艺术不应成为罪名 还原历史真相

作者：吕小静  

2026年8月30日，民主人士在圣何塞市政厅前举行“声援高兟，还原历史真相”活动并合影（照片由主办方提供）

【圣何塞报导】 2026年8月30日下午，由中国民主人权联盟、中国民主党圣何塞分部组织的“声援高兟，还原历史真相”活动在美国加州圣何塞市政厅广场举行。来自旧金山湾区的民主、人权人士及民众到场声援日前被判处三年有期徒刑的中国艺术家高兟，呼吁立即释放高兟，停止因艺术与思想表达进行打压，并保障艺术创作、言论表达以及公众反思历史的基本权利。

 活动现场，“看清的人进了监狱，愚昧的人还在膜拜”“毛泽东遗臭万年”等大型展板格外醒目。“三年饥荒”“十年文革”等历史字样与高兟的艺术作品共同构成现场强烈的视觉冲击。

与会者表示，高兟案件所提出的问题已经超越一名艺术家的个人命运：当一件雕塑可以成为一个人失去自由的理由，当历史人物只能被歌颂而不能被批评，一个社会是否还有真正的艺术自由？人民又是否拥有重新审视历史、保存记忆和追问真相的权利？

 高兟1956年出生于山东济南，与胞弟高强长期以“高氏兄弟”之名从事绘画、雕塑、装置、摄影及行为艺术创作。多年来，两人的作品不断触及中国政治、历史与社会议题，其中《枪决基督》《毛小姐系列》以及表现毛泽东下跪忏悔的作品尤其受到外界关注。

 据活动组织方介绍，高兟2024年8月回国探亲期间，被河北三河警方从燕郊工作室带走。2026年3月30日，其案件在三河市法院闭门审理；同年8月25日，高兟被判处有期徒刑三年。

 从一件艺术作品，到三年牢狱之灾，这一判决也成为当天集会不断被追问的焦点。

 与会者认为，人们当然可以不喜欢高兟的作品，可以反驳他的观点，甚至可以公开批评他的艺术表达；然而，一个社会如果用刑罚回答艺术，用监狱回应批评，那么被禁锢的便不仅是一名艺术家，而是整个社会自由思考历史的空间。

中国民主人权联盟北加州主席李海风担任当天活动主持人。活动开始后，他向现场民众介绍此次集会的主题、高兟案件以及声援行动的主要诉求。

 李海风表示，高兟今年8月25日被判处三年有期徒刑，其遭遇与包括“毛泽东下跪”在内的政治艺术创作有关。他认为，一个艺术家仅仅因为通过雕塑表达对历史人物和政治的看法，就要付出失去自由的代价，令人愤怒。

 他强调，艺术不应该只有歌颂，历史也不应该只剩下一种被允许的声音。

 李海风呼吁立即释放高兟，停止对艺术创作者的打压，让艺术家能够自由表达，同时要求解除对高兟家人的出境限制。

中国民主党旧金山党部副主席胡丕政表示，高兟案件所触及的早已不只是一件雕塑，而是一个社会究竟能否容纳不同的历史观点和政治表达。

 他说，一件艺术作品可以令人喜欢，也可以令人反感；可以被赞美，也可以遭到批评。但是，一个艺术家不应该因为自己的作品和思想表达而失去自由。

 “如果连历史人物都不能被评论，连艺术创作都要划定禁区，那么艺术还剩下什么？言论自由又在哪里？”

 胡丕政表示，艺术的重要价值之一，就是允许人们反思历史、质疑权力、表达不同观点。他强调：“作品可以被封存，但思想不能被判刑；历史更不能靠监狱来改写。”

中国民主党旧金山党部秘书长郑云表示，当天人们为高兟发声，不仅是在声援一个人，更是在捍卫每个人了解历史、追问历史和表达思想的权利。

 她认为，一个社会如何面对自己的历史，也决定着这个社会如何走向未来。当有人因为重新审视历史、表达不同观点而付出自由的代价，人们更应该追问：为什么真相会令人恐惧？为什么保存记忆、追问历史，会成为需要付出代价的事情？

郑云表示，真正经得起时间检验的历史，不应该害怕人民追问；一个真正有尊严的社会，也不应该害怕不同的声音。

 她强调：“记住历史，不是为了延续仇恨，而是为了不让悲剧再次发生。”

中国民主党圣何塞支部主任罗凤文表示，高兟因为多年前的艺术创作以及对历史的反思与批判，如今付出三年自由的代价，这让人不得不追问：

 “如果一个社会连历史都不能反思，连艺术都不能表达，连曾经发生过的苦难都不能讨论，那么我们又如何避免历史的悲剧再次发生？”

罗凤文表示，艺术的意义不仅在于审美，更在于记录时代、保存记忆和追问历史。当一个社会开始害怕艺术家的作品，真正受到限制的就不只是一尊雕塑，而是人们思考、表达以及了解历史真相的权利。

 发言最后，她高呼：“释放高兟！捍卫艺术自由！还原历史真相！”

 

民主党党员何冬玲在发言中表示，当天人们来到这里，不仅是为了声援高兟，更是为了拒绝历史被遗忘和遮蔽。

 她特别提到现场“看清的人进了监狱，愚昧的人还在膜拜”的展板，并谈及“三年饥荒”“十年文革”等历史创伤。

 何冬玲认为，真正值得警惕的不只是历史曾经发生过的灾难，更是灾难之后对记忆的淡化、遮蔽甚至重新塑造。一个民族如果失去了反思苦难的能力，也就失去了避免悲剧重演的重要防线。

 她表示，当高兟用艺术重新叩问历史时，艺术已经不只是一件作品，而成为保存记忆、唤醒思考的一种力量。

 何冬玲激动地表示：“他们可以囚禁一个艺术家的身体，却囚禁不了人们对历史的追问；可以试图让一个声音消失，却无法让已经觉醒的思想重新沉睡。”

活动现场，民主党党员周小俊表示，高兟因艺术作品以及对历史和政治的思考被判处三年有期徒刑，这不仅是一名艺术家的遭遇，更触及每个人是否拥有自由表达和反思历史的权利。

周小俊指出，人们可以赞同一件作品，也可以批评甚至反对它，但不能因为艺术家表达了不同的政治观点，就把他送进监狱。历史人物应该接受后人的评价，大跃进、人民公社、文化大革命等历史，也应该允许公众研究、讨论和反思。

他现场追问：“一个社会究竟应该害怕暴力，还是害怕一尊雕塑？如果连一尊雕塑都容不下，那么真正脆弱的究竟是谁？”

周小俊最后呼吁立即释放高兟，并强调：“艺术不是犯罪，思想不是犯罪，批评历史人物更不应该成为犯罪！捍卫言论自由！捍卫艺术自由！”

活动期间，姚荣涛、刘静涛、杨宇新、盛虎等人也先后在现场发言，从历史反思、艺术自由、言论权利以及中国现实等不同角度表达对高兟的声援。

 

名发言者认为，高兟案件之所以值得持续关注，不只是因为一名艺术家被判处三年有期徒刑，更因为案件背后存在一个更深层的问题：当艺术触碰权力，当作品挑战被规定的历史叙事，一个社会究竟选择用公开讨论回应，还是用刑罚让不同声音消失？

随着一名又一名参与者走到麦克风前，高兟的名字在圣何塞市政厅广场被一次次喊出。

 与会者表示，历史人物属于历史，也应该接受后人的评价。无论通过文字、绘画、雕塑还是其它艺术形式，人们都应该拥有讨论历史、批评历史人物以及表达不同观点的权利。

 如果今天一尊雕塑可以成为一个人失去自由的理由，那么明天可能是一幅画、一篇文章、一本书，甚至只是一句话。

因此，他们认为，为高兟发声，不仅是在要求释放一名艺术家，更是在捍卫每个人保存记忆、独立思考和自由表达的空间。

活动最后，现场再次响起：
 “释放高兟！”
“捍卫言论自由！”
 “捍卫艺术自由！”
“还原历史真相！”

 呼喊声回荡在圣何塞市政厅广场。 对于当天的参与者而言，高兟的一尊雕塑所引发的，已经不只是一场关于艺术的争论，而成为对历史、记忆、权力与自由的再次追问。

 一个艺术家可以被关进高墙，但一件已经诞生的作品无法被判刑；一个人的声音可以暂时被压低，但一个民族对历史真相的追问不会因此停止。

 艺术不应成为罪名，思想不应成为囚笼。只有敢于面对历史，才能避免历史的悲剧再次发生。

编辑：李晶   校对：周敏 翻译：沈美花

San Francisco Bay Area Residents Rally in Support of Gao Shen:

Art Should Not Be a Crime; Restore Historical Truth

Author: Lü Xiaojing

On August 30, 2026, pro-democracy figures held an event titled “Support Gao Shen, Restore Historical Truth” in front of San Jose City Hall and took a group photo (Photo provided by the organizers).

[San Jose Report] On the afternoon of August 30, 2026, an event titled “Support Gao Shen, Restore Historical Truth,” organized by the Chinese Democracy and Human Rights Alliance and the San Jose Branch of the Democratic Party of China, was held at the Plaza of San Jose City Hall in California, USA. Democracy and human rights activists, along with local residents from the San Francisco Bay Area, gathered to voice support for Chinese artist Gao Shen, who was recently sentenced to three years in prison. They called for the immediate release of Gao Shen, an end to the suppression of artistic and intellectual expression, and the protection of basic rights to artistic creation, speech, and public reflection on history.

At the rally, large display boards reading “Those who see clearly enter prison; those who remain ignorant continue to worship” and “Mao Zedong will stink for ten thousand years” were particularly striking. Words representing history, such as “Three Years of Famine” and “Ten Years of Cultural Revolution,” combined with Gao Shen’s artwork to create a powerful visual impact at the scene.

Participants stated that the issues raised by Gao Shen’s case transcend the personal fate of a single artist: When a sculpture can become the reason a person loses their freedom, and when historical figures can only be praised but never criticized, does a society still possess true artistic freedom? And do the people still hold the right to re-examine history, preserve memory, and pursue truth?

Gao Shen was born in Jinan, Shandong Province in 1956. For many years, he and his younger brother Gao Qiang have engaged in painting, sculpture, installation, photography, and performance art under the name “Gao Brothers.” Over the years, their works have continuously touched upon Chinese political, historical, and social topics. Among them, works such as Execution of Christ, The Miss Mao Series, and pieces depicting Mao Zedong kneeling in repentance have attracted particular attention from the outside world.

According to the event organizers, when Gao Shen returned to China in August 2024 to visit family, he was taken away from his Yanjiao studio by police from Sanhe, Hebei Province. On March 30, 2026, his case was tried behind closed doors at the Sanhe City Court; on August 25 of the same year, Gao Shen was sentenced to three years in prison.

From a single work of art to a three-year prison sentence, this verdict became the central focus repeatedly questioned during the rally.

Participants believed that people can certainly dislike Gao Shen’s works, refute his views, or even publicly criticize his artistic expressions; however, if a society responds to art with criminal punishment and answers criticism with prison, then what is imprisoned is not merely a single artist, but the space for the entire society to think freely about history.

Li Haifeng, Chairman of the Northern California branch of the Chinese Democracy and Human Rights Alliance, served as the host for the day’s event. After the event began, he introduced the theme of the rally, Gao Shen’s case, and the primary demands of the support action to the attendees present.

Li Haifeng stated that Gao Shen was sentenced to three years in prison on August 25 of this year, and that his ordeal is related to his political art creations, including the sculpture depicting “Mao Zedong Kneeling.” He expressed that it is infuriating for an artist to pay the price of losing their freedom simply for expressing views on historical figures and politics through sculpture.

He emphasized that art should not consist solely of praise, nor should history be reduced to only one permitted voice.

Li Haifeng called for the immediate release of Gao Shen, an end to the suppression of artistic creators, and the freedom for artists to express themselves, while demanding the removal of exit bans placed on Gao Shen’s family members.

Hu Pizheng, Vice Chairman of the San Francisco Branch of the Democratic Party of China, stated that what Gao Shen’s case touches upon has long gone beyond a single sculpture; it is about whether a society can ultimately accommodate different historical viewpoints and political expressions.

He said that a work of art can be liked or disliked; it can be praised or criticized. However, an artist should not lose their freedom because of their work and expression of thought.

“If even historical figures cannot be commented on, and even artistic creation must have forbidden zones demarcated, then what is left of art? And where is freedom of speech?”

Hu Pizheng expressed that one of the vital values of art is allowing people to reflect on history, question power, and express differing viewpoints. He emphasized: “Works can be sealed away, but thoughts cannot be sentenced; history, even less so, can never be rewritten by means of prisons.”

Zheng Yun, Secretary-General of the San Francisco Branch of the Democratic Party of China, stated that when people spoke out for Gao Shen that day, they were not only supporting an individual, but also defending everyone’s right to understand history, question history, and express their thoughts.

She expressed that how a society faces its own history determines how that society moves toward the future. When someone pays the price of their freedom for re-examining history and expressing dissenting views, people should ask all the more: Why is the truth feared? Why does preserving memory and questioning history become something that requires paying a price?

Zheng Yun stated that history that truly stands the test of time should not be afraid of being questioned by the people; a truly dignified society should likewise not be afraid of differing voices.

She emphasized: “Remembering history is not meant to perpetuate hatred, but to prevent tragedies from happening again.”

Luo Fengwen, Director of the San Jose Branch of the Democratic Party of China, stated that Gao Shen is now paying the price of three years of his freedom for artistic creations made years ago, as well as for his reflection and critique of history. This forces people to ask:

“If a society cannot even reflect on history, cannot even express itself through art, and cannot even discuss the suffering that once occurred, how can we prevent the tragedies of history from happening again?”

Luo Fengwen expressed that the significance of art lies not only in aesthetics, but even more in recording the era, preserving memory, and questioning history. When a society begins to fear an artist’s work, what is truly restricted is not merely a single sculpture, but the people’s right to think, express, and understand historical truth.

At the end of her speech, she chanted aloud: “Release Gao Shen! Defend artistic freedom! Restore historical truth!”

He Dongling, a member of the Democratic Party of China, stated in her speech that people gathered there that day not only to voice support for Gao Shen, but also to refuse the erasing and obscuring of history.

She made special mention of the display board at the scene reading “Those who see clearly enter prison; those who remain ignorant continue to worship,” and spoke of historical traumas such as the “Three Years of Famine” and the “Ten Years of Cultural Revolution.”

He Dongling expressed that what truly warrants vigilance is not only the disasters that occurred in history, but even more so the dilution, concealment, and even reshaping of memories following those disasters. If a nation loses its ability to reflect on suffering, it also loses a crucial line of defense in preventing tragedies from recurring.

She stated that when Gao Shen uses art to question history anew, art is no longer merely a single work, but becomes a force that preserves memory and awakens thought.

He Dongling stated with emotion: “They can imprison an artist’s body, but they cannot imprison people’s questioning of history; they can attempt to make one voice vanish, but they cannot force awakened thoughts back to sleep.”

