——第806次茉莉花行动洛杉矶中领馆前抗议新版《国防动员法》
记者 ：王府 张致君 报道
2026年9月5日下午，第806次“茉莉花行动”在中国驻洛杉矶总领事馆前举行。活动参与者针对中国近期修订通过的《中华人民共和国国防动员法》举行抗议，提出“反对强化全民动员”“拒绝成为战争炮灰”等诉求，并将《国防动员法》与同期通过的《医疗保障法》联系起来，质疑在普通公民的法律义务不断得到明确和强化的同时，公民权利以及对公共权力的监督是否获得了对等保障。
当天活动由康余组织策划并担任发言人，王府担任活动负责人，姜俊良、张磊担任主持人。
姜俊良：我们要替国内无法发声的人发出声音
活动开始后，主持人姜俊良首先向现场参与者、海外华人及媒体致意。
他表示，大家当天聚集在洛杉矶中国领事馆前举行第806次茉莉花行动，是希望替那些在中国国内无法公开表达意见的人发声。
此次集会的核心议题，是刚刚通过的新修订《国防动员法》。
现场发言者认为，人们尤其应该关注新法所构建的社会动员体系，因为现代战争所涉及的已经不仅仅是军队和武器，还包括交通、能源、通信、医疗、数据、企业以及大量民用资源。
姜俊良在现场强调，国防勤务并不能简单理解为传统意义上的“参军”。按照活动主持稿的表述，其中还包括支援保障军队作战、预防与救助战争灾害以及协助维护社会秩序等内容。
他特别将矛头指向其中的“支援保障军队作战任务”，认为这意味着一旦战争真正发生，普通公民也可能被直接卷入战争支援体系。
张磊：普通人为什么没有拒绝战争的权利？
主持人张磊随后将问题直接落到普通家庭身上。
他在现场发言中提出，一名已经接近退休年龄的普通人，工作、纳税、养育家庭几十年之后，为什么仍然可能被纳入国防勤务体系？
张磊质问：
“一个辛辛苦苦工作一生、只求安稳度日的普通老百姓，难道连拒绝被卷入战争的权利都没有吗？”
他进一步批评，在他看来，如果战争决策并非由普通民众作出，而战争造成的生命、财产损失及其他社会成本却主要由普通人承担 ，那么战争决策权与战争代价之间就存在严重的不对等。
现场材料同时特别指出，男性18至60周岁、女性18至55周岁的相关国防勤务年龄范围，并不是此次修法才首次出现。
张磊在主持稿中也主动提到，类似年龄规定在2010年的旧法中已经存在。他认为此次真正值得关注的，并非单纯的年龄数字，而是新版法律进一步制度化了涉及国防动员准备、数据、后备兵员、战略物资以及民用资源等方面的整体动员体系。
康余：需要人民的时候讲义务，不需要的时候谁来保障他们？
当天活动的组织策划及发言人康余则把《国防动员法》与普通人的现实生活联系起来。
康余在发言中批评，在现行政治体制下，普通民众在许多重大公共事务上缺少真正的选择权，但当国家需要社会资源时，却不断强调个人的“义务”和“责任”。
他谈到失业、医疗和养老等普通家庭面对的问题，并将这些问题与国防动员进行对照。
康余表示：
“需要你的时候，就告诉你这是义务、这是责任。”
而当普通人面对失业、没有足够的钱看病或者养老困难时，他认为许多现实压力最终仍然需要家庭自己承担。
康余随后把问题进一步指向战争。
他认为，一个普通人平时对于国家重大政治决策缺少充分选择权，但一旦战争发生，却可能被要求承担国防义务，这种权利与义务之间的不平衡正是他们当天走上街头抗议的原因。
他在发言最后连续喊出：
“反对强制动员！反对让普通老百姓成为战争的炮灰！”
从《国防动员法》谈到《医疗保障法》
当天现场讨论的意义并没有完全停留在战争问题。
与新版《国防动员法》同期进入公众视野的《医疗保障法》，也成为参与者观察中国当前国家与个人关系的另一个切入点。
活动材料认为，两部法律表面上属于完全不同的领域：一个涉及国防，一个涉及医疗；但把它们放在一起观察，可以看到国家权力正在更加深入地进入社会资源、个人责任、医疗保障以及信息等领域。
对于《医疗保障法》，参与者并不否认建立全民医疗保障制度本身的重要性。他们真正提出的问题是：
既然法律可以明确规定普通人的参保和缴费义务，那么国家是否也应该承担同等明确的责任，确保医保基金安全、透明，并让不同社会群体能够获得更加公平的医疗保障？
活动材料特别谈到了中国不同医保类别、不同地区以及不同级别医疗机构之间存在的实际待遇差异。
材料以农村家庭为例指出，一个现实矛盾在于：患者病情越严重，往往越需要进入大型医院治疗；但与此同时，家庭承担的医疗费用也可能越来越高。
因此，活动参与者提出：
“既然缴费强调人人有责，那么医疗保障为什么不能更加公平？”
他们认为，“法律要求人民承担义务并不困难，真正困难的是让权利也得到平等保障。”
张磊质疑立法过程：“158人次能够代表全民吗？”
除了法律本身，张磊和姜俊良还把现场讨论引向新修订《国防动员法》的公众参与问题。
活动主持稿引用公开数据称，在修订草案公开征求意见期间，中国人大网收到158人次提出的541条意见。
张磊在现场特别提出这一数字，随后姜俊良接过话题。
姜俊良质问，对于一部可能影响中国庞大人口、企业和社会资源的法律而言，如此规模的直接网络意见反馈是否足以反映真实而充分的社会讨论。
两名主持人认为，真正重要的问题不是形式上有没有“征求意见”，而是普通民众能否真正参与重大公共政策讨论，并能够通过制度对最终决策产生实际影响。
从洛杉矶现场到中国社会：两种截然不同的声音
围绕两部法律，中国官方与海外反对者形成了截然不同的观察角度。
中国官方对于新修订《国防动员法》的主要解释集中于完善国防动员体系、适应国家安全环境变化以及提高国防动员能力；对于《医疗保障法》，官方则强调完善全民医保制度、保障医保基金安全以及维护参保人的合法权益。
而9月5日站在洛杉矶中国领事馆前的抗议者，更关注的是另一组问题：
当国家安全与个人权利发生冲突时，权力边界在哪里？
谁有权决定战争？
谁来承担战争的代价？
国家可以依法要求人民承担多少责任？
当普通人的权利受到侵害时，他们又能通过什么制度真正追究掌握公共权力者的责任？
这也成为当天几名发言人共同指向的问题。
“这一生属于我们自己”
活动临近结束时，主持人的发言从宏大的战争与政治议题重新回到了一个普通人的一生。
姜俊良在主持稿中谈到，18岁到60岁，几乎覆盖一个人上学、就业、结婚、建立家庭、抚养下一代直到逐渐步入老年的漫长阶段。
现场最后强调：
“这一生属于我们自己，属于我们的父母、爱人和孩子。”
张磊随后表示，他们当天不仅是在为自己发声，也是在为国内的亲人以及下一代的和平发声。
洛杉矶中国领事馆前，第806次茉莉花行动最终在抗议口号声中结束。
从康余关于普通人生存压力与国家义务之间关系的质疑，到姜俊良对全民战争动员体系的担忧，再到张磊对战争决策、民众参与和个人选择权的追问，当天的抗议实际上已经超越了一部《国防动员法》。
《国防动员法》与《医疗保障法》一个涉及战争，一个涉及每个人的生老病死，但活动参与者最终提出的是同一个问题：
当法律越来越明确地告诉人民“你必须承担什么”时，法律是否也能够同样明确而有效地告诉掌握权力的人——他们不能对人民做什么？
编辑：周志刚 校对：毛一炜 翻译：戈冰
Refusing to Become Cannon Fodder for War
—The 806th Jasmine Action Protests the New Version of the “National Defense Mobilization Law” in Front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles
Reported by Journalists Wang Fu and Zhang Zhijun
Abstract: On September 5, the 806th Jasmine Action was held in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in Los Angeles. Participants protested the newly revised “National Defense Mobilization Law,” pointing out the imbalance between citizens’ rights and obligations.
On the afternoon of September 5, 2026, the 806th “Jasmine Action” took place in front of the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles. Participants staged a protest against the recently revised and passed “National Defense Mobilization Law of the People’s Republic of China,” raising demands such as “oppose the intensification of full-scale mobilization” and “refuse to become cannon fodder for war.” They also linked the “National Defense Mobilization Law” with the concurrently passed “Healthcare Security Law,” questioning whether citizens’ rights and oversight of public power have received reciprocal protection while ordinary citizens’ legal obligations are continually being clarified and reinforced.
The event that day was organized and planned by Kang Yu, who also served as the spokesperson, with Wang Fu serving as the person in charge, and Jiang Junliang and Zhang Lei serving as hosts.
Jiang Junliang: We Must Speak Up for Those in the Mainland Who Cannot Make Their Voices Heard
After the event began, host Jiang Junliang first extended greetings to the participants on site, overseas Chinese, and the media. He stated that everyone gathering in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles that day to hold the 806th Jasmine Action hoped to speak up for those in mainland China who cannot publicly express their opinions.
The core issue of this rally was the recently passed, newly revised “National Defense Mobilization Law.”
Speakers at the scene maintained that people should particularly pay attention to the social mobilization system constructed by the new law, because modern warfare involves not only the military and weaponry, but also transportation, energy, communications, healthcare, data, enterprises, and vast amounts of civilian resources.
Jiang Junliang emphasized at the scene that national defense service cannot be simply understood as “joining the military” in the traditional sense. According to the text of the event host script, it also includes supporting and guaranteeing military combat operations, preventing and providing relief for war disasters, and assisting in maintaining social order.
He specifically directed his criticism at “supporting and guaranteeing military combat operations,” arguing that this means once a war actually breaks out, ordinary citizens could also be directly dragged into the war support system.
Zhang Lei: Why Don’t Ordinary People Have the Right to Refuse War?
Host Zhang Lei subsequently brought the issue directly down to ordinary families.
In his speech at the scene, he asked why an ordinary person approaching retirement age, after working, paying taxes, and raising a family for decades, could still be incorporated into the national defense service system.
Zhang Lei questioned: “Does an ordinary person who has worked hard all their life and only seeks a peaceful and stable existence not even have the right to refuse being dragged into war?”
He further criticized that, in his view, if decisions to go to war are not made by ordinary people, yet the loss of life, property damage, and other social costs caused by war are primarily borne by ordinary people, then a severe imbalance exists between the power to decide on war and the toll paid for war.
At the same time, materials distributed at the event specifically pointed out that the relevant age range for national defense service—males aged 18 to 60 and females aged 18 to 55—did not appear for the first time in this legislative revision.
Zhang Lei also proactively noted in his script that similar age stipulations already existed in the old law from 2010. He maintained that what truly deserves attention this time is not merely the age numbers, but rather that the new version of the law further institutionalizes a comprehensive mobilization system encompassing national defense mobilization preparation, data, reserve troops, strategic materials, and civilian resources.
Kang Yu: When the People Are Needed, Obligations Are Emphasized—When They Are Not Needed, Who Will Guarantee Their Rights?
Kang Yu, the organizer, planner, and spokesperson for the day’s event, connected the “National Defense Mobilization Law” to the daily lives of ordinary people.
In his speech, Kang Yu criticized that under the current political system, ordinary citizens lack genuine decision-making power over many major public affairs, yet when the state requires societal resources, it continuously emphasizes individual “obligations” and “responsibilities.”
He addressed the problems facing ordinary families, such as unemployment, healthcare, and eldercare, contrasting these issues with national defense mobilization.
Kang Yu stated: “When they need you, they tell you this is an obligation, this is a responsibility.”
Yet when ordinary people face unemployment, lack sufficient money to seek medical treatment, or encounter difficulties in eldercare, he maintained that many of these real-life pressures ultimately still have to be borne by families themselves.
Kang Yu subsequently directed the issue further toward war.
He argued that ordinary people lack sufficient choice in major national political decisions during normal times, yet once a war breaks out, they may be required to undertake national defense obligations; this very imbalance between rights and obligations was the precise reason they took to the streets to protest that day.
At the end of his speech, he called out repeatedly: “Oppose forced mobilization! Oppose turning ordinary people into cannon fodder for war!”
From the “National Defense Mobilization Law” to the “Healthcare Security Law”
The significance of the on-site discussion that day did not remain entirely focused on the question of war.
The “Healthcare Security Law,” which entered the public eye around the same time as the new version of the “National Defense Mobilization Law,” also served as another entry point for participants to observe the current relationship between the state and the individual in China.
Materials from the event maintained that on the surface, the two laws belong to entirely different domains: one involves national defense, while the other involves healthcare. However, when observed together, one can see that state power is penetrating more deeply into areas such as societal resources, individual responsibilities, healthcare security, and information.
Regarding the “Healthcare Security Law,” participants did not deny the intrinsic importance of establishing a universal healthcare security system. The question they truly raised was:
Since the law can explicitly stipulate ordinary people’s obligations to participate in insurance and pay fees, should the state not also undertake equally explicit responsibilities to ensure that healthcare funds are secure and transparent, and to enable different social groups to obtain more equitable healthcare security?
The event materials specifically mentioned the actual disparities in benefits existing among different categories of medical insurance, different regions, and medical institutions at different tiers in China.
Taking rural families as an example, the materials pointed out a real-world contradiction: the more severe a patient’s illness is, the more necessary it often becomes to enter large hospitals for treatment; yet at the same time, the medical expenses borne by the family may also grow higher and higher.
Therefore, event participants questioned: “Since contribution payment emphasizes that everyone shares responsibility, why can’t healthcare protection be more equitable?”
They maintained, “It is not difficult for the law to demand that the people fulfill their obligations; what is truly difficult is allowing rights to be equally guaranteed as well.”
Zhang Lei questioned the legislative process: “Can 158 person-times represent the entire nation?”
Beyond the law itself, Zhang Lei and Jiang Junliang also directed the on-site discussion toward the issue of public participation in the newly revised National Defense Mobilization Law.
The host script of the event cited public data stating that during the period when the draft revision was open for public feedback, the National People’s Congress Network of China received 541 suggestions submitted by 158 person-times.
Zhang Lei specifically brought up this number at the scene, after which Jiang Junliang picked up the topic.
Jiang Junliang questioned whether, for a law that could affect China’s massive population, enterprises, and social resources, a direct online feedback of such scale is sufficient to reflect genuine and adequate social discussion.
The two hosts maintained that the truly important issue is not whether “soliciting public opinion” exists in form, but whether ordinary citizens can genuinely participate in major public policy discussions and exert actual influence on final decision-making through institutional channels.
From the Scene in Los Angeles to Chinese Society: Two Starkly Different Voices
Around the two laws, the Chinese officialdom and overseas dissenters have formed starkly different analytical perspectives.
The Chinese official explanation for the newly revised National Defense Mobilization Law mainly focuses on improving the national defense mobilization system, adapting to changes in the national security environment, and enhancing national defense mobilization capabilities; for the Healthcare Protection Law, the officialdom emphasizes perfecting the universal medical insurance system, ensuring the safety of the medical insurance fund, and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of insured individuals.
Meanwhile, the protesters standing in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles on September 5 focused more on another set of questions:
When national security conflicts with individual rights, where is the boundary of power?
Who has the authority to decide on war?
Who should bear the cost of war?
How much responsibility can the state legally demand that the people assume?
When the rights of ordinary people are infringed upon, through what institutional channels can they truly hold those holding public power accountable?
These also became the common issues pointed to by several speakers that day.
“This Life Belongs to Ourselves”
As the event drew to a close, the host’s speech returned from grand themes of war and politics back to the single life of an ordinary person.
Jiang Junliang noted in the host script that the span from age 18 to 60 covers almost the entirety of a person’s long journey through schooling, employment, marriage, establishing a family, raising the next generation, and gradually entering old age.
The event concluded with a final emphasis:
“This life belongs to ourselves; it belongs to our parents, our loved ones, and our children.”
Zhang Lei subsequently stated that on that day, they were speaking out not only for themselves, but also for the peace of their relatives back home and of the next generation.
In front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles, the 806th Jasmine Action ultimately concluded amidst slogans of protest.
From Kang Yu’s questioning regarding the relationship between ordinary people’s survival pressures and state obligations, to Jiang Junliang’s concerns over the universal war mobilization system, and further to Zhang Lei’s inquiries into war decision-making, public participation, and individual rights of choice, the day’s protest had in fact transcended a single National Defense Mobilization Law.
The National Defense Mobilization Law and the Healthcare Protection Law—one involves war, and the other involves the birth, aging, illness, and death of every individual—yet the event participants ultimately raised the exact same question:
When the law tells the people ever more explicitly “what you must undertake,” can the law also tell those in power equally explicitly and effectively what they cannot do to the people?
Editor: Zhou Zhigang Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing
