Archive for April, 2008

我替胡佳接一棒

free hujia and his family

亚运会的时候,胡佳是翻牌志愿者,至今谈起来,他还是很自豪。

如今奥运会,胡佳希望是真正荣耀中华的运动会,然而他因言获罪在狱中。

奥运是体育盛事,应是娱乐而不是悲情的;

奥运呼吁和平,应是人人参与的,不分种族、肤色、性别、语言、宗教、政治或其他见解、国籍或社会出身、财产、出生或其他身份等任何区别。

奥运本该是把快乐信息传递给每个人、团体、国家的。

5月份奥运圣火回京,将在我家门前的奥体公园里的京杭大运河北起点上,从一号码头上船,二号码头下船,然后乘车从我们小区门口的街道上离去。被非法软禁的我,一直想:届时,圣火能把团聚的机会也带给我们家吗?

感谢公园仔http://mto.age.com.hk/2008/04/08/245。我替胡佳报名接一棒,地点:北京市看守所,写作地点:北京BOBO自由城。

Comments (7)

给谦慈宝宝

    天气好时,经过国保警察询问同意,抱着谦慈,后头跟着便衣,一起散步。谦慈宝宝总是笑,对抓走爸爸的国保警察笑,对把爸爸判刑入狱的法官笑,对软禁妈妈的便衣警察笑,对不远不近的跟踪者笑,对遇到的陌生人都笑,还拉住小区里散步的小哥哥小姐姐的手,不肯放开。不知不觉,小区里已是春花烂漫,邻居屋檐下的鹦哥,见人都字正腔圆地叫:“你—好—外—婆”。我一路和谦慈宝宝说话,告诉她各种花都开了。回家作儿歌一首,无法见胡佳,托律师带去。告诉他,无论如何,家人会努力给谦慈宝宝创造一个比较正常、比较快乐的成长环境。    记于46 

暖风吹
春天到
太阳出来
宝贝散步了

玉兰玉兰
你真美
洁白如玉凝如脂

玉兰点点头
谦慈谦慈小宝贝
柔软的小手轻轻挥
我美你更美

红杏红杏
你真美
似云非云层层叠

红杏点点头
谦慈谦慈小公主
粉嫩的脸蛋微微笑
我美你更美

樱花瓣瓣轻轻舞
梨花淡淡飘飘落
迎春串串新鹅黄
杨柳依依出青芽
紫色地丁遍野跑
斑斓风筝天上飞

蜜蜂嗡嗡嗡
美啊美
蝴蝶忽忽忽
美啊美
鹦哥笑哈哈
比不上谦慈小乖乖

Comments (22)

旧文重读

Comments

公不公?

请你告诉我:判决公正吗?                   

43法院开庭,判胡佳(身份证用名:胡嘉)“有期徒刑三年六个月,剥夺政治权利一年”,并没收胡佳的笔记本电脑、无限(线)上网卡、无限(线)路由器、ZTE中兴调制解调器、上网卡、写有“蔡楚”邮箱的A4纸和小灵通。

宣判结束,几经挣扎抗议,我最后获得了自己走路的权利。国保警察把我放在八宝山地铁站出口的街道旁,一群认识及不认识的朋友跑来见面。许多人问我“判决公正吗”?

我想问天下人:如果是你的家人,在被长期软禁在家的情况下,因为写了五篇文章、接受了两个采访,就被法院判刑三年六个月外加剥夺政治权利一年,公不公?

我想问胡锦涛主席和主持司法工作的各位领导:在宪法首先保障的公民言论自由条款下,一个长期被非法拘禁的公民,因为写了五篇文章、接受了两个采访,就被法院判刑三年六个月外加剥夺政治权利一年,体现了“法治精神”吗?体现了“司法公正”吗?