At the event, Zhou Xiaojun, a member of the Democratic Party of China, stated that Gao Shen was sentenced to three years in prison due to his artwork as well as his reflection on history and politics. He noted that this is not merely the ordeal of an artist, but touches upon whether every individual possesses the right to freely express themselves and reflect on history.

Zhou Xiaojun pointed out that people can agree with a work, or they can criticize or even oppose it, but an artist cannot be sent to prison simply because they expressed a different political viewpoint. Historical figures should be open to evaluation by future generations, and history such as the Great Leap Forward, the People’s Communes, and the Cultural Revolution should also be open to public research, discussion, and reflection.

He asked at the scene: “Should a society ultimately fear violence, or fear a sculpture? If even a single sculpture cannot be tolerated, then who is truly fragile?”

Zhou Xiaojun concluded by calling for the immediate release of Gao Shen, emphasizing: “Art is not a crime, thought is not a crime, and criticizing historical figures should never become a crime! Defend freedom of speech! Defend artistic freedom!”

During the event, Yao Rongtao, Liu Jingtao, Yang Yuxin, Sheng Hu, and others also spoke at the scene one after another, expressing their support for Gao Shen from various perspectives, including historical reflection, artistic freedom, speech rights, and current realities in China.

Multiple speakers expressed that the reason Gao Shen’s case warrants sustained attention is not only because an artist was sentenced to three years in prison, but also because there is a deeper issue behind the case: When art touches power, and when works challenge the prescribed historical narrative, does a society choose to respond with open discussion, or use criminal punishment to make differing voices disappear?

As one participant after another stepped up to the microphone, Gao Shen’s name was called out time and again across the San Jose City Hall Plaza.

Participants expressed that historical figures belong to history and should be open to evaluation by future generations. Whether through text, painting, sculpture, or other art forms, people should possess the right to discuss history, criticize historical figures, and express dissenting views.

If a sculpture today can become the reason a person loses their freedom, then tomorrow it could be a painting, an article, a book, or even just a single sentence.

Therefore, they believed that speaking out for Gao Shen is not only demanding the release of an artist, but also defending the space for every individual to preserve memory, think independently, and express themselves freely.

At the conclusion of the event, the venue once again echoed with shouts of:

“Release Gao Shen!”
“Defend freedom of speech!”
“Defend artistic freedom!”
“Restore historical truth!”

The cries echoed across the San Jose City Hall Plaza. For that day’s participants, what a single sculpture by Gao Shen sparked was no longer merely a debate about art, but a renewed questioning of history, memory, power, and freedom.

An artist can be locked behind high walls, but a completed work of art cannot be sentenced; a person’s voice can be temporarily hushed, but a nation’s pursuit of historical truth will not stop because of it.

Art should not become a crime, and thought should not become a cage. Only by daring to face history can we prevent the tragedies of history from happening again.

Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Shen Meihua

——旧金山集会追问“高智晟在哪里？”

作者：吕小静

2026年8月30 日，参与者在旧金山市政厅前集会声援被强迫失踪九年的中国人权律师高智晟，并共同追问：“高智晟在哪里”（本文照片由关永杰提供）

【旧金山讯】2026年8月30日下午，由中国民主党旧金山党部、中国民主教育基金会主办的“联合国强迫失踪受害者国际日——高智晟声援活动”，在旧金山市政厅前举行。

参与者手持“高智晟在哪里？”、“WHERE IS GAO ZHISHENG?”等中英文标语，在市政厅前持续追问中国人权律师高智晟的下落，并呼吁美国政府、国会、媒体、人权机构及社会公众关注高智晟事件以及强迫失踪问题。

当天的现场没有复杂的布置。

一把空椅子，十块年份牌，九秒钟的静默。

却共同指向一个已经九年没有得到答案的问题：

高智晟在哪里？

九年过去，一个最基本的问题仍没有答案。

活动由民主党党员李小林、郭志军主持。 两人在开场中介绍，高智晟是一名中国人权律师，曾为宗教信仰者、异议人士以及弱势群体提供法律帮助，并因此长期遭受打压、拘押和监控。

