作者：陈西
编辑：邢文娟 责任编辑：钟然 校对：林小龙 翻译：刘芳

每个中国人都梦想着把中国建设成为一个和谐包容、富强民主的现代文明国家，然而在二十一世纪的今天，我在贵州省又遇到了“红卫兵小将”。这再次说明，“文革”幽灵仍然在游荡，依然笼罩着中华大地。

我亲眼见过“文革”时期的“红卫兵”小将目无法纪，肆意残害他人。他们眼里没有法律，在他们的人生字典里，根本没有人权、宪政或者包容性的概念，他们被教育为了保证红色江山万年长，疯狂地打倒一切，铲除所谓的“封资修、地富反坏右”等等大毒草与社会有识之士。

如此，我陈西便被“红小将”们视为大坏蛋，大毒草，成了必须被实施无产阶级专政的对象。于是，从7月13日起，小将们决定对我及我的手机实行专政N多天。

尽管中华人民共和国虽有《宪法》，并且《宪法》第三十三条明确写到：国家尊重和保障人权。但是，“红小将”们并不把《宪法》放在眼里，也不把普世观价值放在眼里，他们只把领导指示当做最高的行动纲领，而非法律。把不服从领导安排的人当作敌人对待。防止精神污染而非普世观放在眼里。小将们的浅薄和无知阻碍了他们认识真理，用药理学来说：常识之一是无毒的草药无药效，只有有毒的草药才能入药，他们不知道毒草就是名贵药草，有毒的才可入药。他们不识自然，不能理解一个充满活力的世界是一个五毒俱全，牛鬼蛇神存在的世界。

地球上不存在“红色保险箱”那种极端的地方，也不存在完全无菌无污染的区域。社会政治学家曾指出：人类世界是一个多元多样结构的世界，不是一元化“祖国山河一片红”的世界，人不必为一元化忧虑什么。令人忧虑的不是多元化，而是将“一元化”当成理想的执念。

中国古人有句古话是这么说的：“人心惟危，道心惟微”，这个世界又复杂又奇妙。我们求知求学“为学日益”；但如果有人妄图改变世界，违背道理自然规律，则是“为道日损，损之又损”，最终会落得个达到“以至于无为”的认知境地，那么，人交的学费太多，损失太大了。我们何必非要交了高昂学费才识真理呢！何必非要付出巨大损失后才知道“道与无为”的关系呢！以至才晓得“上无为而民自化”自主自治重要性的道理呢。所以有中共领导提出：“一个都不能少”，提倡“个人主义”，其目的是尊重个体，把中国建成一个“上无为而民自化”的民本包容性国家。“民为邦之本，本固则邦宁。”社稷为个人设，个人过上幸福生活才决非是为国家存在的目的。

多元包容性国家不选择不预先设定人的好坏优劣而存在，这也是法理和法律的中立性要求是这个理。法律只关注个人，不关心集体主义；只保障个人的权利，不保障集体的利益；法理认为，即使是集体福祉，也是从个人点滴功夫积小成大而得。哪怕是集体福祉，也应建立在保障个体权利与尊严的基础之上。公共利益不应以牺牲个人为代价。细节决定成败。如果法律仅服务于集体主义，法治国家的基础将难以建立，多元包容的社会也将无从谈起。

也有中共官员曾经提出，不要只盯着《宪法》33条，也要看《宪法》第五十一条。我说：《宪法》第五十一条不是倡导集体主义，而是指”不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益”；国家、社会、集体是被动语，不是主语，是由一个个的个体组成的，个体公民的利益得到保障，集体、社会和国家的利益才能得到保障。才是主体与主题；“不得损害”只是提示句，不是主题句，其轻重缓急表现在它们的排序上。排序在前的是目的，排序靠后的是辅助；“保护个人主义”是目的，这个要求还含有可行性，和可操作性专业技术上的诉求，是从细节出发的选择。换句话说，不损害国家、社会和集体的利益，最终目的也是为了让人民过上富足的生活，这一点来看，岂不是应该从一开始就尊重个体自由，保障个体利益吗？

可是，我看到的贵州“红小将”无法无天，行事没有底线，依俨然是五十年前“文革”时期的那套思维模式。，他们行事没有底线，没有法治思维，更没有细节意识；他们任意侵犯公民的基本权利，并蔑视中华传统中“亲亲之隐”的美德，还把传统文化中的“株连九族”的文化糟粕发扬到极致 ，美其名曰：“分清敌我”“划清界线”，简直是刷新了人性恶的底线。19日，小将们又把陈西的内人传唤到派出所，要求陈西的内人把好做手机实名制责任人责任，并恐吓陈西内人说：一旦有事，只追究手机实名制责任人的责任。小将们这一招何其歹毒，哪里有半点常人该有的恻隐之心。然而，他们却是在用美好词汇“为你好”去释放人性灵魂深处的恶心，让人们把本不该做的事堂堂正正做出来。法律尚且认同“亲亲之隐”，承认亲人之间有隐私权，包庇不为罪，而浅薄的“小将”们利用手中的权力，胁迫家人做不利于受害者的事情，这在任何一个民主国家都是不可能发生的事，在党国却堂而皇之地进行着。他们是不懂法律精神的。他们的肤浅里没有”恻隐之心“，更没有“细节论”；即便有，那也是令人恶心，让人愤慨的细节，而“细节论”的细节是让人舒心，是体贴人性脆弱的细节。

《宪法》一旦不被尊重，就如同一张废纸，每个人都可能生活在危险当中。 “文革”时期父子反目、邻里相互揭发、学生批斗老师的人伦惨剧历历在目，我不想看到悲剧重演，不想我们的国家再次进入失序的浩劫。每天都在上演，小将们也不识专政与“国家尊重和保障人权”不可同日而语的选择；一旦同日而语，国家；因为，专政行人制，保障人权行法治。小将们的浅薄使他们既不识毒草的功用，也蔑视传统美德。当年，小将们就做出了许多令人恶心之事，如：逼迫人六亲不认，强迫亲人反目，老师、学生、同事之间相互检举揭发批判。像胡适先生留在大陆的儿子被逼公开断绝了父子关系，而小将们仍没有放过他，硬要“痛打落水狗”；胡三痛恨自己为什么姓“胡”，最后，他不得不上吊自杀，以结束“胡”姓生命来恶心革命党人。留在大陆胡适先生所有学生或朋友都被小将们迫来批判他们曾经的先生或好友，唯有他的学生，前北京市副市长吴晗“至死没有佛头抹粪”，而导致吴晗被批斗致死的原因，正是吴晗与老师胡适的私人通信被革命党人发现，并被视为罪证①。

因正能量制造的恶行使一个国家的生存环境变得十分恶劣；最后，正能量也变质为造恶的罪证。

在这里，我要提醒人们，警惕“文革”和它的“红小将”们死灰复燃！

注：①《南渡北归》岳南著 第三部离别 第二章短兵相接 第三章胜利的牺牲品

被封数月，老号被废之前，写这一文。不知你们能收到否，此文能用否；想念离乡背景，漂泊万里之外的你们；望同仁们在外多多保重！

你们的同道： 陈西 于贵州贵阳被囹之家中

2025年10月18日

Encountering the “Red Guard Youths” Again

Author: Chen Xi
Editor: Xing Wenjuan Executive Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Lin Xiaolong Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract：The author, Chen Xi, recounts meeting “Red Guard youths” again in Guizhou and laments that the mentality of the Cultural Revolution has not vanished. He condemns their lawlessness, violations of human rights, and contempt for constitutionalism and the rule of law. The essay calls for respect for individual rights, warns against the extremism of collectivism, and cautions society to remain vigilant against the revival of the Cultural Revolution’s ghost.

Every Chinese dream of building the nation into a harmonious, inclusive, prosperous, and democratic modern civilization. Yet here in the twenty-first century, in Guizhou Province, I once again encountered “Red Guard youths.” This proves that the specter of the Cultural Revolution still wanders over the land of China, casting its long, chilling shadow.

I have seen with my own eyes how, during the Cultural Revolution, those “Red Guard youths” acted with utter disregard for law and conscience, arbitrarily persecuting others. In their eyes, there was no law; in their personal lexicon, there were no concepts of human rights, constitutionalism, or tolerance. They had been taught that to preserve the “red regime for ten thousand years,” they must mercilessly attack everything and uproot all the so-called “poisonous weeds” — the feudalists, capitalists, revisionists, landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, and rightists — as well as all the people of independent mind.

Thus, I, Chen Xi, was deemed a great “poisonous weed,” a sworn enemy of the proletariat, a target for their dictatorship. Beginning on July 13, these “little Red Guards” decided to exercise their dictatorship over me and my mobile phone for many days.

Though the People’s Republic of China has a Constitution, and Article 33 clearly states that “the State respects and guarantees human rights,” the “Red Guard youths” hold the Constitution in no regard. Nor do they respect universal values. For them, the leader’s instructions are the supreme code of action— not law. Those who disobey official arrangements are treated as enemies. They guard against “spiritual pollution” rather than uphold universal human values.

Their shallowness and ignorance prevent them from recognizing truth. To borrow from pharmacology: a harmless herb has no curative power; only poisonous plants can become medicine. They do not understand that “poisonous weeds” can be precious herbs—that what is toxic can also heal. Failing to understand nature, they cannot comprehend that a vibrant world is one where all kinds of creatures exist, where both “ox-ghosts and snake-spirits” have their place.

There is no such thing on Earth as a “red safety box,” an absolutely pure, unpolluted zone. Political theorists have long pointed out that humanity lives in a pluralistic, diverse world, not in a monolithic one where “the whole country is red.” We need not fear diversity; what is truly dangerous is the obsession with uniformity—treating “one color” as the ideal.

An ancient Chinese saying goes, “The human heart is perilous; the Way is subtle.” The world is indeed complex and wondrous. In learning, one should “gain daily,” but in following the Way, one must “diminish daily.” Those who attempt to reshape the world against natural law end up learning through loss upon loss until they reach “non-action”—wu wei. Yet such tuition is too costly. Why must we always pay such a high price before recognizing truth? Why must we suffer great loss before understanding that the Way and Non-Action are one, and that “when the ruler is inactive, the people govern themselves”?

That is why some within the CCP leadership once said, “Not a single person should be left behind,” and even promoted “individualism”—meaning respect for the individual, so that China might become a people-centered, inclusive nation in which “when the ruler does not interfere, the people self-transform.” As the ancients said, “The people are the foundation of the state; when the foundation is firm, the nation is at peace.” The state exists for the individual, not the individual for the state. Only when each person lives a happy life can the nation truly be strong.

A pluralistic and inclusive nation does not pre-classify people as good or bad; this is also what legal neutrality demands. Law concerns itself with individuals, not collectivism. It protects personal rights, not collective interests. Jurisprudence holds that even collective welfare arises from the accumulation of countless individual efforts. Thus collective good must rest upon the protection of individual rights and dignity. Public interest must never come at the expense of the individual. Details determine success or failure: if law serves only collectivism, the foundations of a rule-of-law state will crumble, and a pluralistic, tolerant society will become impossible.

Some Party officials have said, “Do not just look at Article 33; also read Article 51 of the Constitution.” I respond: Article 51 does not advocate collectivism; it merely cautions that “citizens, in exercising their freedoms and rights, shall not infringe upon the interests of the state, society, or the collective.” The state, society, and collective are objects, not subjects—they are composed of individuals. Only when individual citizens’ rights are secured can the interests of the state, society, and collective be secured. “Shall not infringe” is a reminder clause, not the main theme. In order and weight, what comes first—the individual—is the purpose; what follows is auxiliary. Protecting individualism is the goal, and it is also the only technically feasible path, one that begins with concrete details. In other words, the ultimate aim of “not harming the state, society, or collective” is to ensure people live prosperous lives. From this perspective, should we not begin by respecting individual freedom and safeguarding personal interests?

Yet the “Red Guard youths” I met in Guizhou act lawlessly, without any bottom line, still trapped in the thinking patterns of fifty years ago. They lack legal awareness and a sense for human detail. They arbitrarily violate citizens’ basic rights, despise the traditional virtue of familial loyalty, and carry to the extreme the worst relics of old culture—such as “implicating nine generations”—in the name of “distinguishing friend from foe” and “drawing clear lines.”

On the 19th, these “youths” summoned my wife to the police station, ordering her to bear full “real-name responsibility” for my phone number, threatening that if any “incident” occurred, only she would be held accountable. Such a tactic is vicious beyond measure. It shows not a trace of human compassion. Cloaked in the benevolent phrase “it’s for your own good,” they release the filth of the human soul, making people commit indecent acts with self-righteous pride.

Even the law recognizes the “concealment out of affection” between kin, acknowledging that family members have privacy and that shielding a loved one is not a crime. But these shallow “Red Guard youths,” abusing their power, coerce relatives into actions harmful to the victim—something unimaginable in any democracy, yet openly practiced in the Party-state. They do not understand the spirit of law. Their shallowness holds no compassion, no awareness of human subtlety. Even when they care about “details,” those details only disgust and anger others; true attention to detail should bring comfort and show empathy toward human fragility.

Once the Constitution is no longer respected, it becomes nothing but a scrap of paper, and everyone’s life becomes precarious. The tragedies of the Cultural Revolution—fathers and sons turning against each other, neighbors denouncing neighbors, students persecuting teachers—remain vivid. I do not want to see such horrors repeat, nor to see our country fall again into chaos.

Yet such scenes play out daily. The “Red Guard youths” fail to see the difference between dictatorship and the constitutional guarantee of human rights. Dictatorship is rule by man; the protection of human rights is rule by law. Their ignorance makes them blind to the healing power of “poisonous weeds” and contemptuous of traditional virtue.

Back then, those “youths” committed countless vile acts: forcing people to renounce kinship, making relatives betray one another, compelling students and colleagues to denounce their teachers and friends. Hu Shi’s son, who remained in mainland China, was coerced into publicly severing ties with his father—yet the “youths” still would not spare him, insisting on “beating the drowning dog.” Driven to despair, Hu San came to hate his own surname “Hu” and finally hanged himself to end the “Hu” bloodline, to nauseate the revolutionaries with his death. All of Hu Shi’s students and friends who remained in the mainland were forced to denounce him; only his student, former Beijing vice mayor Wu Han, “refused to smear Buddha’s head with dung even unto death.” The reason he was beaten to death was that his private correspondence with his teacher Hu Shi had been discovered by the revolutionaries and used as evidence of guilt.¹

When “positive energy” manufactures evil deeds, it poisons the very environment in which a nation survives—eventually that same “positive energy” becomes evidence of crime.

Here, I must warn all: beware the return of the Cultural Revolution and its “Red Guard youths”!

¹ From Southward, Northward (《南渡北归》) by Yue Nan, Part III – “Farewell,” Ch. 2 “Close Combat,” Ch. 3 “The Sacrifice of Victory.”

Written before my account was sealed and my old number deleted. I do not know whether this piece will reach you, or whether it can be used. I miss you, my fellow exiles wandering far from home. Please take care, wherever you are.

