百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[中共滥用劳教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析]
郭国汀律师专栏
·联合国保护所有被以任何形式拘禁或关押人员的主要原则(1988)
·结社自由和组织权利保护公约
·联合国反腐败公约
·联合国发展权利宣言
·促进和保护普遍公认的人权和基本自由的权利和义务宣言
·中国已签国际人权公约联合国人员和有关人权安全公约
·联合国律师职责的基本原则
·联合国司法独立的基本原则(1985年)
·联合国检察官的职责准则
·世界人权公约英文版Universal Declaration of Human Rights
·犯罪及权力滥用受害者恢复正义基本原则
·国际刑事法院规约(1998)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)程序与证据规则(1995)
·国际刑事法庭(芦旺达)规约
·起诉严重侵犯国际人道法责任人的国际(前南斯拉夫)法庭规约(1991)
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约1981
·国际人权法律资料 取缔教育歧视公约
·关于就业及职业歧视的公约
·消除一切形式歧视妇女的国际公约选择性议定书2000
·联合国防止和惩罚种族灭绝罪的公约(1951)
·联合国有关难民身份的国际公约1954
·儿童权利国际公约1990
·起诉和惩罚欧洲轴心国主要战争罪犯的国际军事法庭协议(纽伦堡宪章)
***区域性国际人权法律文件
·1996年欧洲反破坏性异端决议及其邪教定义
·非洲人权和人民权利公约(1981)
·美洲人的权利与义务宣言(1948)
·美洲人权公约(1969)
·美洲防止和禁罚酷刑的公约
·防止酷刑和其他残忍不人道或有辱人格待遇或处罚的欧洲公约1989
·欧洲保护人权和基本自由公约(1950)
·欧洲社会宪章1961
·建设新欧洲的巴黎宪章1990
(B)***美国人权法律文件
·美国1620年“五月花号”公约(The Mayflower Compact)
·美国1786年弗吉尼亚宗教自由法令
·美国1776年弗吉尼亚权利法案
·美国1862年解放黑奴宣言
·美国1777年邦联条款
·美国1776年维吉尼亚权利法案
(C)***英国人权法律文件
·英国1998年人权法案
·英国1676年人身保护令
·英国1689年权利法案
·英国1628年权利请愿书
·英国1215年自由大宪章
***(52)郭国汀论法官与律师
·悼念前最高法院大法官冯立奇教授逝世四周年
·法官律师与政党 郭国汀
·尊敬的法官大人你值得尊敬吗?!
·郭国汀与中国律师网友论法官
·法官的良心与良知/南郭
·法官!这是我法律生涯的终极目标! 郭国汀
·律师与法官之间究竟应如何摆正关系?
·从 “中国律师人”说开去
·唯有科班出身者才能当律师?!答王靓华高论/南郭
·律师的责任——再答李洪东/南郭
·中国律师朋友们幸福不会从天降!/南郭
·我为北京16位律师喝彩!郭国汀
·郭国汀律师与网上警官的交锋
·我是中国律师我怕谁?!
·郭国汀 好律师与称职的律师
·温柔抗议对郭律师的ID第二次查封
·第五次强烈抗议中国律师网无理非法封杀郭律师的IP
·中国律师网为何封杀中国律师?
·中律网封杀删除最受网友们欢迎的郭国汀律师
·最受欢迎的写手却被中共彻底封杀
·我为何暂时告别中国律师网?
·南郭:律师的文学功底
·中国最需要什么样的律师?
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·将律师协会办成真正的民间自治组织
·强烈挽留郭国汀律师/小C
·the open letter to Mr.Hu Jintao from Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada for Gao Zhisheng
·自宫与被阉割的中国律师网 /南郭
·做律师首先应当做个堂堂正正的人——南郭与王靓华的论战/南郭
·呵!吉大,我心中永远的痛!
·再答小C君/南郭
·凡跟郭国汀贴者一律入选黑名单!
·历史不容患改!历史专家不敢当,吾喜读中国历史是实
·思想自由的益处答迷风先生
·答迷风先生
·答经纬仪之民族败类之指责,汝不妨教教吾辈汝之哲学呀?
·南郭曾是"天才"但一夜之间被厄杀成蠢才,如今不过是个笨蛋耳!
·答时代精英,
·长歌独行至郭国汀律师公开函
***(53)大学生\知识分子与爱国愤青研究
·春寒料峭,公民兀立(南郭强烈推荐大中学生及留学生和所有关心中国前途的国人精读)
·大中学生及留学生必读:胡锦涛崇尚的古巴政治是什么玩意?!
·是否应彻底否定中华传统文
·向留学生及大中学生推荐一篇好文
·向留学生大学生强烈推荐杰作驳中共政权威权化的谬论
·强烈谴责中共党控教育祸国殃民的罪孽!--闻贺卫方教授失业有感
·學術腐敗是一個國家腐敗病入膏肓的明證
·中共专制暴政长期推行党化奴化教育罪孽深重
·教育国民化、私有化而非政治化党化是改革教育最佳途径之一
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
中共滥用劳教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析


   
   中共滥用劳教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析
   
中共滥用劳教制度镇压法轮功的法理解析

   

   中国何时实现自由宪政民主?!
   
   南郭点评:这是一篇针对中共通过劳教制度对法轮功学员进行全方位迫害的严肃法学论文.对劳教制度的文化历史政治根源作了详尽剖析,南郭号称学者型人权律师,对一个外国法学专家对中国法律的高深知识深感惊讶更感汉颜.这是有关法轮功法律论著最佳之作,也是有关批判罪恶的劳教制度最力之作.值得每位中国人权律师特别是为法轮功辩护的律师精读,作者是美国密根大学法学博士研究生,学风严谨,学养深厚,论文论据充分详实,论点清晰明确,论证有力令人信服,极具批判精神同时不失客观公正立场,其治学方法与态度值得吾国人好好学习.
   
   2009年3月8日第157个反中共极权专制暴政争自由人权民主绝食争权抗暴日于加拿大
   Falun Gong Re-Education through Labor: Traditional Rehabilitation for the Misdirected to Protect Societal Stability within China's Evolving Criminal Justice System
   
   By Robert Bejesky
   
   
   
   
   
    I. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------148
   
    II. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FALUN GONG -------- 151
   
    A. BACKGROUND OF FALUN GONG ---------------------151
   
    B. GOVERNMENT REACTION TO FALUN GONG ------------154
   
    C. FALUN GONG'S CLAIMS ----------------------------157
   
    III. TRADITION AND CULTURE IN CHINA & METHODS
   
    OF BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION --------------158
   
    A. CHINESE TRADITION & CULTURE --------------------158
   
    B. GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FALUN GONG -----------160
   
    C. DEFINING A JUSTIFIED REACTION TO FALUN GONG ------ 162
   
    1. Introduction ----------------------------162
   
    2. China's Government Structure & Institutions ------- 163
   
    3. The Opinion of Chinese Citizens Regarding Falun Gong----------167
   
    D. BEHAVIORAL CHANGE FOR SOCIETAL TRANSGRESSIONS:
   
    FORMAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM VS. INFORMAL RETL----170
   
    1. Theory of Instilling Acceptable Behavior vs. Punishment -------170
   
    2. Reform of the Formal Criminal Justice System ------ 172
   
    3. Informal Behavioral Modification Mechanisms and RETL ----- 176
   
   IV. BALANCING STATE INTERESTS WITH HUMAN
   
    RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR FALUN GONG -------180
   
    A. MODERNIZATION, CULTURAL RELATIVISM, AND
   
    RECONSIDERING THE SUBSTANTIVE UNDERLYING OFFENSE
   
    IMPOSED ON FALUN GONG MEMBERS -----------------180
   
    1. Introduction ---------------------------- 180
   
    2. Global Human Rights Restricted --------------180
   
    3. The Role of Government Institutions -----------182
   
    B. HUMAN RIGHTS AND RETL --------------------184
   
    V. CONCLUSION --------------------------------186
   
   
   
    I. INTRODUCTION
   
   
   
    Re-education through labor (RETL) is a form of administrative detention employed in China that is conducted outside of the formal criminal justice system and is designed to rehabilitate the behavior of societal "agitators." It has been utilized more in recent years than in the past because flexibility in the formal criminal justice system has been diminishing with the modernization process. While Chinese officials have maintained that RETL is a necessary and effective device for sustaining societal harmony,[1] mounting pressure prompted Beijing leaders in February 2003 to endorse new prohibitions on RETL administrators to improve the image of these centers.[2]
   
   
   
    For the past four years, Falun Gong members have been the target of aggressive Chinese government crackdown and caught the attention of human rights group worldwide. The group was banned after being marked an "evil cult"[3] on July 22, 1999.[4] Some say the banning and crackdown occurred because of the fear that such a collective and solidified group could pose to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) governance,[5] while others maintain such measures were necessary to protect societal stability and public order[6]from the harms that could emerge through diffusion of the group's message and actions. The Chinese government has taken Falun Gong's mobilization and expansion efforts very seriously.[7] Human rights groups have been critical of China's use of RETL and its treatment of Falun Gong members. In fact, Falun Gong filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court that was supported in an amicus curiae brief by more than three dozen members of Congress, against former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin for acts of genocide on Falun Gong members.[8] While this lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in September 2003 pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity,[9] the dismissal likely did not spell the end of the controversy.[10]
   
   
   
    This article describes, from a cultural and historical perspective, why the vast majority of detained Falun Gong members, perhaps 99% of the approximately twenty thousand who have been confined, have been commonly subject to RETL[11] rather than to the criminal justice process. The supposition herein is that Falun Gong has been caught between China's gradually closing door of flexibility in the law, brought about by a government desire to improve the formal criminal justice system; and the gradually opening door of improved individual rights protections vis-d-vis collectivist interests. Consequently, applying RETL to Falun Gong practitioners maintains the traditional cultural approaches of behavioral modification for individuals/groups that fall too far outside the parameter of what the government deems is acceptable societal conduct. Finding justice in this situation becomes more enigmatic because it is unfolding within a dramatically changing and volatile society still under the administration of the CCP and under the microscope of the global community. Falun Gong has arguably posed the most significant challenge to the criminal justice reform process and to CCP power in the past decade.
   
   
   
    This article examines the positions of both Falun Gong and the Chinese government and endeavors to achieve resolution within the framework of human rights law and respect for state sovereignty. Section II considers the Chinese government's response to Falun Gong's emergence, while section III addresses global human rights standards and how tradition and culture have influenced the Chinese government's criminal justice modernization process and its response to Falun Gong members who have apparently violated Chinese law. Section IV appraises the risk that a consolidated collective group could have on the current state of legal and economic modernization in China and balances the threat of instability against human rights protections for Falun Gong members.
   
   
   
    II. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FALUN GONG
   
   
   
    A. Background of Falun Gong
   
   
   
    Falun Gong has been described as a slow motion martial arts- like meditative practice that emphasizes living a moral and honest life[12] in order to cultivate a healthy mind-body connection.[13] It promotes "a modern variant of ancient Chinese practices of exercise, deep breathing, and meditation, collectively known as qigong, that enthusiasts claim promotes physical, mental, and spiritual well-being by enhancing the flow of vital energy through a person's body.[14] Falun Gong has associated itself with Buddhist and Taoist traditions,[15] and it could be classified as a spiritual movement,[16] religious order[17] or a philosophy.[18]Human Rights Watch states that Falun Gong does promote apocryphal[19] and salvationist teachings[20]The popularity of Falun Gong has resulted in peak membership of 80 million in China[21] and 30 million elsewhere in the world.[22]
   
   
   
    The founder of Falun Gong, Mr. Li Hongzhi,[23] published the primary treatise on Falun Gong, Falun Gong (Law Wheel Qigong) in 1993.[24] While Mr. Li Hongzhi's teachings are the foundation of Falun Gong, other derivative sects have emerged,[25] but he states that he is the only one who is spreading a true teaching and one cannot mix thoughts from other practices.[26] He enforces this with a fairly strict regimen of rules mandating exclusive and steadfast devotion to his Dafa.[27] While all freedom of religion and conscience must be protected at international law, Mr. Li Hongzhi does make some claims to recruits and disciples that many may find surreal to which the Chinese government has reacted, such as those which promise that disciples can develop supernatural abilities over the spiritual maturation process if they devoutly practice Falun Gong and adhere to its tenets.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场