作者/副主编：张致君
责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：程筱筱 翻译：刘芳
（被捕前的昝爱宗（中）与邹巍（右）在朱虞夫家）
2025年10月6日，中国民主党浙江委员会朱虞夫先生获悉，邹巍之父邹福明在杭州去世，羁押在看守所的邹巍无法参加父亲的葬礼。
同日，中国民主党浙江委员会发布讣告：“中国民主党浙江委员会成员邹巍的父亲邹福明先生于2025年10月6日18时35分在杭州逝世，享年八十七岁。邹巍因2024年7月13日到浙江海宁钱塘江边悼念刘晓波而被抓捕，于同年7月20日被杭州市公安局拱墅区分局以涉嫌‘寻衅滋事罪’刑事拘留，羁押在杭州市拱墅区看守所。2025年9月19日，拱墅区法院开庭审理，尚未判决。邹巍不能与其父作最后的告别及参加葬礼。特此电告国内外同仁及各界。”
邹巍因海祭诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波，被中共以“涉嫌寻衅滋事罪”抓捕并关押。今年9月中旬案件开庭后，一直未宣判。
家庭与亲情是社会最基本的情感纽带，也是衡量文明社会法治水平的重要指标。在民主国家，即便是服刑囚犯，其亲情权利通常受到法律保障，这体现了法治独立、司法透明和制度文明的基本原则。
然而，在中国浙江民主党人邹巍因政治原因被羁押，其父亲去世时，他无法参加葬礼。这一事件是个人家庭的悲剧，也折射出中共专制制度对人性、家庭权利和社会信任的系统性摧毁。
邹巍，长期从事民主运动与政治倡导，曾因推动宪政改革与多党竞争触碰中共政治红线而被羁押。邹巍未能在父亲遗体前行最后告别礼，再一次把中共专制权力凌驾于人性和家庭伦理之上的制度逻辑暴露在国际社会面前。邹巍无法参加父亲葬礼并非偶发事件，而是中共专制体制中一贯性制度化的政治压制行为。中共常将家庭关系视作政治控制的工具，通过剥夺亲情权利强化对异议者的心理压力和社会孤立，形成制度化控制的长期机制。
历史上，中共长期对政治异见者及其家庭施加干预，形成系统性压迫，具有非常典型的制度特征。诺贝尔和平奖获得者刘晓波在母亲病逝时无法探视，其临终告别被剥夺；维权人士黄琦被羁押期间，其母亲去世也未获允许参加葬礼；盲人维权人士陈光诚长期被软禁，其亲属在生死事件中受到严格限制。这些案例显示，中共将亲情剥夺作为政治控制工具，通过制度化的心理压迫削弱异议者意志，从而确保权力的绝对控制。中共专制体制的核心逻辑是权力优先、服从绝对，亲情与个体情感可能成为独立意志的体现，因此被视作潜在威胁而受到压制。这种制度性剥夺不仅影响个体心理健康，也破坏社会信任与伦理基础，使社会整体呈现长期的不安全感和恐惧氛围。
中共对家庭和亲情的干预不仅是心理层面的控制，更是通过法律条文和行政条例加以规范化。例如，《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》和《看守所条例》赋予了行政权力广泛裁量权，使羁押人员的探视权利、与亲属沟通权利以及参加家庭重大事件的权利受制于政治判断，而非独立司法。这种权力扩张直接导致了邹巍事件的发生，也是中国法律制度在实践中缺乏独立性、无法有效保护基本人权的体现。在这样的制度下，权力与家庭伦理发生冲突，亲情成为政治控制的牺牲品。
通过国际比较可以发现，在法治独立的国家，囚犯可以在直系亲属病重或去世时申请临时外出参加葬礼，并且此类申请由独立司法系统审查，不受政治干预。在美国，联邦监狱局规定囚犯可申请“compassionate leave”，允许其在警员陪同下参加亲属葬礼；在日本，狱政法允许囚犯在直系亲属重病或死亡时申请临时探视；欧洲国家同样保障囚犯家庭权利，通过法律确保权力不得随意剥夺个体尊严。在与中国一海之隔的台湾，政治案件羁押者在家庭重大事件中亦可获得临时外出许可。这些实践显示，制度独立、法律约束和透明的审查机制是保护亲情权利、维护人性尊严的核心条件。
从理论层面分析，亲情权利是人性最直观的体现，也是权力与法治关系的重要检验指标。专制国家权力追求绝对服从，而亲情体现个体独立性。在剥夺亲情权利的制度逻辑下，权力将家庭关系纳入控制体系，以削弱异议者的心理韧性。心理学研究表明，剥夺亲情权利会导致长期精神创伤、孤立感、抑郁和焦虑，不仅影响被羁押者本身，也对家庭成员造成心理伤害。在社会层面，这种制度化的控制会形成恐惧氛围，削弱社会信任和社会凝聚力。这种制度性恐惧和家庭关系破坏导致社会参与度下降，公民自我审查增加，形成长期制度性信任危机，从而对国家治理造成深远影响。
从政治哲学角度看，亲情权利是社会契约的重要组成部分。社会契约理论认为，国家权力应以保护公民权利和尊严为核心。若国家剥夺最基本的人性权利，如亲情权利，则其合法性和道德基础应该受到质疑与挑战。邹巍事件表明，中共通过政治化羁押行为剥夺亲情权利，违反了社会契约的基本原则，使国家权力成为个人自由和家庭伦理的压迫工具。