Your comrade, Chen Xi

Confined at home under guard, Guiyang, Guizhou Province October 18, 2025

——要不要活下去

作者：谢文飞
编辑：张致君 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：林小龙

题记：当利维坦这头怪兽肆无忌惮地吞噬我的自由与尊严时，要不要活下去，便成了我必须要做出抉择的命题。

“不自由，毋宁死”，这是我的座右铭，也将是我的墓志铭。——这是我在2019年3月1日出狱当天写下的《出狱宣言》里的一句话。2023年5月30日至6月13日，在被郴州监狱关在0.18平方米和0.7平方米的铁笼子里那半个月里，我曾以为我用生命书写自己的墓志铭的日子到了，不意竟苟活至今日。

苟活的痛苦，不经历绝望的人自然是无感的。而我之所以会绝望，正是因为我对自己、对我们的未来、对这片土地、对这片土地上的人们（身上的人性）寄予了太多的希望。宗萨蒋扬钦哲说：“我们之所以没能获得真正的自由，是因为我们没能善待自己的痛苦、希望和恐惧。”而我这几十年来，正是因为经历了太多的痛苦；对自己、对未来、对这片土地、对这片土地上的人们，寄予了太多不切实际的期望；而对于恐惧，我的天性让我从小就排斥它、无视它的存在。所以，以宗萨蒋扬钦哲的观点，我注定无法获得真正的自由。

其实，在我看来没那么复杂。世人所自以为的自由的状态，其实只不过是：思想上的苟且，灵魂的麻木，加上行动上的有限自由罢了。而我，如果注定只能拥有这样的“自由”的话，我情愿以自己的生命为自己写上墓志铭，摆脱这个无望得到我的自由的世界。

一. 看望带病打工的哥哥

2025年10月29日，是我再次回到大监狱一周年的日子。这一年来有一个心愿一直未了，我想去看看在东莞市中堂镇江南工业区打枣的哥哥。哥这几年来一直都是在带病打工，2019年肾结石手术，我照顾了他好几天。这几年肾结石越来越严重，动了三次手术都没能根除，一直在吃药。2020年10月29日，就是我再次入狱刚好4个月之后，他又得了更严重的脑梗塞，也没有治好。我担心他不能继续打工了。这几年我在里面，哥带病打工，还要负责为病了多年的母亲治病，真是难为他了。母亲的病最严重的时候半个月下不了床，在我去年10月29日回到县城给她打的第一个电话时她说：“老娘差一点就见不到你了。”这种情况下，哥哥的身体健康于我而言是多么的重要。所以我回到家第五天就在《暗夜独吟》里写下了那句“江湖友凋落，家中添病人”。

10月24日下午5点，我到了我哥打工的厂里。他所在的厂是个连名字都没有的牛仔服装加工厂，他在里面打枣，这道工序还是17年前我手把手教给他的，每天要重复同样的动作一万次以上，他一干就是17年没有中断过。我哥是个非常不自信的人，当年我教他时，他就说年纪大了学不会了，是我“逼”他学会的。

我原本打算帮我哥做点事，顺便看看我还能不能胜任这个我曾做了八年的工作。但我没想到他的工作环境比我12年以前的工作环境还差，他使用的机器比我12年前用的还要破旧。他正在做的裤子布料是又硬又厚最难做的复合布料，机子上的针孔都烧黑了，他的老板小器得很，连线油都没有给他提供。机子老是断线，我哥叫我帮他穿针，我穿了半天也没能穿进去，只好作罢。还是让我哥把针换了才穿上线的。12年前，我还在制衣厂上班时，我曾试过闭着眼睛也把线穿进去了，如今竟然睁着眼睛也半天穿不好针。

我哥没有提前买好菜，于是我叫他一起去吃快餐。我打电话给在同一条街上班的表弟，叫他过来一起吃饭，他说今晚要出货，自己吃点现成的饭就要去加班了，晚上可能要11点半才能下班。他这几年基本上晚上加班都要加到11点甚至更晚。我想表弟中秋还在我家里吃饭了，今天就随他吧。我又给一个认识了20年的老工友打电话，也没接通。这位工友比我大13岁，年初的时候，他和我表弟在一栋楼上班，听说我又坐了几年牢回来了，邀请我一起去打工，他说为了一个这么大的国家的事去坐牢，自己太吃亏了，不要再去吃那个亏了。这正应了亚里斯多德2350年前的论断：越是涉及到大多数人的利益的事务，越是少有人去关心。因此他认为，应该改变只为少数人服务的制度。我自己已故的舅舅，2013年在我从看守所回来后也对我说：你的想法是对的，你做的事情也是对的，但这种事情太危险了，还是让别人去做的好。我说其他人也都是这样想的。

我哥吃完晚饭，6:20就加班去了，到10:30才下班。他告诉我，派出所的人来对他进行了登记并拍照，我感到吃惊。我从2004年到2013年上半年期间，在新塘租房子住了8年，从来没有遇到过派出所上门登记拍照片的事情。我住的地方离我哥这里不过3公里而已。我问我哥，这几年有没有发生过这样的情况？他说去年有过一次。我正在狐疑，哥又说了一件令我更加吃惊的事情，他说这几年，在江南工业区，不时见到治安巡逻的民警在路上拦住人查看身份证并拍照。我没听错，这就是孙志刚因为没带身份证被带到收容所而被群殴致死22年后，离他被打死的广州天河区只有几十公里的江南，司空见惯的事情。我原打算在这里做几天临时工的念头顿时消失得无影无踪。

听了我哥说的种种，显然我晚上住旅店多有不便（住高端酒店应该没问题），加上囊中羞涩，我决定与我哥挤一张床将就一晚。

今年夏天我也是睡硬板床的，但9月一场秋雨过后，我就换上了床垫，并且盖棉被睡觉了。而我哥还是睡的木板床。怕我冷，给了我一床被套外加一块浴巾。凌晨才睡觉，3点半我哥起来上厕所，尽管他轻手轻脚，但还是把我惊醒了，并且再也没能睡着。好不容易挨到6点钟起来洗漱。由于睡眠严重不足，加上天生晕车受了点罪，我决定去吃一碗瘦肉粥。哥陪我走到早餐店门口，说什么也不进来一起早餐。他习惯性地散步去了。

二. 时隔六年重返广州

6年多没有到过广州了。这块南国的热土，曾经承载了我们太多的光荣与梦想。黄花岗上、黄埔军校、南周门口、车陂街头，广州有着太多将我们与历史连结在一起的印记，留下了我太多的或痛苦或美好的记忆。这一年来，从广州来看望我的朋友有10人之数，而其它外省的朋友，只在我6月底到四川时见过一些。如今广州近在咫尺，我怎能不去拜会广州的朋友呢！

9:30，我抵达广州。几乎同时，我哥发来微信，他说房东打电话给他，问我人在哪里，不让我住在我哥租住的房子里。我的不好的预感得到了证实。昨晚一位在广州照顾他哥哥的朋友打电话给我之后，他哥哥就接到广州有关部门的电话，问他人在哪里。这位朋友为了能留在广州照顾生病的哥哥，明确告知我不能跟我见面了。后来我告诉他我哥哥被登记拍照的事，我还在狐疑中，他却斩钉截铁地说，就是冲我来的。而那时候我见到我哥才5个小时而已。

10点半才见到广州的朋友，三五个朋友就近找了家饭店吃饭。几年不见的朋友聚在一起总是令人轻松愉悦的，尽管菜品略显寡淡无味，我的睡眠严重不足，前一天的旅途劳累，还有某些不快，统统都暂且抛开了。饭前朋友帮我约了几位老朋友下午见面，然后一起晚饭。饭后去拜访了一位久闻其名，却未曾谋面的浪漫主义诗人。坐在绿树掩映的小溪边喝咖啡，竟然有些许凉意。这是我第二次喝咖啡。

三. 电话不断，令我抓狂

15:40，我们到达约定的酒店与朋友见面。15:48，老家桂阳的国保就打电话来了。一开口就要我确定回家的时间，说是广东这边因为有个什么会，通知了湖南那边，又一再说我离开当地没有告诉他，让他不好交差。仿佛我还在监狱里，没有私自出行的权利。我说我就这两天回去，但还没确定。广州的什么会与我无关，我根本就没有留意到。可以将我的话告诉广州的有关部门。

过了半个小时，又用微信接二连三地打过来，说了十几分钟。一下叫我马上回去，我提出抗议，一下又说最迟后天让我回去，一下又说我明晚必须回去。还翻来复去要给我定位，给我开个房间。我实在是烦不胜烦，我说你们一定要把我当成一个犯人来对待的话，我就把手机丢了，你们爱怎样就怎样。打完微信才3分钟，16:48分，电话又打过来了。50分钟打了五个电话和微信电话了，硬要我答应住他们派过来的人开的房间，然后确定回去的时间和他们一起回去。我已经6年没有经历这样的恶梦了，本就睡眠不足，一下子头都大了。

晚上我们刚好聚齐了十个人，这是我6年来第一次见到这么多老朋友，自然心情放松了不少。没想到朋友们都说在广州都有几年没这么聚过了，又令我略微有些失望。但接着又有两个朋友说，今年还这样聚过两次。这可是有着近2000万人口的一线城市啊！

尽管我一再表示，不想在广州见到他们，19:19，我们晚饭才刚开始，电话又打过来了，一打又是十几分钟，已经影响到我和朋友们就餐了，我们老家的俗话说“雷公不打吃饭人”。换了一个人，说他已到广州了，必须要见到我。我问他见面之后要怎么做却闪烁其词。这时候我的头都快要炸裂了，真想把手机砸了，随他们去。但是没办法，谁叫我身处没有围墙的监狱呢。我还是答应了他们一个小时后见面。放下手机没几分钟，老家那边又打电话来了，不顾我如何抓狂，就是要确保我在他们掌控的范围之内。好像要千方百计阻止我趁着夜色去干坏事。但总算说好了，只是确定我住宿的地方，之后不干涉我的自由，明晚回到桂阳就可以了。谢天谢地。

四. 贾榀你在哪里

晚餐一再被打断，对我来说，这是很不好的人生体验。另外一件事情也令我感到有些遗憾，可能也是因为我一再被电话打断而造成的。事实上我接到的电话，也会影响到其他朋友的心情。我感到有些遗憾的是，今晚10个人聚在一起，没有人提到贾榀。贾榀几乎比我更早认识在坐的每一位朋友。我是2013年8月13日到广州认识贾榀之后，才认识这些朋友的。我有几次想说说贾榀的事，但是一直没找到合适的机会。大家也不常聚，似乎都有一些更重要的信息要分享。或许是贾榀失踪了三年了，大家早已在茶余饭后聊过无数次了，已经没有兴致再提起他了。或许是该逐渐淡忘他了。但我不能忘。在2013年8月13至2014年10月2日，一年多的时间里，大部分时间我都和贾榀、杨崇三个人住在一起。我们三个人，至少有300天几乎每天24小时都在一起。这20年来，我和我的家人都没有这样在一起过。贾榀1989年出生，1. 88米的身高，在2013年，他几乎是我们所有活动现场和聚会中，最年轻最高大的一个。说他是我们当年在广州乃至全国的一个形象代言人都不为过。虽然他后面攻击了我们身边的朋友，但那是在精神状态出了严重问题之后才有的事，我们应该原谅他。广州不应该将他遗忘。

五. 两个赏恶罚善使者到来

20:34，该来的人还是来了。一胖一瘦，恰似《连城诀》里面的赏善罚恶使者。一见面就说得好象比我还委屈，说什么周末想陪家人，不想来这么远的地方；还说晚饭都没吃一口，好像这都是拜我所赐似的。我说那你们去吃点东西吧，我陪你们坐一会。随便进了一家街边小店，我也没注意是饭店还是茶店咖啡店，反正给我们一人倒了一杯开水。与我见过两面的大胖子和我坐下来了，他胖得皮肤太好，我看不出他的真实年龄。那位据说刚毕业分到派出所工作的帅哥却站着。我万万没想到的是，一坐下来，水还没来得及喝上一口，又是喋喋不休地劝我今晚上与他们一起回去。我说不行，你来之前我们都说好了的，明晚再回去，在这之前你不能干渉我，你的上司也是这样对我说的。他说你要见你的朋友，叫他们晚上过来一起见了，见完我们就一起回去，不影响你呀！好像我拿着一块令牌，今晚就能把所有我想见到的人都召唤过来似的。甚至令人疑心他们早就布置好了，只要与我见面的人一出现，就要将我们一网打尽似的。我向来是个说句话掉在地上有个坑的人，如何受得了这样出尔反尔，三反五次戏耍于我？猴子尚且知道“人而无信 不知其可也”，而况人乎？顿时，连日来积压的情绪，和着严重睡眠不足的焦躁爆发了出来。

我把杯子狠狠地摔在地上，“我今晚上不回去！除非你们把我捆回去！”我倏地站起来，转身走了出去。他们几乎同时贴了上来。我简直就要疯掉了，这是一个多么荒谬的系统！我身处一个多么荒唐的世界！我来看望自己带病打工的哥哥，居然也触犯了他们的法律，我来见一见6年不见的朋友，竟然也需要他们的批准。一个有着近2000万人口的一线城市，为了一个什么“全运会”，竟然提前半个月就要将我赶出广州！好歹我在广州打工也足足有十年啊！一个以限制人的自由和侵犯人的人权尊严为职业的系统！难道我此生就不能独立于这样一个系统，作为一个真正自由的人而存在吗？太痛苦了！太痛苦了！我一拳狠狠地砸在墙上，歇斯底里地大吼：“你们弄死我吧！让我立刻去死！”这样声嘶力竭地吼了几句，又走了大概一刻钟，我感觉腿像灌了铅似的，再也走不动了。刚好路边有一条大概3米长的水泥凳，我坐了下来。他们也在两头坐了下来。胖子还在喋喋不休，仿佛比我更委屈。我再也不想听，我情愿立刻变成一个聋子，最好是让我立刻死去。我干脆躺了下来。谢天谢地，世界总算安静下来了。

秋深了，水泥凳有些冰凉，但比起我心底的悲凉似乎还有点温度。我仰头向天，天空中什么也没有，一如我空寂的心。我的思绪已完全停止，意识却仿佛还在，它好像在等待我的身体与水泥凳融为一体，以后不用再清醒地面对这个荒诞而令我感到痛苦的世界。

然而奇迹却没有发生。

六. 我没有从12楼跳下去

不知道躺了多久，持续的电话铃声将我的意识唤醒了。我本能地拿起了手机，老家打来电话说，让他的人给我开个房间休息，我木然地答应了。走了几百米，我看到了左前方巨大的“南方日报”招牌。然后过了天桥，在天桥左边的一栋高楼的公寓开了一个房间。我听到说9楼有房间，结果拿给我的却是1205的房卡。胖子说去买包烟，年轻人和我上了楼。

在我打开1205的一瞬间，我就把门反锁了，并且把门链也拴上了。胖子刚好上来，说要进来坐一会，我说累了，说完径直走向阳台。阳台的玻璃门没关，我走到阳台边，想往下跳，我想远离这个令我厌恶的世界。可是脑海里有个声音响起，我走了，妈妈怎么办？她是这个世界上唯一一直爱我的人，我就这样走了，对得起她吗？我靠着阳台的护栏往下望，下面怎么会有那么大一棵树，还是一小片树林？几乎覆盖了整个地面。万一我跳下去摔不死怎么办？万一我摔成半身不遂求死而不得怎么办？我又想到月初答应了一位朋友要写一些文字，今天上午还确认了的。写出一两本书来，一直是我这30年来的一个梦想。莎翁说，死亡也只不过是长眠，长眠了却还会思考，这可是个难题！我没去想死后会怎样，我只是在想要不要跳下去，万一跳下去死不了怎么办？我的头越来越痛，越来越沉重，越来越麻木。太沉重了，太累了，不想再去想了，只想睡觉了。

2022年5月28日，在郴州市看守所401监室，被七、八个人渣群殴了两轮，被打倒在地之后，头上被打得好几天没有消肿，连续几天头痛得特别厉害。连续报警四五天都没人理。之后每逢刮风下雨，气侯突变，或睡眠不足，我都会头痛。有很多次都是头痛欲裂。2023年5月30日，在郴州监狱，被打被关铁笼子后还连续几天头痛吃止痛药。2023年冬天，在长沙监狱，每次洗完冷水澡都会头痛。零下5、6度的时候洗个冷水澡，第二天至少头痛一整天。

我随便冲洗了一下，倒在了床上。几个月来，第一次睡前没有翻看手机。大概11点睡着吧，凌晨4点又醒了。醒来就再也睡不着了。什么也不想，动也不想动，全身乏力，就这样躺着。

7:28，阿飞兄弟发来信息，问我现在情况怎么样？打算怎么做？他这段时间没上班，每天都要睡到9点钟才起床，今天却这么早就给我发信息来了。他昨天10个小时一直与我在一起，亲眼目睹我接了无数个令我痛苦不堪的电话，显然是不放心我。我告诉他我昨晚差点从12楼跳下来了。他马上打视频电话过来，旁边还有一位律师朋友，他说他今天太忙了，不能和阿飞一起来看我。我穿好裤子，我让他们看了我阳台底下的那一片树林。我说如果没有阳台的护栏和下面的树丛的话，可能真的就见不到我了。他说马上就给我送包过来，然后一起吃午餐。但是有一点远，叫我先去吃个早餐。

七. 约好的朋友见不成了

昨天本来与一位前辈约好了的，今天下午4点钟去他家里拜访他。他因为组党被第二次判刑出来才几个月，我现在这样的处境和状态显然不太方便去他家里见他，免得给他增添麻烦。但我也不能跟这位我所敬重的前辈爽约，于是9点钟我上了一家茶楼，我点了一个及第粥，然后给他打电话说明情况。没想到他离我这里并不远，欣然答应前来一叙。他才不管什么赏恶罚善使者。

另外一位我所敬重的朋友，本来几个月前去看我时就说好了，等我来广州时一定要聚一下的，现在因为有赏恶罚善使者在，明确说不方便见面了。我也不打算联系任何人了。

我在广州工作、生活了整整10年，广州却不欢迎我。

9:56，胖子又打电话来，说中午一起吃饭。我没有答应。10:57，又打电话来说退房的事。又问我有什么安排，我说我和朋友在一起了。这时候阿飞兄弟和组党的前辈都先后来了，我们一起点了几个点心，算是午饭了。这是我6年来第一次在外地请朋友吃饭，吃的竟然是点心。我们边吃边聊了两个多小时，前辈说家里还有朋友在等他，于是起身告辞，我们后会有期。也算是了了一个小心愿，像我这样的人，这十几年来，不知道有多少朋友，如今想见也见不到了。

12:00，我以前的律师打电话过来问我在哪里。他因为代理包括我在内的很多人权案件，被吊销了执照，生活失去了重心，慢慢养成了半夜睡觉，很晚才起床的习惯。我曾尝试让他调节好睡眠，他说没办法调节了。他昨天第一个见到我，直到赏恶罚善使者到来我们才分开。他也是看到我昨天接到那么多令我抓狂的电话，又被人跨省追踪，很不放心，要来送送我。为了把我昨天落下的东西送过来，他花了一个半小时，到我这里的时候13:30了还没吃早餐。

14:07，老家又打电话来，说要给我订票回郴州了。我说我要去邵阳，他说邵阳那边不准我去。我说为什么不能去？他说谢阳的朋友都会去吊唁他的母亲，邵阳不会允许你们聚集。我说我不和任何人聚，我就是去拜一拜，烧一柱香就走了。无论我怎么说就是不行。阿飞兄弟也拿我的手机跟他说了几句，他听都不想听。总之，我现在就是在一所无形的监狱里，一切行动都是受到限制和监控的了。

八. 我面对的是什么生活

阿飞想起我说过，我们有12年没有在一起爬山了，于是提议我们去越秀公园爬山。我们就这样说定了。

14:30，胖子打电话过来要给我定票了，我只好同意订18:00以后的高铁票回去。

走进越秀公园随便走了走就走不动了，不想往山上爬了。就在博物馆转了转，他们俩兴致很浓，我一个人悄悄地到外面的石凳上坐了十几分钟。我看到旁边一个只有几平米的小水池里，有几尾锦鲤在快活地游来游去。它们想必从来没有见过江河湖海吧！池中的石头上，一只乌龟头昂得高高的，一只后掌还往后伸展，几乎要离地了，却是一直纹丝不动，我看不出它是活的还是死了，或者只是个摆件？等阿飞来找我了，我就问他你看那乌龟是活的还是死了？没想到它马上就动了一下。我深恶这乌龟王八蛋居然也欺负我好骗。原来世上真有这么能忍的乌龟王八蛋。

出了博物馆，我提议我们上“光复纪念亭”去看看。今天是星期日，公园里到处游人如织。还好，这里是我们三个人的专场。整个公园里，或许没有人像我们这样钦佩一百年前的那些革命志士。正门“光复纪念”隶书牌匾和里面陈少白的行书“革命之源”都是书法艺术中的瑰宝，世人只知道他们对中国革命的贡献，却少有人知道，他们在书法上的造诣，我们这辈子都是无法企及的了。正门对联写的是

“此日河山光复义旗曾向港侨来，何时世界大同宪法先从民主立”

原来这也是纪念赞助革命的海外侨胞的。我们都认为一百年前那些赞助革命的华侨同样是了不起的英雄。阿飞说现在也还有那样的人，我说时代不一样了，像当年的陈其美那样变卖家产，不遗余力地赞助革命的人是不太可能有了；同样，像谭嗣同那样以自己的生命照耀前行者的慧星也不会有了。不但如此，更有越来越多的人崇尚效仿起康有为来。

回到家两天都没有缓过劲来，只是本能地木然地活着。到28日下午，接到了一位遥远的朋友的电话，还是在担心我陷入那种情绪的死胡同里走不出来。我何尝不知道，这份关心远隔万水千山而难能可贵。可是正因为物理上的远，如同我今天所生活的我所出生的地方的人们，与我观念上的距离一样无法弥合。我为什么会深恶我们今天的处境，以至于随时随地都可能与之决别，是很难遇到一个能懂的人了。

王国维如果不是遇上了陈寅恪，死了也就白死了。尼采说，一个人如果能明白自己活着的使命，他就能面对任何一种生活。那是因为他没有谭嗣同横刀向天笑的历史感召力和陈天华蹈海的勇气；他也没有活到茨威格夫妇那个时代，他也没有茨威格那样的以民族情怀和为人类尊严而活着，同时也愿意为了剩存者活得更有尊严而去死的使命感。

否则，他就不会说能面对任何一种生活了。

2025年11月3日

编者按：

谢文飞，自2013年8月起，他在广州参与“南方街头运动”，在街头拉起“废除一党专政，建立民主中国”等横幅，积极推动言论自由、集会自由与公民权利。多次因“声援香港民主运动”“纪念六四”等活动被拘捕。2014年5月，他因参与广州公民李维国申请六四游行被以“寻衅滋事罪”刑拘。2014年10月他再因街头拉横幅支持香港“占中”而被控“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”。 他因上述案被判处有期徒刑4年6个月，并剥夺政治权利3年。2019年3月1日刑满释放。出狱后，他公开宣言“不自由，毋宁死”，将自由与尊严置于生命之上。在2020年4月29日左右，他再次在湖南被警方带走，后因言论与异见活动被以“寻衅滋事罪”起诉。据报其在监禁期间受到严酷条件对待，包括被关押在极小空间的铁笼内等。他曾获得美国民间组织“全美中国学生学者自治联合会”（全美学自联）颁发的“自由精神奖”，以表彰其为民主自由所作的贡献。

本篇纪实文字，是谢文飞在长期被监控、迫害与身心困顿中，仍坚持记录自我经历与内心世界的真实写照。作者以自由为座右铭，也以自由为墓志铭，从2019年出狱至今，他的人生多次面临生死抉择，却依然以文字与行动表达对尊严、对亲情、对友情、对理想的执着守护。

文章记录了他探望带病打工的哥哥、重返广州与朋友相聚、面对来自家乡和地方官员的重重干预以及内心的绝望与挣扎。文字间不仅呈现了现实的严酷与荒谬，也折射出作者对生命意义的深切思考：在高压、监控和制度桎梏之下，如何守住自我、保持尊严、追求自由，是他始终未曾放弃的课题。

从哥哥的病痛与劳作，到对多年朋友的关怀与思念，再到面对生命的脆弱与死亡的思索，作者展现了一个在压迫中依然保持敏感与思考的个体，他的文字直击人心，让读者感受到自由的珍贵与制度暴力的沉重。

在今天，这篇文字不仅是一份个人回忆录，更是一面镜子：它折射出社会、制度与人性的冲突，也提醒我们——自由与尊严的守护，从来不是轻而易举的事情。

One Year After Release — To Live or Not to Live

Author: Xie Wenfei
Editor: Zhang Zhijun Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Lin Xiaolong Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract

On the first anniversary of his release from prison, Xie Wenfei reflects on the pain of survival under tyranny. When Leviathan, that monstrous state, devours his freedom and dignity without restraint, the question of whether life is still worth living becomes an unavoidable choice.

Epigraph

When Leviathan, that monstrous beast, devours my freedom and dignity without restraint, the question of whether to live becomes a question I must face.

“Give me liberty or give me death.” This is my motto—and it will also be my epitaph. I wrote this line on March 1, 2019, the day I was released from prison. From May 30 to June 13, 2023, when I was confined inside two iron cages—one 0.18 square meters, the other 0.7—in Chenzhou Prison, I thought the day had come when I would write my own epitaph with my life. Unexpectedly, I have survived till today.

The pain of mere survival cannot be understood by those who have never faced despair. And my despair came from having placed too much hope in myself, in our future, in this land, and in the people who live upon it. Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse once said, “We fail to find true freedom because we fail to be kind to our own pain, hope, and fear.” But I have endured too much pain in my life; I have burdened myself with too many unrealistic hopes for myself, for the future, for this land and the people upon it; and as for fear, I was born with a nature that rejects it, that refuses to acknowledge its existence. By Khyentse’s reasoning, I am destined never to achieve true freedom.

To me, it is not so complicated. What most people call “freedom” is merely a convenient compromise of thought, the numbness of the soul, and a narrow space of limited physical action. If this is all that freedom means, then I would rather write my own epitaph with my life—escaping this world that denies me my freedom.

一. Visiting My Sick Brother Who Still Works Through Illness

October 29, 2025 marked one year since I returned to the great prison that is China. Throughout this year I had one unfulfilled wish—to visit my older brother, who has been working in the Jiangnan Industrial Zone of Zhongtang Town, Dongguan City.

He has been working despite his illness for many years. In 2019, after his kidney stone surgery, I took care of him for several days. Over the years, his kidney stones worsened; three operations failed to remove them, and he had to rely on medication. On October 29, 2020—exactly four months after I was imprisoned again—he suffered a more serious cerebral infarction that also remained uncured.

I feared he could no longer continue working. During those years while I was imprisoned, my brother, though sick himself, kept working and paying for the treatment of our chronically ill mother. I truly owe him much. At the worst of her illness, Mother was bedridden for half a month. When I called her for the first time after returning to my hometown last year on October 29, she said to me, “I almost didn’t live to see you again.” Under such circumstances, my brother’s health means everything to me. So on the fifth day after returning home, I wrote in Solitary Song in the Dark Night: “Friends of the past have withered away; in the family, illness has found its place.”

At 5:00 p.m. on October 24, I arrived at the factory where my brother works. It’s a nameless denim workshop where he stitches buttonholes—a process I taught him by hand seventeen years ago. He has been repeating the same motion over ten thousand times a day, every day for seventeen years without a break.

My brother is a man of little confidence. When I taught him the skill years ago, he kept saying he was too old to learn—it was only because I insisted that he finally mastered it.

Originally, I planned to help him with his work and test whether I could still manage the job I had once done for eight years. But I didn’t expect his working conditions to be even worse than mine twelve years ago. His sewing machine was more worn out than the one I used back then. The fabric he was sewing—thick, hard composite cloth—was the most difficult kind to work with. The needle holes on the machine were scorched black. His boss was so stingy he didn’t even provide sewing oil. The thread kept breaking. My brother asked me to help thread the needle; I tried for half a minute but failed. I had to give up until he replaced the needle and managed to get it through himself.

Twelve years ago, when I still worked at a garment factory, I could thread a needle with my eyes closed. Now, even with eyes wide open, I could barely do it.

My brother hadn’t prepared dinner, so I asked him to eat with me at a small restaurant. I called our cousin, who worked on the same street, to join us. He said he had to work overtime until 11:30 p.m. because a shipment was due tonight. He often worked that late or later. Since he had come to my house for the Mid-Autumn Festival dinner not long ago, I let it go.

Then I called an old coworker of twenty years, but he didn’t pick up. That coworker, thirteen years my senior, had earlier invited me to work with him again, saying, “You’ve already paid too high a price for this big country’s affairs. Don’t take that loss again.”

His words reminded me of Aristotle’s observation 2,350 years ago: The more something concerns the public good, the fewer people care about it. Therefore, Aristotle argued, systems serving only a few must be changed.

My late uncle had told me something similar in 2013 when I returned from detention: “You’re right about what you believe and what you’ve done, but it’s too dangerous. Let others do it instead.” I told him, “But everyone else says the same thing.”

After dinner, my brother went back to work at 6:20 and worked until 10:30 p.m. He told me the police had come to register and photograph him. I was stunned.

From 2004 to mid-2013, I rented in Xintang for eight years and never once had police come to my door for registration or photos. The place I used to live was only three kilometers from my brother’s. I asked if this had happened before. He said it had happened once last year.

Then he told me something even more shocking—police patrols in the Jiangnan Industrial Zone routinely stop people on the street to check IDs and take photos. I could hardly believe it. This was just a few dozen kilometers from Guangzhou’s Tianhe District, where Sun Zhigang was beaten to death twenty-two years ago for lacking ID.

So the idea of working here for a few days vanished instantly.

Knowing the risks of staying at a hotel (especially with little money, since only high-end hotels would be safe from scrutiny), I decided to share my brother’s narrow bed for the night.

That summer, I had also been sleeping on a wooden board. But after a September rain, I switched to a mattress and blanket. My brother still slept on bare planks. Worried I might feel cold, he gave me an extra sheet and a towel.

I didn’t fall asleep until after midnight. At 3:30 a.m., he quietly got up to use the bathroom, but even his light steps woke me—and I couldn’t sleep again. Exhausted and dizzy from motion sickness, I decided to get up at six and eat a bowl of lean-pork congee.

He walked me to the breakfast shop but refused to join, saying he preferred to take a walk.

二. Returning to Guangzhou After Six Years

It had been more than six years since I last set foot in Guangzhou. This southern land had once carried so many of our dreams and glories. From Huanghuagang to Huangpu Military Academy, from the Southern Weekly office to Chebei Street—Guangzhou holds countless traces linking us to history, and memories both painful and beautiful.

Over the past year, ten friends from Guangzhou had come to visit me. From other provinces, I saw only a few when I went to Sichuan in late June. Now that I was so close to Guangzhou, how could I not go to see my friends there?

At 9:30 a.m., I arrived in the city. Almost immediately, my brother messaged me: his landlord had called, asking where I was and forbidding me to stay in my brother’s rented room. My bad feeling was confirmed.

The night before, a friend in Guangzhou who was caring for his ill brother had phoned me. Shortly afterward, his brother received a call from local authorities asking where I was. That friend, anxious to remain in Guangzhou to care for his sibling, told me he could not meet me. When I mentioned the police photographing my brother, he replied firmly, “They’re targeting you.” And I had only been with my brother for five hours!

At 10:30, I finally met several friends in a nearby restaurant. Reuniting after years was joyous—though the food was plain, and I was exhausted from travel and sleeplessness, we pushed all worries aside for a while.

Before lunch, one friend arranged meetings with a few others for the afternoon and dinner. After lunch, I visited a romantic poet I had long admired but never met. We sat by a small stream shaded by green trees, drinking coffee in the cool breeze—it was only the second cup of coffee I’d ever had.

三. Phone Calls Without End, Driving Me Insane

15:40, we arrived at the hotel where we had arranged to meet friends. At 15:48, a call came from state security in my hometown of Guiyang, Hunan. He opened by demanding I confirm my time of return, saying that because of “some meeting” in Guangdong, a notice had been sent to Hunan. He kept repeating that I had left my local area without informing him, making it hard for him to “account” to his superiors—as if I were still in prison with no right to travel on my own. I told him I would go back in the next couple of days, but I hadn’t decided exactly when. Whatever meeting Guangzhou had, it had nothing to do with me; he could pass my words along to the relevant authorities there.

Half an hour later he called again on WeChat, and then again, in a string of back-to-back calls that went on for more than ten minutes. First he ordered me to go back immediately; when I objected, he said I must return by the day after tomorrow at the latest; then he changed it to “tomorrow night you must be back.” He kept insisting on turning on location sharing for me and booking a hotel room “for my safety.” Exasperated, I said: if you insist on treating me like a criminal, I’ll throw my phone away and you can do whatever you like. Three minutes after I hung up, at 16:48, the phone rang again. In fifty minutes they had called five times—regular and WeChat calls—forcing me to agree to stay in a room opened by the personnel they were sending, and to confirm a return time so that we could go back together. It had been six years since I last lived this nightmare. Running on almost no sleep, my head was pounding.

That evening ten of us finally managed to gather—my first time in six years seeing so many old friends together—so my mood eased a little. Unexpectedly, everyone said they hadn’t gotten together like this in Guangzhou for years, which disappointed me; then two of them added that there had been two such gatherings this year. This is a first-tier city of nearly twenty million people, after all.

Despite my repeated requests not to see them in Guangzhou, at 19:19, just as dinner began, my phone rang again. The call lasted more than ten minutes and was already interfering with our meal. Back home we have a saying: “Even the thunder god doesn’t strike people while they’re eating.” A different officer was on the line now; he said he had already arrived in Guangzhou and had to see me. When I asked what would happen after we met, he dodged the question. My head felt ready to split. I truly wanted to smash my phone and let them do what they pleased—but how could I, living in a prison without walls? I agreed to meet them in an hour. Within minutes, my hometown office called again, determined to keep me within their control—as if they had to prevent me from using the cover of night to commit some great evil. At last we settled the matter: they would confirm my lodging for the night and then “not interfere” with my freedom; I was to return to Guiyang tomorrow night. Thank heaven.

四. Jia Pin, Where Are You?

Repeated interruptions ruined dinner; to me, it was a deeply unpleasant human experience. Another thing left me regretful—probably because the constant calls ruined the atmosphere for everyone. I felt bad that among the ten of us, no one mentioned Jia Pin that night. He had known almost everyone at the table longer than I had. It was only after I met Jia on August 13, 2013, in Guangzhou that I got to know these friends. Several times I wanted to bring him up, but never found the right moment. We so rarely gather that it seemed everyone had more “pressing” updates to share. Perhaps because Jia has been missing for three years now, they had discussed him countless times over tea and meals, and lacked the heart to mention him again. Perhaps he should be allowed to fade from memory. But I cannot forget.

From August 13, 2013, to October 2, 2014—over a year—most of the time I lived together with Jia and Yang Chong. For at least three hundred days, the three of us were together almost twenty-four hours a day. In the last twenty years, even my own family and I have not spent so much time together. Born in 1989 and standing 1.88 meters tall, Jia was, in 2013, the youngest and most striking figure in nearly every event and gathering we held in Guangzhou. It is no exaggeration to say he was a kind of emblem for us then—in Guangzhou, even nationwide. Later he lashed out at friends around us, but that was after his mental health had seriously deteriorated; we ought to forgive him. Guangzhou should not forget him.

五. Two Envoys Who Reward Evil and Punish Good Arrive

20:34, the men still came. One fat, one thin—like the “reward-good, punish-evil” envoys in A Deadly Secret. They acted as though they were more aggrieved than I was: complaining about wanting to spend the weekend with family; saying they hadn’t even had a bite of dinner—as if I were to blame. I told them to grab something to eat; I’d sit with them a bit. We ducked into a little place by the street—I didn’t even check whether it was a restaurant or a tea/coffee shop. They poured each of us a glass of hot water. The older, heavy-set one—whom I’d met twice—sat down with me; his skin was so smooth I couldn’t tell his real age. The handsome young man, just assigned to a police station after graduating, stayed standing.

What I didn’t expect was that, before we even sipped the water, he resumed the harangue: I had to return with them tonight. I said no—we had already agreed before you came: I will leave tomorrow night, and before then you will not interfere; your superior told me the same. He said: If you want to meet your friends, have them all come tonight; once you’ve seen them, we’ll go back together—it won’t affect you! As if I held some talisman to summon everyone I wished to see with a single command. It made one suspect they had already set the nets—anyone who came to meet me would be swept up together. I am someone whose words hit the ground and make a dent; how could I endure such duplicity—going back on their word again and again, toying with me? Even a monkey knows the saying, “If a person has no trustworthiness, I do not know what can be made of him.” How much more a human being!

All at once, the feelings piled up over the past few days burst forth, mingled with the irritability of severe sleep deprivation. I smashed the teacup hard on the floor: “I am not going back tonight! Unless you tie me up and carry me!” I sprang to my feet and walked out. They flanked me immediately. I was on the verge of going mad. What an absurd system! What a ludicrous world I inhabit! I had come to visit my ailing brother, and somehow that violated their “law.” I wanted to see friends I hadn’t met in six years, and that too required their permission. In a first-tier city of nearly twenty million people, they were already trying, half a month before a so-called “National Games,” to drive me out of Guangzhou. And I had worked in Guangzhou for a full ten years! A system whose profession is to restrict freedom and trample human dignity—must I spend my entire life unable to stand apart from it and exist as a truly free person? The pain was unbearable—unbearable!

I slammed my fist against the wall and shouted hysterically, “Just kill me! Let me die right now!” I screamed a few more hoarse lines and walked on for about fifteen minutes, until my legs felt weighted with lead and I could go no farther. By the roadside stood a long cement bench, perhaps three meters in length. I sat down. They sat, one at each end. The fat one kept talking, as if he were the wronged party. I didn’t want to hear another word. I would rather turn stone-deaf, or best of all, die on the spot. I lay down. Thank heaven—at last the world was quiet.

Autumn had deepened; the cement bench was cold, but compared to the chill in my heart it felt almost warm. Staring up, I saw nothing in the sky—like the emptiness inside me. My thoughts had stopped completely; only a thin thread of awareness remained, waiting, it seemed, for my body to merge with the cold cement so I would no longer have to face, in full consciousness, this absurd, tormenting world.

But the miracle did not happen.

六. I Did Not Jump from the Twelfth Floor

I don’t know how long I lay there before the relentless ringing of my phone recalled me to myself. Reflexively, I answered. A call from home: they would have “their people” open a hotel room for me to rest. Numbly, I agreed. I walked a few hundred meters and saw, on my left ahead, the huge sign of Southern Daily. Then I crossed a pedestrian bridge and checked into a serviced apartment in a tall building on the left of the overpass. I heard them say there was a room on the ninth floor, but the keycard handed to me was for 1205. The fat one said he was going to buy cigarettes; the young man rode the elevator up with me.

The moment I opened 1205, I locked the door from inside and secured the chain. The fat one had just arrived upstairs and asked to come in and sit for a while. I said I was exhausted, then walked straight to the balcony. The glass door was ajar. I stepped out and looked over the edge. I wanted to jump—wanted to leave this world that repulsed me. But a voice in my head spoke: If I go, what about Mother? She is the one person in this world who has always loved me. If I leave like this, how can I face her?

Leaning on the balcony rail, I looked down. Why was there such a big tree below—a small grove, even—almost covering the ground? What if I jumped and somehow didn’t die? What if I were paralyzed and trapped in a living death? Then I remembered the promise I’d made earlier this month to a friend—that I would write some things. That morning I had reconfirmed it. Writing a book or two has been my dream for thirty years. Shakespeare says death is but a long sleep—yet even in that sleep one still thinks; that is a knot indeed. I didn’t think about what comes after death; I only thought about whether to jump in that moment—and if I jumped and didn’t die, what then? My head hurt more and more, growing heavier, more numb. Too heavy. Too tired. I didn’t want to think anymore. I only wanted to sleep.

On May 28, 2022, in Cell 401 of the Chenzhou City Detention Center, seven or eight scum beat me in two rounds. After they knocked me to the ground, my head stayed swollen for days; the headaches were intense for several days. I reported it for four or five days in a row, and no one responded. Ever since, whenever wind or rain came or the weather swung suddenly—or whenever I slept too little—I would get headaches, often splitting ones. On May 30, 2023, after being beaten and locked in iron cages in Chenzhou Prison, I had several days of headaches and took painkillers. In the winter of 2023, in Changsha Prison, every cold-water bath left me with a headache. When it was five or six degrees below zero, a cold bath meant a full day of pain afterward.

I rinsed off briefly and collapsed on the bed. For the first time in months, I did not scroll through my phone before sleep. I probably drifted off around eleven and woke at four. After waking, I couldn’t sleep again. I didn’t want to think, didn’t want to move; my whole body was weak. I just lay there.

At 7:28, Brother A-Fei messaged: How are you now? What’s the plan? He hadn’t been working lately and slept until nine every day, but this morning he wrote to me so early. He had been with me for ten hours the day before, witnessing the barrage of calls that drove me to the edge; of course he was worried. I told him I had almost jumped from the twelfth floor last night. He immediately started a video call, with a lawyer friend beside him, who said he was too busy to come with A-Fei today. I pulled on my trousers and showed them the small grove beneath my balcony. I said if not for the railing and the trees, perhaps you’d never see me again. He said he would bring over a care package at once and we’d have lunch. It was a bit far, though—so he told me to get some breakfast first.

七. The Friend I Was Supposed to Meet

Yesterday I had made an appointment with a senior friend—at 4 p.m. today I was to visit him at his home. He had just been released a few months earlier after a second prison term for organizing a political party. Given my situation, it clearly wasn’t appropriate to visit him at home and cause him more trouble. Yet I couldn’t break my promise to someone I respected.

At 9 a.m., I went into a teahouse and ordered a bowl of “Successor’s Congee.” I called him and explained. To my surprise, he was nearby and happily agreed to come meet me. He couldn’t care less about those so-called “envoys of rewarding evil and punishing good.”

Another friend I deeply respected had told me months ago, when he came to see me, that once I came to Guangzhou we must meet. But now, with the “envoys” watching, he made it clear he couldn’t. I didn’t plan to contact anyone else either.

I had lived and worked in Guangzhou for ten full years, yet Guangzhou no longer welcomed me.

At 9:56 the fat man called again, asking to have lunch together. I refused. At 10:57 he called again, about checking out of the hotel, and asked what plans I had. I said I was with friends.

By then Brother A-Fei and the senior comrade had both arrived. We ordered a few dim sum dishes—this was my first time in six years treating friends to a meal outside my hometown, and it turned out to be just dim sum. We ate and talked for over two hours. The senior said he still had guests waiting at home, so we said goodbye. At least one small wish was fulfilled. For someone like me, there are countless friends I may never see again.

At noon, my former lawyer called asking where I was. He had lost his license for defending rights cases—including mine—and his life had fallen apart. He had developed the habit of sleeping late, since he could no longer adjust his schedule. Yesterday he was the first person I met; we stayed together until the two “envoys” came. Seeing how I’d been harassed by endless calls and chased across provinces, he was worried and wanted to bring me something I had left behind. It took him an hour and a half to reach me, and he hadn’t even eaten breakfast when he arrived at 1:30 p.m.

At 2:07, the officer from home called again, saying he wanted to book me a ticket back to Chenzhou. I said I was going to Shaoyang. He said Shaoyang wouldn’t allow it.

“Why not?” I asked. He said, “Xie Yang’s friends will all be there to mourn his mother. Shaoyang will not permit you to gather.”

“I won’t gather with anyone,” I said. “I just want to bow once, light one stick of incense, and leave.”

No matter what I said, it was no use. Brother A-Fei even took my phone and tried to reason with him, but the man refused to listen.

In short, I was living inside an invisible prison again—every move monitored, every decision restricted.

八. The Life I’m Facing

A-Fei remembered that I once said we hadn’t climbed a mountain together in twelve years. So he suggested we go climb the hill in Yuexiu Park, and I agreed.

At 2:30, the fat man called again, insisting on booking my train ticket. I had no choice but to agree to a high-speed rail train after 6 p.m.

We entered Yuexiu Park and walked for a bit, but soon I was too tired to go uphill. I lingered around the museum instead. The two of them were still energetic; I slipped out and sat on a stone bench for ten minutes.

Beside me was a small pond only a few square meters wide, with a few koi swimming merrily. They had probably never seen a river, a lake, or the sea. On the rock in the middle stood a turtle, head raised high, one hind leg stretched back almost off the ground, motionless. I couldn’t tell whether it was alive, dead, or just a decoration. When A-Fei came looking for me, I asked him, “Do you think that turtle is alive or dead?” No sooner had I asked than it moved slightly. I laughed bitterly—so even this turtle bastard was mocking me for being easy to fool. So there really are creatures in this world that can endure endlessly, like that turtle.

We left the museum, and I suggested we go up to the Guangfu Memorial Pavilion. It was Sunday, and the park was crowded. Still, at that moment it felt as if the place belonged only to the three of us. Probably no one else in the park admired those revolutionaries of a hundred years ago as we did.

The calligraphic plaque at the gate reads “Guangfu Memorial” in clerical script; inside, the inscription “The Source of Revolution” by Chen Shaobai—both masterpieces of Chinese calligraphy. The world knows their contribution to China’s revolution, but few know their artistic accomplishments. In calligraphy, none of us could ever reach such a level.

The couplet at the gate reads:

“On this day our rivers and mountains were restored; the righteous banner rose among the overseas Chinese. When will the world achieve Great Unity? Let our constitution begin with democracy.”

It commemorates the overseas Chinese who sponsored the revolution. We all agreed that those benefactors were true heroes as well.

A-Fei said there are still people like that today. I said, “The times have changed. People who would sell their family property like Chen Qimei to support the revolution no longer exist. Nor do those like Tan Sitong, who illuminated the path for others with their own lives. Worse, more and more now admire Kang Youwei instead.”

Back home, for two days I couldn’t recover. I lived mechanically, moving by instinct. On the afternoon of the 28th, I received a call from a distant friend, still worried that I might be trapped in a dead end of despair. I knew how precious that concern was, reaching me across mountains and seas. Yet physical distance mirrors the distance in ideas between me and the people of my birthplace—it cannot be bridged.

Why do I detest the reality we live in so deeply, to the point that I could sever myself from it at any moment? Because there are almost no people left who can truly understand.

If Wang Guowei had not met Chen Yinke, his death might have been meaningless. Nietzsche said that a man who understands the purpose of his life can endure any kind of life. That is because he lacked the historical call of Tan Sitong, who smiled at death with his sword raised to the sky, and the courage of Chen Tianhua, who leapt into the sea. He never lived to see the time of Stefan and Lotte Zweig, nor possessed that couple’s sense of mission—to live for human dignity and national conscience, and to die so that those who remain might live more nobly.

Otherwise, Nietzsche could never have said that a man can face any kind of life.

November 3, 2025

Editor’s Note

Since August 2013, Xie Wenfei has been active in Guangzhou’s Southern Street Movement, unfurling banners that read “Abolish One-Party Dictatorship, Establish a Democratic China,” and advocating freedom of speech, assembly, and civil rights. He was repeatedly detained for supporting Hong Kong’s democracy movement and commemorating June Fourth. In May 2014 he was arrested for helping citizen Li Weiguo apply to hold a June Fourth march, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” In October 2014 he was again arrested for holding banners in support of Hong Kong’s Occupy Central movement, and was convicted of “inciting subversion of state power.”

He was sentenced to four and a half years in prison and deprived of political rights for three years. Released on March 1, 2019, he publicly declared: “Give me liberty, or give me death,” placing freedom and dignity above life itself. Around April 29, 2020, he was again detained in Hunan and later indicted for his speech and dissenting activities. Reports indicate that during imprisonment he endured severe mistreatment, including confinement in iron cages barely large enough to stand in.

He was awarded the Spirit of Freedom Award by the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS) in the United States for his dedication to democracy and human rights.

This essay—written under long-term surveillance, persecution, and physical and mental exhaustion—is a faithful record of a man’s inner struggle to remain human. With freedom as both his motto and his epitaph, Xie Wenfei has faced life-and-death choices again and again since 2019, yet continues to express through words and actions his steadfast defense of dignity, affection, friendship, and ideals.

Through the story of visiting his sick brother, revisiting Guangzhou, confronting endless interference, and wrestling with despair, the piece portrays not only the cruelty and absurdity of reality but also his profound meditation on the meaning of life. Under oppression, monitoring, and systemic shackles, how does one preserve the self, uphold dignity, and pursue freedom?—that remains the question he refuses to surrender.

From his brother’s pain and labor, to his remembrance of lost friends, to his contemplation of death and survival, Xie Wenfei reveals a man who, even amid suffering, keeps his sensitivity and thought alive. His words strike the heart, reminding readers of the preciousness of freedom and the weight of state violence.

Today, this text stands not merely as a personal memoir, but as a mirror reflecting the conflicts between society, power, and humanity. It reminds us that the defense of freedom and dignity has never been easy—and yet, it is what gives life its meaning.

作者：蕭欽元

編輯：Gloria Wang 責任編輯：羅志飛 校對：熊辯 翻譯：劉芳

折枝以拄，敢行萬裡路。

北美有舟為歸處，正道人潮如注。

任他風高浪急，斬棘披荊遷跡。

心安便是吾鄉，莫言山河社稷。

Qingpingyue · Exile and Passage

Author: Xiao Qinyuan
Editor: Gloria Wang   Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei   Proofreader: Xiong Bian   Translator: Liu Fang

Leaning on a broken branch for strength, I dare to walk a thousand miles.

Across North America a vessel waits—my homeward harbor amid the surging crowds.

Let the winds rise and the waves turn fierce; through thorns and brambles I carve my path.

Where the heart finds peace, there is my homeland—speak no more of mountains, rivers, or the realm.

作者：姜福祯
编辑：张致君 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：林小龙 翻译：刘芳

编者按

自1998年中国民主党在浙江首发组党以来，已有27年光景。在这段历史中，早期组党者或沉默不语，或身陷囹圄，或撒手人寰，或选择低调躺平，甚至有人背叛或被招安。今天，当我们回顾那段岁月，既是对历史的梳理，也是对勇气与信念的致敬。

本刊通过朱虞夫与姜福祯的对话，首次较为完整地呈现了浙江民主党组党全过程的细节与秘辛。朱虞夫坦言，王有才最初主张“精英政党”，但浙江组党实践最终形成了“下里巴人”的路线，即坚持实际行动、广泛唤醒民众。正是在他与王炳章、王东海、林牧等人的推动下，民主党的火种在浙江重新点燃，并逐步蔓延至全国。

组党过程中，浙江民主党人直面高压政治环境，冒着被抓捕的风险坚持行动，从上街散发传单、联络老友，到编辑发行《在野党》刊物，每一步都充满艰辛。海外势力的关注与支持，特别是王炳章的启发与推动，成为组党初期不可或缺的动力。

同时，本刊也呈现了民主党成立的复杂渊源：历史上虽有多次名为“中国民主党”的组织尝试，但1998年的组党是独立的历史事件，其意义不仅在于挑战党禁，更在于推动公民政治权利的发展与实践。浙江民主党以行动开路，不以个人职位争斗为先，而是坚持全国联络与群众动员，这种务实精神值得铭记。

这段历史中，不仅有勇敢直前的人，也有选择低调避祸的人；不仅有积极参与的文学青年与民运人士，也有至今不得公开姓名的参与者。他们的经历与选择，构成了中国民主党成立初期真实而丰富的历史画面。

通过本刊，我们希望打捞记忆，还原历史现场，让读者理解：每一段社会进步都源于冒险与坚持，每一份信念都值得被铭记。

姜福祯：我们都是98年中国民主党的组党者，27年过去了，当年组党者或沉默不语，或仍在牢里，或撒手人间，或消极躺平，甚至也有人背叛和被招安。你是浙江首倡组党的重要推手，希望你尽可能讲一下你所知道的浙江组党情况，也算打捞记忆，还原现场吧。

朱虞夫：好的，8月24日我们在刘连军、苏雨桐主持的网上座谈会上几位创党同道有机会一起回忆当年组党情况，今天很高兴继续与你谈谈这件事情。

“下里巴人”朱虞夫

朱虞夫：实际上王有才当年组党是想搞精英政治，“象牙塔”“陽春白雪”，结果被我搞成了“下里巴人”。他主张搞一个有門槛，有文化，有财产的精英政党。

姜福祯：我知道，近年他在民主党海委会当主席时，他也还是这样主张。他说：“我们这些人就算了，以后发展党员沒有几十万收入的不要”。

朱虞夫：当年通过朋友关系，王有才搞了一张浙江处级干部的“花名册”。他主张将联合国《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》和《中国民主党成立宣言》用信件形式发给他们，劝他们参加中国民主党。我劝阻他：“这些人刚爬出泥潭，身上的泥水还沒甩干净，怎么能再跳进泥潭，这太不现实了”

精英政党我们不可能建立，唤醒民众也不是容易的事，但总要有人做。在注册后的第二天，王有才被抓，放回家后被国保监控在家，民主党活动停顿了，王炳章先生非常着急，每天给我来电话，催促我良机莫失。

王有才曾让祝正明印了2000多份《中国民主党成立宣言》，有才被抓后，形势紧张，祝正明认为放我这儿比较安全。正好王炳章建议我上街去发展民主党员，“见一个发展一个”。这做不到，因为大家都害怕，不敢加入。6月30日没人与我一起上街散发传单，我一个人上街发送传单时，也是心里没底的。但是我想事情总要有人做，我能做多少就做多少，而我也有了让中共来抓我的心理准备。那天，我果然就被抓起来了。

“行为艺术”成真

姜福祯：98年公开筹组中国民主党从浙江首发到蔓延全国成势就是一个奇跡，当时浙江的具体情形如何？

朱虞夫：当时浙江省委书记李泽民认为，注册是开玩笑的，不要理他们，过几天就没戏了。

中国民主党公开注册可能吗？一就靠那几个人可能吗？就算只有50个人的名单，也拿不出来的，就只有那么几个热心的人。在注册以前，我已经很明确的讲了，我们和这只猛兽关在一个笼子里，它欺骗国际社会，说它不吃人了，国际社会居然相信了它，但是中国的政治生态没有改善，我们推它一把：要么它退一下，增加我们的生存空间，要么张口吃人，将它的本质暴露给国际社会。他不吃我还不放心。所以当时把我抓起来，我说我就怕你不抓，抓了才有动静啊，抓了才有分量。我们是“哀兵求胜”。
姜福祯：当时的政治环境相对宽松是因为中共要搭乘全球化快车，中共已签署《公民权利与政治权利国际公约》，即便如此，公开注册申请也是一个政治姿态，意在促进公民政治权利，冲击党禁，也就是李泽民认为的“开玩笑”，你说的“行为艺术”。

朱虞夫：还有，如果不是借重国际舆论，如果不是借重克林顿访华，也不会有这次注册。

6月25号中午，王有才一行人出发之前，我正好在王东海家。王东海的太太程云惠挺着个大肚子，马上就要生了，我问王东海如果他今天万一回不来了，他太太谁来照顾？我说把他的名字换成我的。他无论如何不肯换，他说“虞夫啊，阿惠交给你照顾，我放心”。

 王有才也对我讲，“虞夫啊，如果我们进去，外面也是需要人的。我们不希望他们把我们一网全部弄到里面去了。”“你们在外面发声营救、接着干。”

我们民主党6月25号去注册，王有才已经安排海外媒体予以关注了，当时王炳章及很多海外民运圈的朋友，他们听到了这个消息以后非常振奋。

6月25号注册大家全身而退，第二天王有才就被抓起来了，8个小时以后回到家里，然后国保就把他封在家里不准他出门了。有一个小警察就坐在他门口监控，阻止他出去。这个时候的民主党组党活动处于停滯状态，因为原来的那些知识分子的朋友，几乎都避祸隐匿了，形势不明朗，谁不怕抓人啊？组党这个是很严重的事情。在这个时候，我“篡党夺权”把民主党的事继续搞下去，改变了王有才的初衷，中共又将我招兵买马，撒豆成兵的“颠覆”行为强加到王有才身上，让他判了重刑。我招来民主墙旧部，群策群力，各尽其能，将火种重新点燃、蔓延，王炳章策应各地兴风作浪，一时间风生水起。要发展民主党的党员，需要到外地去，每个省市都去宣传，都去成立中国民主党，尽量地扩大影响。所以后来我判刑的时候，检控方说海外势力的介入，海外势力就指的是王炳章，清清楚楚。

“海外势力”王炳章

姜福祯：王炳章二月回国推动组党，国内外一些人也都闻声而动。浙江注册申请后海外高度关注，特别是王炳章。我们山东的情况是，我刚出狱不久，还在剥权期，所以我相对低调。听说浙江申请后有人曾计划每月都有一个省市(直辖市)去申请，上海是第二个，可是二个多月过去了，上海沒有申请。八月下旬王炳章急忙给谢万軍打电话催促并嘱庄彦与谢联糸组党事宜，谢答应9月去注册，山东9月6日去注册被允许，鼓舞了各省，引发全国公开组党潮。

朱虞夫：在注册后的第二天，王有才被抓，放回家后被国保监控在家，民主党活动停顿了，王炳章先生非常着急，每天给我来电话，催促我良机莫失。

二月王炳章来浙江时我沒省见到，王炳章是六月注册后与我联系的，当时王炳章、王希哲和林牧都知道民主党是我在实操。

王炳章是行动派，我也是行动派，我们一拍即合，就这样我担负起了浙江民主党继续筹组的工作。林牧先生担忧我的安全，写信让王东海劝我低调。

当时王炳章先生说，趁着这个时间你不要再等待，尽量把它做大做强，他说：“虞夫啊，你到马路上去，这个看到一个就发展一个，像滚雪球一样，你形成势了，他们一下子就不能消除，不能把你们消灭掉。如果你们这几个人他能回过手来把你们弄掉，就没这个戏了，做不下去，没这回事了。”他说的很对。所以我在他的启发之下，在没有人手的情况下，我自己拿了传单到马路上去散发，然后我又去找到我当年就是民主墙时候的老朋友，因为杭州的民主墙1978年，1979年初，是我和我几个朋友一起搞起来。当时加入的很多朋友大家都保持着很好的关系，我就去把这些他们都拉进来。因为当时我们也是公开的、理性的、合理的。当时我告诉你，没什么秘密，你共产党要知道我们什么都告诉你，我们都向你注册了，还要怎么样。

所以王炳章先生是我们中国民主党的孕育者，他是海外民主运动的奠基人，这个他是功不可没的。我非常怀念他。我和王炳章先生打交道是1998年6月组党伊始，他在二月来杭州时就提出来要求我们国内的人组党，但是国内朋友对组党有疑虑，这一点我可以讲，中国民主党的成立和他是分不开的，组党的种子是他播下的。就我个人来说，就是在他的影响之下，才豁出去的。当时海外有很多人在围攻他，我感到非常非常的遗憾。

我当时赞成他这样搞，有我个人的看法：中共一贯欺骗国际社会，我们公开筹组民主党就是要撕开它们的画皮，冲击党禁，就是要冒险试一下深浅，也算以身试法吧。社会的每一个进步都是“犯险”而来的。

姜福祯：我们山东也是这么想，不试，怎么知道能走多远，也已做好做牢准备。

“广交友，缓结社”紧箍咒

姜福祯：我有个問題，你们浙江民主党组党是一个筹委会，还是先后有两个筹委会？一开始是王有才、王东海、林辉三人。

朱虞夫：一个筹委会。有人退出，更多的加入。我和王荣清、毛庆祥、戚惠民、李锡安、吴义龙、祝正明搭起框架，再后来聂敏之、杨建民、池建伟、来金彪、李坝根、朱伟勇等和大量热心朋友也加入了，我们进去了，王荣清、吕耿松、陈树庆等人在撑着，浙江这儿是前赴后继，自组党来浙江的监狱里没有间断过民主党人。可是，由于浙江的民运团队不善炒作，况且受到民运大佬的封杀，一直没有得到应有的关注。他们更关注的是律师和公知群体。

姜福祯：是啊，是这样。浙江当年真是英勇悲壮，前后许多人勇敢投入，公开活动，不懈坚持，一直是前边抓了，后边还一直举着旗子。你们还办了一个《在野党》刊物，这个刊物办了几期？我们山东王金波几次去你们浙江“取经”，你们见过吧？

朱虞夫：见过，他还在我家住过几天。王金波是深度介入浙江民主党的，他写的回忆录关于浙江的 部分非常翔实，得到大家的一致称赞。《在野党》由毛庆祥主编，在他手上办了九期，毛庆祥被抓后，由其他朋友又接下去编辑发行了几期，从1998年9月始发到1999年6月我们被捕，以后的情况有待狱中朋友以后补充了。

姜福祯：从王有才等人6月注册民主党到我和谢万军等9月第二波组党，不仅冲击了中共政权的党禁，也打破了国内民运当年的主流语境：“良性互动，双胜双赢”。牟传珩“广交友，不结社”。徐文立当年很推崇这个理论，略做修改为“广交友，缓结社。”

朱虞夫：他也不能叫不结社了，因为我们已经结社了，这种提法起阻碍的作用，后来他在11月又急转弯成立了中国民主党京津党部，一步到位。这在当时被称为“摘桃子”。

姜福祯：记得在北京是任畹町先于徐文立成立了北京筹委会，并倡导各省一起成立全国筹委会。全国筹委会的事你可以讲一下吗？也有一个说法是全国筹委会主要在上海筹备。

朱虞夫：我们当时的做法就是连络全国大家一起做，不占山为王，浙江不当老大，在最初设计名称的时候就作了考量，王有才可能有这样那样的不足之处，但是，他从本质上讲是个好人，他没有个人野心，不心心念念做老大，他鄙夷野心人物。他多次对我说，我们是搭个平台，（让大家都来唱戏）。若浙江一步注册全国民主党，也就沒有山东组党了，更不会组党蔚成风气。也正是这样，浙江不像某些地方，一上来先抢位子，封交椅。浙江在很长时间内，没有“主席”。由于我和其他人上班沒有时間，我们委托吴义龙（由姚振宪一路陪同）沿京广线到各省鼓励组党，到北京找到某大佬，某大佬首先说：“你们要我搞可以，我的位置怎么放？”吴傻在那儿了，他沒法回答，也不能回答。因为沒有授权请一个主席。某大佬说：‘’你走吧，我不參加。‘’。吴义龙不知如何是好，拿出连络图看到任畹町的名字就给他打电话，任畹町说：你过来吧。吴义龙说了情况任畹町痛快答应了。马上就成立了中国民主党北京筹委会（当时有报道）。任宛町很快提出注册申请，后来他也倡导成立全国筹备委员会。

当时全国各省刘贤斌、车宏年、谢长发、傅升、唐元隽和冷万宝、姚振宪等许多人都到了杭州了解组党过程，推动了各地组党进程。戚惠民的房子借给民主党做联络站，为此，在当局出手镇压后，戚惠民蒙受了巨大的经济损失。

11月9日中国民主党全国筹委会宣告成立，并于8日已向国务院递交注册申请。早于全国筹委会一天，徐文立也成立了京津党部。此时，他发现身边已无人可用，啟用了二名沒有民运经历的素人。

为民主党筹备和发展，姚振宪将卖掉上海房子的20几万钱交给了吴义龙，吴将钱私下交给女友单称峰，对我说，姚遵宪出国的时候交给他一千元钱，我说你放着吧。浙江所有的人都不知道这件事。直到2011年，吴义龙出狱后向单要钱（单已组织新家），单不给，吴才告知毛庆祥此事，要毛去向单还钱。这大概是民主党的第一个腐败案吧，20万当年不是个小数目，倘若民主党当年有这笔钱，规模还会更大。

中国民主党渊源

姜福祯：中国民主党做大后，有人开始寻找根脉，有人说79民运他们就酝酿组党，也有人说更早，还有人把王若望看成中国民主党创党人。我觉得这有个名和实的問題，单讲民主党三个字，有过多次，但98年中国民主党组党是一个独立的事实。

朱虞夫：1906年清末预备立宪时一夜涌现出许多个党，其中就有一个中国民主党，那是中国历史上第一次开放党禁。1960年台湾雷震成立中国民主党后被老蒋判了十年（不是因为组党判刑）。香港李柱铭在香港回归前夕成立了中国民主党，中共严禁他与大陆有联系。王若望96年在海外建立民主党，当时他提出民主党合并，我们很意外，为他的高风亮节所感动，愿意他做领导人。除了王若望，98年组党没有根脉。

姜福祯：海外曾搞过一次民主党大整合，徐文立刚出狱不久，筹备时找过他，他拒绝了，他只做他的联合总部。此后，经一些人筹备，成立了中国民主党全国委员会，王有才、王军涛、王天成为共同主席，当时被称为“三王党”

。三王党沒维持多久，因为在一些問題上分岐，主要对政庇党员的不同看法，多数理事陆续退出，只剩下王军涛共同主席至今。2015年原部分理事筹组了中国民主党海外委员会并在荷兰注册，王有才、陈忠和任主席，王有才后来退出，前不久陈忠和也突然去世。

朱虞夫：陈忠和我知道，沒有见过。

姜福祯：当年浙江民主党组党时，有一帮文学青年，他们主张“文化复兴运动”，王有才也是这个圈子里的人，你是否熟悉这些人？

朱虞夫：了解一些。俞心樵、林辉都是。

姜福祯：听说注册三人中有二人是这个群体的。王有才、林辉？

朱虞夫：林辉是，单称峰也是。

姜福祯：噢，吴义龙夫妇也是。

姜福祯：我在青岛见过俞心樵，说起民主党组党，他很自豪地说：当年民主党、正义党，还有一个忘了。他说三个党组党都和他们有关，你怎么看这件事？

朱虞夫：怎么叫有关？一帮文学青年，在一起高谈阔论时说起过几个名字，对组党并无行动。第三个大概是爱琴海文艺复兴党吧。

朱虞夫和姜福祯还聊到一些事，可以说是中国民主党秘辛吧。从98民主党组党现在27年了，有些人有些事有些话还是不便说。不止海外民运大佬许多都曾实际或口头參与，国内也有包括鲍彤、刘晓波等人先后不同程度介入，

在国內不同时間段，深度介入的还有杨天水、谢长发、胡石根等人，更有一些参与的人至今也不能公开姓名，一直把自己深埋在远离政治的厚土里。

Zhu Yufu Looks Back on the Founding Process of the China Democracy Party ———— Jiang Fuzhen Interviews Zhu Yufu

Author: Jiang Fuzhen
Editor: Zhang Zhijun Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Lin Xiaolong Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract: This interview reviews the founding of the China Democracy Party in Zhejiang in 1998. Zhu Yufu recounts how the party grew from grassroots actions and public registration to nationwide expansion, highlighting the crucial role played by Wang Bingzhang and others. He also reveals internal disagreements, international influence, and the personal risks borne by participants. The conversation restores a little-known chapter of China’s democracy movement and reflects on its legacy and challenges.

