作者：张孔松
编辑：李聪玲 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

今天，是一个值得世界铭记的日子。284年前的今天，《巴黎和约》正式签署，美国独立战争取得最终胜利。这不仅标志着十三个殖民地摆脱帝国统治，更是人类历史上第一次清晰地向世界宣告：人民有权反抗暴政，人民有权决定自己的命运。美国的独立，并非来自皇帝的仁慈，而是来自人民的勇气、牺牲与坚持。《巴黎和约》证明了一件事——当人民站起来，历史就会为他们让路。两百多年过去了，中国却仍然深陷皇权式专制体制之中，令人无限唏嘘。正因如此，我们中国民主党人必须凝聚力量，以推翻中共暴政为使命，让中国早日成为一个民主、宪政、自由的国家。

2025年，是我人生中最痛苦、也是最清醒的一年。12月15日，我的母亲去世了。在她生命最后的两个月里，我们彼此承受了巨大的痛苦，每一天都在煎熬中渡过，而我却被迫滞留海外，不敢回国陪伴，无法送终，只能靠视频电话问候。这是我一生中最大的遗憾。这是我个人的悲剧，但我很清楚，它并非个案，而是中国现实政治长期制造的人道灾难之一。

母亲临终前两天，当她听到电话那头是我的声音时，已经说不出话，却仍然拼命做手势想要抢电话。那一刻我明白，她想问的不是：我快不行了，你为什么还不回来见我最后一面？而是为什么一出国，就再也不敢回来了？”我无法回答，因为我比任何时候都清楚——我不是不想回国，而是不敢回国。

个人的不幸，往往并非偶然，而是制度性灾难的直接后果。这种灾难的破坏力远比天灾人祸更可怕，天灾只发生在局部，而暴政无处不在，无时无刻不在盯着每一个普通人。我成长于计划生育的极权年代，本身就是受害者之一，所幸侥幸逃脱。我的姐姐十二岁时被拐卖，明明知道犯罪嫌疑人是谁，却无法将其绳之以法，因为对方背后有共产党的官员保护，这正是法治缺失的真实写照。我的堂哥离奇失踪十几年，至今生死不明，而这也绝非孤例。每年中国失踪人口高达几十万，中共拥有全球最庞大的监控系统，却连一个失踪人口都找不到，因为这套系统从来不是用来服务人民的，而是用来监控、压制和控制人民的。

在生活中，我无意间接触到外网信息，再结合自身经历，整个人突然清醒过来。我开始发表反对中共的政治言论，随之而来的，是警察的威胁与殴打、社交账号被封禁，以及现实生活中的全面排斥。许多朋友将我拉黑，留下来的也不敢与我有任何公开互动，甚至不敢在朋友圈点一个赞。我感到前所未有的孤独。但让我感到欣慰的是，在我微信被封、无法发声的那段时间，仍有人私信关心，仍有人认同我的观点。哪怕只能启发一个人清醒，我也觉得自己的付出没有白费。

这些经历并非“个案”，而是高度集权体制对普通人进行系统性碾压的结果。2025年，中国发生了大量触目惊心的事件：香港鸿福苑大火后，当局拒绝追责、压制舆论，对死者家属的维权进行控制与威胁；四川江油“千人反霸”事件中，基层权力与黑恶势力长期勾连，普通民众被逼到极限，最终爆发大规模抗争；陕西蒲城学生坠亡事件疑点重重，当局试图强行定性为“自杀”，却引发上万民众上街抗议，并遭到强力镇压；河南许昌第六中学，上千名学生与家长集体抗议压迫性教育制度，现场冲突激烈；云贵高原农民反对强制火葬运动，地方政府以“文明殡葬”为名，强行剥夺少数民族与农村地区的基本人伦权利；云南昆明街头摊贩与城管的持续冲突，底层生计被系统性摧毁，执法暴力常态化；甘肃天水幼儿园投毒案中，家长依法维权，却被视为“维稳对象”，信息遭到封锁。

这些事件有一个共同点：人民不是违法者，而是被逼到绝境的受害者。而中共政权的回应，永远只有两种方式——封锁和镇压。所有的结论最终都指向同一个事实：问题不在具体事件，而在政权本身。

正是这些血淋淋的现实，让我彻底放弃幻想。我不再相信所谓的“体制内改良”，不再相信“渐进改革”，也不再相信“忍一忍就会好”。我得出的结论只有一个：只要中共政权不结束，中国人民的苦难就不会结束。委内瑞拉、伊朗等国家的反抗实践已经清楚证明，当人民不再恐惧，专制政权并没有它宣称的那么强大。所谓“高科技维稳”“天网系统”“绝对控制”，在真实的社会崩塌面前，都是纸糊的神话。

正是基于这种判断，我加入了中国民主党，旗帜鲜明地反对中国共产党。推翻中国共产党，是我一生的使命，生命不熄，抗议不止。因此，我无法回国，这不是假设，而是必然。在当前的中国政治环境下，参与海外民主组织活动的人，一旦回国，等待的只会是坐牢、被失踪，甚至肉体上的毁灭。

我选择战斗，而不是沉默。母亲的去世让我付出了巨大的情感代价，但正因为如此，我更加清楚自己为何而战。为了不再有中国人像我一样流浪海外、无法回家，为了让每一个人都能拥有一个安定的家，想去哪里就去哪里，为了让人民真正实现民主与自由，我们必须更加努力，凝聚力量，早日推翻中共暴政。

人生最大的幸福是什么？最大的幸福，就是生长在一个正常的国家。

New Year Reflections: Thoughts on History and Reality

Abstract: Drawing on personal experiences and multiple mass incidents in Chinese society, the author identifies their common root cause as the systematic oppression of the people under the CCP’s highly centralized rule. Consequently, the author completely abandons illusions of reform from within the system, resolutely opposes CCP tyranny, and calls for an end to suffering through democracy and freedom.

Author: Zhang Kongsong
Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

Today is a day the world should remember. 284 years ago today, the Treaty of Paris was formally signed, marking the final victory of the American Revolutionary War. This event not only signaled the thirteen colonies’ liberation from imperial rule but also constituted the first clear declaration in human history: the people have the right to resist tyranny and determine their own destiny. American independence did not stem from an emperor’s benevolence, but from the courage, sacrifice, and perseverance of its people. The Treaty of Paris proved one thing: when the people rise up, history makes way for them. Yet over two centuries later, China remains mired in an imperial-style autocratic system, a state of affairs that inspires profound regret. Precisely for this reason, we members of the China Democracy Party must unite our strength, taking as our mission the overthrow of the CCP’s tyranny, so that China may soon become a democratic, constitutional, and free nation.

The year 2025 was the most painful yet most sobering year of my life. On December 15th, my mother passed away. During her final two months, we endured immense suffering together, each day a torment. Yet I was forced to remain overseas, too afraid to return home to be by her side, unable to be present at her passing. All I could do was offer comfort through video calls. This remains my deepest regret. While a personal tragedy, I know it is not an isolated case but one of the humanitarian disasters perpetuated by China’s political reality.

Two days before her passing, when she recognized my voice on the phone, she could no longer speak. Yet she desperately gestured, trying to grab the receiver. In that moment, I understood: her question wasn’t, “I’m dying—why haven’t you come back to see me one last time?” But why, once I left the country, did I never dare return?” I couldn’t answer, for I knew better than ever—it wasn’t that I didn’t want to return, but that I dared not.

Personal misfortune is rarely accidental; it is often the direct consequence of systemic catastrophe. The destructive power of such disasters far surpasses that of natural or man-made calamities. Natural disasters strike only locally, while tyranny is omnipresent, constantly watching every ordinary person. I grew up during the totalitarian era of the One-Child Policy, a victim myself who somehow managed to escape. My sister was abducted at twelve. Though we knew who the perpetrator was, we couldn’t bring him to justice because he was shielded by Communist Party officials—a stark illustration of the absence of rule of law. My cousin vanished under mysterious circumstances over a decade ago, his fate still unknown—and this is far from an isolated case. Hundreds of thousands go missing in China annually. Despite operating the world’s largest surveillance network, the CCP cannot locate a single missing person because this system was never designed to serve the people. Its purpose is to monitor, suppress, and control them.

In daily life, I accidentally accessed information from the outside world. Combining this with my personal experiences, I suddenly woke up. I began voicing political opinions opposing the CCP. What followed were threats and beatings from the police, the suspension of my social media accounts, and complete rejection in real life. Many friends blocked me. Those who stayed dared not interact with me publicly, not even daring to like a post in my Moments. I felt an unprecedented loneliness. Yet what brought me solace was that even during the period when my WeChat was blocked and I could not speak out, people still messaged me privately to show concern, and others still agreed with my views. Even if I could only awaken one person to the truth, I would feel my efforts were not in vain.

These experiences are not isolated incidents but the result of a highly centralized system systematically crushing ordinary people. In 2025, China witnessed a series of shocking events: Following the Hong Fuk Court fire in Hong Kong, authorities refused accountability, suppressed public discourse, and controlled and threatened the bereaved families seeking justice; In the “Thousand-Person Anti-Bullying” incident in Jiangyou, Sichuan, long-standing collusion between local authorities and criminal gangs pushed ordinary citizens to their limits, culminating in large-scale protests; The death of a student in Pucheng, Shaanxi, was shrouded in suspicion. Authorities attempted to forcefully label it a “suicide,” sparking protests by tens of thousands of citizens who were met with violent suppression; At Xuchang No. 6 Middle School in Henan, thousands of students and parents staged collective protests against oppressive educational policies, leading to intense on-site clashes; Farmers on the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau resisted forced cremation campaigns, as local governments, under the guise of “civilized funerals,” forcibly stripped ethnic minorities and rural communities of fundamental human rights; Ongoing conflicts between street vendors and urban management officers in Kunming, Yunnan, reflect the systematic destruction of livelihoods for the underprivileged and the normalization of enforcement violence; In the Tianshui kindergarten poisoning case, parents seeking legal redress were labeled “stability maintenance targets,” with information about the incident blocked.

These incidents share a common thread: the people are not lawbreakers, but victims driven to desperation. The CCP regime’s response invariably takes one of two forms—blockade or suppression. All conclusions ultimately point to the same truth: the problem lies not in specific incidents, but in the regime itself.

It is precisely these bloody realities that have made me abandon all illusions. I no longer believe in so-called “reform from within the system,” nor in “gradual reform,” nor in the notion that “things will get better if we just endure.” My conclusion is singular: as long as the CCP regime persists, the suffering of the Chinese people will endure. Resistance movements in nations like Venezuela and Iran have unequivocally demonstrated that when people overcome fear, authoritarian regimes prove far less formidable than they claim. So-called “high-tech social stability maintenance,” “SkyNet surveillance systems,” and “absolute control” crumble like paper castles before genuine societal collapse.

It is precisely based on this assessment that I joined the China Democracy Party, taking a clear stand against the Chinese Communist Party. Overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party is my lifelong mission; as long as I live, my protest will continue. Therefore, I cannot return to China—this is not a hypothetical possibility, but an inevitability. In China’s current political climate, anyone involved in overseas democratic organizations who returns home can only expect imprisonment, enforced disappearance, or even physical destruction.

I choose to fight, not to remain silent. My mother’s passing exacted a tremendous emotional toll, yet it has sharpened my purpose. I fight so that no Chinese person need wander abroad like me, unable to return home. I fight so every person may have a secure home and travel freely. I fight so the people may truly attain democracy and freedom. We must redouble our efforts, unite our strength, and overthrow the CCP’s tyranny without delay.

What is life’s greatest happiness? The greatest happiness is to grow up in a normal country.

 

申请人：陈树庆，男，浙江省杭州市人，现住杭州市拱墅区大关苑东五苑6幢5单元202室，身份证号330106196509260073，联系电话15958160478.
被申请人：杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心
地址：杭州市拱墅区文晖路1号，联系电话：87882789。
负责人：王思婕     职务：主任

行政复议请求：请求被申请人履行法定社会保险责任，按照申请人的《浙江省职工基本养老保险历年参保证明》所表明的累计缴费24年4个月的年限，为申请人办好退休资格确认、核定退休金额并发放退休金。

 

事实与理由：

至2025年12月25日，申请人陈树庆已达法定退休年龄60周岁+3个月，实际已缴社会保险统筹24年4个月，超过了15年的最低缴费年限。

2025年12月25日上午10时39分许，陈树庆到被申请人设在拱墅区政务服务中心的办公场所办理退休手续，办事人员以陈树庆曾经因遭2007年“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑4年和2016年“颠覆国家政权罪”判刑10年6个月为由，社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加，剩余缴费年限只有九年多，不足最低缴费年限15年的规定，拒不办理申请人的退休资格，由于申请人多次要求，被申请人出具《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》，还有一份盖着被申请人印章的《告知书》，及一份制作日期是二〇一〇年九月三十日的《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件-浙人社函[2010]358号-关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函（此件依申请公开）》。申请人通过认真审阅和分析，认为前述《告知单》、《告知书》、浙人社函[2010]358号所依据的法律及政策明显适用不当或效力不足，申请人不服，根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第十一条“可依照本法申请复议”及该条第（十二）项关于的“申请行政机关依法给付抚恤金、社会保险待遇或者最低生活保障等社会保障，行政机关没有依法给付”情形规定，特向拱墅区人民政府申请复议，请求依法做出公正的决定，支持申请人的复议请求。

申请人认为，契约精神是现代文明社会得以稳定运行的基石，民以吏为师，全社会的诚实守信，政府行为要做表率。本案20多年来，申请人、申请人家属、申请人工作或社保挂靠的单位替申请人缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日申请人最后一次刑满释放后，到被申请人设在拱墅区香积寺东路58号的政务服务中心几次补缴中间断交的最近几年（这其中就包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。被申请人收取保险缴费的时候好好的，现在要被申请人履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“相关政策”为托词，拒不履行被申请人应负的社会保险责任，让人民对政府行为的信赖利益保护原则荡然无存。千里之提毁于蚁穴，每一个涉及政府“言而无信、约而不守”的案件，都会逐步侵蚀并最终摧毁政府的公信力。

本案的争议焦点，首先集中在具体行政行为中，民众对于政府的信赖利益能否得到保护，说的通俗一点，就是政府是否可以随意违约？申请人认为政府违约，其“理由”必须经得起严格的法律限制，本案杭州市拱墅区社会保险经办机构拒绝为陈树庆现在办理领取养老金资格，所依托的“相关政策”是否也站得住脚呢？不妨展开初步的分析如下：

本案的法律关系由两项事实构成，第一项是缴纳社保，其中包括服刑期间的缴纳是否有效？陈树庆、就业或代缴单位等是缴费义务人，政府（社保经办机构和财税机构）是收费权力人；第二项是到了法定年龄领取养老金，陈树庆变成了领取权利人（受益人），政府变成了社会保险支付的义务人。该行为由于社会保险经办机构根据法定授权履行政府的社会保险管理与服务职责，既有具体行政行为的性质，又由于该行为的整个过程由民事主体陈树庆一方和行政主体社保经办机构一方共同完成，类似于民事法律行为的“合同”。如果被申请人主张第一项事实陈树庆一方缴纳10年6个月刑期间的社会保险无效成立，那么本案被申请人制作的《告知书》、《告知单》上认为陈树庆只剩下9年10个月的有效缴费期也是确立的；如果陈树庆认为己方缴纳社保包括刑期内不存在法律规定无效的情形，应该认定有效，本案被申请人“约而不守”的《告知书》、《告知单》就是错误认定，代表政府方履职的被申请人应该尽快按规定替陈树庆办好退休手续并按时发放法定与约定的养老金。

现代法治社会是“对政府法无授权不可为，对民众是法无禁止即自由”，要主张作为民众陈树庆一方缴纳刑期内社会保险费的行为无效，除不可抗力无法继续履行外，就必须指出其“法”之所“禁”。对此《中华人民共和国民法典》对于民事法律行为的效力问题，就有类似的规定，在《民法典》第一编“总则”的第六章第三节第一百五十三条规定“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的民事法律行为无效。……违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效”，将“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定”或“违背公序良俗”的事实作为“无效”前提。

从被申请人提供的《告知书》中可见，其推翻约定、拒不履行对陈树庆的社会保险责任的理由是：根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》第二条第一款“在中华人民共和国境内的企业、个体经济组织（以下统称用人单位）和与之形成劳动关系的劳动者，适用本法”、第七十二条“用人单位和劳动者必须依法参加社会保险，缴纳社会保险费”，《中华人民共和国社会保险法》第十条第一款、第二款“职工应当参加基本养老保险，由用人单位和职工共同缴纳基本养老保险费。无雇工的个体工商户、未在用人单位参加基本养老保险的非全日制从业人员以及其他灵活就业人员可以参加基本养老保险，由个人缴纳基本养老保险费”，《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函》（浙人社函[2010]358号）规定“服刑人员在服刑期间不属于职工基本养老保险参保对象”。尤其在《告知书》里，以“属于违规参保缴费”为由，不是强调保险经办机构应拒收缴费人服刑期间参保缴费，而是强调其对于已缴社保，可以通过“该期间缴纳的职工基本养老保险应当清退”来毁约赖账。

显而易见，上述《劳动法》和《社会保险法》包括《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》里的规定，是要求用人单位和劳动者去缴纳社会保险费，立法目的是保障从业人员的社会保险权利，里面并没有“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”的强制性规定；至于浙人社函[2010]358号《复函》，是（此件依申请公开），根据法律未经公布不生效的原则，“依申请公开”不能等同于“公布”，没有对抗不知情相对人的任何效力；《复函》做出日期是“二〇一〇年九月三十日”、印发日期是2010年10月9日，对我在2010年9月13日已经结束的第一次服刑四年期间缴费显然没有追溯效果；更何况《复函》不具备《中华人民共和国立法法》中有关法律、行政法规、地方性法规、自治条例和单行条例、规章的级别和效果，属于无立法权的政府部门替自己“既当运动员，又当裁判员”制定的“比赛规则”，里面所指的“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”明显属于2018年2月8日施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉的解释》99 条将典型的关于行政主体“重大且明显违法”的情形之“第二，减损权利或增加义务的行政行为没有法律依据。”，所以《复函》也不能作为政府自己违约的依据。现在虽然还没有走到行政诉讼阶段，所谓“法无德不立”，一个良法的原理，比如最高法关于适用行政诉讼的《解释》第99条，应该不仅在司法实践中适用，在行政裁断中也是可供参照的。

申请人在与被申请人的工作人员交涉时，有工作人员解释说“你坐牢期间，无法成为前述《劳动法》等法律条款中规定的缴费企业的真实劳动者，你的职工养老保险只是虚拟的代缴形式，不符合法律和政策的规定”。当时，申请人申辩说“社保代缴，法律至今没有明令禁止，是社会保险开始统筹以来一直默认并在实践中广泛实行的政策，近二十多年来包括你们人社部门在内的机关事业单位许多一线工作人员，并没有在劳务派遣单位真实上班，但由劳务派遣单位代发报酬代缴社保，你们不能对人对己双重标准”他们回答说“劳务派遣是有法可依的”。申请人事后进一步了解了有关劳务派遣的法律、法规、规章和机关事业单位使用劳务派遣工的历史与现状后发现，这是以“合法”的形式掩盖编制内外实际上的双轨制所造成的身份性职业歧视，是严重违反《劳动法》、《劳动合同法》等法律“同工同酬”要求的行径，而且是超范围使用（注：《劳务派遣暂行规定》第二条“劳务派遣单位经营劳务派遣业务，企业（以下称用工单位）使用被派遣劳动者，适用本规定。依法成立的会计师事务所、律师事务所等合伙组织和基金会以及民办非企业单位等组织使用被派遣劳动者，依照本规定执行”。并未将机关事业单位列入使用被派遣劳动者的用工单位）、并为近年来国家有关部门在纠错、改进措施中明令禁止（注：财政部令第102号《政府购买服务管理办法》第十条 “以下各项不得纳入政府购买服务范围:……购买主体的人员招、聘用，以劳务派遣方式用工，以及设置公益性岗位”），申请人希望本案不要成为又一个类似“州官放火与百姓点灯”双重标准的典型。

申请人认为自已经到了法定年龄享受退休的资格与待遇，除了前述实际已缴费的年限及对政府信赖利益保护原则以外，没有任一现行法律的条款明确规定服刑人员在服刑期间不得参与社会保险（包括社保缴费）。而在对申请人的两次判刑的判决书中，判决了剥夺一定期限的人身自由与政治权利，并没有判决剥夺社会经济权利当然包括享有社会保险的权利。根据中华人民共和国政府1997年10月27日签署、全国人民代表大会常务委员会2001年2月28日批准的已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条：本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障，包括社会保险”的规定，申请人陈树庆并不因为其服刑就成了“人人”之外，应该享有社会保险。

 更何况，本案如果进一步展开下去，还牵涉到中国监狱普遍的对犯人强制无偿劳动的问题。陈树庆第一次坐牢期间自2008年1月至2010年9月共计2年零8个月在浙江省乔司监狱六分监狱七监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房菜班组进行菜肴初加工2年5个月；第二次坐牢期间自2017年1月至2025年3月共计8年2个月在浙江省乔司监狱三分监狱六监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房面食组烧制犯人主食7年11个月。两次坐牢期间不算第一次坐牢看守所里的零星劳动，实际参加监狱劳动累计10年10个月，所以，根据早在1948年12月10日联合国大会通过的《世界人权宣言》第四条“任何人不得使为奴隶或奴役，一切形式的奴隶制度和奴隶买卖，均应禁止”；第二十二条“每个人，作为社会的一员，有享有社会保障，并有权享有他的个人尊严和人格的自由发展所必须的经济、社会和文化方面各种权利的实现，……”；第二十三条第（二）款“人人有同工同酬之权利，不容任何区别”。中华人民共和国政府1998年10月5日签署的《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》也有“任何人不得使充奴工”的相关规定。按照这些国际法的要求，即使监狱犯人依法判决并以改造为目标的服“苦役”，也应与《中华人民共和国劳动法》相应的同工同酬及社会保险接轨。如果作为联合国常任理事国的我国政府能够遵守这些宣言与公约，将我服刑期间参加劳动应有的劳动报酬与社会保障予以考量和贯彻，即使我自己及亲朋好友工作单位替我服刑期间的缴费不算甚至没有交费，也够15年以上办理退休的资格与相关手续。

当然，政府遵守已经签署、甚至有的已经批准的《国际公约》，不仅是法治社会依法行政的要求，也是一个文明社会起码得“公序良俗”。

综上，鉴于申请人实际社保缴费24年4个月已经超过规定的最低缴费标准15年，鉴于申请人本人及打工企业、家属等在过去缴纳或补交社保费用时从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的告知，鉴于《中华人民共和国劳动法》、《中华人民共和国社会保险法》及其他任何一个具有《中华人民共和国立法法》所包含的具有法律地位与效力的规范性文件对于服刑期间的社保参与人并没有强制性条款明确排除，鉴于法院对于本案申请人已生效判决只明确剥夺人身及政治权利并没有剥夺社会经济权利（包括社会保险的权利），鉴于申请人服刑期间参加劳动及我国政府已经加入或批准具有国家法律效力的国际公约对于公民同工同酬及普遍无例外的社会保障要求，申请人提出行政复议申请，恳请复议机关拱墅区人民政府对本案复议请求予以支持，促使被申请人及时办理申请人的退休资格并履行对申请人按照缴费24年4个月年限应负的社会保险责任。

 

此致

 杭州市拱墅区人民政府
申请人：陈树庆
2026年1月25日

 

附：

一、本《行政复议申请书》副本1份；

二、申请人陈树庆身份证复印件（包含正反两面）1份；

三、申请人陈树庆的《养老保险历年参保证明》1份；

四、《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》1份；

五、盖着“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》1份；

六、《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件》浙人社函[2010]358号1份。

编辑：钟然 校对：程筱筱

Application for Administrative Reconsideration

Applicant: Chen Shuqing, male, resident of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Dong Fifth Compound, Daguanyuan, Gongshu District, Hangzhou.ID No.: 330106196509260073Contact No.: 15958160478

Respondent: Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service CenterAddress: No. 1 Wenhui Road, Gongshu District, HangzhouTelephone: 87882789Person in Charge: Wang SijiePosition: Director

Request for Administrative Reconsideration

The applicant requests that the respondent fulfill its statutory social insurance obligations, and, based on the cumulative contribution period of 24 years and 4 months as shown in the applicant’s Zhejiang Province Employee Basic Pension Insurance Contribution Record, complete the confirmation of the applicant’s retirement eligibility, calculate the retirement pension amount, and issue the pension payments accordingly.

