一维权者被非法关进法庭近4小时

作者：蒋戈

编辑：张致君   责任编辑：李聪玲   翻译：tomorrow

中国著名维权活动家邹巍所谓“寻衅滋事”案于2025年9月19日在浙江省杭州市拱墅区法院开庭，尽管当局已提前一天将吕耿松、陈树庆、毛庆祥、戚惠民等中国民主党人禁足在家，但朱瑛娣、梁丽婉、严忠良、严忠女、刘训连、王利民、沈利华、商国英等近百名维权者还是聚集在法院门口，并涌进法院二楼大厅，要求参加旁听。拱墅区法院的工作人员拒绝维权人士参加旁听，称旁听申请程序已经结束。大家质问法院当局为什么不提前公告通知，甚至连邹巍的妈妈也没拿到旁听证。当局无言以对。余杭区塘栖镇超山村的商国英提出要求在大厅设一台电视机直播庭审实况，却被关到隔壁的大法庭里，由五个法警看着，直到下午一点多才将她放出。商国英说，她在法院里发现了一个大秘密：她去上厕所的时候，发现厕所只有一平方米左右大，座位上有脚铐，像看守所和监狱的的禁闭室一样，这样的厕所有十个左右，连成一排。她说她从来没有看见或听到过这样的厕所，这算是大开眼界、大长见识了。

邹巍八十五岁的母亲虽然没有拿到旁听证，但她在维权人士的帮助下，也参加了旁听。法官不许邹母说话，并威胁说如果她说一句话，就要把她撵走，邹母十分心疼儿子，但又为儿子感到骄傲。她说邹巍瘦了很多，但看起来很有精神，在法庭上的自我辩护条理清晰。律师为邹巍作了无罪辩护，辩护的要点是两个：一是邹巍接受采访是否属于“通过信息网络平台散布虚假信息”。他们认为接受采访属于被动行为，被采访者根据自己获得的信息向采访者回答问题，编辑、取舍的责任都在采访者一方，这样的情况在我国的新闻报道中是常见的；二是邹巍所说的信息是否虚假。检方没有足够的证据能证明邹巍所说的信息是虚假的，而恰恰相反的是，许多信息所涉的当事人能证明邹巍所讲的都是事实。邹巍母亲盛赞两位律师，称他们很出色。

开庭前一天，邹巍向拱墅区法院提出了《要求公开审判并启动网络直播》的申请。他认为，既然起诉书认定他“通过海外媒体自由亚洲电台等信息网络平台，散布虚假信息，涉嫌寻衅滋事”，那么，他的案子就应该公开审判并启动网络直播，因为自由亚洲电台属于美国国会出资设立的新闻单位，在世界范围内影响广泛，应依法依规直播。

 邹巍同时还提出，他的父亲、母亲年纪太大，他的妹妹又不在国内，不能旁听庭审。但他自幼在杭州长大，在杭州有很多朋友。因此希望他的朋友能够旁听庭审。他要求法院“当我的朋友们前往法院的时候，希望贵院严格按照刑诉法庭审公开的原则，不得阻碍他们旁听庭审，并且要保证足够的旁听席位。但邹巍的申请不但没有得到法院的同意，而且反其道而行之，并将要求电视直播的商国英非法拘禁达4小时之久，闹出了法庭成为囚笼的丑闻。

Nearly 100 human rights activists were unsuccessful in attending Zou Wei’s trial.

One activist was illegally detained in the courtroom for nearly four hours.

Abstract: The trial of Zou Wei’s case opened on September 19. Nearly 100 rights activists were denied attendance, and one was illegally detained for 4 hours. Zou’s mother insisted on appearing in court, and her lawyer argued for her innocence, exposing that the court was like a cage.

Author: Zeng Qunlan

Editor: Feng Reng   Editor-in-Chief: Hu Lili   Translation: Tomorrow

The trial of prominent Chinese human rights activist Zou Wei, accused of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” opened on September 19, 2025, at the Gongshu District Court in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. Despite authorities placing members of the China Democracy Party (CDP) including Lü Gengsong, Chen Shuqing, Mao Qingxiang, and Qi Huimin under house arrest a day in advance, nearly 100 activists, including Zhu Yingdi, Liang Liwan, Yan Zhongliang, Yan Zhongnu, Liu Xunlian, Wang Limin, Shen Lihua, and Shang Guoying, gathered at the court entrance and streamed into the second-floor lobby, demanding to attend the trial. Gongshu District Court staff denied the activists permission to attend, stating that the application process had closed.Everyone questioned the court authorities for not providing advance notice, and even Zou Wei’s mother was denied a spectator pass. The authorities were speechless. Shang Guoying, from Chaoshan Village, Tangqi Town, Yuhang District, requested a television in the hall to broadcast the trial live, but was instead detained in the adjacent courtroom, under the watchful eye of five bailiffs, until after 1:00 PM.Shang Guoying revealed a secret she discovered at the courthouse: when she went to use the restroom, it was only about one square meter in size, with shackles on the seats, like solitary confinement cells in detention centers and prisons. There were about ten such restrooms lined up in a row. She said she had never seen or heard of such a restroom before, and it was truly eye-opening and enriching.

Although Zou Wei’s 85-year-old mother did not have a spectator pass, she attended the trial with the help of human rights activists. The judge refused to allow Zou Wei to speak and threatened to expel her if she said anything. Zou Wei’s mother felt deeply distressed but also proud of her son. She said Zou Wei had lost a lot of weight, but appeared energetic and presented a coherent defense in court. Zou Wei’s lawyer argued for his innocence, focusing on two key points: first, whether Zou Wei’s interview constituted “spreading false information through online platforms.”They believe that being interviewed is a passive act, with the interviewee answering questions based on the information they receive, and the responsibility for editing and selecting information lies with the interviewer. This is a common practice in Chinese news reporting. Secondly, they question whether Zou Wei’s information is false. The prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to prove that Zou Wei’s information is false. On the contrary, many of the parties involved in the information can attest to the fact that Zou Wei’s statements are true. Zou Wei’s mother praised the two lawyers, calling them excellent.

The day before the trial, Zou Wei filed a petition with the Gongshu District Court requesting a public trial and live webcast. He argued that since the indictment found him guilty of “provoking disturbances by spreading false information through online platforms such as Radio Free Asia,” his case should be open to the public and live webcast. Because Radio Free Asia is a news organization funded by the US Congress and has a wide global influence, its live broadcast should be conducted in accordance with the law.

Zou Wei also argued that his father and mother were too old, and his sister was out of the country, to attend the trial. However, he grew up in Hangzhou and had many friends there. Therefore, he hoped his friends could attend the trial. He requested that the court “strictly adhere to the principle of open criminal court hearings when my friends come to court, not hinder their attendance, and ensure sufficient seats for observers.” However, Zou Wei’s request was not only rejected by the court, but the opposite was done, with Shang Guoying, who was being illegally detained for four hours during the live televised broadcast, sparking a scandal in which the courtroom became a prison.