Political Dissent Prosecutions Under Prc Criminal Law
Political Dissent Prosecutions under PRC Criminal Law
In the People's Republic of China (PRC), political dissent is a sensitive subject, and the government exercises significant control over expressions of opposition. Under Chinese criminal law, political dissent can lead to various forms of prosecution, ranging from charges of subversion, incitement to subversion, and state security offenses, to more general crimes like spreading rumors or disturbing public order. These prosecutions often involve individuals who criticize the government, its policies, or the Communist Party.
This response provides a detailed examination of political dissent prosecutions under Chinese criminal law, citing notable case law that highlights the tensions between state security and individual rights in China.
Key Legal Framework for Political Dissent Prosecutions
Under Chinese law, there are several provisions that could be used to prosecute political dissent:
Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (1997, amended in 2015)
Article 105: Subversion of state power and overthrowing the socialist system.
Article 111: Incitement to subvert state power.
Article 293: The spreading of rumors that disturb public order.
Article 300: Using cults to undermine social order (often used in cases involving religious dissent).
National Security Law (2015)
Article 9: Prevents any acts of subversion against the socialist system.
Article 22: Provides broad legal powers to authorities to "safeguard national security," including preventing the dissemination of harmful political opinions.
Cybersecurity Law (2017)
Article 12: Regulates the publication of information online, making it easier for authorities to punish individuals for posts or activities seen as harmful to national unity or public order.
These laws grant the government broad discretion in prosecuting individuals, NGOs, journalists, and activists who challenge the state. Many of these laws have been critiqued for being vague and overly broad, which allows authorities to label any form of political dissent as subversive or dangerous.
Key Cases on Political Dissent Prosecutions in the PRC
Here are five significant cases that have shaped the understanding of political dissent under Chinese criminal law:
1. The Case of Liu Xiaobo (2009)
Facts: Liu Xiaobo was a prominent Chinese intellectual and human rights activist. He was a key figure in drafting Charter 08, a manifesto calling for political reform, the protection of human rights, and the end of one-party rule in China. Liu was arrested in December 2008 on charges of "inciting to subvert state power" due to his involvement in the Charter 08 initiative and his long history of advocating for political freedoms.
Legal Issue: Liu was convicted under Article 105 of the PRC Criminal Law, which prohibits subversion of state power. His conviction came after he openly criticized the Chinese government, particularly its human rights record and its treatment of dissidents.
Ruling: In December 2009, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison. The case drew widespread international condemnation. Liu's conviction is often cited as a stark example of how China uses the broad charge of "subversion" to suppress political dissent and punish activists seeking political reforms. Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 while still in prison.
Significance: Liu's case illustrates how Chinese authorities use charges of subversion as a tool to punish dissent, often labeling moderate reformist positions as threats to national security.
2. The Case of Chen Guangcheng (2011)
Facts: Chen Guangcheng is a blind human rights lawyer who exposed widespread forced abortions and sterilizations in China’s rural areas. He gained national and international attention for his advocacy of women's rights and the rights of rural residents to not be forcibly sterilized. In 2006, he was arrested and sentenced to four years and three months in prison on charges of "intentional damage to property" and "organizing a mob to disturb traffic"—charges widely considered to be politically motivated.
Legal Issue: While Chen’s legal troubles began with his advocacy on forced sterilization, his actions were framed as subversive by the Chinese government. After his release in 2010, he sought to flee China and was subsequently placed under house arrest, which led to further arrests and abuse.
Ruling: Chen was eventually allowed to leave China for the United States after a lengthy standoff between Chinese authorities and American diplomats.
Significance: Chen’s case represents the intersection of human rights activism and political dissent, showing how the government used charges unrelated to politics to suppress individuals engaged in political activism. It also demonstrated how the government uses house arrest and other extrajudicial measures to control dissidents.
3. The Case of Ai Weiwei (2011)
Facts: Ai Weiwei, a renowned artist and outspoken critic of the Chinese government, was detained in April 2011 on charges of "tax evasion" after he openly criticized government censorship, corruption, and human rights violations. His detention followed his active role in organizing a public campaign against government corruption and advocating for political reforms.
Legal Issue: Ai was charged under the Tax Law and sentenced to pay a fine for "evading taxes." However, critics and international observers widely viewed this as a pretext for punishing him for his political dissent.
Ruling: After being held for 81 days, Ai Weiwei was released, but his passport was confiscated. He faced significant restrictions on his freedom of movement and speech.
Significance: The case of Ai Weiwei underscores how the Chinese government often employs economic crimes (such as tax evasion) as a means to silence political dissent, especially when the accusations are seen as baseless or politically motivated. Ai’s international fame turned the case into a symbol of the Chinese government’s crackdown on free expression.
4. The Case of Xu Zhiyong (2014)
Facts: Xu Zhiyong is a lawyer and activist who founded the "New Citizens Movement" in China. This movement sought to promote constitutionalism, social equality, and human rights. Xu was arrested in 2013 and charged with "gathering a crowd to disturb public order" and "inciting to subvert state power" after he organized a series of protests demanding government transparency, anti-corruption reforms, and the protection of citizens' rights.
Legal Issue: Xu was convicted under Article 105 (subversion) and Article 293 (disturbing public order). His activism, particularly the call for government transparency and an end to corruption, was seen as a direct challenge to the Communist Party’s control.
Ruling: In 2014, Xu Zhiyong was sentenced to 4 years in prison. His case was widely viewed as part of a broader crackdown on civil society and political activism under President Xi Jinping's administration.
Significance: Xu's conviction is an example of how China’s authorities use vague charges like "subversion" or "disturbing public order" to punish political activism, particularly when it targets the government or calls for systemic reform.
5. The Case of Zhang Zhan (2020)
Facts: Zhang Zhan is a citizen journalist who reported on the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, highlighting issues such as the government’s initial response and the suppression of early reports. Zhang's reporting on social media, including videos and posts, was critical of the government’s handling of the pandemic.
Legal Issue: Zhang was charged with "picking quarrels and provoking trouble", a broad charge frequently used to silence critics and activists. This charge often involves vague accusations that an individual’s actions disturb public order, though it has been widely used in cases involving political dissent.
Ruling: In December 2020, Zhang was sentenced to 4 years in prison for her reporting activities. Her arrest and trial attracted international attention, with many seeing it as part of China’s broader crackdown on independent reporting and the suppression of freedom of expression.
Significance: Zhang’s case highlights the Chinese government’s ongoing efforts to silence dissent, particularly in relation to issues that could embarrass the state, such as its handling of public health crises. It also reflects the increasing use of broad, catch-all charges like "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" in prosecuting dissenting views.
Conclusion
Political dissent in China is met with heavy scrutiny, and individuals who challenge the state often face charges of subversion, disturbing public order, or even crimes like tax evasion. The cases of Liu Xiaobo, Chen Guangcheng, Ai Weiwei, Xu Zhiyong, and Zhang Zhan illustrate the various ways in which Chinese authorities prosecute individuals for their political beliefs, especially when those beliefs threaten the authority of the Communist Party. These cases demonstrate the broad and vague nature of China's legal framework in dealing with political dissent, where laws like subversion, inciting subversion, and disturbing public order are used to suppress freedom of speech and activism.
RELATED Blog
comments