Facts and Reasons

As of December 25, 2025, the applicant Chen Shuqing had reached the statutory retirement age of 60 years and 3 months, with 24 years and 4 months of actual social insurance contributions, exceeding the minimum required contribution period of 15 years.

At approximately 10:39 a.m. on December 25, 2025, Chen Shuqing went to the respondent’s office located at the Gongshu District Government Service Center to办理 retirement procedures. The staff refused to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility on the grounds that Chen Shuqing had previously been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in 2007 for the charge of “inciting subversion of state power,” and to ten years and six months’ imprisonment in 2016 for the charge of “subversion of state power.” The respondent deducted both periods of imprisonment from the contribution record, claiming that the remaining valid contribution period was only slightly more than nine years, which did not meet the minimum requirement of 15 years, and therefore refused to process the applicant’s retirement.

After repeated requests by the applicant, the respondent issued a Notice of Handling Matters of the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center, as well as a Notice bearing the respondent’s official seal, and a document dated September 30, 2010, titled Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Document—Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358—Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Disclosed Upon Request).

After careful review and analysis, the applicant believes that the legal and policy bases relied upon in the above-mentioned Notice of Handling Matters, Notice, and Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 are clearly misapplied or lack legal validity. The applicant refuses to accept these determinations and, pursuant to Article 11 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, as well as Item (12) thereof concerning situations where “an application is made for administrative authorities to provide pensions, social insurance benefits, or minimum living保障 in accordance with law, but the administrative authority fails to do so,” hereby applies to the People’s Government of Gongshu District for administrative reconsideration, requesting a fair and lawful decision in support of the applicant’s claims.

The applicant holds that the spirit of contract is the cornerstone of a stable modern civilized society. Officials serve as role models for the people, and government conduct must set an example of honesty and trustworthiness. For more than twenty years in this case, the applicant, the applicant’s family members, and the applicant’s employers or affiliated contribution units have paid social insurance contributions on the applicant’s behalf, and have never been clearly informed that contributions during periods of imprisonment were prohibited. Even after the applicant’s final release upon completion of sentence on March 10, 2025, the applicant was able to successfully make supplemental payments for interrupted contribution periods—including some periods during imprisonment—at the Government Service Center located at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District.

The respondent accepted these contributions without issue at the time of collection, yet now, when required to fulfill its insurance obligations, has abruptly reversed its position, using so-called “relevant policies” as a pretext to refuse to fulfill its legally mandated social insurance responsibilities. This conduct undermines the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in government actions. As the saying goes, “A dike a thousand miles long can be destroyed by an ant hole”; every case in which the government breaks its word and reneges on its commitments gradually erodes and ultimately destroys public trust.

The core issue in dispute in this case concerns whether, in specific administrative acts, the public’s legitimate expectation interests in government conduct can be protected—put simply, whether the government may arbitrarily breach its commitments. The applicant submits that any governmental breach must be subject to strict legal constraints. Thus, whether the “relevant policies” relied upon by the Gongshu District social insurance authority to refuse the applicant’s pension eligibility can withstand legal scrutiny merits analysis.

The legal relationship in this case consists of two factual elements. The first concerns the payment of social insurance contributions, including whether contributions made during periods of imprisonment are valid. Chen Shuqing, along with employing or proxy-paying entities, is the obligor of contributions, while the government (social insurance agencies and fiscal authorities) is the recipient. The second concerns the receipt of pension benefits upon reaching statutory retirement age, whereby Chen Shuqing becomes the rights holder (beneficiary), and the government becomes the obligor responsible for payment of social insurance benefits.

As social insurance agencies perform government-authorized management and service duties, the acts in question constitute specific administrative acts. At the same time, because the entire process involves both a civil subject (Chen Shuqing) and an administrative subject (the social insurance agency), it resembles a “contract” under civil law. If the respondent asserts that the applicant’s 10 years and 6 months of social insurance contributions during imprisonment are invalid, then the respondent’s determination that only 9 years and 10 months of valid contributions remain would follow. However, if the applicant’s position—that contributions including those made during imprisonment are not rendered invalid by any legal provision—is correct, then the respondent’s Notice and Notice of Handling Mattersconstitute erroneous determinations, and the respondent, acting on behalf of the government, should promptly complete the applicant’s retirement procedures and issue pension payments in accordance with law and agreement.

In a modern rule-of-law society, “what is not authorized by law is prohibited for the government; what is not prohibited by law is permitted for citizens.” To claim that the applicant’s social insurance contributions during imprisonment are invalid, it must be shown where the law explicitly prohibits such conduct. Article 153 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China provides that civil legal acts are invalid if they violate mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations, or contravene public order and good morals. Thus, invalidity must be premised on such violations.

The respondent’s Notice cites provisions of the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358), asserting that prisoners are not eligible participants in employee basic pension insurance during imprisonment. Notably, the Notice emphasizes not the refusal to accept contributions during imprisonment, but rather the repudiation of already-paid contributions by asserting they should be refunded.

It is evident that the cited Labor Law, Social Insurance Law, and the Zhejiang Province Employee Basic Pension Insurance Regulations aim to ensure social insurance rights for workers, and contain no mandatory provisions prohibiting prisoners from participating in social insurance. As for Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358, it was disclosed “upon request” and not promulgated, and therefore lacks binding effect against uninformed parties. Moreover, it lacks legislative authority under the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China and constitutes an ultra vires internal rule. Its assertion that prisoners may not participate in social insurance clearly falls under the category of administrative acts that “reduce rights or increase obligations without legal basis,” as described in Article 99 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law. Therefore, it cannot serve as a basis for the government’s breach.

The applicant further notes that no existing law explicitly prohibits prisoners from participating in social insurance, and that the criminal judgments against the applicant deprived him only of personal liberty and political rights, not of social and economic rights, including social insurance. Under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by the Chinese government in 1997 and ratified in 2001, everyone enjoys the right to social security, including social insurance.

Furthermore, this case implicates the widespread practice of compulsory unpaid prison labor in China. During his periods of imprisonment, Chen Shuqing performed prison labor for a cumulative total of 10 years and 10 months. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, forced labor, discrimination, and denial of equal remuneration are prohibited. Compliance with these international obligations would require that prison labor be aligned with labor law standards, including social insurance coverage.

In conclusion, given that the applicant’s actual contributions total 24 years and 4 months; that no notice prohibiting contributions during imprisonment was ever given; that no binding law excludes prisoners from social insurance participation; that the applicant’s criminal judgments did not deprive him of social insurance rights; and that international human rights instruments guarantee universal social security, the applicant respectfully requests that the Gongshu District People’s Government uphold this application for administrative reconsideration, require the respondent to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility promptly, and fulfill its social insurance obligations based on the full contribution period.

Respectfully

submitted to:The People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City

Applicant: Chen Shuqing

Date: January 25, 2026

Attachments:

One copy of this Application for Administrative Reconsideration

Copy of the applicant’s ID card (front and back)

Applicant’s Pension Insurance Contribution Record

Notice of Handling Matters issued by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center

Notice bearing the official seal of the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center

Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358

Editor: Zhong RanProofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao

作者：张 宇

编辑：周志刚 校对：程筱筱 翻译：彭小梅

她只有五个月。五个月，尚未学会翻身、尚未看清这个世界、尚未拥有任何表达“同意”或“拒绝”的能力，却已经完整地经历了这个国家最冷酷、最成熟、也最熟练的一整套权力运作流程：被交付给“权威系统”，在密不透风的专业语言中失去生命，随后被迅速定义、归档、降温、消音。

她叫小洛熙。在官方叙述中，她的死亡是一次“医疗过程中的不幸结果”；在体制语言里，她只是一个“个案”；在舆情管理的视角下，她的名字甚至不该被反复提及。

但问题恰恰在这里——一个五个月大的婴儿，不需要被“定性”；她需要被追问。

当一个孩子在手术台上离世，我们本应首先问的是：发生了什么？责任在哪里？谁该为此负责？医疗系统是否存在缺陷？

可在中国，这些问题从一开始就被系统性地规避了。不是因为答案太复杂，而是因为答案本身会威胁到体制的安全感。

在中共统治下，婴儿的死亡从来不是一场关于生命的公共讨论，而是一场关于“如何尽快结束事件”的内部协调。真相不是优先项，问责不是必选项，安抚、压制、定调才是。

小洛熙不是第一个在这样的逻辑中死去的孩子。她的名字之所以再次被提起，不是因为她“特殊”，而是因为她过于典型。典型到让人不得不承认：这不是一次偶发事故，而是一个高度熟练、运转顺畅、早已习惯的体制结果。

当一个政权连婴儿的死亡都无法坦然面对，连最低限度的公开、独立、可质询的调查都无法提供，却仍然反复高喊“人民之上”“生命之上”，那么问题就不再是“这家医院做错了什么”，而是——这样的体制，是否还具备对生命的基本尊重？

在任何一个正常社会里，一名五个月大的婴儿在手术后死亡，都应当自动触发一套清晰、独立、可被公众监督的程序：完整病历公开、手术决策逻辑说明、风险评估复盘、责任人明确、调查过程透明。但在中国，小洛熙的死亡并没有开启“追问”，而是迅速进入了另一套更熟悉的流程——控场、定调、降温、切割责任。我们看到的不是“解释发生了什么”，而是“告诉你可以知道什么”。

医疗叙事的第一步：用“专业壁垒”隔绝公众

在事件最初阶段，围绕手术必要性、风险评估、手术中应急处理、手术后监护等关键问题，公众并没有得到清晰问答。取而代之的，是大量高度技术化、无法被普通人核验的“专业表述”。这些语言并非为了澄清事实，而是为了制造距离——把质疑者挡在“你不专业、你不懂医学”的门外。在中共统治下，专业从来不只是知识体系，它是一种权力工具：当权者用它来决定谁有资格提问，谁必须闭嘴。但问题在于：医学的复杂性，从来不是拒绝透明的理由。恰恰相反，越是高风险决策，越需要清晰、可追溯的解释。

医疗事故如何被“去事故化”

紧接着出现的，是一种中国社会高度熟练的操作：将“可质询的医疗事故”，重新包装为“不可避免的医疗风险”。在这个叙事中——没有错误，只有遗憾；没有责任，只有不幸；没有制度问题，只有“个体差异”。这种话术的真正功能，是提前终止讨论。因为一旦被定义为“风险”，追责就会被视为“不理性”；追问就会被扣上“医闹”的帽子。这不是医学逻辑，这是政治逻辑。

谁决定调查？——体制最关键、也是最荒谬的一环

在中共体制下，调查医疗事故的，往往正是事故所在体系本身。医院隶属于行政系统，调查由行政系统主导，结论再由行政系统发布。这意味着什么？意味着这不是调查，而是内部协调；不是问责，而是风险管理。在这样的结构中，“真相”永远服从于“稳定”，“责任”永远让位于“形象”。当一个婴儿的死亡，必须首先考虑对系统的影响，而不是对生命的交代，结果其实早已写好。

舆论不是被回应，而是被管理

公众的愤怒、疑问与不安，并未得到正面回应，而是迅速进入舆情控制轨道：信息碎片化、讨论被限流、声音被标签化。这是中共治理体系中极其成熟的一环——不是解决问题，而是解决提出问题的人。于是小洛熙的死逐渐被处理成：“已经调查过了”、“正在依法处理”、“不要传播不实信息”。可问题是：当所有关键细节都不公开，当调查过程不可旁观，当结论无法质询，所谓“依法处理”，到底意味着什么？

中国共产党最擅长的事情之一，就是反复高举道德口号。“人民至上”“生命至上”“以人为本”——这些词在官方文件、新闻通稿和政治宣传中被不断重复，被塑造成政权合法性的核心来源。但问题是：当一个政权连一名五个月大婴儿的死亡都无法坦然面对时，这些口号还有任何意义吗？

在中共语境中，人民并不是一个拥有具体权利的主体，而是一个被抽象，被代表，被使用的概念。当人民“听话”“配合”“不制造麻烦”时，他们被称为“人民”；当人民提出质疑、要求解释、要求问责时，他们立刻被区分为：“个别人”“情绪化群体”“被煽动者”。这正是中共“人民至上”的真实含义——人民只存在于不提要求的时候。

在中国，生命真的至上吗？

如果生命真的至上，那么一个婴儿的死亡就应当触发最高级别的透明与追责；

如果生命真的至上，那么真相就不应当被延迟、筛选、降级发布；

如果生命真的至上，那么公众的知情权就不应被视为风险。

真正至上的，从来就不是生命，而是“可控性”。

中共可以继续在文件中书写“生命至上”，可以继续在新闻里反复强调“高度重视”，可以继续要求社会“理解”“理性”。但只要它拒绝建立真正独立的调查机制，拒绝让权力接受公众质询，拒绝承认制度本身的责任，那么这些话语就只能暴露出一个事实：它需要口号，正是因为它无法承担后果。

一个连婴儿死亡都无法面对的政权，谈“人民至上”，不是虚伪，而是对生命的再次侮辱。

小洛熙不是被“命运”带走的。她是被一个拒绝被追问、拒绝被监督、拒绝为弱者让出空间的体制吞没的。

而这个体制，正是中国共产党。

今天如果我们允许她的死亡被降级为“个案”，明天被降级的，就会是更多无法发声的人；今天如果我们接受“已经处理”的说法，明天“处理”的，就可能是任何一个普通家庭的孩子。这不是危言耸听。这是中共治理逻辑反复证明过的现实。在这样的体制下，顺从换不来安全，沉默换不来保障，遗忘只会换来重复。

所以，记住小洛熙，不是为了悲伤，而是为了拒绝。拒绝把婴儿的死亡当作治理成本；拒绝让“稳定”压到生命；拒绝接受一个连最弱者都无法保护的政权，却要求人民感恩。她不是一个结尾，她是一份指控。这不是一篇悼文，这是一次拒绝。

She Was Only Five Months Old

Author: Zhang Yu Editor: Zhou Zhigang

Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:Five-month-old infant Xiao Luoxi died tragically due to a medical accident. Yet under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, the truth was buried and accountability suppressed.

She was only five months old.Five months—she had not yet learned to roll over, had not yet clearly seen the world, had not yet possessed any ability to express “consent” or “refusal,” and yet she had already fully experienced this country’s coldest, most mature, and most well-practiced set of power operations: being handed over to an “authoritative system,” losing her life amid airtight professional jargon, and then being swiftly defined, archived, cooled down, and silenced.

Her name was Xiao Luoxi. In the official narrative, her death was an “unfortunate outcome during a medical process”; in institutional language, she was merely an “individual case”; from the perspective of public-opinion management, her name was not even supposed to be mentioned repeatedly.

But the problem lies precisely here—a five-month-old infant does not need to be “classified.” She needs to be questioned.

When a child dies on an operating table, the first questions we should ask are: What happened? Where does responsibility lie? Who should be held accountable? Are there flaws in the medical system?

But in China, these questions are systematically avoided from the very beginning. Not because the answers are too complex, but because the answers themselves would threaten the system’s sense of security.

Under CCP rule, the death of an infant is never a public discussion about life, but an internal coordination exercise on “how to end the incident as quickly as possible.” Truth is not a priority, accountability is not mandatory—appeasement, suppression, and narrative control are.

Xiao Luoxi was not the first child to die under this logic. Her name is mentioned again not because she is “special,” but because she is too typical—so typical that one must admit this was not an accidental mishap, but the result of a highly skilled, smoothly operating, long-familiar system.

When a regime cannot face the death of an infant openly, cannot even provide the most basic public, independent, and question-able investigation, yet continues to loudly proclaim “the people above all” and “life above all,” then the question is no longer “what did this hospital do wrong,” but rather—does such a system still possess the most basic respect for life?

In any normal society, the death of a five-month-old infant after surgery should automatically trigger a clear, independent, and publicly supervised process: full disclosure of medical records, explanation of surgical decision-making, review of risk assessments, identification of responsible parties, and a transparent investigation. But in China, Xiao Luoxi’s death did not initiate “inquiry”; it swiftly entered another, far more familiar process—crowd control, narrative setting, de-escalation, and responsibility dilution. What we saw was not an explanation of what happened, but a declaration of what you are allowed to know.

1. The First Step of the Medical Narrative: Using “Professional Barriers” to Exclude the Public

At the initial stage, the public received no clear answers regarding key questions such as the necessity of the surgery, risk assessment, intraoperative emergency handling, or postoperative monitoring. Instead, there was an abundance of highly technical, unverifiable “professional statements.” These were not meant to clarify facts, but to create distance—to keep questioners outside the gate of “you’re not professional, you don’t understand medicine.”

Under CCP rule, professionalism is never just a body of knowledge; it is a tool of power. Those in authority use it to decide who is qualified to ask questions and who must remain silent. Yet the complexity of medicine has never been a justification for refusing transparency. On the contrary, the higher the risk of a decision, the greater the need for clear and traceable explanations.

2. How Medical Accidents Are “De-Accidentized”

What followed was a highly practiced maneuver in Chinese society: repackaging a “questionable medical accident” as an “unavoidable medical risk.” In this narrative, there are no mistakes, only regret; no responsibility, only misfortune; no systemic problems, only “individual differences.”

The real function of this rhetoric is to terminate discussion in advance. Once something is defined as “risk,” accountability is labeled “irrational,” and questioning is branded as “medical disturbance.” This is not medical logic—it is political logic.

3. Who Decides the Investigation? — The Most Critical and Most Absurd Link

Under the CCP system, those who investigate medical accidents are often the very system in which the accident occurred. Hospitals belong to the administrative system; investigations are led by the administrative system; conclusions are released by the administrative system.

What does this mean? It means this is not an investigation, but internal coordination, not accountability, but risk management. In such a structure, “truth” always yields to “stability,” and “responsibility” always gives way to “image.” When an infant’s death must first be weighed in terms of its impact on the system rather than an account owed to life, the outcome is already written.

4. Public Opinion Is Not Responded to, but Managed

Public anger, doubt, and anxiety were not met head-on, but were quickly channeled into public-opinion control: information fragmentation, throttling of discussion, and labeling of voices. This is one of the most mature components of CCP governance—not solving problems but solving those who raise problems.

Thus, Xiao Luoxi’s death was gradually processed into phrases like “it has been investigated,” “it is being handled according to law,” and “do not spread unverified information.” But the question remains: when all key details are undisclosed, when the investigation process cannot be observed, when conclusions cannot be challenged—what does “handled according to law” mean?

One of the CCP’s greatest talents is endlessly brandishing moral slogans: “people-centered,” “life above all,” “human-oriented.” These phrases are repeated in official documents, press releases, and political propaganda, and are molded into the core source of regime legitimacy. But when a regime cannot even face the death of a five-month-old infant openly, do these slogans still hold any meaning?

In the CCP’s context, “the people” are not concrete rights-bearing subjects, but an abstract, represented, and instrumentalized concept. When the people are “obedient,” “cooperative,” and “cause no trouble,” they are called “the people.” When they question, demand explanations, or demand accountability, they are immediately reclassified as “a few individuals,” “emotional groups,” or “those being incited.”

This is the true meaning of the CCP’s “people above all”—the people exist only when they make no demands.

Is life truly above all in China?

If life were truly above all, then the death of an infant would trigger the highest level of transparency and accountability;If life were truly above all, then truth would not be delayed, filtered, or downgraded;If life were truly above all, then the public’s right to know would not be treated as a risk.

What is truly above all has never been life—it is “controllability.”

The CCP can continue to write “life above all” into documents, continue to emphasize “great importance” in the news, and continue to demand that society “understand” and “remain rational.” But as long as it refuses to establish truly independent investigative mechanisms, refuses to subject power to public scrutiny, and refuses to acknowledge the system’s own responsibility, these words only expose one fact: it needs slogans precisely because it cannot bear consequences.

A regime that cannot face the death of an infant yet speaks of “people above all” is not merely hypocritical—it is committing a second insult to life.

Xiao Luoxi was not taken away by “fate.” She was swallowed by a system that refuses to be questioned, refuses to be supervised, and refuses to make room for the weak.

And that system is the Chinese Communist Party.

If today we allow her death to be downgraded into an “individual case,” tomorrow what will be downgraded will be even more voiceless people. If today we accept the claim that “it has been handled,” tomorrow what will be “handled” may be any ordinary family’s child. This is not alarmism—it is a reality repeatedly proven by the CCP’s governance logic.

Under such a system, obedience does not bring safety, silence does not bring protection, and forgetting only brings repetition.

Therefore, remembering Xiao Luoxi is not for mourning, but for refusal.Refusal to treat an infant’s death as a governance cost;Refusal to let “stability” outweigh life;Refusal to accept a regime that cannot protect its weakest, yet demands gratitude from the people.

She is not an ending. She is an indictment.This is not a eulogy. It is a refusal.

《在野党》记者 缪青 旧金山报道

编辑：钟然 责任编辑：胡丽莉 校对：程筱筱 翻译：彭小梅

集会现场（蒋树清摄影）

2026年1月17日下午，中国民主党旧金山党部与中国民主教育基金会在中国驻旧金山总领事馆前举行公开抗议集会，声援伊朗人民持续进行的反政府抗争，并强烈谴责中国共产党政权在伊朗镇压民众过程中所扮演的“专制技术后台”角色。

此次集会以“声援伊朗人民自由抗争，声讨邪恶后台独裁中共”为主题。参与者在旧金山中共匪领馆门外集结，手举中英文标语，高呼“Free Iran”“Azadi! Azadi! Azadi!”以及“Take Down CCP”“Take Down Khamenei”等口号，明确将伊朗神权体制的血腥镇压，与中共在全球范围内输出专制治理模式联系起来。

伊朗抗议浪潮：长期压迫下的再次爆发

自2025年末以来，伊朗多地再度爆发大规模反政府抗议。表面诱因各异，但根本原因高度一致：长期的政治高压、经济濒临崩溃、青年失业率高企、女性与少数族群遭受系统性歧视，以及对言论、信仰和人身自由的全面剥夺。

伊朗当局延续其数十年来的治理模式，以革命卫队、巴斯基民兵和准军事力量直接介入镇压，动用实弹、夜间抓捕、酷刑审讯、快速审判乃至死刑威胁来压制社会反抗。同时，多次实施全国性断网与通讯封锁，试图切断信息传播链条，掩盖镇压规模与真实伤亡情况。

多家国际人权组织指出，伊朗的镇压并非临时应对，而是高度制度化的国家暴力，其核心目的不是“恢复秩序”，而是通过制造恐惧维持政权生存。这种逻辑，正是当代威权专制体制的共同特征。

中共的“不可见之手”：威权合作的现实样本

多位发言者在现场强调，伊朗政权的残酷统治并非孤立存在，而是嵌入在一个跨国威权合作网络之中。在这一网络里，中共正扮演着越来越关键的角色。

近年来，中共不仅向外输出资本与基础设施，更系统性地输出一整套“高科技镇压方案”包括监控体系、网络审查、信息封锁、数据追踪与社会控制模型。这些技术与经验，已在伊朗得到现实应用，使镇压更精准、更高效，也更难被外界察觉。

缪青：专制正在合流，自由必须结盟

中国民主党旧金山宣传部副部长、《在野党》旧金山记者站站长缪青先生在集会上发表发言指出，声援伊朗人民并非地缘政治立场选择，而是基本价值判断。

他强调，伊朗的高压统治不是孤立的国内问题，而是全球专制合流的一个前线案例。“在伊朗神权政权背后，已经清楚地出现了一个邪恶后台：中国共产党政权。”缪青指出，中共不仅在国内系统性镇压人民，也正在将监控、维稳与恐惧治理的模式输出到世界各地。

缪青表示，作为亲身经历中共极权、并因此被迫流亡的人，中国民主人士有责任对国际社会讲清楚一个事实：今天如果对伊朗人民的血腥镇压保持沉默，明天就无法阻止专制政权之间继续相互扶持、相互复制。

“专制政权彼此声援，自由的人就更必须彼此站在一起。”他说，“沉默不是中立，沉默是在为邪恶让路。”

中国民主党旧金山宣传部副部长、《在野党》旧金山记者站站长缪青（蒋树清摄影）

陈森锋：镇压技术输出必须被清算

中国民主党党员陈森锋先生在发言中，系统梳理了中共介入伊朗镇压的多项公开事实。

他指出，多方国际媒体、人权组织与情报来源已经披露：中国制造的监控与人脸识别设备，被广泛部署于伊朗街头，用于识别、追踪和抓捕抗议者；中资安防企业被指直接向伊朗军警及革命卫队提供监控系统；疑似中国来源的军用或军民两用物资，在运往伊朗途中被美方拦截；伊朗在全国断网、干扰卫星通讯期间，使用的复杂电子战与信号干扰技术，被专家怀疑来自中俄支持；中共官方在外交与舆论层面，持续为伊朗镇压行为辩护或保持纵容立场。

他强调，任何向独裁政权提供武器、监控技术与镇压工具的行为，本质上都是反人类罪行，必须被追责清算。

中国民主党党员陈森锋（缪青摄影）

何聪：让真相突破断网与封锁

中国民主党党员何聪先生在发言中，呼吁公众利用自媒体与社交平台传播伊朗正在发生的暴行。他指出，伊朗当局切断网络，正是为了阻止世界看到真相。

“我们每一个看到伊朗屠杀人民消息的人，都应该转发出去。”何聪说，“只要坚持，量变一定会产生质变。压死骆驼的稻草，就是我们每一个人丢上去的那一根。”

中国民主党党员何聪（缪青摄影）

卫仁喜：这不是骚乱，而是国家暴力

中国民主党党员卫仁喜先生指出，今天伊朗发生的不是“骚乱”，而是国家对人民的系统性暴力。断网、夜间抓人、当街开枪、快速审判与重刑威慑，清楚表明政权已丧失通过合法性治理社会的能力。

他强调，伊朗并不孤立，而是处于一个以镇压人民为共同特征的“威权轴心”之中，而中共在外交、经济与技术层面的长期支持，客观上增强了伊朗政权的镇压能力。

中国民主党党员卫仁喜（缪青摄影）

孙诚：伊朗神权政权是成熟的反人类体系

原自由亚洲电台记者孙诚先生在发言中，从历史纵深系统揭露了伊朗神权政权的反人类本质。他指出，自1979年夺权以来，该政权通过大规模处决政治犯、系统性谋杀异议知识分子、残酷镇压女性与宗教少数群体，建立了一个成熟而稳定的暴力统治体系。

孙诚回顾，1988年伊朗当局曾一次性处决约三万名政治犯；在此后数十年中，多次民主抗议浪潮均遭血腥镇压。近年来，伊朗更与中共、普京集团深度捆绑，构成新的威权轴心，在中东、欧洲与亚洲多地制造战争、恐怖与人权灾难。

他强调，伊朗对基督徒、巴哈伊教徒、逊尼派穆斯林以及性少数群体的迫害，已经构成持续性的反人类罪行，而这种政权之所以得以存续，正是因为获得了威权盟友的现实支持。

原自由亚洲电台记者孙诚先生（缪青摄影）

结语：自由的敌人正在结盟，自由的人必须如此

集会最后，与会者再次高呼“Azadi! Azadi! Azadi!”这一伊朗民主运动的象征性口号。主办方表示，此次行动不仅是对伊朗人民的声援，更是对全球威权合流趋势的公开警告。

当独裁者跨越国界、共享镇压经验时，自由世界若继续沉默与妥协，代价将由无数普通人承担。

枪口或许可以暂时压制愤怒，但永远无法消灭人民对自由的渴望。任何建立在恐惧之上的秩序，终将崩塌。

参加本次活动的民运人士名单：方政，缪青，崔允星，孙诚，庄帆，李树青，陈森峰，高应芬，卫仁喜，卢占强，蒋书清，国盼，陈光升，何聪，马力, 唐奇, 吴志创, 刘玉（排名不分先后）

Standing with the Iranian People Against TyrannyExposing the Global Harm of the Chinese Communist Party’s Export of AuthoritarianismSan Francisco Pro-Democracy Activists Rally in Front of the Chinese Consulate

Reported by Miao Qing, Opposition Party, San Francisco

Editor: Zhong Ran Managing Editor: Hu Lili

Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:On January 17, 2026, the San Francisco branch of the Chinese Democracy Party and other groups held a rally in front of the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco to support Iran’s anti-government resistance. The demonstrators condemned the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for exporting surveillance and repression technologies to Iran, warned of the global convergence of authoritarianism, and called on the free world to unite and speak out.

At the Rally (Photo by Jiang Shuqing)

On the afternoon of January 17, 2026, the San Francisco branch of the Chinese Democracy Party, together with the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation, held a public protest rally in front of the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco. The event expressed solidarity with the Iranian people’s ongoing anti-government struggle and strongly condemned the role played by the CCP as a “backstage provider of authoritarian technology” in Iran’s repression of its population.

The rally was themed “Stand with the Iranian People’s Struggle for Freedom; Condemn the Evil Backstage Dictatorship of the CCP.” Participants gathered outside the CCP consulate, holding placards in both Chinese and English and chanting slogans such as “Free Iran,” “Azadi! Azadi! Azadi!,” and “Take Down CCP,” “Take Down Khamenei.” The demonstrators explicitly linked the Iranian theocratic regime’s bloody repression to the CCP’s global export of authoritarian governance models.

Iran’s Protest Wave: A Renewed Eruption After Long-Term Oppression

Since late 2025, large-scale anti-government protests have once again erupted across many parts of Iran. While the immediate triggers vary, the fundamental causes are strikingly consistent: prolonged political repression, an economy on the brink of collapse, persistently high youth unemployment, systemic discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, and the comprehensive deprivation of freedom of expression, belief, and personal liberty.

Iranian authorities have continued their decades-old governance model, deploying the Revolutionary Guards, Basij militias, and other paramilitary forces directly to suppress dissent. Live ammunition, nighttime raids, torture during interrogations, expedited trials, and threats of capital punishment have all been used to crush social resistance. At the same time, nationwide internet shutdowns and communications blackouts have been repeatedly imposed in an attempt to sever information flows and conceal the scale of repression and the true number of casualties.

Multiple international human rights organizations have noted that Iran’s repression is not a temporary response, but a highly institutionalized form of state violence. Its core purpose is not to “restore order,” but to sustain regime survival through fear—precisely the defining logic of contemporary authoritarian systems.

The CCP’s “Invisible Hand”: A Real-World Model of Authoritarian Cooperation

Several speakers at the rally emphasized that Iran’s brutal rule does not exist in isolation but is embedded within a transnational network of authoritarian cooperation, in which the CCP is playing an increasingly pivotal role.

In recent years, the CCP has not only exported capital and infrastructure abroad but has also systematically exported a comprehensive set of “high-tech repression solutions,” including surveillance systems, internet censorship, information blackouts, data tracking, and models of social control. These technologies and practices have already been applied in Iran, making repression more precise, more efficient, and harder for the outside world to detect.

Miao Qing: Authoritarianism Is Converging; Freedom Must Do the Same

Mr. Miao Qing, Deputy Director of the Publicity Department of the San Francisco branch of the Chinese Democracy Party and Director of the San Francisco Correspondent Station of In-Exile Party, delivered a speech at the rally, stating that supporting the Iranian people is not a matter of geopolitical positioning, but a fundamental moral judgment.

He stressed that Iran’s high-pressure rule is not merely an isolated domestic issue, but a frontline example of the global convergence of authoritarianism. “Behind Iran’s theocratic regime, an evil backstage has clearly emerged—the Chinese Communist Party,” Miao said. He noted that the CCP not only systematically represses its own people, but is also exporting its models of surveillance, ‘stability maintenance,’ and fear-based governance around the world.

Miao added that as individuals who have personally experienced CCP totalitarianism and been forced into exile because of it, Chinese democrats have a responsibility to make one fact clear to the international community: if the world remains silent in the face of the bloody repression of the Iranian people today, it will be impossible to prevent authoritarian regimes from continuing to support and replicate one another tomorrow.

“Authoritarian regimes stand with each other; people who cherish freedom must stand together even more,” he said. “Silence is not neutrality. Silence is clearing the way for evil.”

Miao Qing, Deputy Director of Publicity, San Francisco Branch of the Chinese Democracy Party, and Head of the San Francisco Bureau of Opposition Party (Photo by Jiang Shuqing)

Chen Senfeng: The Export of Repression Technology Must Be Held Accountable

Mr. Chen Senfeng, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party, systematically laid out publicly available evidence of the CCP’s involvement in Iran’s repression.

He pointed out that multiple international media outlets, human rights organizations, and intelligence sources have revealed the following: Chinese-made surveillance and facial-recognition equipment has been widely deployed on Iranian streets to identify, track, and arrest protesters; Chinese security companies have been accused of directly supplying monitoring systems to Iranian police and the Revolutionary Guards; military or dual-use materials suspected to be of Chinese origin have been intercepted by U.S. authorities en route to Iran; the sophisticated electronic warfare and signal-jamming technologies used during Iran’s nationwide internet shutdowns and satellite interference have been suspected by experts to originate from Chinese and Russian support; and the CCP has consistently defended or tacitly condoned Iran’s repression at the diplomatic and propaganda levels.

He emphasized that any act of providing weapons, surveillance technologies, or repression tools to dictatorships is, in essence, a crime against humanity and must be investigated and held accountable.

Chen Senfeng, Member of the Chinese Democracy Party (Photo by Miao Qing)

He Cong: Let the Truth Break Through Shutdowns and Blockades

Mr. He Cong, also a member of the Chinese Democracy Party, called on the public to use independent media and social platforms to disseminate information about the atrocities unfolding in Iran. He noted that Iran’s internet shutdowns are designed precisely to prevent the world from seeing the truth.

“Every one of us who sees news of the Iranian regime slaughtering its own people should share it,” He said. “As long as we persist, quantitative change will inevitably lead to qualitative change. The straw that breaks the camel’s back is the one each of us adds.”

He Cong, Member of the Chinese Democracy Party (Photo by Miao Qing)

Wei Renxi: This Is Not Unrest, but State Violence

Mr. Wei Renxi stressed that what is happening in Iran today is not “rioting,” but systematic state violence against its own people. Internet shutdowns, nighttime arrests, shooting civilians in the streets, expedited trials, and harsh sentencing clearly show that the regime has lost the ability to govern society through legitimacy.

He emphasized that Iran is not isolated, but part of an “authoritarian axis” defined by the shared practice of repressing citizens, and that the CCP’s long-term diplomatic, economic, and technological support has objectively strengthened Iran’s capacity for repression.

Wei Renxi, Member of the Chinese Democracy Party (Photo by Miao Qing)

Sun Cheng: Iran’s Theocratic Regime Is a Mature System of Crimes Against Humanity

Mr. Sun Cheng, a former Radio Free Asia journalist, spoke from a historical perspective to expose the crimes-against-humanity nature of Iran’s theocratic regime. He stated that since seizing power in 1979, the regime has built a mature and stable system of violent rule through mass executions of political prisoners, systematic assassinations of dissident intellectuals, and brutal repression of women and religious minorities.

Sun recalled that in 1988, Iranian authorities executed approximately 30,000 political prisoners in a single sweep, and that in the decades since, every major wave of democratic protest has been crushed with bloodshed. In recent years, Iran has become deeply bound to the CCP and the Putin regime, forming a new authoritarian axis that has generated war, terror, and human rights disasters across the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.

He emphasized that Iran’s persecution of Christians, Bahá’ís, Sunni Muslims, and sexual minorities constitutes ongoing crimes against humanity, and that the regime’s continued survival is made possible precisely by the tangible support of its authoritarian allies.

Mr. Sun Cheng, former Radio Free Asia journalist (Photo by Miao Qing)

Conclusion: The Enemies of Freedom Are Uniting—So Must the Free

At the conclusion of the rally, participants once again chanted “Azadi! Azadi! Azadi!”—the iconic slogan of Iran’s democratic movement. Organizers stated that this action was not only an expression of solidarity with the Iranian people, but also a public warning about the accelerating convergence of global authoritarianism.

When dictators cross borders and share methods of repression, continued silence and compromise by the free world will exact a price paid by countless ordinary people.

Guns may temporarily suppress anger, but they can never extinguish the people’s longing for freedom. Any order built on fear is ultimately destined to collapse.

Participants in this event: Fang Zheng, Miao Qing, Cui Yunxing, Sun Cheng, Zhuang Fan, Li Shuqing, Chen Senfeng, Gao Yingfen, Wei Renxi, Lu Zhanqiang, Jiang Shuqing, Guo Pan, Chen Guangsheng, He Cong, Ma Li, Tang Qi, Wu Zhichuang, Liu Yu (listed in no order).

作者：蔡晓丽 编辑：Gloria 校对：程筱筱 翻译：周敏

2026年1月18日下午，由中国民主党全国委员会河南省工委发起第773次“茉莉花行动”在洛杉矶中共领事馆前举行。来自中国民主党及多个公民团体的成员、家长与人权活动人士集结于此，以“守护孩子生命 · 追问校园真相”为主题，抗议中共长期存在、且愈发指向未成年人群体的系统性活体摘取器官反人类罪行。

此次行动中国民主党全委会河南工委、青年部、影视部、西科维纳支部、山东工委联合举行，聚焦近一年内中国多起校园及青少年离奇死亡事件。这些事件的共同特征是：

死亡原因草率定性、抢救过程不透明、遗体被迅速转移、家属维权遭打压、关键信息被封锁。

多起案件，指向同一结构性黑洞

 2025年11月，云南昆明：两名青年被同时宣布“脑死亡”，却在极短时间内完成约30台器官移植手术，速度与规模严重违背医学常识。

  2025年12月，安徽亳州蒙城：一名学生课间摔倒休克，校方长达16分钟未实施有效急救，最终脑死亡，责任无人追究。

 2026年1月，河南驻马店新蔡县：13岁男童校内离奇死亡，遗体被私自转移，家属维权遭打压，孩子姑父至今下落不明。

当校园与医院不再安全，当“脑死亡”成为快捷结论，当器官去向无法被独立核查，公众无法不再次追问——这些孩子，究竟死于意外，还是死于制度？

现场发言记录：

图为林养正（中国民主党全委会党员）

林养正从教育体制切入，指出中共校园早已异化为压迫、服从与筛选的系统，并明确将校园死亡与活摘器官问题联系起来。他提出面向家长的“三个拒绝”：拒绝体制教育、拒绝抽血体检、拒绝官方叙事，以非暴力不合作方式保护孩子。“这比奥斯维辛更邪恶，却发生在21世纪的中国。”

图为刘芳（中国民主党全委会党员）

刘芳讲述了自己从“完全不知情”到直面真相的过程。她指出，在一个能精准监控公民行踪的国家里，孩子却可以在校园中“无记录地死亡”。“这不是科学奇迹，是制度问题。如果一个国家有能力监控一切，却‘无力’保护孩子，那问题出在体制本身。”

图为康余（中国民主党全委会党员）

康余系统性指出，中国存在制度化强制器官移植的问题，且证据正越来越多地指向未成年人。“器官不是商品，生命不是资源。儿童不是实验对象，更不是器官储备库。没有问责，就不会停止。”他呼吁对中国器官移植体系展开独立国际调查。

图为张宇（中国民主党全委会党员）（母亲）

张宇表示，自己来到美国并不被家人理解，但正是因为见过太多医疗体系中的异常，才无法保持沉默。她提到五个月大的婴儿“洛熙”在无明确手术指征的情况下被实施心脏手术，最终死亡，尸检显示体内伤口未缝合。“洛熙在人世间的时间，甚至没有在妈妈肚子里的时间长。再看看这些正值花季却成为别人器官库的孩子，我作为一个母亲，感到万分痛心。我站在这里，是为国内所有孩子发声。”

图为黄娟（中国民主党全委会党员）

黄娟指出，在全国布满摄像头、对人民高度监控的国家里，学生死亡事件中监控却频频“损坏”或“消失”。她强调，所谓“免费抽血体检”并非福利，而是器官筛选。“我们不能成为下一个失踪的人。我坚决反对活摘器官，反对迫害青少年儿童，习近平独裁下台。”

图为卓皓然（中国民主党全委会党员）

卓皓然强调，中共非法器官移植产业已将黑手伸向未成年人。“器官捐献必须自愿、透明、有人权保障。任何强迫、诱导、买卖，都是犯罪！”

图为朱晓娜（中国民主党全委会党员）（发起人主持人之一，母亲）

朱晓娜以母亲身份发言，系统回顾三起案件，直指“脑死亡”被滥用、遗体被迅速转运的危险模式。

“当校园不再安全，当医院不再值得信任，这个社会，还有哪里是孩子可以立身的地方？”

她明确提出四项诉求：独立调查、信息公开、保障家属权利、立即停止并追责活摘器官罪行。

图为胡景（中国民主党全委会党员）

胡景回顾江西胡鑫宇案、武汉学生失踪案，以及早年在香港看到的法轮功学员活摘器官揭露资料。

“发生在别人身上的灾难，随时可能降临到我们自己身上。正因为身处自由世界，我们才更有责任站出来揭示真相。”

同日联动：旧金山湾区同步行动

除洛杉矶主场行动外，美国旧金山湾区当日亦举行了主题一致的抗议活动。

本次旧金山湾区行动由李海风、张勇策划，进一步显示出美国各地民主人权团体已就“校园安全”“青少年生命权”与“活摘器官”问题形成持续、跨城市的联合行动。

“如果有一天，我突然被通知死亡，妈妈，不是我不想继续长大，只是我恰好血型适配。如果有一天，我突然不能再回家，妈妈，不是我忘记了回家的路，只是我的某个器官被它们需要。再见妈妈，如果有来生，我依然选择做你的孩子，只是，我希望我们不再被当作物料。”这些文字，成为对中共将儿童与青少年视为“器官资源”的最直接控诉。

海外联动：欧洲同步响应，抗议走向国际

与此同时，本次声援与抗议行动并非仅限于美国。由新蔡县旅欧异议人士杨肖杰响应中国民主党全国委员会的呼吁，多名旅欧华人与欧洲民主人士当日在中国驻法兰克福总领馆前举行同步抗议活动。参与者以静默悼念与举牌抗议的方式，公开谴责中共非法器官移植、信息封锁与独裁统治。

集会现场明确要求中共当局停止器官掠夺行为，并就河南新蔡县“今是清华园”一名未成年人死亡事件接受独立、国际调查。参与者指出，一个依靠删帖、封锁与警力维稳来掩盖真相的政权，本身就已构成对人权的系统性侵犯；当真相需要跨国发声，恰恰说明体制内部早已失去自我纠错的可能。

本次行动由：陈恩得、赵杰、朱晓娜、高晗、林养正发起，赵杰、陈恩得策划，

蔡晓丽统筹，赵杰、朱晓娜主持，林小龙摄影，马群摄像，陈恩得网络直播，

高晗、陳信男、康余维持现场秩序，郑洲 王府负责物料，倪世成 卓皓然活动现场负责人。

这场由中国民主党河南工委在洛杉矶发起，旧金山、德国响应的抗议，不只是为已经失去生命的孩子，更是为那些仍然活着、却身处危险之中的孩子。

Protecting Children’s Lives · Seeking the Truth of the Campus

—The 773rd Jasmine Action in Los Angeles Protests the CCP’s “Live Organ Harvesting” Crimes Against Humanity

Author: Cai Xiaoli Editor: Gloria Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min

On the afternoon of January 18, 2026, the 773rd “Jasmine Action,” initiated by the Henan Provincial Committee of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party, was held in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles. Members of the China Democratic Party and multiple civic groups, parents, and human rights activists gathered here under the theme “Protecting Children’s Lives · Seeking the Truth of the Campus” to protest the CCP’s long-standing and increasingly systematic crimes against humanity involving live organ harvesting targeting minors.

This action was jointly held by the Henan Provincial Committee, Youth Department, Film and Television Department, West Covina Branch, and Shandong Provincial Committee of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party. It focused on multiple bizarre deaths of teenagers and incidents on campuses in China within the past year. The common characteristics of these incidents are: The cause of death is hastily determined, the rescue process is opaque, the remains are quickly transferred, family members’ rights protection efforts are suppressed, and key information is blocked.

Multiple Cases Pointing to the Same Structural Black Hole.

November 2025, Kunming, Yunnan: Two young people were simultaneously declared “brain-dead,” yet approximately 30 organ transplant surgeries were completed within an extremely short period. The speed and scale seriously violate medical common sense.

December 2025, Mengcheng, Bozhou, Anhui: A student collapsed and went into shock during class; the school failed to implement effective first aid for as long as 16 minutes, eventually leading to brain death, with no one held accountable.

January 2026, Xincai County, Zhumadian, Henan: A 13-year-old boy died bizarrely on campus; the body was transferred without authorization, family members’ rights protection efforts were suppressed, and the child’s uncle remains missing to this day.

When campuses and hospitals are no longer safe, when “brain death” becomes a shortcut conclusion, and when the destination of organs cannot be independently verified, the public cannot help but ask again—did these children die of accidents, or did they die of the system?

Records of On-site Speeches:

(Image: Lin Yangzheng, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party)

Lin Yangzheng began from the perspective of the educational system, pointing out that CCP campuses have long since degenerated into systems of oppression, obedience, and screening, and he explicitly linked campus deaths to the issue of live organ harvesting. He proposed “Three Refusals” for parents: Refuse the institutional education, refuse blood test physicals, and refuse official narratives, using non-violent non-cooperation to protect children. “This is more evil than Auschwitz, yet it is happening in 21st-century China.”

(Image: Liu Fang, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party)

Liu Fang shared her journey from being “completely unaware” to facing the truth. She pointed out that in a country capable of precisely monitoring the movements of its citizens, a child can die on campus “without a record.” “This is not a scientific miracle; it is an institutional problem. If a country has the ability to monitor everything but is ‘incapable’ of protecting children, then the problem lies within the system itself.”

(Image: Kang Yu, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party)

Kang Yu systematically pointed out that there is a problem of institutionalized forced organ transplantation in China, and evidence is increasingly pointing toward minors. “Organs are not commodities, and life is not a resource. Children are not experimental subjects, much less an organ reserve. Without accountability, it will not stop.” He called for an independent international investigation into China’s organ transplant system.

(Image: Zhang Yu, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party, Mother)

Zhang Yu stated that her family did not understand her coming to the United States, but it was precisely because she had seen too many abnormalities in the medical system that she could not remain silent. She mentioned a five-month-old infant, “Luoxi,” who underwent heart surgery without clear surgical indications and eventually died; the autopsy showed that the internal wounds were not sutured. “The time Luoxi spent in this world was not even as long as the time in his mother’s womb. Look at these children who are in the prime of their youth but become someone else’s organ bank; as a mother, I feel extreme heartbreak. I stand here to speak for all children back home.”

(Image: Huang Juan, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party)

Huang Juan pointed out that in a country filled with surveillance cameras and high-level monitoring of the people, surveillance footage in student death incidents frequently becomes “damaged” or “disappears.” She emphasized that so-called “free blood test physicals” are not a welfare benefit but organ screening. “We cannot become the next person to go missing. I resolutely oppose live organ harvesting, oppose the persecution of teenagers and children, and call for Xi Jinping’s dictatorial step-down.”

(Image: Zhuo Haoran, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party)

Zhuo Haoran emphasized that the CCP’s illegal organ transplant industry has extended its black hand to minors. “Organ donation must be voluntary, transparent, and protected by human rights. Any coercion, inducement, or trading is a crime!”

(Image: Zhu Xiaona, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party, Co-initiator/Host, Mother)

Speaking as a mother, Zhu Xiaona systematically reviewed the three cases, pointing directly to the dangerous pattern of the abuse of “brain death” and the rapid transport of remains. “When campuses are no longer safe and hospitals are no longer trustworthy, where else in this society is there a place for children to stand?” She clearly put forward four demands: independent investigation, disclosure of information, protection of family rights, and an immediate halt to and accountability for the crimes of live organ harvesting.

(Image: Hu Jing, Member of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party)

Hu Jing reviewed the Hu Xinyu case in Jiangxi, the missing students in Wuhan, and the materials revealing live organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners she saw in Hong Kong in earlier years. “Disasters happening to others could fall upon us at any time. Precisely because we are in the free world, we have even more responsibility to stand up and reveal the truth.”

Simultaneous Linkage: Synchronized Action in the San Francisco Bay Area

In addition to the main action in Los Angeles, a protest with the same theme was held in the San Francisco Bay Area on the same day. This Bay Area action was planned by Li Haifeng and Zhang Yong, further demonstrating that democratic human rights groups across the United States have formed a sustained, cross-city joint action regarding “campus safety,” “the right to life for youth,” and “live organ harvesting.”

“If one day, I am suddenly notified of my death, Mama, it is not that I didn’t want to continue growing up, it’s just that my blood type happened to be a match. If one day, I suddenly cannot go home, Mama, it is not that I forgot the way home, it’s just that one of my organs was needed by them. Goodbye Mama, if there is a next life, I would still choose to be your child, only, I hope we are no longer treated as materials.” These words have become the most direct indictment against the CCP for treating children and teenagers as “organ resources.”

Overseas Linkage: Europe Responds Simultaneously, Protests Go International

Meanwhile, this support and protest action was not limited to the United States. Responding to the call of the National Committee of the China Democratic Party, Yang Xiaojie, a dissident from Xincai County living in Europe, along with several Chinese living in Europe and European democrats, held a synchronized protest in front of the Chinese Consulate General in Frankfurt on the same day. Participants publicly condemned the CCP’s illegal organ transplants, information blockades, and dictatorial rule through silent mourning and sign-holding protests.

The gathering explicitly demanded that the CCP authorities stop organ plundering and accept an independent, international investigation into the death of a minor at “Jinshi Tsinghua Garden” in Xincai County, Henan. Participants pointed out that a regime that relies on deleting posts, blockades, and police force for “stability maintenance” to cover up the truth already constitutes a systematic violation of human rights; when the truth requires a transnational voice, it proves that the interior of the system has long lost the possibility of self-correction.

This action was initiated by: Chen Ende, Zhao Jie, Zhu Xiaona, Gao Han, Lin Yangzheng; Planned by: Zhao Jie, Chen Ende; Coordinated by: Cai Xiaoli; Hosted by: Zhao Jie, Zhu Xiaona; Photography: Lin Xiaolong; Videography: Ma Qun; Live stream: Chen Ende; Order maintenance: Gao Han, Chen Xinnan, Kang Yu; Materials: Zheng Zhou, Wang Fu; On-site leads: Ni Shicheng, Zhuo Haoran.

This protest—initiated in Los Angeles by the Henan Provincial Committee of the China Democratic Party and responded to in San Francisco and Germany—is not only for the children who have already lost their lives but for those who are still alive yet remain in danger.

作者：黄娟  编辑：张宇  校对：程筱筱  翻译：周敏

在不久前的九三阅兵语境中，习近平曾公开表达对“长寿”的执念，甚至流露出妄想活到极端年岁150岁的个人意志。这并非一句玩笑。在一个高度集权、权力高度个人化的体制中，最高权力者的生命焦虑会被层层放大，并转化为对“资源”的系统性占有。当人被彻底工具化，生命与身体本身就可能被重新定义为可被调配、可被消耗的资产。正是在这样的政治与制度背景下，中国近年来不断出现的青少年非正常死亡与儿童失踪事件，才显得格外令人不安。

近几年，中国多地接连发生的儿童失踪与青少年非正常死亡事件，已经很难再被简单归因为“个别偶发”。这些事件发生在不同地区、不同学校，表面情形各异，却在事后处理方式上呈现出高度一致的特征：结论迅速形成，调查过程封闭，关键信息无法被独立核查，家属的合理质疑被视为需要“稳控”的风险。

2025年11月，昆明两名青年被宣布脑死亡，并在极短时间内完成多台器官移植；同年12月，安徽亳州蒙城，一名学生课间倒地，校方未在关键时间实施有效急救，最终不治；2026年1月，河南新蔡，一名13岁男童校内离世，遗体出现不明针孔，家属维权受阻、信息迅速封闭。

  这些事件并非独立个体，而是在不同地区反复出现，却遵循着几乎相同的处置轨迹。它们与普通意外的根本区别，不在于“是否可能发生意外”，而在于事后处理的高度封闭。结论往往被迅速定性，多被归为意外或自杀；监控录像、急救记录、尸检报告等关键证据要么缺失，要么不可独立核查；信息由校方或官方单方掌控，调查目标不再是还原事实，而是尽快降温。

  从长期公开案例与人权观察看，部分校园与青少年非正常死亡事件呈现出重复模式：结论高度同质化、证据链不可核查、程序封闭、责任追溯被系统性弱化。这并不意味着每个个案都存在阴谋，而是清楚表明，真相发现机制本身存在结构性缺陷。在未成年人死亡这一高度敏感领域，“快速定性、封闭处理”逐渐成为风险规避的理性选择。

儿童失踪问题进一步放大了这种风险。近年来，多地幼童走失、学生失联、长期下落不明，协查信息零散，后续披露有限。在一个号称“数字治理”、摄像头密布的国家，儿童却可以在校园或公共空间无声消失；在一个普通民生高度商品化的社会，学生在校饮水都需付费的环境下，学校却能为学生提供近乎全覆盖、免费的抽血体检。这种现实反差，本身就构成合理怀疑的土壤。正是在这样的制度环境中，关于“活摘器官”的严重质疑不断出现。这并非凭空想象，也非情绪宣泄，而是对长期程序失信的直接回应。在证据被系统性控制、独立司法与第三方调查缺位的现实条件下，要求公众“先拿出铁证再质疑”本身就是不可能的前提。在这种情况下，无法排除最严重侵权行为的可能性，恰恰是一种客观状态。

如果体制拒绝透明，它就失去了自证清白的能力。更危险的是，这种封闭不仅不能消除指控，反而会不断强化它们。当未成年人死亡后被迅速定性，遗体处理高度封闭，医学与调查依据无法公开时，任何负责任的社会都不应轻易宣布“问题不存在”。宣布不存在，本身就是对生命的再次伤害。

江西胡鑫宇案正是这一结构性问题的集中体现。一名中学生在封闭式校园内失踪，官方却始终无法提供完整、可核查的行动轨迹；多轮搜索反复失败，关键监控缺失，时间线断裂；最终结论公布后，依然无法向社会解释其中的种种疑点。该案引发的持续质疑，并非公众拒绝相信结论，而是体制未能提供足以让人相信的调查程序。

在一个高度依赖监控、强调治理效率的体制中，真相却反复让位于风险控制。正是这种结构性处境，使得最严重的质疑不断出现。当调查缺乏独立性、证据被单方垄断、程序性正义长期缺位时，社会对真相的怀疑不再是情绪，而是一种理性反应。

海外民运与人权观察的意义，不在于替代司法定罪，而在于在调查被系统性阻断的环境中，持续记录疑点、保存证词、要求独立调查。

如果今天不持续追问，真相将被永久掩埋，责任彻底消失；更深远的后果，是向整个体制传递一个危险信号：未成年人死亡与失踪可以被快速定性、被遗忘。这样的信号让悲剧不断重演。

在一个权力高度集中的体制下，当生命被工具化，当孩子被视为“风险源”甚至“潜在零件库”，这本身就是对人性的彻底泯灭。反对对青少年与儿童的迫害，反对任何形式的器官掠夺，要求依法开展独立调查、完整公开死亡经过与医学依据，并不是政治煽动，而是最基本的人类良知。我们不能成为下一个被迅速定性、被监控“恰好失灵”、被历史抹去名字的人。

Who is Devouring the Lives of Children?

Author: Huang Juan Editor: Zhang Yu Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min

In the context of the “September 3rd Military Parade” not long ago, Xi Jinping once publicly expressed an obsession with “longevity,” even revealing a personal will of delusional thinking about living to the extreme age of 150. This is not a joke. In a highly centralized system where power is highly personalized, the life-anxiety of the supreme leader is amplified layer by layer and transformed into a systematic appropriation of “resources.” When human beings are completely instrumentalized, life and the body itself may be redefined as assets that can be allocated and consumed. It is precisely against this political and institutional backdrop that the continuous emergence of abnormal deaths of teenagers and disappearances of children in China in recent years appears particularly disturbing.

In recent years, the consecutive occurrences of child disappearances and abnormal deaths of teenagers across many parts of China can no longer be simply attributed to “isolated incidents.” These events occur in different regions and different schools, with varying surface circumstances, yet they exhibit highly consistent characteristics in their aftermath handling: conclusions are formed rapidly, the investigation process is closed, key information cannot be independently verified, and the reasonable doubts of family members are treated as risks requiring “stability control.”

In November 2025, two young people in Kunming were declared brain-dead, and multiple organ transplants were completed within an extremely short period; in December of the same year, in Mengcheng, Bozhou, Anhui, a student collapsed during class, and the school failed to implement effective first aid during the critical window, leading to death; in January 2026, in Xincai, Henan, a 13-year-old boy passed away on campus, his body showing unknown needle marks, while family members were blocked from defending their rights and information was rapidly suppressed.

These incidents are not independent cases but have repeatedly appeared in different regions, following almost identical handling trajectories. The fundamental difference between them and ordinary accidents lies not in “whether an accident could happen,” but in the high degree of opacity in the aftermath. Conclusions are often quickly determined, mostly classified as accidents or suicides; key evidence such as surveillance footage, first aid records, and autopsy reports is either missing or cannot be independently verified; information is unilaterally controlled by the school or authorities, and the goal of the investigation is no longer to restore facts, but to “cool down” the situation as quickly as possible.

From long-term public cases and human rights observations, some campus incidents and abnormal deaths of teenagers exhibit a repetitive pattern: highly homogenized conclusions, unverifiable chains of evidence, closed procedures, and systematically weakened accountability. This does not mean that every individual case involves a conspiracy, but it clearly demonstrates that the truth-finding mechanism itself has structural flaws. In the highly sensitive field of minor fatalities, “rapid determination and closed handling” have gradually become a rational choice for risk evasion.

The problem of missing children further amplifies this risk. In recent years, young children have gone missing, students have lost contact, and many remain unaccounted for over the long term across various regions, with scattered assistance information and limited subsequent disclosure. In a country that boasts of “digital governance” and is densely covered with surveillance cameras, children can disappear silently within campuses or public spaces; in a society where ordinary livelihoods are highly commodified and students must pay for drinking water at school, schools can provide nearly full-coverage, free blood tests for students. This realistic contrast itself constitutes the soil for reasonable suspicion. It is within such an institutional environment that serious allegations regarding “forced organ harvesting” continuously emerge. This is not baseless imagination or an emotional vent, but a direct response to a long-term loss of procedural trust. Under the reality where evidence is systematically controlled and independent judiciary and third-party investigations are absent, asking the public to “provide hard evidence before questioning” is itself an impossible premise. In this situation, the inability to rule out the possibility of the most serious human rights violations is precisely an objective state.

If a system refuses transparency, it loses the ability to prove its own innocence. More dangerously, this opacity does not eliminate accusations; rather, it continuously reinforces them. When the death of a minor is rapidly categorized, the handling of the remains is highly closed, and the medical and investigative basis cannot be made public, no responsible society should easily declare that “the problem does not exist.” Declaring it non-existent is itself a secondary injury to life.

The Hu Xinyu case in Jiangxi is a concentrated manifestation of this structural problem. A middle school student disappeared within a closed campus, yet the authorities were never able to provide a complete, verifiable trajectory of his movements; multiple rounds of searches failed repeatedly, key surveillance was missing, and the timeline was broken; even after the final conclusion was announced, it still failed to explain the various doubts to society. The continuous questioning triggered by this case is not because the public refuses to believe the conclusion, but because the system failed to provide an investigative procedure sufficient to be believed.

In a system that relies heavily on surveillance and emphasizes governance efficiency, truth repeatedly gives way to risk control. It is precisely this structural situation that causes the most serious suspicions to constantly arise. When investigations lack independence, evidence is monopolized by one side, and procedural justice is absent for a long time, the public’s suspicion of the truth is no longer an emotion, but a rational reaction.

The significance of overseas democracy movements and human rights observations does not lie in replacing judicial sentencing, but in continuously recording doubts, preserving testimony, and demanding independent investigations in an environment where investigations are systematically blocked.

If we do not continue to question today, the truth will be permanently buried and responsibility will completely vanish; a more profound consequence is sending a dangerous signal to the entire system: the deaths and disappearances of minors can be quickly categorized and forgotten. Such a signal allows tragedies to repeat.

Under a highly centralized system, when life is instrumentalized, and when children are viewed as “sources of risk” or even “potential parts in a warehouse,” this is itself a complete annihilation of humanity. Opposing the persecution of teenagers and children, opposing any form of organ plundering, and demanding independent investigations conducted according to the law, with full disclosure of death circumstances and medical evidence, is not political incitement, but the most basic human conscience. We cannot become the next person to be rapidly categorized, to have surveillance “coincidentally fail,” or to have our names erased by history.

作者：赵文龙

编辑：胡丽莉   校对：冯仍   翻译：戈冰

2026年1月18日，南加州的暖阳并未能驱散全球民主志士心中的严寒。在洛杉矶六四纪念馆内，一场名为“释放李卓人、邹幸彤，还香港自由”的集会在此庄严举行。这不仅是一场跨越时空的民主接力，更是一次对中共极权暴政的沉痛控诉。香港支联会（香港市民支援爱国民主运动联合会）的精神，在太平洋彼岸再次点燃。

一、维园烛光的火种，在洛杉矶复燃

曾几何时，香港维多利亚公园的烛光是全球反抗中共暴政、纪念六四英灵的灯塔。然而，随着中共悍然撕毁《中英联合声明》，在香港强推“国安法”，那个曾经的自由港已沦为极权的殖民地。支联会——这个坚持了三十余年的民主堡垒——被非法解散，其核心领导层李卓人、邹幸彤等人更是身陷囹圄，遭受政治迫害。

今日，洛杉矶六四纪念馆的墙壁上挂满了历史的见证。集会现场，投影幕布上清晰地写着：“反对任意拘禁！”“释放李卓人！”“释放邹幸彤！”这些字句在昏暗的馆内熠熠生辉，像是从香江彼岸传来的嘶吼。

二、民主先贤齐聚：正义的共振

此次集会汇聚了海外最具影响力的民主运动领袖，他们的发言不仅是对香港同胞的声援，更是对中共极权统治的深度解构。

王丹：作为八九学运的象征，他深情谈到，香港的命运与三十多年前的天安门如出一辙。中共对李卓人、邹幸彤的审判，本质上是对人类基本价值观的审判。

袁弓夷（Elmer Yuen）：这位著名的香港实业家、社会运动家，在现场发表了慷慨激昂的演说。袁先生直言，中共对香港的赤化是其全球渗透战略的关键一环。他呼吁国际社会不仅要关注人权，更要从政治和经济层面全面反击。集会期间，我有幸与袁先生合影，近距离感受到了这位长者对民主事业的赤诚。

郑存柱与中国民主党志士：郑存柱先生率领多名中国民主党成员到场支持。他指出，香港的民主斗争与中国大陆的民主化进程密不可分，只要中共政权不倒，类似的悲剧就会在华夏大地不断重演。我也与郑先生及多位民主党同仁留下了珍贵的合影，这象征着海内外反共势力的团结一致。

方政：坐在轮椅上的六四见证者方政，用他那坚定而略带沙哑的声音提醒世人：极权的坦克可以碾碎双腿，但永远无法碾碎追求自由的意志。

三、批判中共：制度性的流氓与历史的罪人

我们必须看清，中共对李卓人和邹幸彤的迫害，绝非单纯的法律案件，而是一场赤裸裸的制度性绑架。

首先，中共利用所谓的“国安法”实现了法律的工具化与武器化。在文明世界，法律是保护公民自由的盾牌；而在中共治下，法律是阉割异见者的利刃。邹幸彤作为一名律师，她所捍卫的正是法治的尊严，而中共恰恰因为她懂法、守法、用法，而感到前所未有的恐惧。

其次，中共的暴政根源在于其深刻的权力焦虑。一个号称“大国崛起”的政权，竟然害怕一名女性手中的蜡烛，害怕一个工会领袖的呐喊。这种极度的不自信，反映了其统治合法性的全面崩塌。他们试图通过抓捕李卓人来切断香港与国际工运的联系，通过禁锢邹幸彤来抹除香港人的历史记忆，但这种做法无异于扬汤止沸。

四、结语：在野的呐喊，必将化为执政的惊雷

李卓人在狱中曾言：“坐牢是抗争的一部分。”邹幸彤亦在法庭上坚称：“自由不需要恩赐。”

作为《在野党》杂志的忠实读者，我深知：今日在洛杉矶的集会，是为了明天在天安门、在香港礼宾府的重聚。我们记录每一个受难者的名字，批判每一个独裁者的罪行，是为了在历史的审判席上，让正义不再迟到。

中共以为高墙能阻断自由的传播，却不知高墙之内的呐喊，早已跨越山海，在每一个向往自由的心灵中回荡。李卓人、邹幸彤，你们并不孤单。全人类的良知，正与你们并肩作战。

作者评论：

洛杉矶的这场火种，正是中共最深重的梦魇。当海内外民主力量合流，当“六四精神”与“香江风骨”交汇，那个腐朽的独裁体制，终将在自由的洪流中土崩瓦解。

The Cry Before the Guillotine: A Report on the June Fourth Memorial Museum’s Rally in Support of Hong Kong in Los Angeles

Author: Zhao Wenlong

Editor: Hu Lili   Proofreader: Feng Reng   Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: In January 2026, the June Fourth Memorial Museum in Los Angeles held a solidarity rally calling for the release of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hing-tung. Overseas democracy activists gathered to denounce the CCP’s persecution of Hong Kong’s democratic movement through the National Security Law, reaffirming the enduring legacy of June Fourth’s spirit and the values of freedom.

On January 18, 2026, Southern California’s warm sunshine failed to dispel the chill in the hearts of global democracy advocates. Within the Los Angeles June Fourth Memorial, a solemn rally titled “Free Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, Restore Hong Kong’s Freedom” unfolded. This event represented not only a transcontinental relay of democracy but also a profound indictment of the CCP’s totalitarian tyranny. The spirit of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was reignited across the Pacific.

I. The Flame of Victoria Park’s Candlelight Reignites in Los Angeles

Once upon a time, the candlelight vigil in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park served as a beacon for global resistance against CCP tyranny and a memorial for the souls of June Fourth. Yet, as the CCP brazenly tore up the Sino-British Joint Declaration and forcibly imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong, that once-free port has fallen into the clutches of authoritarian colonial rule. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China—a bastion of democracy that stood firm for over three decades—was illegally dissolved. Its core leaders, including Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, now languish behind bars, victims of political persecution.

Today, the walls of the June Fourth Memorial in Los Angeles are adorned with historical testimonies. At the rally site, the projection screen clearly displayed: “Oppose Arbitrary Detention!” “Free Lee Cheuk-yan! Release Chiu Hsing-tung!” These words shone brightly in the dimly lit hall, like cries echoing from across the Pearl River.

II. Gathering of Democratic Pioneers: Resonance of Justice

This rally brought together the most influential leaders of the overseas democracy movement. Their speeches were not only expressions of solidarity with Hong Kong compatriots but also profound deconstructions of the CCP’s totalitarian rule.

Wang Dan: As a symbol of the 1989 student movement, he spoke emotionally about how Hong Kong’s fate mirrors that of Tiananmen Square over three decades ago. The CCP’s trials of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hing-tung are, at their core, a trial of fundamental human values.

Elmer Yuen: This renowned Hong Kong industrialist and social activist delivered a passionate speech on-site. Mr. Yuen stated bluntly that the CCP’s efforts to turn Hong Kong red are a crucial part of its global infiltration strategy. He called on the international community not only to focus on human rights but also to mount a comprehensive counterattack on both political and economic fronts. During the rally, I had the honor of taking a photo with Mr. Yuen, experiencing firsthand the sincerity of this elder statesman toward the cause of democracy.

Zheng Cunzhu and Chinese Democratic Party Activists: Mr. Zheng Cunzhu led several members of the Chinese Democratic Party to show their support. He emphasized that Hong Kong’s democratic struggle is inextricably linked to the democratization process in mainland China. As long as the CCP regime remains in power, similar tragedies will continue to unfold across the Chinese nation. I also captured a precious group photo with Mr. Zheng and several Democratic Party colleagues, symbolizing the unity of anti-communist forces both at home and abroad.

Fang Zheng: Sitting in a wheelchair, June Fourth witness Fang Zheng reminded the world with his resolute, slightly hoarse voice: Totalitarian tanks may crush legs, but they can never crush the will to pursue freedom.

III. Critique of the CCP: Institutional Thugs and Historical Criminals

We must recognize that the CCP’s persecution of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chou Hsing-tung is not merely a legal case, but a blatant act of institutional abduction.

First, the CCP has weaponized the law through its so-called “National Security Law.” In civilized societies, law serves as a shield protecting citizens’ freedoms; under CCP rule, it becomes a blade to castrate dissent. As a lawyer, Chiu Hsing-tung defends the very dignity of the rule of law. Precisely because she understands, upholds, and wields the law, the CCP feels unprecedented fear.

Second, the CCP’s tyranny stems from its profound anxiety over power. A regime touting the “rise of a great nation” fears the candle held by a woman, fears the cries of a labor union leader. This extreme insecurity reflects the complete collapse of its ruling legitimacy. They attempt to sever Hong Kong’s ties with the international labor movement by arresting Lee Cheuk-yan, and to erase Hong Kong’s historical memory by imprisoning Chow Hang-tung. Yet such measures are merely putting out the fire with boiling water.

IV. Conclusion: The Cry of the Opposition Will Become the Thunder of Governance

While imprisoned, Lee Cheuk-yan stated: “Imprisonment is part of the struggle.” “ Chiu also asserted in court: ”Freedom is not a gift.”

As a devoted reader of The Opposition magazine, I know this: Today’s rally in Los Angeles is for tomorrow’s reunion at Tiananmen Square and Hong Kong’s Government House. We record every victim’s name and condemn every dictator’s crime so that justice will no longer be delayed in history’s courtroom.

The CCP believes high walls can block the spread of freedom, yet it fails to see that the cries from within those walls have long crossed mountains and seas, echoing in every heart yearning for liberty. Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hing-tung, you are not alone. The conscience of all humanity stands shoulder to shoulder with you.

Author’s Commentary:

This spark ignited in Los Angeles is the CCP’s deepest nightmare. When democratic forces at home and abroad converge, when the spirit of June Fourth meets the backbone of Hong Kong, that rotten dictatorship will crumble in the torrent of freedom.

活动主题：声援邹魏 信仰自由

在中共的统治之下，中国希望所有的人民都只信共产党，信马列主义。但是信仰是无罪的也是高尚的。邹魏先生坚持了自己的基督信仰，被中共迫害，多次拘留，审讯，在家里也被骚扰。邹先生代表了中国群友基督徒的现状。

让我们高喊:信仰无罪，不做马列的徒子徒孙!

活动组织：中国民主人权联盟旧金山分部

活动策划：李海风 张勇

活动时间：2026年2月1日 2-4 pm

活动地点：圣何塞市政厅

联系人： 张勇 6265816991

导航地址：200 E Santa Clara St San Jose, CA 95113

党内各位同仁：

您和您的家人及朋友，

是否正在担心被ICE抓捕；

是否正备受恐惧大庭被拒的煎熬；

是否正遭遇寻求庇护的艰辛和美国梦难圆的焦虑……

为此，本期“周五江湖”特别邀请国际著名律师、美国加州、纽约和新泽西州三地执业律师陈闯创先生结合大量实际案例为我们一一释疑解惑并排忧解难。

同时还邀请了中国民主党全委会执行委员耿冠军先生就“伪民运”起诉中国民主党全委会一事做情况说明及我们的应对策略与大家展开交流和探讨。

欢迎广大党员朋友带上心中的疑问准时到场提问参会畅聊。

本期活动以AA餐叙形式展开，参会者请在今天下午四点前报备，以便提前采购食材。

时间：2026年01月30日星期五下午五点开始

地点：200 E Garvey Ave # 201, Monterey Park, CA 91755