[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[China’s blind Justice]
滕彪文集
·"Vous pouvez facilement devenir fou"
·【纪录片】赫索格的日子
·【纪录片】:退无可退
·你很容易就發瘋了/眾新聞
·“合法化”集中营(滕彪)
·新西兰政治献金丑闻 中共渗透引关注
·中共治疆与恐怖主义、分裂主义、极端主义
·CCP’s involvement in higher education and on university campuses -
·新疆181座集中营 批量采购手铐电棍
·纪录片《对话》
·中共制造民族分裂 尊重维吾尔人民族自决权
·欲盖弥彰的暴行
·China Builds More Prisons in Xinjiang/RFA
· China’s global challenge to democratic freedom
·Global Information and Democracy Commission
·MEMBERS OF THE INFORMATION AND DEMOCRACY COMMISSION
·记者无国界发起【全球信息与民主委员会】
·International Declaration on Information and Democracy
·Global communication and information space: a common good of humankind
·UN review is critical chance for countries to change China's narrative
·联合国人权机制对中国有效吗?
·China’s ‘Perfect Dictatorship’ and Its Impact
·中共否认普世人权价值 外界吁警惕
·【中国热评】习思想“指导”人权道路?
·中国医疗专家因涉嫌参与非法活摘 被拒参加国际会议
·新疆集中營與高科技極權主義
·共产党是国民党的猪队友
·海外學者觀選:台灣人有自己的國家制度
·剖析中共特務郭文貴
·蓝天绿地之间的红色幽灵
·憂間諜活動 美擬加強對中國留學生背景調查
·華為掌門女兒孟晚舟加國被捕 被指違美國對伊朗制裁令
·2007年法国人权奖
·Person of the Week
·广西维权律师建民间模拟法庭 力阻冤假错案
·RIGHTS GROUPS TURN UP PRESSURE ON GOOGLE OVER CHINA CENSORSHIP
·纪念零八宪章十周年研讨会-滕彪谈参与过程
·法律人士批中共新法要公民协助提供情报
·孟晚舟案:戴手铐违反人权?
·零八宪章十周年与改革开放四十年
·中国人权白皮书:仍强调“生存权”
·华为风暴中的人权与法律
·夢遊畫展 "Dream Wandering" Exhibition
·民運鬥士海波、滕彪 曼哈頓辦「夢游畫展」
·零八憲章十週年的回顧與意義
·中國古拉格/紀錄片
·声援佳士工人维权事件被抓捕的学生、热心公民及社会工作者联名信
·改革开放与经济奇迹的背后
·六四後北京加強監控 滕彪指現時離民主比1989年更遠
·Nearly 30 years after Tiananmen, China has tightened control
·紐約雅博國際藝術畫廊海波、滕彪博士《夢遊畫展》隆重開幕
·联国人权专家关注黄琦健康 维权人士斥无异慢性谋杀
·中国的完美独裁及其全球影响
·完美的獨裁:二十一世紀的中國
·Chinese rights lawyer fires his own state-appointed lawyer in a dramat
·美中建交40年 面臨前所未有轉捩點
·中国审查蔓延美国硅谷 八九学运前领袖领英帐号一度被封杀
·新疆模式扩展 阿拉伯文化成打击目标
·7位值得你关注的人权网红
·问题疫苗何时了
·CALL ON CHINA TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE UYGHUR PROFESSOR ILHAM TOHTI 5YEA
·中共判加拿大人死刑 能换回孟晚舟吗?
·The fight for Chinese rights
·傀儡、盗贼和帮凶:最高人民法院的三张面孔
·法学教授遭举报,中共清查宪法学教材
·2018年中共对宗教的压迫
·习近平的反法律战争
·安排「中国商人」会见桂民海女儿 瑞典驻华大使丢职回国受查
·美中关系紧张是中国公关问题吗?
·中共官員要西方民主改革 網友:最佳笑話
·瑞典前驻华大使安排桂民海女儿与华商会面遭调查
·媒体审判与审判媒体
·紀錄片:中國的電視認罪
·国会听证会:全球威权崛起
·video:Congressional Hearing on Rise of Authoritarianism
·引渡听证加拿大,晚舟沉浮 雾锁美中起落?
·三个人的“人大”:申纪兰、姚立法与唐荆陵
·李克强求稳 华为反击 美中贸易休战无期?
·Should America Tackle All Authoritarian Governments?
·National security experts warn of rise in authoritarianism
·Explaining China’s ‘People’s Congress’ Through the Tales of Three
·致敬开启中国违宪审查首案的滕彪、许志永和俞江博士
·形形色色的黑监狱
·Human Rights Lawyer Teng Biao/Total Prestige Magazine
·中国反腐模式是制度失败的产物
·时事大家谈:敢言学者许章润遭撤职,习近平欲令天下无声?
·Open Recommendation to Conduct Constitutional Review on the “Law of t
·Xi's war on thought
·China's enforced disappearance
·教授因言获罪 学生告密 中国离文革有多远?
·中欧人权对话欧盟提出释放名单 中方取消与非政府组织的对话
·The Shadow of the “China Miracle”
·中国维权运动的起起落落 (上)
·如果张扣扣案发生在美国/VOA
·「人权观察」报告揭新疆公安用手机APP全方位监控穆斯林
·西方企业乃中共「高科技极权」帮凶
·不在場的倖存者 用維權記住六四
·北京的网络监控审查与西方公司的协助/VOA
·滕彪(下):维权运动的“政治化” 和“非政治化”
·中国黑监狱大观
·新疆维稳模式蔓延世界 引发人权担忧
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
China’s blind Justice

   By Li Jinsong, Zhang Lihui, Li Fangping, Teng Biao, and Xu Zhiyong
   
   The Asian Wall Street Journal
   SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
   

    Chen Guangcheng, a blind advocate for the rights of Chinese villagers, recently made headlines around the world when he was sentenced to four years and three months in prison. But, as his chosen lawyers, we were prevented from presenting a fair defense by obstacles erected by Chinese authorities. A local court imposed unacceptable terms on us defending our client at his August 18 trial. Before the trial, we had been detained by police, intimidated, and one lawyer was not freed until the trial was over. Except for Mr. Chen’s three brothers, no other members of the public, not even his wife and mother, were allowed to attend the two-hour hearing.
   
    That’s why we are using these columns to outline the defense that was never presented in court, and explain how our client was convicted of crimes he did not commit. In those closed-door proceedings, Chinese officials punished Mr. Chen for disclosing their own criminal activities--forcing villagers to undergo sterilizations and forced abortions, even though these are officially illegal under Chinese law.
   
    Had we not been barred from the courtroom, we would have argued that the trial was unlawful. The two government-appointed lawyers, whom Mr. Chen refused to accept, had never met him before the trial nor read any of the files on his case. They did not offer any defense during the hearing, but merely repeated everything the prosecutors said.
   
    The pre-trial process also violated Chinese law and infringed basic human- rights principles. A self-taught lawyer, Mr. Chen has long helped the disabled and peasants fight illegal taxes and environmental pollution. In June 2005, he filed a class-action lawsuit accusing local officials in Yinan County in northeastern Shandong Province, of forcing peasants to undergo abortions or sterilizations in order to meet birth-control quotas. Two months later, Yinan officials placed Mr. Chen under house arrest. Then in March this year he was taken away by police. When we were finally allowed to meet Mr. Chen in June, he told us that police had verbally abused him, threatened his life, and once deprived him of sleep for three days.
   
    Ever since the first of us took on Chen’s case in September last year, we have been pressured by local authorities to drop it. When we refused to do so, we were beaten and intercepted by government officials as we tried to carry out investigations and collect evidence.
   
    Both of the charges on which Mr. Chen was convicted are groundless. The first, “intentional destruction of property,” is based on a clash on Feb. 15 this year between villagers and police, who had beaten another villager protesting Mr. Chen’s illegal house arrest. But it was local officials, rather than Mr. Chen, who were responsible for “inciting” this incident by carrying out that beating. People we interviewed said the villagers did no more than push police vehicles into a roadside ditch, and that they only acted in this way because police refused to take the victim’s grandmother to hospital, after she passed out on hearing of the beating.
   
    As for the second charge of “gathering crowds to obstruct traffic,” once again it was the police rather than Mr. Chen who were responsible for this. On March 11, guards used by the local authorities to enforce the house arrest beat up another villager trying to meet Mr. Chen. Angry villagers then clashed with the guards and succeeded in getting Mr. Chen out of his house so that he could accompany them to the local government offices to protest. As they tried to get rides into town, police and guards surrounded them and temporarily stopped traffic until they could wrestle Mr. Chen and two other villagers into police cars, and take them into custody.
   
    The prosecutors introduced testimony from other detained villagers, accusing Mr. Chen of “inciting” property destruction. But lawyers representing these villagers were never allowed to meet with them. Nor were they allowed to cross-examine these “witnesses.” Family members of these villagers, who were detained for supporting Mr. Chen, said that they were mistreated in jail and forced to testify against Mr. Chen.
   
    The real criminal suspects in this case are the officials responsible for obstructing justice and undermining the country’s legal reform. These local officials could hardly have acted with such contempt and disregard for the law unless they had been given the green light by authorities higher up in the government. Nonetheless, in appealing Mr. Chen’s case to a higher court, we will act on the assumption that the country’s legal system can, without official interference, deliver a fair verdict and remedy wrongs. This may prove to be too optimistic. But we can only find out by fighting for justice, case by case, one client at a time.
   
    Messrs. Li Jinsong, Zhang, Li Fangping, Teng and Xu are Beijing-based lawyers.

©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