Xu Zhiyong Case – Criminalisation Of Dissent Under Public Order Offences
1. Xu Zhiyong Case: Overview & Legal Analysis
Who is Xu Zhiyong?
Xu Zhiyong is a well-known Chinese civil society activist and legal scholar.
He co-founded the New Citizens’ Movement, which advocated for greater government transparency, anti-corruption, and equal rights (e.g., for migrant children).
What happened (the “12.26 Citizen Case”):
On 26 December 2019, Xu Zhiyong participated in a private gathering in Xiamen (Fujian province) with other lawyers, intellectuals, and activists to discuss civic issues and the future of civil society.
Shortly afterward, many of the participants were detained: some disappeared, others were “summoned” or held under residential surveillance at a designated location (RSDL).
Xu was arrested (on 15 February 2020, according to reports), and initially held under RSDL.
The authorities transferred his case to a different province (Shandong), and he was formally arrested for “inciting subversion of state power.”
According to a UN‑document, his detention involved searches of his home without proper warrant; seizure of personal letters, books, and a safe.
Charges & Legal Basis:
The most serious charge: “inciting subversion of state power” (under Article 105(2) of the PRC Criminal Law).
In other cases connected to him, “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (Article 293 of the Criminal Law) is also used.
The “12.26 Citizen Case” name comes from the date of the gathering.
Why this is seen as “criminalisation of dissent”:
The charges (especially “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”) are very broad and vaguely defined; they allow authorities to target activism, speech, and assembly.
Many activists argue these laws are tools to suppress civil society, not genuinely to maintain public order.
The use of RSDL (residential surveillance at a designated location) raises serious due‑process issues: detainees can be held outside regular detention centers, with limited access to lawyers or family.
The scale of repression is notable: many participants of the Xiamen gathering (lawyers, activists) were detained, showing that the state treats civic organizing as a threat.
Wider Impact:
The case is part of a broader crackdown on the New Citizens’ Movement, which the government perceives as potentially challenging its authority.
It also exemplifies how China uses its criminal law to stifle dissent under the guise of “public order” rather than more overt “political crime.”
International bodies (e.g., working groups at the UN) have raised concerns about the legality of his detention and the charges.
2. Related Cases & Legal Context: Other Examples of Public‑Order Offences Used Against Dissent
To understand Xu Zhiyong’s case in broader perspective, here are five+ other cases (and legal trends) where similar public-order offences (especially “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”) have been used to suppress activism, journalism, or civil society in China.
Case 1: Liu Ping & Wei Zhongping (New Citizens’ Movement Activists)
Liu Ping and Wei Zhongping were sentenced to 6.5 years in prison (in 2014) for their activism.
Charges included: “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” “gathering a crowd to disrupt public order,” and “using a cult to undermine law enforcement.”
Their conviction is widely seen as politically motivated: they were advocating for political reform, greater transparency, and social rights.
This case shows the pattern: activism → broad public-order charges → long prison sentences.
Case 2: The Feminist Five (2015)
Five feminist activists (often called the “Feminist Five”) were detained on March 6, 2015, for planning a public-action campaign (distributing anti-sexual harassment stickers on Beijing subway) on International Women’s Day.
They were charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
Their arrest sent a chilling message: even peaceful feminist activism can be interpreted as a “disruption of public order.”
This case underscores how public-order offences are used not only against “political” activists but also social-justice and gender activists.
Case 3: Zhang Zhan (Citizen Journalist)
Zhang Zhan, a citizen journalist, reported from Wuhan during the early COVID-19 outbreak, publishing videos and interviews.
She was arrested and later sentenced (in December 2020) to 4 years in prison on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
The authorities accused her of “fabricating” some information, but many human-rights observers say her reporting was critical but truthful, and her sentence is part of broader suppression.
Her case demonstrates how even documentation and reporting by citizens (not professional journalists) is criminalized under public‑order laws.
Case 4: Hao Jinsong
Hao Jinsong was arrested (in late 2019) on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” for his online speech.
Over time, additional charges were added (including “libel” and “fraud”).
In July 2023, he was sentenced to 9 years in prison, a harsh penalty, especially given that part of the case was based on social media comments.
His prolonged detention and severe sentence show how public-order charges can serve as a basis for a heavy crackdown for relatively “speech-based” activism.
Case 5: Sun Dawu
Sun Dawu is a wealthy businessman known for his support of social causes (farmers’ rights, rural reform) and his willingness to host rights lawyers.
He was charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and imprisoned.
This indicates that even some economic actors or business people who support civil society or speak out can be targeted via public-order offense.
Case 6: Use of RSDL and Vague Public-Order Laws (Legal Trend)
The practice of Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) is used in many of these cases (including Xu Zhiyong’s) to hold activists outside normal detention.
Article 293 of the PRC Criminal Law (“picking quarrels and provoking trouble”) is widely criticized for being vague and too broad.
According to reports, the application of this charge has exploded: e.g., in one account, from ~800 cases in 2011 to ~40,000 in 2019.
This legal tool is increasingly used as a catch-all to criminalize dissent, protest, civil society organizing, and even online speech.
3. Analysis: Why This Is Significant for Criminalisation of Dissent
Putting together Xu Zhiyong’s case and the related cases, we can draw some broader lessons:
Broad Legal Provisions = High Risk for Activists
The vagueness of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” means almost any form of dissent (speech, gathering, online activism) can potentially be prosecuted.
This gives authorities significant discretion to suppress civil society under “public order” pretenses.
Instrumentalization of Criminal Law
Rather than using only overt “political” crimes (like subversion), the state frequently relies on public-order crimes to sidestep international criticism.
Public-order charges may appear “less political,” even when used for political suppression.
Due Process Concerns
RSDL detentions reduce transparency. Activists held under RSDL often lack access to lawyers or family, raising concerns about abuse, torture, or forced confessions.
Searches and seizures (homes, computers, letters) without proper warrants compound these rights violations.
Chilling Effect on Civil Society
High-profile cases like Xu’s send a strong signal to other activists: organizing, discussing, or publicly calling for reform can lead to serious criminal charges.
This deters people from forming or joining civic groups, participating in grassroots movements, or speaking out.
International Attention & Human Rights Criticism
Groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UN experts have repeatedly flagged these laws as tools of repression.
The use of such “public order” offences in politically sensitive cases undermines China’s claims about rule of law.
RELATED Blog
comments