2011年4月20日发表于国际先驱论坛报
四月三号，中共当局秘密拘押了著名艺术家艾未未。
四月三号，中共当局秘密拘押了著名艺术家艾未未。
他的家人和朋友都没有得到任何通知，也不知道为什么被抓和在哪里。和别人一样，他们现在得到了新华社的消息，说艾未未因为"经济罪"正在接受调查。
这个针对中国最知名的文化人士之一的行为令人回想到文化大革命拉开序幕之时。当时，无需任何合法手续的幌子，毛泽东的政权就可以将那些给他的意识形态造成不便的艺术家、作家、及知识分子们随意带走。
在毛泽东之后，中国走向法制的长征一直是步履艰难，但现在这么爽快地回到无法无天的地步却令我这样一个顽固的持异见者也感到触目惊心。如果中共当局能任意拘禁一个这样的地位的人，将他与外界切断任何联系，想关多长时间就多长，并不让家人和法律顾问访问，那么那些有权有势者的灵机一动或者是神经紧张，就使得不会有一个人在中国是安全的。
这件事揭示的不仅仅是这个体制没有个人权利的本质，也揭露了新式镇压的演变：它依法专政的变态"法制"，却不遵循法治。或者说，运用法律上的漏洞来侵犯人权，而不是保障人权。
"监视居住"-当一个人被拘禁却没有人身保护权-就是这些法律漏洞之一。
有关这个"依法专政"的工具的演化有些背景。在1994年的春天，中共面临着美国的严厉制裁。当时，克林顿政府正准备将贸易和人权脱钩，以减轻这个制裁。这在美国国会遇到了很大的阻力。这时候，中国异议人士的看法就成为关键性的筹码。
于是，江泽民集团就派警察把我扣押起来进行了谈判。他们甚至主动提出了改善人权和法治的若干条件，以换取我不反对人权与贸易脱钩。我最初没有同意，但最后折衷为在人权与贸易问题上不发言，以换取中共释放被捕的异议人士，并且开放言论自由和一些工会活动自由。
这个协议在中共内部遭遇到了反对江泽民这种做法的派别的很大阻力。结果是，他们以一纸传讯证的方式把我再度扣押。在与外界隔绝两天之后，我在没有援助的情况下进行了抗议。
我说："第一，按照刑事诉讼法，传讯只是找我谈话。你们连续多日谈话超过24小时已经是违法了。第二，连续传讯不能超过三次，今天是最后一天了。你们如果不能拿来合法的文件来逮捕或者拘留我，那么我就对不起了，非走不可。"
考虑到如果我跑掉并暴露这件事的影响，他们就安抚我说："放心吧，现在就去检察院拿手续，明天一定给你个交待。"
第二天我问："手续拿来了吗？没有我就准备回家了。"
老警察犹犹豫豫地说："拿来了，你暂时还回不了家。"
我一看那张纸，就笑了。那是一张监视居住证。我说："怎么样，没有证据，检察院不给你拘留证吧。"
他说："我们公安局的监视居住证也管用。"这个证使得连续关押而不起诉能够成立。
我说："这是非法拘禁，我要找律师告你们，现在我就得走。"于是就吵闹起来了。这时候和我谈判的那一派警察要求单独和我谈话。
我被告知现在的党内形势非常复杂。反江泽民的派别希望把事情搞砸。如果江泽民不执行已达成的协议，或者我这儿出什么意外，都会破坏协议。他们告诉我，现在外边仍然在执行达成的协议，我要求释放的人已经释放。
王丹等人依然十分活跃，当局也顶着压力没有抓人。所以，他们希望我为了国家，不要拒绝关押，少安毋躁，给江泽民一点面子。
我权衡了利弊后，决定接受他们"监视居住"的文件，但声明保留控告他们非法拘禁的权利。
之后，比尔.克林顿成功地将贸易和人权脱钩了。
当中共把我送上法庭时，居然法庭也不承认这十八个月是合法拘禁。因为刑事诉讼法规定了剥夺公民的自由必须要有法院和检察院的批准。但他们以"监视居住"名义剥夺公民人身自由，却是个法律行为。
自那以后，以"监视居住"名义剥夺公民人身自由变成了"合法"。如今，这个为当局来随意剥夺人身自由的公安工具被常规性地使用着。法律为专制政府服务，而不是为人民服务。
艾未未的案例再次给全世界揭示了中共政府的本质。这就是今日中国的法律系统：为专制政府服务的法制，而不是为人民服务的法治。
国际先驱论坛报注：魏京生是中国民主运动的一个领袖。他在北京民主墙上张贴了他写的"第五个现代化"一文，并为此入狱15年。他现在被流放在美国。
全球观点网络/论坛媒体服务
此文将发表于2011年4月21日版的国际先驱论坛报。原文网址： http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21iht-edwei21.html?_r=1&ref=global
（魏京生基金会译文并首发。请注明出处：www.WeiJingSheng.org）