在社会学视角下，专制对家庭权利的剥夺形成长期的社会结构性问题。家庭是社会信任的基础，而亲情权利受限削弱了民众对公共制度的信任，形成连锁效应：民众自我审查，社会参与度降低，社会合作意愿下降，导致长期制度性信任危机。这种影响不仅体现在政治领域，也影响教育、经济、文化等社会各层面，使社会整体运行效率和创新能力下降。
邹巍事件同时揭示了国际社会在监督中共专制国家人权时的作用。政治异议者家庭权利的保护不仅是国内法的问题，也涉及国际法和全球舆论的监督。司法独立和法治建设是防止类似事件发生的核心机制，权力受约束才能保障亲情权利不受政治干预。国际法律监督、舆论压力和非政府组织的关注可以形成对专制国家的外部压力，促使其在处理政治案件时更加谨慎。这种国际压力不仅限于公开谴责，还可以通过报告制度、联合国调查和国际人权机制进行系统监督，形成持续的约束力。
亲情权利不仅是个体基本权利，也是社会文明与法治水平的重要标志。中共制度若无法保障亲情权利，其所谓文明水平仅是表象，而非实质。邹巍无法参加父亲葬礼，是中共专制制度冷酷与人性剥夺的典型案例。对比民主国家的实践，亲情权利在法治独立、司法透明的社会中得到保障，权力无法随意剥夺人的尊严。父亲已逝，儿子仍被囚，这不仅是个人悲剧，也是制度冷漠的体现。
中国若希望实现法治与文明，必须让法律高于权力，让亲情、人性与尊严成为制度核心，而非政治工具。
邹巍父亲的葬礼，是铁窗前的沉默，也是对中共专制冷酷的控诉。唯有让人性重回制度核心，类似悲剧才能不再重演。现如今要求中共·制度改革、司法独立、法治透明，逐步建立一个能够保护人性和家庭权利的社会已无可能。
唯有结束其专政，才能迎来真正改变。
附邹巍简历：
1968年生，浙江省杭州市人，国民主党浙江委员会重要成员（俗称浙江民主党人），人权活动家，中国在押政治犯。
因执着追求民主自由理念，很早即成为浙江杭州区域坚定的民主运动参与者， 又因浙江省民运人士冲破中共政府的打压与阻隔风险成立民主党浙江委员会，其即一直以浙江民主党人自居，故此多次被当局警方传唤和抄家。2012年1月12日，就曾因广东省陆丰市发生了乌坎事件（即陆丰市乌坎村在基层选举过程中，发生了村民从对经济的要求上升到对政治的要求的集体抗争事件，此一事件因震惊世界而导致中共认为国内政治形势严峻，其遂在此阶段被杭州市警方数十人突然冲进其家进行大抄家，当场搜走其个人计算机、通讯簿、U盘等凡被认为「有价值」的东西，并将其带走传讯；2023年11月20日，曾因为江苏南京异议人士孙林在家遭警方疑似殴打致死而举牌发声，同时又是网络发布的《就孙林之死真相不明——致南京市政府公开信》的积极签名者，遂立遭杭州市拱墅区警方抓走刑拘，其家及其母住宅均遭搜查; 2024年3月17日，曾因为新冠疫情吹哨人李文亮医生「被死亡」四周年纪念之际举牌发声，又因在中共两会召开之际被警方强迫旅游结束后，到湖州市办事并在网上公布自己被旅游、被维稳等讯息，而又被当地警方带走传唤和被训诫; 2024年7月13日，诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波逝世7周年纪念日，因其与独立作家昝爱宗、庄道鹤和民主党人毛庆祥等7人，为悼念刘晓波而前往浙江省海宁市钱塘江入海口举行海祭活动，并将活动部分照片发于网上，遂于次日凌晨即被杭州警方带走6人，后有5人被训诫、做笔录之后陆续释放，而其及詹爱宗则因中共第20届三中全会即将在京召开， 竟仍续押不放而被强迫旅游; 返家后，7月20日，其再次因海祭之事和昝爱宗同天被杭州市拱墅区警方以涉嫌“寻衅滋事罪”正式刑拘; 同年8月29日，二人又被杭州市拱墅区检察院以同罪名予以正式批捕。后遭起诉，2025年9月19日开庭，未当庭宣判。
目前被羁押于杭州市拱墅区看守所（又称半山看守所，浙江省杭州市拱墅区半山路342-68号，邮政编码：310011）
The Father’s Funeral and the Silence Behind Bars
— In Memory of Zou Wei’s Father, an Indictment of the CCP’s Cruelty —Executive
Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Liu Fang
(Before his arrest, Zan Aizong (center) and Zou Wei (right) at Zhu Yufu’s home)
On October 6, 2025, Zhu Yufu of the China Democracy Party Zhejiang Committee learned that Zou Wei’s father, Zou Fuming, had passed away in Hangzhou. Zou Wei, who has been detained, was unable to attend his father’s funeral.
On the same day, the Zhejiang Committee of the China Democracy Party issued an obituary:
“Mr. Zou Fuming, father of China Democracy Party Zhejiang Committee member Zou Wei, passed away in Hangzhou at 6:35 p.m. on October 6, 2025, at the age of 87. Zou Wei was arrested on July 13, 2024, in Haining, Zhejiang Province, for holding a memorial at the Qiantang River to mourn Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. On July 20 of the same year, he was criminally detained by the Gongshu Branch of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau on suspicion of ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’ and has been held at the Gongshu District Detention Center in Hangzhou. On September 19, 2025, the Gongshu District Court held a trial but has not yet delivered a verdict. Zou Wei is unable to bid his father a final farewell or attend the funeral. This is hereby notified to colleagues and friends at home and abroad.”
Zou Wei was arrested and imprisoned by the Chinese Communist authorities for commemorating Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo at the sea. The case was heard in mid-September this year but remains unadjudicated.
Family and kinship are the most fundamental emotional bonds of society and an important measure of the rule of law and civilization. In democratic nations, even convicted prisoners usually retain the right to family contact and compassion, reflecting judicial independence, transparency, and institutional humanity.
However, while the Zhejiang democracy activist Zou Wei remains detained for political reasons, his father’s death prevented him from attending the funeral. This is not only a personal and family tragedy but also a reflection of the Chinese Communist regime’s systemic destruction of humanity, family rights, and social trust.
