.png)
Professor Zhang Zanning (left) and Attorney Mo Shaoping. (SOH radio Network)
The Chinese legal community has raised its voice in protest against an often used and vaguely defined charge recently employed to convict Democracy activist and Nanjing Normal University professor, Guo Quan.
An advocate of democracy in China, Mr. Guo Quan was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was charged with 'subversion of state power' on Oct.15, 2009.
Chinese law professor Zhang Zanning believes that the judgment and charge against Guo Quan is a violation of the Chinese constitution.
Renowned attorney Mo Shaoping also said that the legal community in China is questioning it. Some attorneys, he said, believe the charge itself, 'subversion of state power,' conflicts with the constitution and should be abolished.
Professor Zhang Zanning said: “Guo Quan is innocent from a legal perspective. Doesn’t China’s constitution grant citizens the right of speech and the right of association? Therefore, this judgment is against the constitution.”
Zhang further pointed out that it is untenable to say that opposing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is equal to opposing the state. When the Kuomintang government tried one of the early communist leaders, Chen Duxiu, more than 70 years ago, the CCP itself denounced the phrase 'subversion of state power.'
Presently, the CCP uses the same statement to punish those dissidents who oppose it.
Zhang said: “In actuality, they use a double standard. It is very unfair to use double standards and they have no underlying rational basis to speak of. As of now, I haven’t seen any well-defined and rational explanation for the crime of subversion of state power, be it from the Supreme Court, or from relevant legal textbooks.”
The renowned criminal law attorney Mo Shaoping said there are always disputes among lawyers over whether or not to use the charge in judicial documents. The focus of the dispute is whether this charge is against the constitutional rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech.
Mo Shaoping said: “Article 165 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China defines the supposed crime of subversion of state power. Then how do you define the constitutional right of freedom of speech? Those who take it seriously point out that the criminal law defining ‘subversion of state power’ is against the constitution and should be abolished. Then with regard to someone’s founding of a political party, how do you define the freedom of association as stipulated in the constitution?”
Professor Zhang Zanning said, Guo Lianhu and Si Weijiang, the attorneys for Guo Quan, in their defense statements, explained why the crime of 'subversion of state power' does not hold water, and their reasoning is clear and straightforward.
Zhang said: “What is a state? A state is the people, the land. Actually, a state cannot be subverted. Then who is a state? It can be compared to a real estate owner. Then who is a ruling party? It can be compared to a real estate management company. As the real estate owner, the people have the right to select the management company. If you do not do a good job in management, as the owner, I have the right to fire you. So the charge of subversion of state power in the case of Guo Quan does not hold at all.”
In the past decade, the list of Chinese citizens accused by the Chinese communist regime of inciting subversion of state power has grown long. However, there have always been scholars who write joint open letters, requesting the authorities to abolish this criminal charge.
