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 校对：熊辩 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，由五名法警看守，直到下午一点多才将她放出。商国英说，她在法院发现了一个大秘密：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。她说她从来没有听闻过这样的厕所，这次算是大开眼界、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，辩护的要点有两个：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”。
邹巍的申请不但没有得到法院的同意，而且反其道而行之，将要求电视直播的商国英非法拘禁达4小时之久，法庭犹如囚笼。
Nearly a hundred rights defenders were denied access to the court hearing of Zou Wei’s case. One of the defenders was illegally detained in the courtroom for nearly four hours.
Author: Jiang Ge Editor: Zhang Zhijun Responsible Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: tomorrow
The staff of the Gongshu District Court refused to allow rights defenders to attend the trial as observers, claiming that the application process for observation had ended. Everyone questioned the court authorities as to why they did not give advance notice and even the mother of Zou Wei did not receive an observation pass. The authorities had no response. Shang Guoying from Chaoshan Village, Tangxi Town, Yuhang District, requested that a television be set up in the hall to live broadcast the trial, but was instead taken to a large courtroom next door and guarded by five bailiffs until after 1 p.m. Shang Guoying said that she discovered a big secret at the court: when she went to the toilet, she found that it was only about one square meter in size and had leg irons on the seat, just like the solitary confinement cells in detention centers and prisons. There were about ten such toilets in a row. She said she had never heard of such toilets before and this was a real eye-opener for her.
Although Zou Wei’s 85-year-old mother didn’t have a credential to attend the trial, she was able to attend with the help of human rights activists. The judge refused to allow Zou’s mother to speak and threatened to expel her if she said anything. Zou’s mother felt deeply distressed but also proud of her son. She said Zou Wei had lost a lot of weight, but looked energetic and presented a coherent defense in court.The lawyers argued for Zou Wei’s innocence, arguing on two key points: first, whether Zou Wei’s interview constituted “spreading false information through online platforms.” They argued that interviews are passive behaviors, with the interviewee answering questions based on their own information, with the responsibility for editing and selecting information residing solely with the interviewer. This is a common practice in Chinese news reporting; second, whether the information Zou Wei provided was false. The prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to prove Zou Wei’s claims were false. On the contrary, many of the individuals involved in the information testified to the truth of Zou Wei’s statements. 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 “spreading false information through online platforms like Radio Free Asia, an overseas media outlet, and suspected of provoking trouble,” 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 seating for the public.”
Not only did the court fail to approve Zou Wei’s request, but it also went the other way, illegally detaining Shang Guoying, who had requested a live televised broadcast, for four hours, rendering the courtroom a prison.