这个针对中国最知名的文化人士之一的行为令人回想到文化大革命拉开序幕之时。当时，无需任何合法手续的幌子，毛泽东的政权就可以将那些给他的意识形态造成不便的艺术家、作家、及知识分子们随意带走。
在毛泽东之后，中国走向法制的长征一直是步履艰难，但现在这么爽快地回到无法无天的地步却令我这样一个顽固的持异见者也感到触目惊心。如果中共当局能任意拘禁一个这样的地位的人，将他与外界切断任何联系，想关多长时间就多长，并不让家人和法律顾问访问，那么那些有权有势者的灵机一动或者是神经紧张，就使得不会有一个人在中国是安全的。
这件事揭示的不仅仅是这个体制没有个人权利的本质，也揭露了新式镇压的演变：它依法专政的变态"法制"，却不遵循法治。或者说，运用法律上的漏洞来侵犯人权，而不是保障人权。
"监视居住"-当一个人被拘禁却没有人身保护权-就是这些法律漏洞之一。
有关这个"依法专政"的工具的演化有些背景。在1994年的春天，中共面临着美国的严厉制裁。当时，克林顿政府正准备将贸易和人权脱钩，以减轻这个制裁。这在美国国会遇到了很大的阻力。这时候，中国异议人士的看法就成为关键性的筹码。
于是，江泽民集团就派警察把我扣押起来进行了谈判。他们甚至主动提出了改善人权和法治的若干条件，以换取我不反对人权与贸易脱钩。我最初没有同意，但最后折衷为在人权与贸易问题上不发言，以换取中共释放被捕的异议人士，并且开放言论自由和一些工会活动自由。
这个协议在中共内部遭遇到了反对江泽民这种做法的派别的很大阻力。结果是，他们以一纸传讯证的方式把我再度扣押。在与外界隔绝两天之后，我在没有援助的情况下进行了抗议。
我说："第一，按照刑事诉讼法，传讯只是找我谈话。你们连续多日谈话超过24小时已经是违法了。第二，连续传讯不能超过三次，今天是最后一天了。你们如果不能拿来合法的文件来逮捕或者拘留我，那么我就对不起了，非走不可。"
考虑到如果我跑掉并暴露这件事的影响，他们就安抚我说："放心吧，现在就去检察院拿手续，明天一定给你个交待。"
第二天我问："手续拿来了吗？没有我就准备回家了。"
老警察犹犹豫豫地说："拿来了，你暂时还回不了家。"
我一看那张纸，就笑了。那是一张监视居住证。我说："怎么样，没有证据，检察院不给你拘留证吧。"
他说："我们公安局的监视居住证也管用。"这个证使得连续关押而不起诉能够成立。
我说："这是非法拘禁，我要找律师告你们，现在我就得走。"于是就吵闹起来了。这时候和我谈判的那一派警察要求单独和我谈话。
我被告知现在的党内形势非常复杂。反江泽民的派别希望把事情搞砸。如果江泽民不执行已达成的协议，或者我这儿出什么意外，都会破坏协议。他们告诉我，现在外边仍然在执行达成的协议，我要求释放的人已经释放。
王丹等人依然十分活跃，当局也顶着压力没有抓人。所以，他们希望我为了国家，不要拒绝关押，少安毋躁，给江泽民一点面子。
我权衡了利弊后，决定接受他们"监视居住"的文件，但声明保留控告他们非法拘禁的权利。
之后，比尔.克林顿成功地将贸易和人权脱钩了。
当中共把我送上法庭时，居然法庭也不承认这十八个月是合法拘禁。因为刑事诉讼法规定了剥夺公民的自由必须要有法院和检察院的批准。但他们以"监视居住"名义剥夺公民人身自由，却是个法律行为。
自那以后，以"监视居住"名义剥夺公民人身自由变成了"合法"。如今，这个为当局来随意剥夺人身自由的公安工具被常规性地使用着。法律为专制政府服务，而不是为人民服务。
艾未未的案例再次给全世界揭示了中共政府的本质。这就是今日中国的法律系统：为专制政府服务的法制，而不是为人民服务的法治。
国际先驱论坛报注：魏京生是中国民主运动的一个领袖。他在北京民主墙上张贴了他写的"第五个现代化"一文，并为此入狱15年。他现在被流放在美国。
全球观点网络/论坛媒体服务
此文将发表于2011年4月21日版的国际先驱论坛报。原文网址： http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21iht-edwei21.html?_r=1&ref=global
（魏京生基金会译文并首发。请注明出处：www.WeiJingSheng.org）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I.H.T. OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Return to the Cultural Revolution?