2017年8月13日，高智晟在陕西榆林住所被秘密带走。家人随后寻找并报案，当地警方否认拘押他。三个多星期后，家人才从一名地方官员处得知，高智晟已被带往北京。

然而此后，他究竟身在何处、由谁控制、身体状况如何，家属始终没有得到公开、可信的说明。

从2017年到2026年，整整九年。 因此，当天所有演讲、标语和行动最终都回到了同一个问题：一个父亲在哪里？一个活生生的人、一个丈夫在哪里？究竟在哪里？

参与者在旧金山市政厅前高举2017至2026年份牌。现场中央的一把空椅子，象征高智晟九年的缺席。

活动现场，一把空椅子被摆放在人群中央。

主持人介绍，这把空椅子代表一个本应该能够自由回家、自由说话，却已经缺席九年的人。

随后，参与者依次举起： 2017、2018、2019、2020、2021、2022、2023、2024、2025、2026。

十个年份，记录九年的失踪，也记录一个家庭九年的等待。 2017年，高智晟失去自由。 一年过去，没有答案；两年过去，没有答案；五年过去，依然没有答案。 直到2026年，当最后一块年份牌被举起，人们仍然在问： “高智晟在哪里？”

随后，全场静默九秒。 一秒，代表一年。 九秒很短，但对于不知道亲人生死与下落的家庭而言，九年却是三千多个无法得到答案的日夜。 这九秒，也献给所有遭受强迫失踪的人，以及那些仍在等待亲人回家的家庭。

中国民主党旧金山党部主席方政在现场代表主办方提出三项诉求：

第一，即公布高智晟律师的真实下落，恢复他的人身自由；

第二，呼吁美国政府和国会持续关注高智晟案，并追究迫害责任；

第三，呼吁美国媒体、人权机构和公众共同发声，让高智晟案进入美国社会的公共视野。

方政表示，希望所有参与者通过不同方式，把这些诉求传播到美国、传播到世界，让国际社会持续关注高智晟，推动他早日重获自由。

九年的时间足以让一条新闻退出头版，但方政所强调的正是：一个人的下落不能因为时间过去而不再被追问。

中国民主党旧金山党部秘书长郑云在发言中表示，高智晟曾经是一名律师，他用法律为弱者辩护、为遭受不公的人争取权利。然而，当一个曾经努力为别人守护权利的人，自己却失去自由，甚至连身在何处都无人能够确认时，这本身就是对法治与人权沉重的拷问。

郑云表示，九年的强迫失踪，带走的不只是高智晟一个人的自由，也让一个家庭陷入漫长而残酷的等待。

妻子在等待丈夫，孩子在等待父亲。 对于一个家庭而言，他们所要求的并不是什么特殊权利，不过是希望知道自己的亲人在哪里、是否平安、什么时候能够回家。

郑云强调，高智晟事件绝不是一个已经过去的故事。 九年可以让一个孩子长大，可以让许多新闻成为旧闻，却不能让一个被强迫失踪的人因此从公众记忆中消失。

她认为，强迫失踪制造的不只是沉默，也试图制造遗忘；而当天人们站在这里，就是要拒绝这种遗忘。

“只要还有人在追问，高智晟就没有被消失；只要还有人在呼喊他的名字，这九年的等待就不会被沉默掩埋。”

郑云最后呼吁公布高智晟的真实下落，让他恢复自由，与家人团聚。

中国民主党旧金山党部副主席胡丕政则从索尔仁尼琴关于“真话”的思考谈起。

他表示，在一个害怕真相的制度下，说真话本身就可能需要付出代价。一些律师、记者、作家和公民行动者，因为调查事实、批评权力和坚持表达而遭到打压，甚至与家人及外界失去联系。

