——牛腾宇母亲回应为冤判叫好者

作者：牛腾宇母亲

近日，有人为表所谓“忠心”、显所谓“爱国”，竟然公开拥护广东当局对我儿牛腾宇作出的判决，甚至还觉得判得太轻。

究竟是蠢到了极点，还是另有图谋？

我儿牛腾宇蒙冤，被广东当局判处14年有期徒刑。然而最近，一名身份不明的人在互联网上传播有关我儿的言论，其表示：“广东省政府对牛腾宇的判决没有问题，其可能参与了‘香港反修例事件’，14年罪有应得。”还表示：“甚至感觉牛腾宇判太轻了。”

显然，这番说辞不仅替广东当局为我儿牛腾宇罗列出了新的“罪状”，还肯定了广东当局对我儿作出的司法判决。此人甚至认为，因为我儿疑似参与所谓“香港反修例运动”，判14年已经算是从轻处理。

其说来说去，最想表达的意思恐怕就是：牛腾宇疑似参与了香港游行示威活动，是所谓“分裂祖国”的大坏蛋，判再重也不为过，才判14年简直太轻了。

然而，事实真的是这样吗？

我曾要求广东有关方面按照规定提供我儿被“指定居所监视居住”期间的监控录像及案件案卷，他们均拒绝提供，并以各种理由推脱和搪塞。甚至连我儿因遭受酷刑而送医抢救的病历本，据我所知，也被有关人员提前收走。

如果判决真的如此经得起检验，他们为什么不愿依法提供这些重要资料？

更重要的是，牛腾宇从未参与过所谓“香港游行事件”。我公开过广东省茂名市有关法院对此案作出的判决文书，其中对此事也是只字未提。

由此可见，即使是在原来的判决中，也没有以所谓“参与香港游行”或者“煽动分裂”等行为对牛腾宇进行定罪量刑。

连判决书中都没有出现过的罪名，到了这个人的嘴里，竟然成了牛腾宇被判重刑的原因之一？

再退一万步讲，即使牛腾宇真的参与过什么活动，司法机关也应当按照法律，对具体行为依法立案、侦查、公诉，并在判决书中明确列明事实、证据、罪名和法律依据，而不是事后由一个网络上的陌生人替司法机关“补充罪名”。

如果司法机关办案时可以张冠李戴，随意改变指控，任意量刑，那么司法就谈不上真正的公正与透明。长此以往，只会不断破坏社会对法律的信任。

从此人的言语中不难看出，他似乎非常“爱国”。

在他的逻辑中，因为广东省是中国的一部分，所以所谓“爱国”，就必须无条件拥护广东有关政法、法院、检察和公安机关；只要质疑这些机关作出的判决，就成了“不爱国”。

这是什么逻辑？

难道爱一个国家，就意味着不能质疑司法机关？

难道指出冤假错案，就是反对国家？

难道一个地方司法机关无论做什么，都必须无条件拥护？

我认为，恰恰相反。

真正希望这个国家变好的人，才更应该要求司法公正，要求依法办案，要求有错必纠。

出于对广东有关方面的无条件拥护，此人似乎必须极力证明我儿牛腾宇“有罪”。但在我看来，原判决所涉及的问题本身就存在大量争议。为了证明14年重刑“罪有应得”，他只能从网络上东拼西凑、断章取义，再将各种并未出现在判决书中的所谓“罪名”扣到牛腾宇头上。

连原判决都没有认定的事情，他却急着替司法机关定了罪。

无条件拥护一个被指存在违法办案、酷刑和严重程序问题的地方司法体系，甚至为可能存在的冤假错案叫好，这究竟是在“爱国”，还是在“碍国”？

真正损害一个国家的，并不是有人站出来揭露问题，而是有人明知问题存在，却仍然替错误叫好。

在我儿身陷冤狱期间，我曾无数次前往广东维权。

我曾在街头遭到有关人员拉扯和威胁，对方甚至扬言要将我抓起来，我没有退缩。

在四会监狱门口，我也曾面对大批警力，我没有害怕。

这些年来，我遭遇过各种骚扰、威胁和压力，但我从来没有想过放弃为儿子申诉。

后来，我一次又一次前往广东高院，与法院有关人员交涉。从领导、法官、工作人员，到门口的安保人员，许多人都和我打过交道。

但是至少在我的经历中，没有人当面对我说过：“牛腾宇有罪，判14年没有问题。”

至于所谓牛腾宇“疑似参与香港游行”的事情，我也从未从办案机关那里听到过。

有一次，我前往茂名有关法院，希望找到当年参与审理我儿案件的法官张书铭，当面问清楚案件中的问题。据我的亲身经历，当他得知我要找他后，很快离开了办公室，我最终没有能够与他当面对话。

这更让我想问一句：

如果一个判决真的如此经得起法律和事实的检验，为什么不能坦然面对一个母亲的质问？

还有一次，在我不断质问案件问题后，广东高院有关人员向我表示：“我们会依法依规监督茂名中院对案件进行处理。”

他们没有告诉我：“你儿子罪有应得。”

也没有告诉我：“判14年已经是从轻处罚。”

然而现在，一个与案件究竟有什么关系都不清楚的网络人士，却比办案机关本身更加斩钉截铁，甚至恨不得替司法机关再给牛腾宇增加几个罪名。

这不是司法。

这也不是爱国。

一个真正值得珍惜的国家，首先应当允许人民追问真相，允许母亲为自己的孩子申冤，也应当允许司法机关的错误受到质疑和纠正。

一个国家的法治，不会因为有人揭露冤案而受到伤害。

恰恰相反，真正伤害法治的，是明知可能存在冤屈，却仍然选择闭上眼睛；明知权力可能犯错，却仍然高喊“判得好”“判得还不够重”。

如果这种“爱国”最终变成了为一切权力行为叫好，那么它不是爱国，而是在“碍国”。

我还是那句话：

我只是一个母亲。

我不要求任何人无条件相信我，我只要求有关方面公开证据、依法办案，让事实接受检验，让法律接受检验。

如果牛腾宇有罪，请用事实和证据证明。

如果这个案件存在冤屈，就应该依法纠正。

这才是真正对国家、对法治、对人民负责的态度。

编辑：黄吉洲 校对：熊辩 翻译：戈冰

“Loving the Country” or “Harming the Country”?

— Niu Tengyu’s Mother Responds to Those Cheering His Unjust Conviction

Author: Mother of Niu Tengyu

Recently, in a bid to display so-called “loyalty” and show off so-called “patriotism,” certain individuals have publicly endorsed the sentence handed down to my son, Niu Tengyu, by the Guangdong authorities—some even claiming that the punishment was too light.

Is this the absolute height of stupidity, or do they harbor ulterior motives?

My son, Niu Tengyu, was wrongly convicted and sentenced by the Guangdong authorities to 14 years in prison. Yet recently, an unidentified individual has been spreading remarks about my son on the internet, stating: “The Guangdong Provincial Government’s verdict against Niu Tengyu is completely fine; he may have been involved in the ‘Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement,’ so 14 years is well-deserved.” This person even added: “I actually feel Niu Tengyu’s sentence was too light.”

Evidently, this line of argument not only concocts a new set of “charges” against my son, Niu Tengyu, on behalf of the Guangdong authorities, but also validates the judicial sentence handed down to my son by those same authorities. This person even believes that because my son allegedly participated in the so-called “Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement,” a 14-year sentence is already a lenient penalty.

At the end of the day, what this person wants to convey most is likely this: Niu Tengyu allegedly participated in the protests and demonstrations in Hong Kong, making him a major villain who “splits the motherland”—no sentence could be too harsh for him, and a mere 14 years is simply far too light.

However, is this truly the case?

I once demanded that the relevant Guangdong authorities provide, in accordance with regulations, the surveillance footage and case files from the period when my son was subjected to “Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location.” They all refused to provide them, making excuses and stonewalling. To my knowledge, even the medical records from when my son was rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment due to torture were confiscated in advance by the relevant personnel.

If the verdict is truly so able to withstand scrutiny, why are they unwilling to provide these key materials according to the law?

More importantly, Niu Tengyu has never participated in any so-called “Hong Kong protests.” I have made public the judicial decision document issued for this case by the relevant court in Maoming City, Guangdong Province, in which there is not a single word mentioning this matter.

It can be seen from this that even in the original judgment, Niu Tengyu was never convicted or sentenced on the grounds of allegedly “participating in Hong Kong protests” or “inciting separatism.”

How could a charge that does not even appear in the judgment document suddenly become, in the mouth of this person, one of the reasons for Niu Tengyu’s harsh sentence?

Even taking ten thousand steps back, even if Niu Tengyu had indeed participated in some event, the judicial organs should act in accordance with the law to open a case, investigate, prosecute, and explicitly list the facts, evidence, charges, and legal basis in the judgment document, rather than having a stranger on the internet “supplement charges” on behalf of the judicial organs after the fact.

If judicial organs can mismatch facts and charges, alter accusations at will, and hand down arbitrary sentences when handling cases, then the judiciary cannot speak of true fairness and transparency. In the long run, this will only continuously erode societal trust in the law.

From this person’s words, it is not difficult to see that he appears to be extremely “patriotic.”

In his logic, because Guangdong Province is a part of China, being so-called “patriotic” means one must unconditionally support the relevant political and legal, court, procuratorial, and public security organs of Guangdong; as long as one questions the verdicts rendered by these organs, one becomes “unpatriotic.”

What kind of logic is this?

Does loving a country mean one cannot question judicial organs?

Does pointing out miscarriages of justice mean opposing the country?

Does it mean that no matter what a local judicial organ does, it must be supported unconditionally?

I believe it is quite the opposite.

Those who truly wish for this country to become better are the very ones who should demand judicial fairness, demand handling cases according to the law, and demand that any error must be corrected.

Out of unconditional support for the relevant Guangdong authorities, this person seems driven to exert every effort to prove my son, Niu Tengyu, “guilty.” Yet in my view, the issues involved in the original verdict are themselves subject to immense controversy. In order to prove that the heavy 14-year sentence is “well-deserved,” he can only piece together bits and pieces from the internet, take things out of context, and pin various so-called “charges” that never appeared in the judgment document onto Niu Tengyu’s head.

He is actually in a rush to convict on behalf of the judicial organs over matters that were not even recognized in the original judgment.

Unconditionally supporting a local judicial system accused of illegal case handling, torture, and severe procedural violations, and even cheering for what may be miscarriages of justice—is this “loving the country” or “harming the country”?

What truly harms a country is not that someone steps forward to expose problems, but that someone knows full well that problems exist yet continues to cheer for errors.

During the time my son has been trapped in this unjust imprisonment, I have traveled to Guangdong countlessly to defend my rights.

I was once grabbed and threatened by relevant personnel on the street, with the other side even threatening to lock me up, yet I did not shrink back.

In front of the gates of Sihui Prison, I also faced a massive police force, yet I was not afraid.

Over these years, I have encountered all kinds of harassment, threats, and pressure, but I have never once thought of giving up appealing for my son.

Later, I traveled to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court time and time again to negotiate with relevant court personnel. From leaders, judges, and staff members to the security guards at the entrance, many people have dealt with me.

Yet at least in my experience, no one has ever said to my face: “Niu Tengyu is guilty, and a 14-year sentence is completely fine.”

As for the claim that Niu Tengyu “allegedly participated in the Hong Kong protests,” I have never heard such a thing from the handling organs either.

On one occasion, I went to the relevant court in Maoming, hoping to find Judge Zhang Shuming, who was involved in trying my son’s case back then, to directly clarify the issues in the case face-to-face. According to my personal experience, upon learning that I was looking for him, he quickly left his office, and I was ultimately unable to have a face-to-face dialogue with him.

This makes me want to ask all the more:

If a verdict truly stands up to the scrutiny of the law and facts, why can they not calmly face a mother’s questioning?

Another time, after I repeatedly questioned the issues surrounding the case, relevant personnel from the Guangdong Higher People’s Court stated to me: “We will supervise the Maoming Intermediate People’s Court to handle the case in accordance with laws and regulations.”

They did not tell me: “Your son got what he deserved.”

Nor did they tell me: “A 14-year sentence is already a lenient punishment.”

Yet now, an internet user whose exact connection to the case remains unclear is even more resolute than the case-handling organs themselves, and seems eager to add several more charges onto Niu Tengyu on behalf of the judicial organs.

This is not justice.

Nor is this patriotism.

A country truly worth cherishing should first allow its people to pursue the truth, allow a mother to appeal for justice for her child, and allow errors made by judicial organs to be questioned and corrected.

A nation’s rule of law will not be harmed because someone exposes a wrongful conviction.

Quite the contrary: what truly harms the rule of law is choosing to close one’s eyes while fully aware that injustice may exist; and continuing to shout “well sentenced” and “the sentence is still not heavy enough” while knowing full well that power can make mistakes.

If this kind of “patriotism” ultimately turns into cheering for every act of power, then it is not loving the country—it is harming the country.

My stance remains the same:

I am just a mother.

I do not ask anyone to believe me unconditionally; I only demand that the relevant authorities disclose the evidence and handle the case according to law, letting the facts undergo scrutiny, and letting the law undergo scrutiny.

If Niu Tengyu is guilty, please prove it with facts and evidence.

If there is injustice in this case, it should be corrected in accordance with the law.

Only this is a truly responsible attitude toward the country, toward the rule of law, and toward the people.

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing