News & Views

中共会让徐伟、靳海科保外就医吗？（作者：杨莉藜）

新青年学会案是一桩彻头彻尾的冤案。四青年莫名其妙就被判8－10年的有期徒刑，面对被告上诉、主要证人翻供等一系列问题，当局依然将错就错，硬是不做任何改判。徐伟和靳海科二人如今身患重病，凭监狱的医疗条件无法治愈。中共当局即使不考虑改正荒唐的判决，也应该从人道的角度，准予两人保外就医。

遗憾的是，我们看到的结果——虽然还不是最后结果——刚好相反。杨子立和张宏海的公开信发表不久，就有西方媒体报道说，杨子立可能会因为这封信被再次投入监狱。当局对杨子立和张宏海的呼吁尚不能容忍，徐伟和靳海科的保外就医看来更是没有任何指望了。

现代国家的刑罚，即使再严酷，也有其人道的考量。作为一种监外执行方式，保外就医就是刑罚的人道主义因素的具体体现。中共颁发的《罪犯保外就医执行办法》的引言里也指出，保外就医“体现了社会主义人道主义精神。”然而在具体操作中，中共的“社会主义人道主义”总是向自己的社会基础倾斜，真正能顺利获得保外就医的往往是那些贪官污吏，而极少是系狱的异议人士。其中的道理，应该不难理解。贪官再贪也是这个政权的手足，而异议人士在中共眼里则是罪不可赦的敌对力量。

近几年的案例中，较早点儿的异议人士如力虹、郭飞雄和晚近系狱的胡佳、范燕琼等都因种种疾病申请过保外就医，但当局以种种借口一律断然拒绝。而烟草巨贪褚时健，入狱没多久就以糖尿病为由获得了保外就医，且利用此机会“二次创业”，早已在经济上东山再起，成为当地赫赫有名的“水果大王”。

广东当局回复郭飞雄家人的保外就医申请时说：郭飞雄的情况不符合《刑事诉讼法》第二百一十四条和《监狱法》第二十五条的条件，因此不予批准。不知道广东当局为什么只提《刑事诉讼法》和《监狱法》，而不提更为直接的《罪犯保外就医执行办法》。事实上，《罪犯保外就医执行办法》才是处理保外就医问题的更直接规约。

《罪犯保外就医执行办法》第四条规定：“对累犯、惯犯、反革命犯的保外就医，从严控制……”，原来，这才是当局屡屡拒绝被囚异议人士保外就医申请的真正原因。《罪犯保外就医执行办法》颁布于1990年底，当时的“反革命犯”就是现在的“危害国家安全”、“颠覆（含煽动颠覆）国家政权”等政治罪犯。《罪犯保外就医执行办法》自颁布近二十年来没有修订版出炉，显然其中的条款依然有效。

当然，异议人士获准保外就医并不是没有可能。事实上，魏京生、王丹等不少异议人士都是以保外就医的名义获得自由的。但是这类案例中一个很重要的因素是国际压力——特别是来自美国的压力。由此而论，徐伟和靳海科这次能否像杨子立和张宏海所希望的那样获准保外就医，奥巴马总统能对中共当局施以多大的压力是问题的关键。

奥巴马总统中国之行担子不轻。美国政府此时最关心的也许是双边贸易、经济合作，但海内外关心中国政治前途的人们确希望他能在促进中国人权问题方面有所作为。作为任期内就获得诺贝尔和平奖的为数不多的美国总统之一，奥巴马先生确实应该拿出直面独裁政权的道德勇气，像里根总统直言“请拆除这堵墙”那样，正告胡锦涛“请释放徐伟、靳海科！”惟其如此，两位饱受病患折磨的无辜青年才有获得自由的可能。

中共會讓徐偉、靳海科保外就醫嗎？（作者：楊莉藜）

奧巴馬總統訪華在即，今年年初才獲得自由的原新青年學會成員楊子立和張宏海發表了一封公開信，請求奧巴馬總統關註仍在獄中的原新青年學會成員徐偉和靳海科。由於徐偉和靳海科均患有重病，在監獄中得不到有效治療，他們呼籲奧巴馬總統能敦促中國政府讓徐偉和靳海科保外就醫，從而得以從肉體和精神的雙重痛苦中解脫出來。

 

新青年學會案是一樁徹頭徹尾的冤案。四青年莫名其妙就被判8－10年的有期徒刑，面對被告上訴、主要證人翻供等一系列問題，當局依然將錯就錯，硬是不做任何改判。徐偉和靳海科二人如今身患重病，憑監獄的醫療條件無法治愈。中共當局即使不考慮改正荒唐的判決，也應該從人道的角度，準予兩人保外就醫。

 

遺憾的是，我們看到的結果——雖然還不是最後結果——剛好相反。楊子立和張宏海的公開信發表不久，就有西方媒體報道說，楊子立可能會因為這封信被再次投入監獄。當局對楊子立和張宏海的呼籲尚不能容忍，徐偉和靳海科的保外就醫看來更是沒有任何指望了。

現代國家的刑罰，即使再嚴酷，也有其人道的考量。作為一種監外執行方式，保外就醫就是刑罰的人道主義因素的具體體現。中共頒發的《罪犯保外就醫執行辦法》的引言裏也指出，保外就醫“體現了社會主義人道主義精神。”然而在具體操作中，中共的“社會主義人道主義”總是向自己的社會基礎傾斜，真正能順利獲得保外就醫的往往是那些貪官汙吏，而極少是系獄的異議人士。其中的道理，應該不難理解。貪官再貪也是這個政權的手足，而異議人士在中共眼裏則是罪不可赦的敵對力量。

近幾年的案例中，較早點兒的異議人士如力虹、郭飛雄和晚近系獄的胡佳、範燕瓊等都因種種疾病申請過保外就醫，但當局以種種借口一律斷然拒絕。而煙草巨貪褚時健，入獄沒多久就以糖尿病為由獲得了保外就醫，且利用此機會“二次創業”，早已在經濟上東山再起，成為當地赫赫有名的“水果大王”。

廣東當局回復郭飛雄家人的保外就醫申請時說：郭飛雄的情況不符合《刑事訴訟法》第二百一十四條和《監獄法》第二十五條的條件，因此不予批準。不知道廣東當局為什麽只提《刑事訴訟法》和《監獄法》，而不提更為直接的《罪犯保外就醫執行辦法》。事實上，《罪犯保外就醫執行辦法》才是處理保外就醫問題的更直接規約。

《罪犯保外就醫執行辦法》第四條規定：“對累犯、慣犯、反革命犯的保外就醫，從嚴控制……”，原來，這才是當局屢屢拒絕被囚異議人士保外就醫申請的真正原因。《罪犯保外就醫執行辦法》頒布於1990年底，當時的“反革命犯”就是現在的“危害國家安全”、“顛覆（含煽動顛覆）國家政權”等政治罪犯。《罪犯保外就醫執行辦法》自頒布近二十年來沒有修訂版出爐，顯然其中的條款依然有效。

當然，異議人士獲準保外就醫並不是沒有可能。事實上，魏京生、王丹等不少異議人士都是以保外就醫的名義獲得自由的。但是這類案例中一個很重要的因素是國際壓力——特別是來自美國的壓力。由此而論，徐偉和靳海科這次能否像楊子立和張宏海所希望的那樣獲準保外就醫，奧巴馬總統能對中共當局施以多大的壓力是問題的關鍵。

奧巴馬總統中國之行擔子不輕。美國政府此時最關心的也許是雙邊貿易、經濟合作，但海內外關心中國政治前途的人們確希望他能在促進中國人權問題方面有所作為。作為任期內就獲得諾貝爾和平獎的為數不多的美國總統之一，奧巴馬先生確實應該拿出直面獨裁政權的道德勇氣，像裏根總統直言“請拆除這堵墻”那樣，正告胡錦濤“請釋放徐偉、靳海科！”惟其如此，兩位飽受病患折磨的無辜青年才有獲得自由的可能。

窃钩者诛，窃国者为诸侯——谁被送进了劳改营

近年來中共高官因貪汙而鋃鐺入獄的人數只增不減，涉案金額往往數以億計，從90年代的陳希同到前幾年的陳良宇，再到今年的文強、許宗衡、黃瑤。那些落馬高官現在的牢獄生活如何呢？據報道，陳良宇在秦城監獄裏住著”20平方米大套間，設有坐式馬桶和腳踏式沖水，並配有洗衣機；每天接近200元，一日四餐（包括晚9:30宵夜）；可以看報紙，看內容受限制的電視，還可以讀書寫作，也會寫些材料；服刑期間，可以不著囚服，多數時間還是身穿西裝,不打領帶。”

他們在鐵窗外是特權階層，到了鐵窗內還是特權階層——而中共的勞改對象，是普通中國民眾和政治異己。他們被投入勞改營，或者是因為沒有錢“孝敬”當權者，或者是因為非法獲取了幾萬元人民幣，或者是因為他們的某些言論觸怒了當局。從被送入勞改營的那一天開始，幾十個囚犯擠在一個牢房裏，晚上睡覺也許翻身都有困難；每個人每天的夥食也許成本不到兩塊錢；除了政治教育的《人民日報》之外再無可讀之物；囚犯們幾十年如一日地穿著一件囚衣，很多死在勞改營的人們就穿著囚衣被草草埋掉。

想起兩年前深圳打工青年許霆因利用銀行ATM機技術漏洞竊取十數萬人民幣而被判處無期徒刑的案子，一審判決一出，全國輿論嘩然。全中國有多少人是這樣被送進了勞改營？他們當中又有多少人，進去了之後便再也沒活著出來？

莊子曾言：竊鉤者誅，竊國者為諸侯。

古人誠不我欺，是當局在欺弄百姓。

For the Gentleman of Beijing

While the Chinese Communist Party has been in the business of persecuting independent thinkers for decades, there tend to be a few wiley rascals who just won’t learn.  These so-called “bad elements “ tend to be a thorn in Beijing’s backside on the worst of occasions, usually when a foreign dignitary is coming to town.  Even though many of these “subversives” most certainly have opinions about the up-coming visit of President Obama to the PRC, no one had the guts to write him a letter and hand it to the international press.  Well, except one.

In an incredibly bold move, former “New Youth Study Group,” member and Black Series author Yang Zili, did just that.  Risking re-arrest, Yang wrote the letter on behalf of friends and fellow group members Xu Wei and Jin Haike who each have two years remaining in their 10 year sentences.  In an interview with the Associated Press, Yang stated, "I have no choice but to take this risk because I feel I have a responsibility to help them.  If I don't make an appeal that is particularly on behalf of these two people, they might just slip through the cracks."

Yang, Xu, Jin, and Zhang Honghai (who also signed Yang’s appeal) were arrested in 2001 for their private meetings of the “New Youth Study Group,” in which they discussed the possibility for democratic reforms in China.  Despite their small number and benign activity, their group was seen as a threat to the CCP, and, all four men were jailed.  Clearly, the People’s Armed Police were no match for them, however, as they are still “subversive” almost 10 years later.

 

窃钩者诛，窃国者为诸侯——谁被送进了劳改营

近年来中共高官因贪污而锒铛入狱的人数只增不减，涉案金额往往数以亿计，从90年代的陈希同到前几年的陈良宇，再到今年的文强、许宗衡、黄瑶。那些落马高官现在的牢狱生活如何呢？据报道，陈良宇在秦城监狱里住着”20平方米大套间，设有坐式马桶和脚踏式冲水，并配有洗衣机；每天接近200元，一日四餐（包括晚9:30宵夜）；可以看报纸，看内容受限制的电视，还可以读书写作，也会写些材料；服刑期间，可以不着囚服，多数时间还是身穿西装,不打领带。”

他们在铁窗外是特权阶层，到了铁窗内还是特权阶层——而中共的劳改对象，是普通中国民众和政治异己。他们被投入劳改营，或者是因为没有钱“孝敬”当权者，或者是因为非法获取了几万元人民币，或者是因为他们的某些言论触怒了当局。从被送入劳改营的那一天开始，几十个囚犯挤在一个牢房里，晚上睡觉也许翻身都有困难；每个人每天的伙食也许成本不到两块钱；除了政治教育的《人民日报》之外再无可读之物；囚犯们几十年如一日地穿着一件囚衣，很多死在劳改营的人们就穿着囚衣被草草埋掉。

想起两年前深圳打工青年许霆因利用银行ATM机技术漏洞窃取十数万人民币而被判处无期徒刑的案子，一审判决一出，全国舆论哗然。全中国有多少人是这样被送进了劳改营？他们当中又有多少人，进去了之后便再也没活着出来？

庄子曾言：窃钩者诛，窃国者为诸侯。

古人诚不我欺，是当局在欺弄百姓。

Made in China: A Night at the Movies Edition

The film industry and Chinese government have maintained a confusing relationship in the public eye for a considerable time.  Whether that is the result of Hollywood’s vocal attempts to stop the “ubiquitous and very cheap” nature of pirated DVD’s in mainland China, or China’s confusing and occasionally contradictory policies for filmmakers, is rather hard to say.  However, some recent actions by Chinese officials have led many to believe China is trying its hands at a new export:  censorship.  According to the BBC, before the start of this year’s Melbourne film festival, the local Chinese consulate called the executive director of the festival in an attempt to convince the director to pull the film “The 10 Conditions of Love” about exiled Uyghur activist Rebiya Kadeer.  When the festival decided to go ahead with the film, they were “subjected to an intense campaign of threats, intimidation and disruption” and “hackers managed to … mak[e] it appear that session tickets had been sold out.” 

Unfortunately, China’s attempts to censor international events is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.  When “The 10 Conditions of Love” was screened four times at the Kaohsiung Film Festival in Taiwan, China threatened a tourism boycott.  And when the Frankfurt Book Fair, billed the “worldwide marketplace for ideas”, invited Chinese writers Dai Qing and Bei Ling to present at the fair, China demanded the writers be banned.

According to Dai Qing, "China is using its economic influence to threaten its trade partners in order to censor what they don't like.”
 

Interestingly, the artists most reviled by the Chinese government, win awarded worldwide acclaim outside of China.  Recently, filmmaker Lou Ye (Purple Butterfly , Summer Palace) ignored a five-year ban he had received for not getting government approval to put his film “Summer Palace” in competition at the Cannes Film Festival (the second such ban he had received from the Chinese government), and took his newest work, “Spring Fever”, right back to Cannes.  It went on to win the award for Best Screenplay at this year’s festival. 

Unfortunately, it is not just widely-publicized directors coming under fire from the Chinese government.  In March 2008, the Chinese government arrested self-taught documentarian, Dhondup Wongchang from Tibet after footage from his documentary detailing the Tibetan sentiment to Chinese rule was smuggled out of the country.  After over a year in detention, the filmmaker smuggled a note out last month, saying that his trial had finally begun.  According to his temporary lawyer, Wangchen had been tortured and he contracted hepatitis B while in custody.

So the next time you sit down for a movie, take the time to consider watching something China has banned recently.  You’ll certainly have lots of interesting options. 
 

Single Mother Flees China, One-Child Policy

A Chinese woman was granted immigrant status in Canada after "it was argued she'd face huge fines and stigmatization if deported to China," the London Free Press reported.  The woman, Hong Zhang, is a single mother who fled China while pregnant.

According to Hong's consultant, "deported single mothers face a fine of about $140,000 a child when they return to China with kids."

China's draconian set of family planning policies restrict most Chinese couples to having only one child and couples must apply for a birth permit before starting a pregnancy.  After a woman has had her permitted number of children (usually one), she is required to undergo IUD insertion or be sterilized. Unauthorized pregnancies must be terminated, and after an unauthorized birth, one spouse must be sterilized. 

Canada's decision to grant Hong immigrant status will surely save her from imminent punishment and sends a clear signal that China's one-child policy is a direct threat to human rights.  For more on China's one-child policy, please click here.

The Article You're Looking For Has Been Deleted

From a Southern Weekly article translated by Danwei.org, a story emerged this week about Feng Chongyi, a noted Chinese academic, who is suing Chinese customs for confiscating books he was trying to bring into the mainland.  Feng argued that because there’s no clear public list of banned materials, Customs had no right to confiscate his property.  Lawsuits like this haven’t been successful in the past, but it does bring up an interesting question:  Is what He Qinglian calls the “Fog of Censorship” preferable to a definitive list of banned materials? 

Most people probably think that there‘s a clear line between what’s allowed and what’s not in China today, but in fact that’s not the case.  Censorship is all over the map, and inconsistently applied.  For example, a blog post mentioning Tiananmen Square may squeeze through the censors on one blogging platform, but be rejected from another on grounds that it’s “too sensitive.” (Read More)

We’ve even heard stories about our Black Series books being distributed at certain universities in China with no problems, but we know that they’re “banned” by the government.  The net effect of China’s version of censorship is that most people and companies over-censor themselves in order to avoid a possible encounter with invisible line dividing what’s acceptable and what’s not.   That can produce a chilling effect that runs throughout all forms of cultural production – books, movies, even blog posts.  Speaking of which, the original Southern Weekly article breaking this story has mysteriously disappeared…those trying to access it are greeted with a message saying “the content you are seeking has been deleted.”  Brrr…… 

Facebook is a Huge Failure...

...in China, that is.  According to Facebook's latest statistics as reported by the China Realtime Report (h/t China Digital Times), the website only has 14,000 active users in China - out of China's over 298 million users total.

Facebook's dismal outlook in China is perhaps more of a testiment to the Communist Party's distate for free forums and uncensored status updates than Facebook's inability to capture the imagination of Chinese users -- afterall, in July of this year, Facebook had a million active users in China.  Unlike other notable corporations who willingly impede freedom of speech (Google), or worse, cooperate with the CCP to track and turn over political dissidents (Cisco and Yahoo, respectively), Facebook has apparently taken a higher road.

The price Facebook will pay for not censoring users (at least to the extent the Chinese government would require), is joining the ranks of other popular websites which encourage users to express themselves - politically, personally, or otherwise. That list, compiled by Lost Laowai, follows after the jump:

Vimeo
Friendfeed
Bit.ly (URL shortening service)
Post.ly (URL shortening service)
Blip.tv
Yahoo Meme
Fileden.com
iTweet.net (a twitter web app)
Twitzap (a twitter web app)
Dabr.co.uk (a twitter web app)
TwitterGadget (a tiny twitter app on iGoogle)
twitter
YouTube
Blogger blogs
Wordpress free blogs
Typepad blogs
Opera blogs
Tumblr
LiveLeak
Google’s Picasa Web Albums (log-in accessible, but borked thereafter)
Google Image search results (very frequent re-set connections)
Orkut
Bebo

Pages