Editor’s Note：Since the China Democracy Party first initiated its founding in Zhejiang in 1998, twenty-seven years have passed. During this history, the early organizers have either fallen silent, been imprisoned, passed away, chosen to lie low, or even betrayed the cause or been co-opted. Today, as we revisit those years, it is both a sorting of history and a tribute to courage and conviction.Through this conversation between Zhu Yufu and Jiang Fuzhen, this publication presents for the first time a relatively complete account of the details and hidden stories of the founding of the Zhejiang branch of the China Democracy Party. Zhu Yufu admits that Wang Youcai initially advocated an “elite party,” but the actual organizing practice in Zhejiang eventually formed a “commoner’s path,” emphasizing concrete action and broad public awakening. Through the efforts of Zhu Yufu together with Wang Bingzhang, Wang Donghai, Lin Mu and others, the sparks of the Democracy Party were reignited in Zhejiang and gradually spread nationwide.During the founding process, Zhejiang activists faced a highly repressive political environment and continued their actions despite the risk of arrest—from distributing leaflets in the streets, contacting old friends, to editing and publishing the journal The Opposition Party—each step was full of hardship. The attention and support from overseas, especially the inspiration and push from Wang Bingzhang, became indispensable forces in the early stage of party founding.This issue also presents the complex origins of the Democracy Party: although organizations named “China Democracy Party” appeared several times in history, the 1998 founding was an independent historical event. Its significance lies not only in challenging the party ban, but also in promoting the development and practice of citizens’ political rights. Zhejiang’s approach emphasized action over internal power struggles, insisting on nationwide coordination and public mobilization—an attitude worthy of remembrance.In this history, there were not only those who marched forward bravely, but also those who chose caution; not only literary youth and pro-democracy activists who took part openly, but also individuals who still cannot reveal their names today. Their experiences and decisions together form a vivid and authentic picture of the early days of the China Democracy Party.Through this publication, we hope to retrieve memories and restore the historical scene, allowing readers to understand that every step forward in society comes from risk-taking and persistence, and every conviction deserves to be remembered.

Jiang Fuzhen: We were both founders of the China Democracy Party in 1998. Twenty-seven years have passed, and those early organizers have either fallen silent, remained in prison, passed away, lain flat in discouragement, or in some cases betrayed the cause or been co-opted. You were a major driving force behind the first call to organize in Zhejiang. I hope you can describe as fully as possible what you know about the founding process in Zhejiang—both as an act of retrieving memory and restoring the scene.

Zhu Yufu: Certainly. On August 24, at an online forum hosted by Liu Lianjun and Su Yutong, several of us founding colleagues had the opportunity to recall the events of that year. I’m glad to continue discussing this with you today.

“Commoner-Style Organizer” Zhu Yufu

Zhu Yufu: In fact, when Wang Youcai promoted party founding back then, he intended to build an elite political party—an “ivory tower,” refined and exclusive. In the end, I turned it into something for the common people. He advocated creating a party with thresholds—based on education, status, and property.

Jiang Fuzhen: I know. In recent years, when he served as chairman of the CDP Overseas Committee, he still held this view. He said, “People like us don’t matter, but in the future, those who earn less than several hundred thousand shouldn’t be admitted as party members.”

Zhu Yufu: Back then, through personal connections, Wang Youcai obtained a “roster” of Zhejiang’s department-level officials. He proposed mailing them the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Founding of the China Democracy Party to persuade them to join. I tried to stop him: “These people have just climbed out of the swamp—the mud on their bodies isn’t even dry yet. How can they jump back in? This is completely unrealistic.”

We could not possibly build an elite party, and awakening the public was no easy task—but someone had to do it. The day after registration, Wang Youcai was arrested. After his release he was confined at home under state security surveillance, and party activities came to a halt. Dr. Wang Bingzhang became very anxious, calling me every day and urging me not to miss the opportunity.Wang Youcai had previously asked Zhu Zhengming to print over 2,000 copies of the Declaration on the Founding of the China Democracy Party. After Wang was arrested, the situation became tense, and Zhu thought it was safer to leave the copies with me. At the same time, Wang Bingzhang encouraged me to go out into the streets to recruit members—“recruit one whenever you meet one.” This was impossible; everyone was afraid and dared not join. On June 30, no one would accompany me to distribute leaflets, so I went alone, unsure of myself. But I thought someone had to do the job; whatever I could do, I would do. I was mentally prepared to be arrested by the CCP. And indeed, that very day, I was taken away.

“When Performance Art Becomes Reality”

Jiang Fuzhen: It was a miracle that the public effort to found the China Democracy Party in 1998 started in Zhejiang and quickly spread nationwide. What exactly was the situation in Zhejiang at that time?

Zhu Yufu: At the time, Zhejiang Provincial Party Secretary Li Zemin thought the registration was a joke. “Don’t bother with them; in a few days it will be over,” he said.Could the China Democracy Party really be publicly registered? Could it rely on just those few people? Even a list of fifty names could not be produced; there were only a handful of dedicated individuals. Before registration, I had already said clearly: we were locked in a cage with a beast. It deceived the international community by claiming it no longer ate people, and the world actually believed it. But China’s political ecosystem had not improved. So we gave it a push: either it would retreat a step and give us more room to survive, or it would open its mouth and eat us, exposing its true nature to the international community. If it didn’t “eat” us, I wouldn’t feel safe. So when I was arrested, I said I was only afraid they wouldn’t arrest me. Being arrested created noise, gave weight to our actions. We were “the mournful army seeking victory.”

Jiang Fuzhen: The political environment was relatively relaxed because the CCP wanted to board the express train of globalization, and it had already signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Even so, publicly applying for registration was a political gesture intended to promote citizens’ political rights and challenge the party ban—what Li Zemin saw as a “joke,” and what you call “performance art.”

Zhu Yufu: Also, if we had not relied on international opinion, if we had not ridden the momentum of Clinton’s visit to China, this registration would not have happened. At noon on June 25, before Wang Youcai and the others set off, I happened to be at Wang Donghai’s home. His wife, Cheng Yunhui, was heavily pregnant and about to give birth. I asked Wang Donghai who would take care of her if he didn’t return that day. I suggested replacing his name with mine. He absolutely refused and said, “Yufu, if Ahui is left in your care, I’m at ease.” Wang Youcai also told me, “Yufu, if we go in, people are still needed outside. We don’t want all of us to be taken in one net. You should speak up, rescue us, and keep things going on the outside.”

On June 25, when we went to register the Democracy Party, Wang Youcai had already arranged for overseas media to pay attention. After hearing the news, Wang Bingzhang and many friends in the overseas democracy movement were greatly encouraged.Although all of us returned safely on June 25 after the registration attempt, Wang Youcai was arrested the next day. Eight hours later he was released, but state security then sealed him in his home, forbidding him from leaving. A young police officer sat at his door monitoring him. At that moment, all CDP founding activities were stalled, because the intellectual friends who had supported us initially had all gone into hiding. The situation was unclear; who wouldn’t fear arrests? Organizing a political party was a serious matter. At that point, I “usurped the party command,” continuing the CDP work and deviating from Wang Youcai’s original approach. The CCP then attributed my mobilizing actions—recruiting people, turning “scattered beans into soldiers”—to Wang Youcai and used it to impose a heavy sentence on him.I rallied the veterans of the Democracy Wall era; we pooled ideas, each contributing what we could, rekindling the flame and spreading it again. Wang Bingzhang coordinated and stirred up momentum across various regions, and for a time things surged vigorously. To grow the party, we had to travel outside Zhejiang—going to every province and city to promote and establish CDP branches, expanding the influence as much as possible. So when I was sentenced later, the prosecution said there was “overseas interference”—and that overseas force referred specifically and explicitly to Wang Bingzhang.

“The ‘Overseas Force’: Wang Bingzhang”

Jiang Fuzhen: Wang Bingzhang returned to China in February to promote party formation, and many people inside and outside the country responded. After Zhejiang submitted the registration application, overseas attention surged, especially from Wang. In Shandong, I had just been released from prison and was still deprived of political rights, so I kept a low profile. After Zhejiang applied, some people planned for one province or municipality to apply each month. Shanghai was supposed to be the second, but after more than two months, it still hadn’t applied. In late August, Wang Bingzhang urgently called Xie Wanjun, urging him and also instructing Zhuang Yan to coordinate with Xie on party founding. Xie agreed to register in September. Shandong’s registration on September 6 was accepted, which inspired other provinces and triggered a nationwide wave of public party formation.

Zhu Yufu: The day after registration, Wang Youcai was arrested. After he was sent home and placed under state security monitoring, all CDP activities halted. Dr. Wang Bingzhang became extremely anxious and called me every day, urging me not to miss the moment.When Wang Bingzhang came to Zhejiang in February, I didn’t get to meet him. He contacted me after the June registration attempt. At that time, Wang Bingzhang, Wang Xizhe, and Lin Mu all knew that I was the one carrying out the CDP operations in practice.Wang Bingzhang was a man of action; I was a man of action. We clicked immediately. That’s how I took on the responsibility of continuing the CDP organizing work in Zhejiang. Mr. Lin Mu, worried for my safety, even wrote a letter asking Wang Donghai to persuade me to keep a low profile.

At that time, Dr. Wang Bingzhang told me: “Don’t wait anymore—use this opportunity to grow it big and strong. Yufu, go to the streets, recruit one whenever you meet one. Build momentum like a snowball. Once you form momentum, they won’t be able to erase you; they can’t wipe you out. If they can easily get rid of just a few of you, then there’s no real movement and nothing will succeed.” He was absolutely right.So under his inspiration, with no manpower available, I took the leaflets myself and went out to the streets to distribute them. Then I contacted my old friends from the Democracy Wall era—because in 1978 and early 1979, the Hangzhou Democracy Wall was started by me and a few friends. Many of those who joined back then maintained good relations, so I pulled them back in. At that time, our activities were open, rational, and legitimate. I told them, “There are no secrets. If the Communist Party wants to know, we’ll tell them everything. We are openly registering, so what more is there?”

Therefore, Dr. Wang Bingzhang is the one who nurtured the China Democracy Party; he is the founder of the overseas democracy movement, and his contribution is undeniable. I miss him deeply. My interactions with him began in June 1998 at the start of party formation. When he came to Hangzhou in February, he had already proposed that we inside China should form a party, but domestic friends still had doubts. I can say clearly that the founding of the CDP cannot be separated from him—the seed of party formation was planted by him. As for me personally, it was under his influence that I was willing to risk everything. At that time, many overseas people were attacking him, and I felt extremely regretful about that.

At the time, I supported his approach, and I had my own reasoning: the CCP has always deceived the international community. Our public effort to found the Democracy Party was meant to rip away their mask, to challenge the party ban, to take a risk and test the waters—it was, in a sense, trying the law on ourselves. Every step forward in society comes from someone taking risks.

Jiang Fuzhen: We felt the same way in Shandong. If you don’t try, how can you know how far you can go? We were also prepared to go to prison.

The Tightening Spell of “Making Friends Widely, Postponing Association-Building”

Jiang Fuzhen: I have a question. For the founding of the Democracy Party in Zhejiang, did you have one preparatory committee or two in succession? It started with three people: Wang Youcai, Wang Donghai, and Lin Hui.

Zhu Yufu: There was only one preparatory committee. Some withdrew, but more joined. I worked with Wang Rongqing, Mao Qingxiang, Qi Huimin, Li Xian, Wu Yilong, and Zhu Zhengming to build the framework. Later, Nie Minzhi, Yang Jianmin, Chi Jianwei, Lai Jinbiao, Li Bageng, Zhu Weiyong, and many other enthusiastic friends also joined. After we were imprisoned, Wang Rongqing, Lü Gengsong, Chen Shuqing and others held things up. In Zhejiang, people came forward one after another; since the founding effort, the prisons here have never lacked CDP members.However, because Zhejiang’s democracy circles were not good at self-promotion, and because we were suppressed by certain “big names” in the democracy movement, we never received the attention we deserved. Their attention focused more on lawyers and public intellectuals.

Jiang Fuzhen: Yes, that’s true. Zhejiang’s efforts back then were truly heroic and tragic—so many people joined bravely, acted publicly, and persisted without giving up. Whenever the front group was arrested, those behind continued holding up the banner. You also published a journal, The Opposition Party. How many issues did it run? Wang Jinbo from Shandong visited Zhejiang several times to “learn from your experience.” You met him, right?

Zhu Yufu: Yes, I met him—he even stayed at my home for a few days. Wang Jinbo was deeply involved in the CDP’s Zhejiang chapter. The Zhejiang section of his memoir is very detailed and widely praised. The Opposition Party was edited by Mao Qingxiang, who published nine issues. After he was arrested, other friends took up the task and published several more. It began in September 1998 and continued until June 1999 when we were arrested. What happened after that will have to be supplemented by friends who were imprisoned later.

Jiang Fuzhen: From the June registration attempt by Wang Youcai and others to the second wave of party founding by Xie Wanjun and me in September, we not only challenged the CCP’s party ban, but also broke through the mainstream discourse of the domestic democracy movement at that time—ideas such as “positive interaction” and “win–win outcomes.” Mou Chuanheng advocated “making friends widely but not forming associations.” Xu Wenli strongly endorsed this theory back then, modifying it slightly into “making friends widely, postponing association-building.”

Zhu Yufu: He could no longer call it “not forming associations,” because we had already formed one. That kind of slogan only created obstacles. Yet in November, he made a sudden turn and established the China Democracy Party Beijing–Tianjin Branch in one step. At the time, this was called “picking the peach.”

Jiang Fuzhen: I remember that in Beijing, Ren Wanting established the Beijing preparatory committee before Xu Wenli did, and he advocated for all provinces to form a national preparatory committee. Could you talk about the national preparatory committee? There was also talk that it was mainly prepared in Shanghai.

Zhu Yufu: Our approach was to coordinate with everyone nationwide and not to claim dominance. Zhejiang did not try to be the “leader.” When we initially designed the party’s name, we had already considered this. Wang Youcai may have had various shortcomings, but fundamentally he was a good person. He had no personal ambition and had no desire to be the top leader; he despised overly ambitious people. He repeatedly told me, “We are only building a platform for everyone to perform on.”If Zhejiang had directly registered a national CDP, then Shandong would never have had the opportunity to register, and the movement would not have spread across the country. Because of this, Zhejiang did not scramble for positions or titles like some places did. For a long time, Zhejiang had no “chairman.”Because I and others had full-time jobs and lacked time, we entrusted Wu Yilong (accompanied by Yao Zhenxian) to travel along the Beijing–Guangzhou line to various provinces to encourage party formation. When he reached Beijing and approached a certain “big figure,” the first thing that figure asked was: “If I am to participate, what position will I have?” Wu was stunned and unable to answer, because he had no authorization to appoint a chairman. The figure said, “Then leave. I won’t participate.”Not knowing what to do, Wu checked the contact list, saw Ren Wanting’s name, and called him. Ren said, “Come over.” After hearing the situation, Ren readily agreed. The Beijing Preparatory Committee of the CDP was immediately established (it was reported at the time). Ren soon submitted a registration application and later advocated forming a National Preparatory Committee.At that time, many people from various provinces—Liu Xianbin, Che Hongnian, Xie Changfa, Fu Sheng, Tang Yuanjuan, Leng Wanbao, Yao Zhenxian, and others—came to Hangzhou to learn about the party-founding process, which accelerated the formation of CDP branches elsewhere.Qi Huimin lent his house for use as a CDN liaison station. As a result, after the authorities launched their crackdown, he suffered tremendous financial losses.

On November 9, the National Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party was officially announced, and on the previous day, November 8, it had already submitted a registration application to the State Council. One day earlier than the national committee, Xu Wenli also established the Beijing–Tianjin Party Branch. At that time, he realized he had no experienced people around him and appointed two complete newcomers with no democracy movement background.For the preparation and development of the CDP, Yao Zhenxian gave more than 200,000 yuan—the proceeds from selling his apartment in Shanghai—to Wu Yilong. Wu privately handed the money to his girlfriend, Shan Chengfeng. He told me that Yao had given him 1,000 yuan when leaving the country, and I said, “Just keep it.” No one in Zhejiang knew the truth.It wasn’t until 2011, when Wu was released and asked Shan for the money (Shan had since formed a new family), and she refused, that Wu told Mao Qingxiang about it and asked Mao to get the money back from her. This was probably the first corruption case in the CDP. Two hundred thousand yuan was not a small amount at the time—if the CDP had possessed that money, its scale could have grown much larger.

The Origins of the China Democracy Party

Jiang Fuzhen: After the CDP grew, some people began searching for its roots. Some said that during the ’79 Democracy Movement they already contemplated forming a party; some claimed even earlier origins; others regarded Wang Ruowang as the founder of the CDP. I think there is a distinction between the name and the substance. The three characters “Democracy Party” have appeared many times in history, but the 1998 founding of the China Democracy Party is an independent historical fact.

Zhu Yufu: In 1906, during the late Qing constitutional preparations, many parties emerged overnight, including one called the China Democracy Party—the first time in Chinese history that the party ban was lifted. In 1960, Lei Zhen founded the China Democracy Party in Taiwan and was sentenced by Chiang Kai-shek to ten years (not for party founding itself). In Hong Kong, Martin Lee founded a China Democracy Party on the eve of the handover; the CCP strictly forbade him from having contact with the mainland. Wang Ruowang established a Democracy Party overseas in 1996. At the time, he proposed merging all Democracy Parties, which surprised us. We were moved by his integrity and were willing for him to be the leader. Aside from Wang Ruowang, the 1998 CDP founding had no historical lineage.

Jiang Fuzhen: There was once an attempt overseas to integrate all Democracy Parties. Shortly after Xu Wenli was released from prison, organizers approached him, but he refused and insisted on running only his own “Joint Headquarters.” Later, after further preparation, the China Democracy Party National Committee was established, with Wang Youcai, Wang Juntao, and Wang Tiancheng as co-chairmen—called the “Three-Wang Party” at the time. It didn’t last long due to disagreements, mainly over attitudes toward asylum-seeking members. Most board members gradually withdrew, leaving only Wang Juntao as co-chairman to this day. In 2015, some former board members formed the CDP Overseas Committee, registered in the Netherlands, with Wang Youcai and Chen Zhonghe as chairmen. Wang Youcai later withdrew, and recently Chen Zhonghe unexpectedly passed away.

Zhu Yufu: I know of Chen Zhonghe, but I have never met him.

Jiang Fuzhen: When the CDP was founded in Zhejiang, there was a group of literary youths who advocated a “Cultural Renaissance Movement.” Wang Youcai was among them. Are you familiar with those people?

Zhu Yufu: I know some of them. Yu Xinqiao and Lin Hui were among them.

Jiang Fuzhen: I heard that among the three people who filed the registration, two were from that group—Wang Youcai and Lin Hui?

Zhu Yufu: Lin Hui was, and Shan Chengfeng as well.

Jiang Fuzhen: Oh, Wu Yilong and his wife as well.

Jiang Fuzhen: I once met Yu Xinqiao in Qingdao. When speaking of the CDP founding, he proudly said: back then the Democracy Party, the Justice Party, and another one—he forgot the name—were all related to them. What do you think of that?

Zhu Yufu: How can that be considered “related”? They were a group of literary youths who tossed around a few names while chatting, but took no action toward founding any party. The third one he mentioned was probably the Aegean Cultural Renaissance Party.

Zhu Yufu and Jiang Fuzhen also talked about other matters—one could call them the inside stories of the China Democracy Party. Twenty-seven years have passed since the 1998 founding, and some people, some events, and some words cannot yet be openly discussed. Not only many overseas democracy leaders were involved, in action or in spirit, but inside China figures like Bao Tong and Liu Xiaobo also took part to varying degrees. At different times domestically, others such as Yang Tianshui, Xie Changfa, and Hu Shigen were deeply involved. And there are still individuals who participated but whose names cannot be revealed even today, remaining buried in the thick soil far away from politics.

作者：张娜
编辑：程伟 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：程筱筱 翻译：彭小梅

我叫张娜，今年32岁。一年半前，我穿越七个国家，历经千难万险，来到美国。这并不是一次冒险旅行，而是一次深思熟虑的逃离。

我出生在江苏，在中国生活了整整30年。和很多普通女孩一样，我顺着社会的轨道往前走：努力上学、参加工作、买房、计划结婚。但30岁那年，我意识到，这条路不是我的选择，而是我被“安排”着走的。

在国内，我一直从事外卖行业的招商工作。先后供职于美团快驴、涨客舟和优客多多等三个平台，负责平台运营和外卖品牌加盟拓展。尤其是疫情期间，工作强度极大，24小时不敢关机，客户、同事、领导随时都会联络我，这些让我疲于奔命，但真正让我感到疲惫的不是工作，而是对未来的无力感。

我开始思考：没有家庭负担的时候，年轻的时候有无限的精力赚钱，可是五年后呢？可能我也要面临结婚、生子的问题，那么谁来帮我承担产假期间的收入损失？孩子谁来带？如果是我全职带孩子，那么与社会脱节两年、五年甚至更多年的宝妈还能重新就业吗？现实狠狠地给我上了一课，很多公司在招聘人才时会明确标注“已婚已育优先”，大多要求“35岁以下”，互联网行业更甚，为了避免“未婚未育”的女员工不能全神贯注地工作。

因此我也曾试着转行，去学软件测试，但无论怎么努力，年龄、婚姻、生育这几张“无形的简历”始终横亘在我面前。我的性别，竟成了我无法改变的“原罪”。

我也曾被洗脑，被当做“韭菜”，2016年，我在镇江买了人生第一套房，满心期待新的开始；但到了2024年，当我卖掉房子时，血本无归。这就意味着，我的全部身家都用了买了房子，当我卖掉房子时，我没有赚到一分钱，反而倒欠银行贷款，那么钱去哪儿了呢？年轻人本该对未来有无限向往的时候，在最美好的年华奋斗的时候，却要背上几十年的贷款，因为没有房子，没有车子，没有票子，就不配结婚。

在中国生活的这些年，我一直被定义要做一个贤妻良母一样的女性、被催促成一个讨人喜欢的女朋友、被压迫成一个不断奋斗的“五好青年”。是的，大家都这么说，女孩子嘛，找一份稳定的工作，嫁人生孩子才是人生最大的事情。可是结婚生孩子就真的能解决所有的问题吗？如果一个社会害怕单身女性做自己，如果一个社会离婚需要冷静期，如果一个女人被家暴而加害者却逍遥法外，那么当《宪法》都可以被修改的时候，当《婚姻法》不再维护女性的权益的时候，我如何在这个社会生存下去？

这些问题，一遍一遍地萦绕在我的脑海里，这个时候我才真正意识到，我并不是想“逃离”，我只是想“选择”，我想做自己人生的决策者，而不是一具服从命令的躯壳。

于是，我做了一个很多人难以想象的决定：离开这个吃人的国家，去到自由民主美国。

我从南京飞往香港，进入厄瓜多尔，辗转哥伦比亚、巴拿马、哥斯达黎加、尼加拉瓜、洪都拉斯等地，最终在墨西哥边境翻墙进入美国。这一路，充满了不安与艰难。但每跨过一个国界，我就离“自己的人生”更近了一步。

如今，我还在适应新的生活。我不知道未来会是什么样子，但我知道：我不再被命令怎么活。我有选择的权利，即使代价沉重，也值得，因为沉没成本不需要参与重大决策。

这不是一封控诉信，也不是成功学励志故事。这只是我作为一个普通中国女性，在社会高压、职场焦虑和家庭期待之间，试图找回自我、挣脱桎梏的记录。

Across Seven Countries—A Journey Toward Freedom

Author: Zhang Na
Editor: Cheng Wei Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:If a society fears single women living authentically; if it imposes a “cooling-off period” before divorce; if a woman who suffers domestic violence sees her abuser walk free—then when even the Constitution can be amended at will, and the Marriage Law no longer protects women’s rights, how can I possibly survive in such a society?

My name is Zhang Na, I am thirty-two years old. A year and a half ago, I crossed seven countries, enduring countless hardships, to reach the United States. It was not an adventure, but a carefully considered escape.

I was born in Jiangsu Province and lived in China for thirty years. Like many ordinary girls, I followed the prescribed path: study hard, find a job, buy an apartment, plan to get married. But when I turned thirty, I realized this was never my own choice—it was a path I was assigned to follow.

In China, I worked in business development for the food delivery industry, holding positions at Meituan Kualv (Meituan’s B2B supply platform), Zhangkezhou (restaurant franchise expansion platform), and Youke Duoduo (food delivery franchise platform), responsible for platform operations and franchise expansion. During the pandemic, the workload became unbearable. My phone could nevewr be turned off; clients, colleagues, and managers contacted me around the clock. But what truly exhausted me was not the work itself—it was the sense of powerlessness about the future.

I began to wonder while I am young, single, and energetic, I can work tirelessly to earn money. But what about five years later? I will likely face marriage and motherhood. Who will compensate for my lost income during maternity leave? Who will take care of the child? If I become a full-time mother, can I still find employment after being out of the workforce for two, five, or more years? Reality taught me a harsh lesson. Many job listings explicitly state, “married women with children preferred” and limit applicants to “under 35.” The tech industry is even crueler employers avoid hiring unmarried women for fear that “marriage and childbirth” might distract them from work.

So, I tried to change careers, studying software testing. Yet no matter how hard I worked, three invisible lines—age, marriage, and fertility—remained barriers before me. My gender had become an “original sin” I could not undo.

Like many of my generation, I was deceived and harvested like a “leek.” In 2016, I bought my first apartment in Zhenjiang, full of hope for a new beginning. But when I sold it in 2024, I suffered a total loss. My life savings vanished, and I even owed money to the bank. Where did the money go? Young people, who should be free to dream and build their lives, are instead burdened with decades of mortgage debt—because in China, without a house, a car, and savings, one is deemed unworthy of marriage.

Throughout my years in China, I was told to be a “good wife and loving mother,” urged to be a “pleasant girlfriend,” and pushed to become a “model youth” who never stops striving.Everyone says the same thing: “For a woman, the greatest achievement is a stable job, marriage, and children.”But does marriage and childbirth truly solve everything a society fears women living independently,if divorce requires a government-imposed “cooling-off period, ”if domestic abusers roam free while victims suffer in silence—then when even the Constitution can be rewritten overnight, when the Marriage Law no longer defends women’s rights—how can I, as a woman, continue to live in such a society?

These questions haunted me. I eventually realized that I was not trying to “escape”—I simply wanted the right to choose. I wanted to be the decision-maker of my own life, not a body programmed to obey.

So, I made a decision that few could imagine: to leave that devouring system and go to a free, democratic America.

From Nanjing I flew to Hong Kong, then entered Ecuador, crossed Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras, finally climbing over the border wall into Mexico and the United States. The journey was filled with fear and danger. Yet with each border I crossed, I felt myself getting one step closer to my own life.

Now, I am still learning to adapt to this new world. I do not know what the future holds, but I know one thing for certain: I am no longer told how to live. I have the right to choose—even if the cost is heavy—because sunk costs should never dictate life’s decisions.

This is not a letter of accusation, nor a tale of “success. “It is simply the testimony of an ordinary Chinese woman, trying to reclaim herself amid the crushing weight of society, career, and family expectations—a record of breaking free from the chains of obedience and rediscovering oneself.

作者：金米

编辑：邢文娟   责任编辑：侯改英   校对：熊辩   翻译：刘芳

锡安教会的门，又被封上了。不是因为风太烈，

而是他们怕起风——风会带来声音，而声音，是他们最想控制

却最难控制的东西。他们说这是““依法”管理，

说得温文尔雅，

仿佛关押只是一场体面的误会。椅子空了，圣经还摊开在原处，那一页分明写着：

“光照在黑暗里，黑暗却不接受光。”有个年轻人在笔录上写下：“神爱世人”。警官轻敲桌面：

“这句，能不能改成党爱世人‘？”他犹豫片刻，点头。

然后，又悄悄在句号后加了一个小小的十字。他们嘴上说着”依法”，

心里却在怕——怕神的恩、子的爱，怕圣灵的感动

怕恩典传播

怕福音被传递给更多的人。

这世间的一切美好他们都怕，都反对。

他们擅于把恐惧包装成“秩序”，像用金丝裹着一只空盒子，呈给世界看。

这不是悲剧，

这是讽刺的巅峰：祈祷要申请，沉默要备案。可他们不知道，

信仰有坚固永恒的温度。它藏在信众的眼眸里，

藏在诗歌的余韵里，

藏在那扇被封的门背后。

当人们走过风依旧从门缝钻出，

如同草芽破土而出那般。

它轻轻拂过每一只耳朵，

恩慈地说一声：

“哈利路亚”。2025年10月25日

The Wind Speaks

Author: Jin Mi

Editor: Xing Wenjuan Executive Editor: Hou Gaiying Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Liu Fang

Abstract: This poem depicts the sealing of Zion Church and the unyielding nature of faith. It reveals the CCP regime’s repression and fear of religious freedom. Though outwardly silenced, faith persists like the wind—quietly carrying warmth and hope even within confinement, symbolizing that truth will one day pierce through the darkness.

The doors of Zion Churchhave been sealed once again.Not because the wind is too fierce,but because they fear the wind—for wind carries voices,and voices are the very thingthey most wish to controlyet can never truly contain.

They call it “lawful management,”speak with polished gentleness,as if the confinement were merelya courteous misunderstanding.The chairs sit empty;the Bible lies open where it was,on the very page that reads:“The light shines in the darkness,and the darkness has not overcome it.”

A young man wrote “God so loved the world”in his interrogation record.The officer tapped the table lightly:“Can you change that to ‘the Party loves the people’?”He hesitated for a moment, then nodded.And afterward, he quietly addeda tiny cross after the period.

They speak the language of “law,”but their hearts are filled with fear—fear of God’s grace,fear of the Son’s love,fear of the Spirit’s stirring,fear that grace might spread,fear that the Gospelmight reach more souls.Everything good in this world—they fear it, they oppose it.

They excel at wrapping fearin the packaging of “order,”like gilding an empty boxto present it to the world.

This is not tragedy;it is the summit of irony:prayer requires an application,silence requires registration.

But they do not knowthat faith carriesa steadfast and eternal warmth.It hides in the eyes of believers,in the lingering echo of hymns,behind the doors they sealed shut.

As people pass by,the wind still slipsthrough the cracks of the door,like a blade of grassbreaking through soil.

It brushes gentlyagainst every earand whispers with kindness:“Hallelujah.”

October 25, 2025

作者：纪中久
编辑：韩立华   责任编辑：钟然   校对：林小龙

合议庭：

浙江左契律师事务所接受邹巍母亲的委托，指派纪中久律师担任被告人邹巍的辩护人。辩护人根据庭审质证、辩论情况，整理、总结如下书面辩护意见，供合议庭评议时参考：

一、起诉书称被告人通过“境外媒体自由亚洲电台等信息网络平台”散布虚假事实，这一表述违反了基本的网络常识，与事实严重不符。

自由亚洲主要通过广播的形式，向世界各国提供语音新闻信息。

www.rfa.org 是该电台的网站。该网站属于该电台的电子刊物，并不属于信息网络平台。

信息网络平台是基于互联网技术构建的网络平台，提供信息发布、共享及交互服务。信息网络平台与普通网站的区别是，在信息网络平台上，用户可以通过手机、电脑等终端设备登陆平台，自行编辑、发布消息。并借平台与其他用户互动，典型的信息网络平台包括微信、微博，境外的如推特等。

普通网站的编辑由网站开办处工作人员完成，其他人不能参与。网站编辑人拥有网站网络作品的全部著作权。由于信息的编辑、制作、传播都由网站工作人员完成，因网站内容涉及的刑事、民事等法律责任完全由网站编辑人员承担。邹巍没有使用手机、电脑等网络终端，参与信息的编辑、上传和信息的传播。

即使邹巍给该网站提供了若干语音片段，但如何编辑这些语音，把这些语音放在何处，甚至对语音进行技术修改，都是由自由亚洲电台网站编辑人员完成。邹巍没有办法对最终完成的文字及语音施加影响，也无法干预该信息的传播，让他对这些信息承担法律责任，不但在法律上行不通，也没有基本的逻辑基础。

二、合议庭应当注意到语音的编辑是一项早已成熟的技术，耳听为虚眼见为实。语音编辑、制作技术很早就已经有人进行研究和实践。早在1939年美国学者H.杜德莱开发了发音模拟系统，20世纪80年代非平稳参数分析法和非线性处理方法相继出现。目前由于智能科技的发展，语音的编辑和制作技术被更多的企业和专家人士所掌握。讯飞智作公司甚至开发了网络在线面对普通用户的网页版音频制作工具，详见：

https://peiyin.xunfei.cn/?ftype=22&bd vid=8789967394632941364eng

自由亚洲电台作为专业媒体应当有更为先进、专业的音频编辑软件。

目前侦查机关获取的远程数据是从自由亚洲电台网站上下载的，并非原始音频，而是经过自由亚洲编辑过的音频文件。这些音频文件如果是采集了邹巍的原始音频而编辑而成，当然具有邹巍语音的若干特征，但不能反映原始音频的全部、完整、准确的内容。经过编辑的邹巍语音甚至可能存在与邹巍原始语音表达语意相反的情况存在，更可能存在大概率偏差的可能性。

刑事诉讼法对证据的要求是“确实、充分”,涉案的主要证据从自由亚洲网站下载，且明显经过编辑，因此不属于原始证据。加之涉案的录音没有其他证据(证人及物证)佐证，公诉的人当庭的起诉事实得不到证据的支持，难以成立。

三、接受外媒采访，谈及国内民生，这样的行为不符合寻衅滋事罪的构成要件

刑法第293条第一款第(四)项规定在公共场所起哄闹事，严重破坏社会秩 序的行为，构成寻衅滋事罪。

公共场所应该是指物理、有形的场所。两高《关于办理利用信息网络实施诽 谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第五条第二款规定，编造虚假信息，或者明知是编造的虚假信息，在信息网络上散布，或者组织、指使人员在信息网络上散布，起哄闹事，造成公共秩序严重混乱的，依照刑法第二百九十三条第一款 第(四)项的规定，以寻衅滋事罪定罪处罚。

其中的手段是在信息网络上散布虚假消息，但损害结果仍然是要求对现实 中有形状的公共场所造成影响，导致公共秩序严重混乱。

两高《关于办理寻衅滋事刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》在车站、码 头、机场、医院、商场、公园、影剧院、展览会、运动场或者其他公共场所起 哄闹事，应当根据公共场所的性质、公共活动的重要程度、公共场所的人数、 起哄闹事的时间、公共场所受影响的范围与程度等因素，综合判断是否“造成 公共场所秩序严重混乱”。

可见，网络诽谤司法解释并没有对寻衅滋事案件司法解释的公共场所

作扩张解释。网络秩序并不属于刑法293条的公共场所秩序。

网络秩序与现实物理的公共场所秩序并不相同。互联网的特点是不同的信

息、矛盾的信息可以同时共存，而不会引发网络拥堵。人们通过网络了解事实

真相时，正是通过对不同信息的对比，发现真实的世界。

起诉书称被告人“将涉及国家和社会重大活动、热点事件等内容虚假的信息公开散布，损害国家形象，严重危害国家利益”,其中“损害国家形象严重危害国家利益”能否等于破坏社会秩序，值得商榷。“损害国家形象严重危害国家利益”并不是对事实的描述，而是对事实的定性。如果把这种情况认定为寻衅滋事，其实是在刑法和两高司法解释外自行另创了法律，显然这超出了公诉人和审理法官的权限。

辩护人认为公诉人在对国家形象、国家利益的理解上也存在问题。邹巍向媒体反映了一些具体的民生问题。对政府在具体事项如拆迁、扰民等问题进行了批 评，呼吁尊重他所认识的几个朋友的看守所和监狱内的人权状况。他的行为符合 我国宪法中依法治国和保障人权的基本规定和原则。公民对政府的建议、批评不 是减损了国家形象和利益，如果建议、批评的权利得到允许、容忍，还会提高国家形象，有利于国家利益。国家不是政府的国家，而是属于全体国民。维护每一 个公民的利益，就是维护国家利益。

四 、侦查机关在侦查取证违反法律程序，所获取的证据不能作为定罪依据

《计算机网络国际互联网管理暂行规定》第六条规定，计算机信息直接进行国际联网必须使用邮电部国家电信网络提供的国际出口信道。本案侦查机关自行使用软件，绕过国家互联网防火墙，窥探、收集公民言论，是典型的违法取证。我国宪法规定了公民的言论自由，收集公民在媒体上的只言片语，意图加之以刑罚，相关司法人员违背了宪法、公务员法、人民警察法、检察官法。辩护人希望合议庭法官履行法官宣誓誓言，保护宪法，保护公民权利，否定违法的侦查和起诉。

五 、辩护人希望合议庭法官重视寻衅滋事罪在现实中的滥用，以法律的角 度而不是政治的角度看待邹巍所涉及的问题。

在起诉书中，公诉机关称邹巍的动机“为了达到个人目的，寻求扩大社会影 响以引发关注效应”,这一说法没有证据支持，背离了事实，可能会对邹巍的个人声誉造成影响，在法律文书中，这样的春秋笔法是应该尽力避免的。两高《关于办理寻衅滋事刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第一条认为寻衅滋事案件的动机为“行为人寻求刺激、发泄情绪、逞强要横、无事生非”,邹巍显然不具有这样的动机。他关注民生事件，意在提醒政府加强国内的人权保护，保障民众利益。寻衅滋事罪的设立初衷处于社会治安综合治理方面的考虑，现在公诉机关用它来追究公民的言论，显然已经背离了立法机关的本意，是典型的法律适用错误。

在当庭，公诉人播放了八条录音。其中关于G20安保，公开资料显示志愿者有76万人。作为杭州居民，应该会了解到当时杭州安保人数众多，对百姓的出行影响客观存在。即使数字存在误差，总的事实是对。开一个具有全球影响的国际会议不可能一点对城市生活都没有影响。老百姓负面情绪存在，公开说一点意见，不能说“发泄情绪、逞强耍横”。

关于陈子亮的死亡，邹巍作为陈子亮的朋友当然会关心陈子亮的安危，怀疑陈子亮没有得到及时救治，并说出来情有可原。辩护人注意到陈子亮的病例，对于救助措施记载欠缺。被关押人在看守所死亡，是我们竭力要避免的事，事情发生了应该及时查找原因，而不是捂住老百姓的口。

关于吕耿松在监狱内没有得到及时医治、阅读受限制，这是吕耿松在会见家属时向家属说的。这样的言论会促使监狱管理方面更加注重对改造人员的权益保护，而不会引起公共秩序混乱。

杭州彭埠、笕桥、九堡三镇因杭州东站建设和城东新城建设开启大规模拆迁，

三个镇被撤销，设立街道(三个镇的面积涉及几十平方公里)。有些从事征迁基 层干部工作作风不正，在补偿方面不到位，工作粗暴，有批评的意见不是很正常吗?这些意见如果能够被上级领导获悉，正可以起到改进基层工作的效果，这不是应该得到支持才对吗？

毛泽东主席在《批评判与自我批评》一文说，对于批评的态度是“有则改之， 无则加勉”,在公诉人那里，则成了“有则改之，无则寻衅”。老百姓的口不能封， 公民的批评建议权不能被剥夺!

寻衅滋事罪属于结果犯，要求存在公共秩序严重混乱的后果。邹巍的很多 言论是多年前发表的，现在拱墅公安机关才采取侦查措施，我想这不是因为拱 墅区公安机关渎职，而是在当时这些言论没有产生紧迫的、现实的危害后果。关于公共秩序，这里的“公共”应当涵盖多层次、普遍的涉及公民共同的社会规则，“公共”的，就不是执政者所独有的私权。人民群众有对国家机关、公务人员的监督权，而不是反过来，由执政者监督民众的言论。我国签署了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》以及《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》 ,在宪法中明确承诺对人权的保护。来自每个公民对政府的批评和建议都得到保护， 而不是法律追究，这才是最大的公共秩序。目前对邹巍以寻衅滋事罪进行追 究，完全是本末倒置，与我国法律相冲突的。

合议庭，由于我国宪法规定了公民的言论自由权、批评建议权，任何国

家机关包括检察院、法院都无权对公民的言论进行审查，辩护人提出了对公

诉人、合议庭法官的回避申请，未获准许。辩护人呼吁既然检察官、合议庭 法官自愿参加审理活动，就应该更加积极地履行司法人员的公权，保护国家

宪法，保护公民权利，拒绝相关机关和人员对本案的干涉，对邹巍做出无罪

的判决。

此致

被告人：邹巍

辩护人：浙江左契律师事务所

纪中久

2025年9月20日

Defense Statement for Zou Wei Accused of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”

Author: (Defense Counsel) Ji Zhongjiu, Zhejiang Zuoqi Law Firm
Editor: Han Lihua Executive Editor: Zhong Ran   Proofreader: Lin Xiaolong
Date: September 20, 2025

Abstract

In August 2024, Chinese dissident Zou Wei was arrested by Chinese authorities on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” This document presents the defense counsel’s argument for Zou Wei’s acquittal.

To the Collegiate Bench:

Zhejiang Zuoqi Law Firm, entrusted by Zou Wei’s mother, appointed Attorney Ji Zhongjiu as defense counsel for the defendant, Mr. Zou Wei.Based on the evidence examined in court and the arguments presented during trial, the defense submits the following written statement for the court’s consideration:

I. The Indictment’s Description of “Spreading False Information through Foreign Media Platforms” Is Factually and Technically Incorrect

The indictment alleges that the defendant spread false information through “foreign media outlets such as Radio Free Asia and other online information platforms.”This statement reveals a misunderstanding of basic network concepts and is inconsistent with factual reality.

Radio Free Asia (RFA) primarily broadcasts audio news programs to global audiences.Its website, www.rfa.org, functions as an electronic publication, not an interactive information platform.

An “information network platform” is built upon internet-based technology that allows users to publish, share, and interact with content—examples include WeChat, Weibo, or Twitter.Ordinary websites, however, are edited exclusively by the site’s staff; users cannot directly upload or modify content. Therefore, any criminal or civil liability related to a website’s content rests solely with its editors.

Mr. Zou did not use a computer, phone, or any online terminal to upload, edit, or disseminate information. Even if he provided audio clips to RFA, the editing, placement, and publication of those materials were entirely handled by RFA’s editorial team. He neither controlled the final content nor influenced its dissemination.

Thus, holding Zou legally responsible for material edited and published by others is legally unsound and logically indefensible.

II. The Audio Evidence Was Edited and Cannot Be Deemed Authentic or Original

Audio editing is a long-established and highly developed technology. Since as early as 1939, U.S. researcher Homer Dudley developed speech-synthesis systems. By the 1980s, advanced nonstationary and nonlinear processing methods emerged.

Today, numerous companies—such as iFlytek—offer online voice-editing tools accessible to the general public. (See: https://peiyin.xunfei.cn)As a professional media organization, RFA naturally possesses even more sophisticated audio-editing software.

The investigative authorities’ evidence consists of audio files downloaded from RFA’s website, not original recordings. These files were clearly edited. While the edited voice may retain some of Zou’s vocal characteristics, it cannot accurately represent the original, complete, or unaltered content. Edited material could even distort or invert the speaker’s intended meaning.

Under China’s Criminal Procedure Law, evidence must be “authentic and sufficient.” Since the primary evidence was downloaded from a third-party website and lacks corroboration (no witness or physical evidence), the prosecution’s claim is unsupported and unproven.

III. Speaking to Foreign Media about Domestic Social Issues Does Not Constitute the Crime of “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble”

Article 293(1)(4) of the Criminal Law of the PRC defines this offense as “creating disturbances in public places, seriously disrupting social order.”

The term “public places” refers to physical, tangible spaces.According to the Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate’s Judicial Interpretation on Network Crimes (2013), even when false information is spread online, the charge applies only if it causes serious disorder in real, physical public spaces.

Network order and real-world public order are fundamentally different. The Internet allows diverse and even contradictory information to coexist without causing “crowding” or chaos. Citizens form judgments by comparing differing sources of information—an essential process in understanding truth.

The prosecution alleges that Zou “spread false information about major national and social events, damaging the image and interests of the state.”However, “damaging national image” is a political label, not a factual description. Equating such a claim with “disrupting public order” is a misinterpretation of law and an unauthorized expansion of criminal definitions beyond statutory limits.

Furthermore, Zou’s comments to the media concerned civil and human rights issues, such as demolition practices, residents’ grievances, and conditions of detainees. His actions align with constitutional rights to freedom of speech, lawful criticism, and human-rights advocacy.Criticism of government behavior does not harm national interests; in fact, open dialogue strengthens governance and public trust.

IV. The Investigation Violated Legal Procedure; Evidence Collected Illegally Cannot Be Used for Conviction

According to Article 6 of the Provisional Regulations on the Management of International Internet Connections, any access to foreign networks must use channels approved by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.In this case, investigators bypassed China’s national firewall to monitor and collect citizens’ online speech—an act constituting illegal evidence gathering.

The Constitution of the PRC guarantees citizens freedom of speech.Collecting citizens’ words from media platforms to criminalize them violates the Constitution, the Civil Servant Law, the Police Law, and the Procurators Law.

The defense respectfully urges the court to uphold judicial independence, reject illegally obtained evidence, and protect constitutional rights.

V. The Court Should Recognize the Widespread Misuse of the “Picking Quarrels” Charge and Apply the Law, Not Political Interpretation

The prosecution claims Zou’s motive was “to gain personal attention and social influence.”This claim is unsupported by evidence and damages his reputation through subjective inference inappropriate for formal legal documents.

According to the Judicial Interpretation on the Crime of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble, the motive must be “to seek excitement, vent emotions, show off, or cause trouble without reason.”Zou’s motives were none of these. His focus was on public welfare and human rights advocacy.

At trial, eight recordings were presented by the prosecution. These included remarks about the G20 security operations, which, according to public records, involved 760,000 volunteers.Zou, as a Hangzhou resident, merely expressed concerns about disruptions to daily life—a reasonable civic comment, not an act of provocation.

Similarly, his concern over the death of Chen Ziliang, a friend who died in detention, and his criticism of poor prison conditions for Lv Gensong, reflected legitimate humanitarian concern, not disorderly conduct.

His remarks on forced demolitions in Hangzhou’s Pengbu, Jianqiao, and Jiubao—towns dismantled for the new Hangzhou East Station and urban expansion—constituted normal citizen criticism of administrative misconduct.Constructive criticism, if heard by higher authorities, would help improve governance rather than disrupt public order.

As Chairman Mao Zedong once wrote: “When there is criticism, one should correct it; when there is none, one should be encouraged.”Yet the prosecution seems to believe: “When there is criticism, call it provocation.”A citizen’s voice cannot be silenced; the right to criticize must not be stripped away.

The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” requires actual, severe disruption of public order.Most of Zou’s remarks were made years ago and caused no such disorder—a fact that invalidates the charge.

Public order belongs to the people, not to those in power.Citizens have the right to supervise the government, not the other way around.China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both affirming protection of free expression.

Therefore, prosecuting Zou for peaceful speech reverses the relationship between state and citizen, violating both domestic and international legal norms.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees citizens freedom of speech and the right to make suggestions and criticisms.No state organ, including the procuratorate or the court, has authority to censor or punish citizens for lawful expression.

Although the defense’s motions for recusal were denied, we call upon the court to uphold the spirit of judicial independence:to protect the Constitution, to safeguard citizens’ rights, to resist external interference, and to acquit Mr. Zou Wei in accordance with the law.

Respectfully submitted,Defendant: Zou WeiDefense Counsel: Ji Zhongjiu, Zhejiang Zuoqi Law Firm

Date: September 20, 2025