the whole cell for something. As we went out in the yard to walk around, breathe in fresh air, and look up at the sky beyond the metal bars above, we felt a bit more carefree. When they didn’t let you out for a day, you felt you were going to die of suffocation.

Tang Jingling, Wang Qingying and Yuan Xinting in Guangzhou wearing T-shirts that spread the democratic ideas.

Tang Jingling, Wang Qingying and Yuan Xinting in Guangzhou wearing T-shirts that spread the idea of democratic elections.

Between 1993 and 1999, I was locked up in four different detention centers from Beijing to Shenzhen. In my experience, the guards in those places showed a bit of respect to political prisoners—perhaps because they weren’t the hooligans and thieves they were used to dealing with. Some guards even believed that political prisoners had been detained in pursuit of social justice, something that was worthy of respect. Guards with college education even enjoyed passing the time by chatting with political prisoners.

Human rights activists around the world have expressed great anger and concern about the Chinese authorities’ refusal to grant political prisoners like Guo Feixiong, Liu Yuandong, Tang Jingling, Yuan Xinting, and Wang Qingying their right to yard time. They consider this to be a classic case of discriminatory repression and abuse of political prisoners compared to others, a form of deliberate cruelty and slow murder. The violence of the Chinese communist authorities toward human rights activists who have become political prisoners must be exposed, condemned, and stopped by the global forces of justice, otherwise the regime will become even more brutal in its abuse and maltreatment of political prisoners—until these practices become routine, if they haven’t already.

 

郭宝胜Guo Baosheng (郭宝胜) is a U. S.–based commentator on Chinese current affairs and religious issues. A participant in the June 4th movement in 1989 and one of the earliest organizers of workers’ rights in the 1990s, he was sentenced to three and half years in prison on subversion charges.

 

Related:

To Obama – Why China Does Not Have a Nelson Mandela, by Yaxue Cao, September 23, 2015.

 

Chinese original 《郭宝胜:虐杀政治犯要成为常态吗?从张六毛惨死看被羁押者人权?》, translated by China Change.