By WEI JINGSHENG
Published: April 20, 2011
WASHINGTON - On April 3, the Chinese Communist authorities secretly detained the well-known artist Ai Weiwei. Neither his family nor friends were notified of what happened to him, why he was seized or where he was. Like everyone else, they have now learned from the Xinhua News Agency that he is under investigation for "economic crimes."
This action against one of China's most well-known cultural figures recalls the opening shots of the Cultural Revolution, when the Maoist regime removed ideologically inconvenient artists, writers and intellectuals from the scene at will without any pretense to legal procedures.
After the long march toward the rule of law China has been tentatively treading since the end of the Mao era, this return to outright lawlessness is shocking even to a hardened dissident like me. If the authorities can detain a figure of such stature arbitrarily and hold him incommunicado as long as they want with no access to family or legal counsel, then no one in China is safe from the whims and anxieties of those in power.
This episode reveals not only the essence of a system where the individual has no rights, but also the evolution of a new brand of repression: the perverted "rule by law" instead of the "rule of law." In other words, the application of legal loopholes to violate human rights instead of protect them.
"Residence under surveillance" - where one is detained with no habeas corpus rights - is one of those legal loopholes.
A little background on the evolution of this tool of "rule by law." In the spring of 1994, the Chinese Communist Party was facing sanctions from the United States. At that time, the Clinton administration was preparing to ease the sanctions by de-linking trade and human rights, which encountered strong resistance in Congress. The opinions of the Chinese dissidents became the key bargaining chip.
President Jiang Zemin sent his police to detain me for negotiations. They even initiated a few conditions to improve human rights and the rule of law in exchange for me not to speak out against the de-linking of trade and human rights. I did not agree at first. But, eventually, the compromise reached was that in exchange for releasing dissidents and also opening freedom of expression and loosening up on some union activities, I would keep silent on the issue of human rights and trade.
This agreement encountered great resistance within the Communist Party factions that opposed Jiang's initiative. As a result, I was seized again, with a certificate of summons for interrogation. Held incommunicado for two days, I protested with no recourse.
I said: "First, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law, a summons for interrogation is just to talk to me. You have violated the law by interrogating me for more than 24 hours. Second, the continued interrogations should not be more than three times, and today is the last time. If you cannot produce a document that meets legal procedures to arrest or detain me, then I am sorry but I must be free to leave."
Concerned about the impact if I bolted and exposed the deal, they assured me: "Do not worry, we will go get the right document from the Procuratorate now and give it to you tomorrow."
The following day, I asked: "Is the document here yet? If not, I am ready to go home."
The old policeman said with hesitation: "Yes, it is here and you cannot go home yet."
When he handed over that piece of paper, I laughed. It was a certificate of "residence under surveillance." So I said: "Look, without evidence, you cannot even get a detention warrant from the Procuratorate."
He replied: "This 'residence under surveillance' (which allows continuous detention without charge) writ by the Public Security Bureau also works."
I said, "This is illegal detention. I will be looking for lawyers to file against you." We had a quarrel. Then the authorities who had negotiated with me requested to talk to me alone.
I was told that the situation within the party leadership was very complicated. The anti-Jiang faction wanted trouble. If Jiang Zemin did not carry out the already reached agreement, or if there were unexpected protestations from my side, it would cause the breakdown of the deal with President Clinton. They told me that on the outside, the implementation of the agreement was still in effect, and the people I asked to be release were released.
People like Wang Dan were still active, and the authorities had not arrested them despite pressure. So they hoped that I would not resist my detention, be patient, and give some face to Jiang Zemin for the sake of the country.
I weighed the pros and cons, and decided to accept their "residence under surveillance" document - while maintaining my rights of suing them for illegal detention at a later time.
After that, Bill Clinton successfully de-linked trade and human rights.
When the authorities later took me to court, it turned out that even the court would not recognize that my detention had been legal under the Criminal Procedure Law requiring the approvals of the court and Procuratorate to deprive people of their freedom. But, they held, detaining a person without charge under "residence under surveillance" was a legal act.
Since then, depriving people's personal freedom in the name of "residence under surveillance" became "legal." It is now routine under this public security tool for the state to deprive personal freedom arbitrarily. The law serves the authoritarian state, not the individual.
The Ai Weiwei case once again reveals the essence of the Chinese state for all the world to see. This is China's legal system today: the rule by law for the authorities instead of the rule of law for the people.
Wei Jingsheng was a leader of the Chinese democracy movement who spent 15 years in prison for authoring "The Fifth Modernization," which he posted on the Democracy Wall in Beijing. He lives in exile in the United States.
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT / TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 21, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune with the headline: A Return to the Cultural Revolution?.
Original link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21iht-edwei21.html?_r=1&ref=global
I.H.T. OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Return to the Cultural Revolution?