Zou Wei has long been engaged in democratic advocacy and constitutional reform. Because of his efforts to promote multiparty competition, he has repeatedly crossed the CCP’s political red lines. His inability to say farewell to his father exposes once again the CCP’s institutional logic—placing power above humanity and family ethics. Zou’s inability to attend the funeral is not an isolated incident but part of a long-standing, institutionalized pattern of political repression. The CCP habitually treats family ties as instruments of political control, depriving dissidents of family rights to exert psychological pressure and enforce isolation, thereby achieving long-term social control.
Historically, the CCP has consistently interfered in the families of political dissidents, forming a systematic pattern of oppression. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo was denied the chance to visit his dying mother or bid her farewell. Human rights defender Huang Qi was not allowed to attend his mother’s funeral while in detention. Blind activist Chen Guangcheng was long under house arrest, and his family was strictly restricted during major life events. These cases show that the CCP uses the deprivation of family rights as a tool of political control—inflicting psychological pressure to weaken resistance and ensure absolute obedience. The core logic of its autocratic system is power supremacy and total submission. Family affection, as a symbol of individual autonomy, is perceived as a potential threat. Such institutionalized deprivation harms not only individual mental health but also erodes social trust and moral foundations, creating an enduring atmosphere of fear and insecurity across society.
The CCP’s interference with family and kinship extends beyond psychological manipulation and is codified through legal and administrative instruments. For example, the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Regulations on Detention Centers grant authorities broad discretionary powers, making detainees’ visitation and communication rights— and their ability to attend major family events—subject to political judgment rather than judicial independence. This expansion of administrative power directly led to the Zou Wei incident and reflects the lack of judicial independence and effective human rights protection in China’s legal system. In such a system, when power and family ethics collide, kinship becomes the casualty of political control.
A comparison with democratic societies reveals a stark contrast. In countries governed by the rule of law, prisoners may apply for temporary release to attend funerals or visit critically ill relatives, and such applications are reviewed by independent judicial bodies, free from political interference. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons allows inmates to apply for compassionate leave to attend family funerals under supervision. In Japan, the Prison Act permits temporary leave for inmates to visit sick or deceased relatives. European countries similarly guarantee inmates’ family rights by law, ensuring that dignity cannot be arbitrarily stripped away. In Taiwan, even political detainees may be granted temporary leave for major family events. These practices show that institutional independence, legal restraint, and transparent review mechanisms are essential to protecting family rights and human dignity.
From a theoretical perspective, family rights are a direct manifestation of human nature and an important indicator of the relationship between power and law. In authoritarian states, power demands absolute obedience, whereas kinship represents individuality and independent emotion. Under a system that suppresses family rights, the regime subsumes family relations into its control mechanism to weaken dissidents’ psychological resilience. Psychological research shows that deprivation of family connection causes lasting trauma, loneliness, depression, and anxiety, harming not only the detainee but also their family members. Socially, such institutionalized control breeds fear, undermines social cohesion, and destroys trust. It leads to self-censorship, civic disengagement, and a long-term crisis of institutional trust that ultimately weakens national governance.
From the perspective of political philosophy, the right to family connection is an integral part of the social contract. The social contract theory holds that state power must exist to protect citizens’ rights and dignity. When the state deprives individuals of fundamental human rights—such as the right to family—it forfeits its moral and legal legitimacy. The Zou Wei case demonstrates how the CCP weaponizes detention to strip away family rights, violating the foundational principles of the social contract and turning state power into an instrument of oppression against personal freedom and family ethics.
From a sociological perspective, authoritarian deprivation of family rights produces deep structural consequences. Family is the cornerstone of social trust; when that trust is undermined, citizens’ confidence in public institutions collapses. The result is a chain reaction—self-censorship, civic apathy, and declining cooperation—culminating in a long-term crisis of social trust. This deterioration affects not only politics but also education, economy, and culture, eroding efficiency, creativity, and the vitality of society as a whole.
The Zou Wei incident also highlights the role of the international community in monitoring human rights abuses under the CCP regime. Protection of dissidents’ family rights is not merely a domestic legal issue but one of international law and global moral oversight. Judicial independence and the rule of law are fundamental to preventing such tragedies. Only when power is restrained can family rights be shielded from political manipulation. International legal mechanisms, public opinion, and NGOs can exert external pressure on authoritarian states, compelling them toward greater caution. Such pressure should not stop at condemnation but extend to sustained monitoring through reporting systems, UN inquiries, and global human rights frameworks.