法院认定的“罪行”、“人证”和“物证” 

我反复仔细阅读法院的判决书。(里面有几个错别字,如“其间”应该为“期间”,“无限”应该为“无线”等。)法院认为“被告人胡嘉以推翻我国人民民主专政的国家政权和社会主义制度为目的,采用书写文章在互联网上和在接受境外媒体采访时发表煽动性言论的方式进行造谣、诽谤,煽动他人推翻我国国家政权和社会主义制度,其行为已构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪,依法应予惩处”。胡佳被指控犯罪的文章是:

l         《赶上民主列车时 东亚睡狮猛醒日》,内容是2001年胡佳发给朋友的私人信件,标题不知是谁加上去的,法院没有采用这篇文章。警方质问胡佳及收信人王力雄时,他们都由于所隔时间太长,记不清楚了。

l         其他被法院认定并用于定罪的五篇文章是:《林牧老先生于今日下午1400前后过世》、《郭飞雄和江伟与〈沈阳政坛地震〉》、《一国无需两制》、《中共十七大之前 中国政法系统大范围制造恐怖气氛》和《国庆及十七大来临 警方连续侵犯公民权利》。

l         被法院认定并用于定罪的两篇采访是《胡佳谈高智晟律师被绑架前后的情况》及《向专制的体制发起和平的挑战》,据称胡佳接受了录音采访,内容为对方所编辑,题目为对方所加。

言论自由受我国宪法及国际法保护。胡佳的言论不但没有对社会造成危害,反而帮助缓解了部分人群与政府的矛盾。如:有访民曾表达如果没有胡佳帮助传递他们的蒙冤案情文件,他们只好自杀或爆炸同归于尽。再者,政府在施政过程中,公民有权对政府官员和某些侵犯人权的做法进行批评。退一万步讲,“我虽然不同意你的观点,但是我誓死捍卫你说话的权利”(伏尔泰)。因为你不喜欢一个公民的言论和尖锐批评,就先把他非法拘禁几年,然后再把他关到大牢,法院难道是用来干这个的吗?胡佳的这几篇文章,在网上都可以找到,建议每个读者都亲自读一读。

法院所采用的证人证言是:

l         曾金燕,证明胡佳用自己的白色电脑上网;

l         腾彪,证明认识胡佳并见到胡佳在网上发表了文章;

l         齐志勇,证明认识胡佳并知道胡佳在互联网上发表文章,也知道胡佳把文章发到编辑蔡楚的邮箱里,并听到警察给齐志勇的录音声音是胡佳的;

l         叶明华,证明胡佳曾经给他打电话问他的父亲叶国强被公安机关拘留一事,也证明胡佳打电话告诉他已经就叶国强被拘留一事写了一篇文章发表在“博讯网”上。

在此我只想提醒各位,胡佳被羁押时,我被非法软禁在家并被切断与外界的联系,便衣警察非法住到我家并对我说:“不配合就连你一起抓”;警察反复找我做笔录,并以“不配合就把你带走,然后格外开恩让你三个小时喂一次奶”;最后我在212接受了警察的询问笔录,内容如上所言。胡佳被羁押后,腾彪被警察多次以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”威胁要求配合,被没收护照,被便衣警察绑架非法关押两天,并经常被软禁;齐志勇被便衣警察强制带离北京一个多月的时间,随后被软禁;叶明华的父亲和堂兄被以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”形式拘留,目前取保候审在家,他的叔父叶国柱至今还在监狱服刑。

    从这些所谓的“证人证言”里,难道就可以得出胡佳有罪的结论吗?再从程序正义的角度,我想问世界各地从事法律工作的各位,尤其想问中国司法工作者:采用被绑架、被软禁、被挟持的证人证言,公正吗?体现了中国政府官员对胡佳案的回应“法律面前人人平等”吗?

再看法院所采用的物证:

l         北京市公安局公共信息网络安全监察处监控中心出具的:每篇文章发表及被转发的域名和网页链接信息、网站服务器信息、文章被点击次数信息、回复信息;

l         北京市网络行业协会电子数据司法鉴定中心出具的:(2008)鉴字第1-补充《司法鉴定意见书》,内容为从胡佳的电脑里提取的数码照片和网上的照片相同;

l         公安机关出具的:从国际互联网上下载并由胡佳签字的文章;

l         公安机关出具的:号码为86000663的小灵通;

l         中国网通(集团)有限公司出具的:书证,证明小灵通的使用者是胡佳;

l         公安机关出具的:胡佳的身份证明及被捕经过。

我想问大家,这些物证,证明了什么?证明了胡佳颠覆这个国家政权?

    胡佳和家人的意见 

最后看法院所采取的胡佳在318的陈述:“被告人胡嘉在法庭审理中,对公诉机关指控的事实予以供认”。43开庭宣判总共20分钟左右,胡佳除了回答法官自己是“胡嘉”,其他一句话也没有说,对律师点了个头,肢体语言上再没有其他的表达,他甚至没有看到家人。旁听席上除了我和母亲,其他都是些家庭主妇、学生以及陌生男子,我还看见一个男子睡着了。宣判结束时,我看见胡佳转身,神情漠然地要离开,我叫他的名字“胡佳……”,他离我一米左右,却没有听见我叫他,被法警押走了。

胡佳承认那些文章都是他写的,但这并不意味着胡佳有罪。没错,胡佳署名公开发表文章,全世界有目共睹,他是在履行宪法赋予他的言论自由权。法律也赋予公民在审讯中保持沉默的权利。但是胡佳是人,不是刀枪不入的神仙。他被羁押的第一个月,几乎每天晚上被提审,每次持续6-14个小时,白天他还要参加看守所的活动,如每天上午6-12点是“坐板”时间——即坐在板凳上一动不动。所谓的审讯,根据国保警察对我的叙述,大部分时间是对胡佳“进行说服教育”、“让他转变思想观念以早日回归社会”,这是输灌还是洗脑[1]?他见不到任何可以给他支持与帮助的亲人和朋友,也几乎没有放风的机会。这种极度疲劳并可能严重危机健康的情况下,他还有能力表示抗议吗?疲劳审讯、剥夺睡眠及放风机会,都是违反看守所规定的。

宣判结束后法官问我们家属有什么问题,我把胡佳被非法拘禁、被不人道对待等事细说一遍,并问法官是否已经考虑这些因素。法官做了一番解释,大意是法官的职责是根据控辩双方的陈述来做宣判,我提的这些事情,不在他的职责范围内。

我坚持要自己离开法院,国保警察不准,态度也不好,有人还非常蛮横,但总体上算是有克制。我说:“法院是保障人类尊严的地方,是保护公民权利的地方,在这里你还要非法限制我的自由吗?”法院的工作人员也做我的思想工作,让我坐国保警察的车走。我悲哀地对法院的工作人员说:中国的法治不落到实处,我们的情况无法改善。一个处级国保警察马上对我大声说:所以你们要颠覆政权……我说那可是你说的话,我要的是法治落到实处!

胡佳同意律师作无罪辩护,但是他希望尽快结束程序,尤其不希望他的案子牵连别的人(我想他可能指的是滕彪律师,他们共同发表了一篇文章,被多次质问)。他对李律师说哪怕只是提前一分钟回家也好,回家抱我们的小宝贝。看守所里还发生什么事情,他不说,我们不知道。有时我也不敢说话,因为害怕更进一步的报复。他们可以不打胡佳,但是用许多方法让他痛苦。而这只会更严重地伤害他的健康。作为家人,我希望他能从健康角度考虑,保重自己。

我很恐惧,在被威胁“不配合就连你一起抓”、“不配合就把你带走,然后格外开恩让你三个小时喂一次奶”时,我一次又一次问自己:怎么办?当年竞争奥运主办城市时,北京输给悉尼,胡佳流泪了。现在中华民族终于能举办奥运会了,胡佳很高兴,但他不希望这是践踏人权的奥运,不希望是建立在无权无势的小老百姓痛苦上的奥运,他希望是真正荣耀中华的奥运,所以他一次又一次地批评贪官污吏,提醒当局改善人权,他却因此身陷大牢,我又痛心又失望。但无论如何,我会尽一切努力,保护我的家庭,尽一切的可能,让胡佳早一天回家。

谁可以见到胡锦涛主席?如果见到主席先生,请帮我问一问他的看法,胡佳的案子,究竟判得公不公?(全文完,文后附上新华社对胡佳案宣判的中英文报道。)



[1]对胡佳高密度地进行“说服教育”让他“改正思想”,并不是一个新鲜的做法。学者朱鸿召曾经对吴思提起过,194210月召开的一次西北局高干会,毛泽东作开幕报告,为了让那些与毛泽东不是一条心的人转变过来,会期竟长达88天,不转变就不散会。(吴思,《隐蔽的秩序-拆解历史弈局》第181页。)

新华社对胡佳案宣判的中英文报道:

新华社:胡佳被判处有期徒刑36个月新华社北京4月3日电记者从北京市第一中级人民法院获悉,北京市第一中级人民法院3日对胡嘉煽动颠覆国家政权案宣告一审判决,认定胡嘉犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪,判处有期徒刑3年6个月,剥夺政治权利1年。法院经审理查明:被告人胡嘉于2006年8月至2007年10月间,先后以在境外互联网站发表文章、接受境外媒体电话采访的方式,多次煽动他人颠覆中国国家政权和社会主义制度。在其发表的《中共十七大之前中国政法系统大范围制造恐怖气氛》、《一国无需两制》等文章和接受媒体采访时的谈话中,胡嘉进行恶意造谣、诽谤和煽动,妄图达到颠覆中国国家政权和社会主义制度的目的。胡嘉撰写的煽动性文章以及被制作成音频或整理成文字的采访录音,被境外多家网站链接和转载。北京市第一中级人民法院认定,被告人胡嘉诽谤、煽动颠覆国家政权和社会制度,其行为已构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪。鉴于胡嘉在法庭庭审中能够悔罪,表示愿意接受法律制裁,依法可对其酌予从轻处罚。遂依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第二款、第五十六条第一款和第五十五条第一款的规定,作出前述判决。本案审理期间,法庭充分保障了被告人胡嘉的诉讼权利。在庭审中,胡嘉除自己行使辩护权,其委托的辩护律师也发表了充分的辩护意见。庭审和宣判时,胡嘉的家属均到庭旁听。

胡嘉(曾用名胡佳),男,1973年出生,汉族,大学文化,无业。(完)

Hu Jia sentenced to 3.5 years in jail Hu Jia was sentenced Thursday by the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court to three and half years imprisonment, with one year deprivation of political rights, for subverting the state.The verdict said Hu, a married father aged 34 and the holder of a college degree, libeled the Chinese political and social systems, and instigated subversion of the state, which is a crime under Chinese law.Considering Hu’s confession of crime and acceptance of punishment, the court decided the ruling with leniency and announced a less harsh prison sentence.The court heard that from August 2006 to October 2007, Hu published articles on overseas-run websites, made comments in interviews with foreign media, and repeatedly instigated other people to subvert the Chinese political and socialist systems.In his two website articles, ‘China Political Law-enforcement Organs Create Large-scale Horror ahead of CPC National Congress’, and ‘One Country Doesn’t Need Two Systems’, Hu spread malicious rumors, libel and instigation, in an attempt to subvert the state’s political and socialist systems, the court said in the verdict.The articles written by Hu and his interviews were widely relayed by overseas-run websites, the court said.

Comments (31)

胡佳“坐牢”4周年

撇开2002年胡佳在艾滋病村探访村民时被当地警方拘禁一事不计,200443200843,胡佳“坐牢”刚好满4周年。

这四年期间,他坐的牢五花八门。既有“明牢”:20071227至今,他被拘禁在北京市看守所;2006978日、26日和2007518,他被公安局传唤到北京市通州区中仓派出所长时间问话。

也有“灰牢”和“黑牢”。这是一种由警察执行却在台面上说不清道不明的非法拘禁。共同特点是:便衣警察们不管三七二十一,突然抓住胡佳往车里塞,有时还套上黑头套,运到一个已经布置好的“小黑屋”(一般是某个旅馆的地下室或紧拉窗帘的小房间);要么对其进行“说服教育”,要么用污言秽语对其攻击谩骂,要么对其拳打脚踢,甚至用皮带把其全身捆住并坐在胡佳的身上;每次拘禁少则一两天,多则四十一天,次数多得记不清;这些“灰牢”、“黑牢”,警察们不但没有任何法律手续,事后还一概不承认。由于这些回忆很痛苦,被我有意识地忘记,现在只能列举一些有确凿记录的“灰牢”、“黑牢”记录:2004434日、5日;41314日、15日(中间释放过一次);52266(先被软禁在家,后被带走关到旅馆地下室);20054285472胡佳从北京市朝阳区搬到通州区后,又多次短暂“失踪”,详情只能将来再述[1]11月在郑州举办的中国艾滋病防治工作会议期间,胡佳被警方抓走后,因卫生部高级官员出面干预,他侥幸免住“小黑屋”,而是被警察挟持着到洛阳等地“参观”艾滋病防治示范区;2006216328被便衣警察绑架秘密关押共41天。

第三种是“家牢”。简单地说,早上外出时,突然被一群穿便衣的警察和保安拦在家里,没有任何的法律手续,只是说“今天领导有命令,你不能出去”,日复一日,不知何日休止。无论胡佳是讲道理摆法律,还是拼尽力气往外冲,都无法成功外出。被软禁在家的时间,一次比一次持续得更长。详细的情况,可以看我们的纪录片《自由城的囚徒》

第四种是“移动的牢笼”和“株连的冤牢”。无论是在河南做调研工作,抑或只是单纯地为艾滋病逝者朱进中送葬,还是为躲避六四前后的再次非法拘禁而蛰居郑州,抑或只是陪同我回福建探亲,以及在北京的敏感日子和平常日子,身后无不明目张胆地跟着几车(一般是两辆车,有时也有摩托车等)的便衣国保,“必要的时候”立即把胡佳强制带走,没有任何的法律依据。作为妻子,我也被牵连,常常和胡佳一样失去自由。一些故友和密友,也莫名其妙地受牵连,间或失去自由。

据不完全统计,胡佳没有自由的日子,2005年有126天,2006年有214天,2007年有226天,2008年至今没有自由。

这究竟是为什么?一个连蚂蚁也不忍踩死的佛教徒,一个爱护环境、爱惜生命的素食者,一个为百姓请命的“好管闲事者”,对这个社会,不但没有坏处,而且称得上小有贡献。现在他因为写了几篇文章,接受了外国记者采访,就被起诉“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”。我心揪得紧紧的,不知道会有什么结果。他已过世的姥爷,因毕业于东京帝国大学、曾经在国民党政府任职(政府只有一个,不管哪个党执政,有选择的余地吗?)及信仰藏传佛教等,被劳教,从1958年到80年代初,扣着“现行反革命”的帽子;姥爷的子女在臭老九被踩脚下的年代,也受牢狱之灾,现在他们不愿多谈;他八十多岁的伯父从1955年“肃反”开始,被判刑、强制劳动长达25年,根本原因,也不过是其要公道敢说话;他七十多岁的父母1957年还是大学生,都因言获罪被划为“右派”,被下放强制劳动长达22年;如今胡佳还在看守所里,妻儿也不得真正的自由。

我们都是普通人,也常常恐惧,我们盼望的,无非是家庭团圆幸福,推动并受益于社会进步。胡佳的健康,在41天失踪时已被严重伤害不能康复,目前最多只是维持现状。如果他被判刑,对于我们这个家庭,对于他的健康,是雪上加霜;对于我们这个社会,也是悲剧。如果还用旧的方式对待有社会责任感的人,对待又直又憨的青年,损失牺牲的不仅是我们这些家庭,更是这个社会,那么中国的将来,谁还愿意、还敢、还能承担?

 

感谢网友翻译

The fourth anniversary of Hu Jia’s imprisonment  

Not counting in the one time in 2002 when Hu Jia was detained by the police while interviewing AIDS village inhabitants/villagers, he will have been under various forms of imprisonment for exactly four years on 3 April 2008.  

His imprisonment during these four years took various forms. There was the ‘avowed imprisonment:’ on 27 December 2007, Hu Jia was detained in a

Beijing police station. On 8 and 9 September 2006 and on 18 May 2007 he was subpoenaed by the Public security bureau to come to the Zhongcang police station of

Beijing’s Tongzhou district for lengthy questionings.
 

Then there were the ‘grey’ and the ‘black imprisonment.’ These were forms of police detention which were never avowed. The common characteristics of these two forms were: The plainclothes police had no regard for anything, they would just suddenly grab Hu Jia and bundle him into a vehicle. Sometimes they also put a black hood over his head. Then they would take him to a ‘small black chamber’ that had been prepared in advance (generally, it was a basement room or a room with closely drawn curtains in a hotel). Then they would ‘persuade and educate’ him, or they would use foul and insulting language to taunt and abuse him; or they would beat and kick him. They would even use leather belts to tie him up, and sit upon his body. This kind of imprisonment lasted for one or two days at least, and for 41 days the longest. It happened so often that I cannot clearly remember now how many times it was. For these ‘grey’ and ‘black’ imprisonments, the police not only failed go through any formal procedures, they also never acknowledged that they had happened afterwards. The memory of these things is so painful that I made a conscious effort to forget them. Now I can only list a few times of ‘grey imprisonment’ and ‘black imprisonment’ that are still clear in my memory: In 2004, these happened on 3, 4, and 5 April and 13, 14 and 15 April (in between they released him once); 22 May-6 June (at that time he was first put under house arrest at his home, then taken away and locked up in a basement room of a hotel); in 2005: 28 April – 4 May; after Hu Jia moved from Beijing Chaoyang district to Tongzhou district on 2 July, he ‘disappeared’ a number of times for brief periods – we will only be able to make a detailed account later - ; in November, during a scheduled AIDS prevention workshop in Zhengzhou, Hu Jia was taken away by the police but then he avoided the ‘black chamber’ thanks to the intervention by a high official in the Ministry of Health and was instead taken hostage by the police and escorted to various locations such as Luoyang, and other places, to ‘visit’ model AIDS prevention places. In 2006, he was abducted by the police and secretly detained by them for 41 days from 16 February until 28 March.  