By WEI JINGSHENG
Published: April 20, 2011
WASHINGTON - On April 3, the Chinese Communist authorities secretly detained the well-known artist Ai Weiwei. Neither his family nor friends were notified of what happened to him, why he was seized or where he was. Like everyone else, they have now learned from the Xinhua News Agency that he is under investigation for "economic crimes."
This action against one of China's most well-known cultural figures recalls the opening shots of the Cultural Revolution, when the Maoist regime removed ideologically inconvenient artists, writers and intellectuals from the scene at will without any pretense to legal procedures.
After the long march toward the rule of law China has been tentatively treading since the end of the Mao era, this return to outright lawlessness is shocking even to a hardened dissident like me. If the authorities can detain a figure of such stature arbitrarily and hold him incommunicado as long as they want with no access to family or legal counsel, then no one in China is safe from the whims and anxieties of those in power.
This episode reveals not only the essence of a system where the individual has no rights, but also the evolution of a new brand of repression: the perverted "rule by law" instead of the "rule of law." In other words, the application of legal loopholes to violate human rights instead of protect them.
"Residence under surveillance" - where one is detained with no habeas corpus rights - is one of those legal loopholes.
A little background on the evolution of this tool of "rule by law." In the spring of 1994, the Chinese Communist Party was facing sanctions from the United States. At that time, the Clinton administration was preparing to ease the sanctions by de-linking trade and human rights, which encountered strong resistance in Congress. The opinions of the Chinese dissidents became the key bargaining chip.
President Jiang Zemin sent his police to detain me for negotiations. They even initiated a few conditions to improve human rights and the rule of law in exchange for me not to speak out against the de-linking of trade and human rights. I did not agree at first. But, eventually, the compromise reached was that in exchange for releasing dissidents and also opening freedom of expression and loosening up on some union activities, I would keep silent on the issue of human rights and trade.
This agreement encountered great resistance within the Communist Party factions that opposed Jiang's initiative. As a result, I was seized again, with a certificate of summons for interrogation. Held incommunicado for two days, I protested with no recourse.
I said: "First, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law, a summons for interrogation is just to talk to me. You have violated the law by interrogating me for more than 24 hours. Second, the continued interrogations should not be more than three times, and today is the last time. If you cannot produce a document that meets legal procedures to arrest or detain me, then I am sorry but I must be free to leave."
Concerned about the impact if I bolted and exposed the deal, they assured me: "Do not worry, we will go get the right document from the Procuratorate now and give it to you tomorrow."
The following day, I asked: "Is the document here yet? If not, I am ready to go home."
The old policeman said with hesitation: "Yes, it is here and you cannot go home yet."
When he handed over that piece of paper, I laughed. It was a certificate of "residence under surveillance." So I said: "Look, without evidence, you cannot even get a detention warrant from the Procuratorate."
He replied: "This 'residence under surveillance' (which allows continuous detention without charge) writ by the Public Security Bureau also works."
I said, "This is illegal detention. I will be looking for lawyers to file against you." We had a quarrel. Then the authorities who had negotiated with me requested to talk to me alone.
I was told that the situation within the party leadership was very complicated. The anti-Jiang faction wanted trouble. If Jiang Zemin did not carry out the already reached agreement, or if there were unexpected protestations from my side, it would cause the breakdown of the deal with President Clinton. They told me that on the outside, the implementation of the agreement was still in effect, and the people I asked to be release were released.
People like Wang Dan were still active, and the authorities had not arrested them despite pressure. So they hoped that I would not resist my detention, be patient, and give some face to Jiang Zemin for the sake of the country.
I weighed the pros and cons, and decided to accept their "residence under surveillance" document - while maintaining my rights of suing them for illegal detention at a later time.
After that, Bill Clinton successfully de-linked trade and human rights.
When the authorities later took me to court, it turned out that even the court would not recognize that my detention had been legal under the Criminal Procedure Law requiring the approvals of the court and Procuratorate to deprive people of their freedom. But, they held, detaining a person without charge under "residence under surveillance" was a legal act.
Since then, depriving people's personal freedom in the name of "residence under surveillance" became "legal." It is now routine under this public security tool for the state to deprive personal freedom arbitrarily. The law serves the authoritarian state, not the individual.
The Ai Weiwei case once again reveals the essence of the Chinese state for all the world to see. This is China's legal system today: the rule by law for the authorities instead of the rule of law for the people.
Wei Jingsheng was a leader of the Chinese democracy movement who spent 15 years in prison for authoring "The Fifth Modernization," which he posted on the Democracy Wall in Beijing. He lives in exile in the United States.
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT / TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 21, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune with the headline: A Return to the Cultural Revolution?.
Original link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21iht-edwei21.html?_r=1&ref=global
没有评论:
发表评论