Family rights are not only basic human rights but also a key indicator of a society’s civilization and legal maturity. If the CCP regime cannot guarantee these rights, its claimed “civilization” is nothing more than a façade. Zou Wei’s inability to attend his father’s funeral stands as a stark example of the regime’s cruelty and its denial of humanity. In democratic societies, family rights are safeguarded by independent judicial institutions; dignity cannot be arbitrarily denied. A father has died, yet his son remains imprisoned—this is not merely a personal tragedy but a manifestation of institutional coldness.
For China to achieve genuine rule of law and civilization, the law must stand above political power, and humanity, kinship, and dignity must become the moral core of governance rather than tools of control.
The funeral of Zou Wei’s father is a silence before prison bars—and an indictment of the CCP’s cruelty. Only when humanity is restored to the center of the system can such tragedies cease to recur. At present, demanding judicial independence and transparency under CCP rule is futile.
Only by ending the dictatorship can true change begin.
Biography of Zou Wei
Born in 1968, a native of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. He is a key member of the Zhejiang Committee of the China Democracy Party (commonly referred to as the “Zhejiang Democracy Party”), a human rights activist, and a current political prisoner in China.
Committed to the ideals of democracy and freedom, Zou Wei became an active participant in the democratic movement in the Hangzhou region at an early stage. When pro-democracy activists in Zhejiang took great personal risks to overcome government suppression and established the Zhejiang Committee of the China Democracy Party, he publicly identified himself as a “Zhejiang Democrat.” Because of his persistent involvement, he has been repeatedly summoned and had his home searched by police.
On January 12, 2012, following the Wukan Incident in Lufeng City, Guangdong Province — a landmark protest in which villagers escalated economic grievances into demands for political rights — dozens of Hangzhou police officers raided Zou Wei’s home. They confiscated his personal computer, address book, USB drives, and any items deemed “valuable,” and took him away for interrogation.
On November 20, 2023, Zou was detained again after publicly protesting the suspicious death of Jiangsu dissident Sun Lin (also known as Sun Bin), who was reportedly beaten to death by police in Nanjing. Zou held a sign calling for justice and co-signed an open letter titled “To the Nanjing Municipal Government: Clarify the Truth About Sun Lin’s Death.” He was soon taken into custody by the Gongshu District Public Security Bureau in Hangzhou. Police also searched both his residence and his mother’s home.
On March 17, 2024, during the fourth anniversary of the “death” of COVID-19 whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang, Zou once again held a sign in commemoration. Around the time of the CCP’s National People’s Congress sessions, he was subjected to “forced travel” (a common police tactic to remove dissidents from sensitive locations). After returning to Huzhou City, he posted online about his forced travel and surveillance, for which local police summoned and reprimanded him.
On July 13, 2024, the seventh anniversary of Liu Xiaobo’s death, Zou, together with independent writer Zan Aizong, Zhuang Daohe, and fellow democrats Mao Qingxiang and others — a total of seven participants — held a sea memorial at the mouth of the Qiantang River in Haining, Zhejiang Province, to honor Liu Xiaobo. Some photos of the ceremony were later shared online. In the early morning of the next day, six of them were detained by Hangzhou police. Five were released after being interrogated and warned, but Zou Wei and Zan Aizong remained under detention due to the upcoming Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CCP in Beijing. Both were subsequently subjected to further “forced travel.”
After returning home, on July 20, 2024, Zou and Zan were formally criminally detained by the Gongshu District Public Security Bureau on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” On August 29, 2024, the Gongshu District Procuratorate approved their formal arrest on the same charge.
Zou Wei and Zan Aizong were later indicted. Their trial took place on September 19, 2025, but no verdict has yet been announced.
Zou Wei is currently detained at the Gongshu District Detention Center (also known as Banshan Detention Center), located at No. 342-68 Banshan Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, Postal Code 310011.