The third kind is ‘home imprisonment’ (or “house arrest”). Simply speaking, it meant that on going out in the morning, he would suddenly be stopped from leaving home by some plainclothes police officers and security personnel. There were no legal procedures whatsoever. All they would say was, ‘today the leadership has decided that you can’t go out.’ Day in day out it would be like this and we had no idea when it would stop. It was no use to argue with them on the basis of reason or law; nor to try and force his way; Hu Jia never managed to get out. These periods of house arrest became longer each time. For details you may watch our documentary ‘Prisoners in

Freedom City.’
 

The fourth kind was ‘the mobile cage’ and ‘wrongful imprisonment by association.’ Whether it was while doing research in  Henan province, or while attending a funeral for a deceased AIDS patient, or when hiding out in Zhengzhou to evade illegal detention around June Fourth, or simply while accompanying me on family visits to Fujian, or on - sensitive or even just normal - days in Beijing, we were openly and brazenly followed by state security squad police in several cars (usually, two cars, sometimes also motorbikes, etc) so that ‘if it became necessary’ they could at any time detain him without following any legal procedures. As his wife, I became implicated as well and often lost my freedom together with Hu Jia. A few old and close friends were also subjected to such groundless implications and occasionally lost their freedom.  

According to incomplete statistics, Hu Jia was not free on 126 days in 2005, on 214 days in 2006, on 226 days in 2007; and in 2008 he has not been free until now.  

What is the real reason for this? Hu Jia is merely an honest and straightforward young man who spoke some truths and was fearless and uncompromising. He is a Buddhist who wouldn’t kill an ant, a vegetarian who loves to protect the environment and save life, and who made it his business to plead on behalf of ordinary people. He not only does not do any harm to society; he can even be said to have made some small contributions to the society. Yet now he is accused of ‘inciting state subversion’ because he wrote a few essays and gave interviews to foreign journalists. My heart tightens with anxiety and I do not know what the outcome will be.  

His maternal grandfather, who has already passed away, was sent to labour camp because he had graduated from

Tokyo Imperial University, worked as a government official under the Kuomintang and adhered to the Tibetan Buddhism, etc. Until the early 1980s he remained labeled as a ‘currently active counterrevolutionary.’ His grandfather’s children also suffered the misery of imprisonment during the campaign against the ‘stinking ninth [category of reprehensible social elements = intellectual].’ They are currently not willing to talk much about it. His now eighty-year-old paternal uncle was sentenced as a criminal after the ‘eradication of counterrevolutionaries’ began in 1955, and had to do forced labour for 25 years. The basic reason for this was also that he wanted justice and dared to speak out. His parents, now in their seventies, were still university students in 1957. They were branded as ‘rightists’ for some things they had said, sent down into the countryside and made to do forced labour for 22 years.
 

As of now, Hu Jia remains imprisoned in the police detention centre. His wife and daughter have no real freedom either. We are just normal people. We often experience fear; and our hope is simply to be reunited and happy in the future; it is simply that there will be some daily progress in society. Hu Jia’s health was already so severely and irrevocably damaged during his 41 days of imprisonment that all we can do now is to prevent it from getting worse. If he is convicted that will make it even worse for his family and for his health. And it will also be a tragedy for our society. If these old methods of repression continue to be used against those who merely have a social conscience, against honest and straightforward young people, then it will be a loss not just for a few families like ours but for the whole society. For who will then still be willing to – who will still dare to take responsibility for

China’s future?
 


[1] 如有知情的朋友,请把详细经过附到评论栏或发电邮。

Comments (24)

Next entries »