Criminalization Of Political Dissent In China
I. Legal Framework for Political Dissent in China
Political dissent in China is often criminalized under broad provisions in criminal law and national security legislation. Key laws include:
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China
Article 102–105: Subversion of state power
Article 105: Inciting subversion of state power
Article 300: Spreading rumors or subversive ideas online
Criminal Procedure Law
Provides procedures for arrest, detention, and trial; in practice, it allows authorities to limit access to lawyers, restrict evidence disclosure, and hold closed trials in sensitive political cases.
National Security Law (2015) & Hong Kong National Security Law (2020)
Extend state authority to criminalize acts deemed threatening to political stability, including advocacy, speech, or assembly.
Key Principles:
Political dissent is broadly defined and often conflated with “subversion” or “endangering state security.”
Activities like publishing articles, organizing protests, or advocating for reform can be criminalized.
Both domestic citizens and foreigners may face prosecution under national security provisions.
II. Detailed Cases of Criminalization of Political Dissent
Case 1: Liu Xiaobo (Pro-Democracy Activist)
Background: Liu was a writer and human rights advocate, co-author of “Charter 08,” a manifesto calling for political reform.
Charges: Inciting to subvert state power.
Violation: Closed trial, limited legal defense, international criticism for suppression of free expression.
Outcome: Sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
Significance: Landmark case illustrating how advocacy for democratic reform is treated as a criminal act.
Case 2: Xu Zhiyong (Rule-of-Law Lawyer)
Background: Xu founded civil society initiatives calling for transparency, rule of law, and political reform.
Charges: Subversion of state power.
Violation: Arrest without timely public charges, restricted access to lawyers, politically motivated prosecution.
Outcome: Sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates criminal law targeting organized political activism under the guise of national security.
Case 3: Ilham Tohti (Uyghur Academic)
Background: Economist advocating for ethnic rights and minority integration.
Charges: Separatism and inciting ethnic unrest (interpreted as subversion).
Violation: Restricted access to counsel, trial closed to the public.
Outcome: Sentenced to life imprisonment.
Significance: Shows criminalization of dissent framed around ethnic or political advocacy.
Case 4: Wang Quanzhang (Human Rights Lawyer)
Background: Detained during the 2015 “709 crackdown” targeting lawyers and activists.
Charges: Subversion of state power.
Violation: Held incommunicado for years, limited legal representation, allegedly subjected to forced confessions.
Outcome: Sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Highlights the use of criminal law to intimidate lawyers defending political or human rights cases.
Case 5: Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Activists (2019–2020)
Background: Activists participating in anti-government protests or advocating for democratic reforms.
Charges: Rioting, inciting secession, collusion with foreign forces under the Hong Kong National Security Law.
Violation: Closed trials, restricted access to lawyers, pretrial detention without bail.
Outcome: Many sentenced to up to 10 years imprisonment.
Significance: Extends mainland political criminalization mechanisms to Hong Kong under the National Security Law.
Case 6: Xu Youyu (Philosopher & Dissident)
Background: Scholar and advocate for political reform and historical accountability.
Charges: Inciting subversion through publications and online commentary.
Violation: Legal proceedings controlled to limit defense; trial closed to the public.
Outcome: Received several years of administrative detention.
Significance: Illustrates criminalization of intellectual dissent.
Case 7: Liu Ping (Civil Rights Activist)
Background: Campaigned for fair elections and anti-corruption measures.
Charges: Organizing illegal assembly, inciting subversion.
Violation: Arrested for peaceful activism, subjected to lengthy detention, restricted legal representation.
Outcome: Sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Significance: Peaceful political campaigning treated as criminal conduct.
III. Key Patterns Across Cases
Broad Criminal Definitions: Laws like “subversion” and “inciting subversion” allow prosecution for speech or assembly.
Targeting Lawyers & Activists: Human rights lawyers and civil society leaders face systematic repression.
Closed Trials & Limited Counsel: Procedural rights are often curtailed, undermining fair trial standards.
Severe Sentences: Sentences range from multi-year imprisonment to life imprisonment, reflecting the state’s emphasis on deterrence.
Suppression Across Sectors: Academics, lawyers, activists, journalists, and protest organizers are all at risk.
IV. Conclusion
China’s criminal law system is a key tool for controlling political dissent. Broad charges like subversion, inciting subversion, and endangering state security are applied against individuals advocating for reform, transparency, or minority rights. The cases above demonstrate a consistent pattern of arbitrary detention, restricted legal access, closed trials, and harsh sentencing, highlighting how political activism intersects with criminal law enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments