China will host the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, while the year also marks the 30th anniversary of China's reform and opening-up. Against such a background, Wang Yang, Secretary of Guangdong Provincial Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, called for "ideological liberation." China's Premier, Wen Jiabao, during a meeting with leaders of democratic parties, emphasized "blame not the speaker."
However, the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province prosecuted Lu Gengsong for committing the crime of "Inciting Subversion of State Power" on Jan. 22, 2008. The irony is that Lu's trial appears to be otherwise: that there is no choice for "ideological liberation" and "blame not the speaker." The public prosecution organ selected 470 words from Lu's 226 published articles and cited these words as "criminal evidence." What they have done is essentially garbled the original statements, taking a part for the whole or using generalization to hide the facts. The prosecutor's bill of indictment discarded the language contexts of Lu's articles and adopted a value judgment rather than a fact judgment. This is a typical means of prosecution to deny independent thinking and freedom of speech.
The crime of "Inciting Subversion of State Power" is stipulated in Article 105 of China's Criminal Law, which reads "Whoever carries out incitement to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system by spreading rumors, slander or other means is to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights; the ringleaders and others whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to not less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment." However, the Supreme People's Court refused to provide a legal interpretation of the article, an omission that has been questioned by society. As a result, there has been plenty of ambiguity and uncertainty left in the decision. For example, lacking definition of "other means" in Article 105 has provided the court with arbitrary judgment. Furthermore, in countries like China whose judicial penalties are based on "action crime" rather than "consequential crime," any speech that does not conform to the "socialist system" can be convicted of a crime. This is extremely absurd. For instance, the meaning of the term "socialism" changes, as it is used in certain welfare theory to differentiate from libertarianism, therefore "socialism" itself is a rather vague and indeterminate concept.
Legal experts have already pointed out the ambiguity and uncertainty in Article 105. The only possible explanation for the lack of response from the Supreme People's Court is that Article 105 does not possess a rigid legal meaning. It is simply a shackle tailored to restrain dissidents. Its purpose is to threaten and intimidate Chinese citizens from publishing their viewpoints about public affairs.
As China's state power increases, "China Rises" has become a subject for the entire world. However, the prosecution of Lu Gengsong has, yet again, indicated how weak this regime actually is. The fact that an ordinary citizen's 470 words, rationally written, have been treated as criminal evidence, is sufficient proof of the evil nature of this regime.
We have also seen that suppression cannot fully intimidate the strength of civil resistance. On the day of Lu's trial, more than 100 people gathered at the court to voice their support for Lu. People in the audience cried out "Lu Gengsong is innocent" and "Democracy will prevail." When confronted with the power of freedom, Article 105 of China's Criminal Law is simply ridiculous. Should the Chinese authorities actually emancipate their minds and adopt a different methodology to deal with the contemporary complexities of social and political issues?
Feeds