“如果一个政府真正自信，为什么要害怕一句真话？如果一个政权真正代表人民，为什么要害怕人民知道真相？”

胡丕政表示，真正的自由并不意味着所有人拥有同一种观点，而意味着每个人都有支持、批评、发声或者沉默的权利。

他说：“人民选择不知道，是自由；政府不让人民知道，是封锁。一个是选择，一个是强迫。”

发言最后，他说道： “真相不会毁掉一个国家。真正可怕的是——所有人都知道真相，却没有人再敢说出真相！”

中国民主党党员刘静涛把关注进一步延伸到更多遭受强迫失踪、秘密拘禁以及长期与外界失去联系的人士。

他表示，强迫失踪伤害的从来不只是一个人。当一个人突然从社会中消失，家属甚至无法知道亲人的生死安危，这种没有答案的等待，本身就是对家庭持续的伤害。

他呼吁国际社会持续关注相关案件，并强调： “追问真相，不是犯罪。监督政府，不是犯罪。让人‘被失踪’，不能成为统治的手段。” “不要让他们被遗忘，不要让真相被掩埋。”

中国民主党党员李树青则在现场连续质问： “高智晟到底在哪里？他现在是否还活着？谁剥夺了他的自由？谁有权让一个人从这个世界上‘消失’？”

李树青表示，一个政府可以不同意一个人的观点，却没有权力让一个活生生的人消失，更不能让他的家人在漫长的黑暗与未知中等待。

“人可以被强行带走，但真相不会永远消失；声音可以被压制，但正义不会因此沉默！”

他最后高声说道： “高智晟，我们没有忘记你！只要你一天没有自由，我们就一天不会停止追问：你在哪里？”

中国民主党Fremont支部副主任吕小静表示，联合国设立“强迫失踪受害者国际日”，就是要提醒世界，任何政府都不能将一个人秘密带走之后，让其从法律和公众视野中消失。

她说，当天人们不仅是在为高智晟发声，也是在为所有遭受强迫失踪的人，以及那些仍然等待父亲、丈夫、妻子和孩子回家的家庭发声。 “高智晟在哪里？九年被强迫失踪，今天我们要答案！”

此外，周小俊、郭鉴鑫、吴志创、姚荣涛等人也先后在现场发言，表达对高智晟处境及强迫失踪问题的关注。不同的发言最终汇聚到同一个诉求：九年之后，高智晟的下落仍需要一个公开、可信的答案。

在声援高智晟之后，当天活动进入另一个重要环节——TTT Action｜真相行动正式启动。

主持人李小林介绍，这项行动的最初灵感来自今年六四37周年纪念活动。 今年6月3日，在旧金山中领馆前的六四纪念活动中，方政曾谈到：为什么三十多年过去，人们仍然要纪念六四？ 因为有人试图让历史被遗忘、让真相被掩盖，而人们需要做的，就是继续把真相说出来。 李小林表示，这番话让他开始思考： 能不能把“说出真相”，变成一个更简单、更容易传播，也能够跨越语言和国界的行动？

于是有了三个英文单词： TELL THE TRUTH。 三个单词的首字母组成： T—T—T。 但真相不能只停留在口号里，还必须转化为行动。 因此形成了： TTT ACTION｜真相行动。 其核心理念是： 把被掩盖的真相说出来，让更多人知道，让更多人看见。 李小林同时宣布，截至当天，已有7个机构以及超过50位个人共同成为TTT Action联合发起者。 他强调，TTT并不属于某一个人。不同的人、不同的组织可以保持自己的身份和独立性，但可以因为一个共同目标站在一起： TELL THE TRUTH——说出真相。

方政宣布：“TTT Action｜真相行动正式启动！”

由于方政关于“说出真相”的讲话给予TTT Action最初的启发，当天特别由方政亲自宣布行动正式启动。

参与者随即展开横幅，举起拳头，共同高喊： “TELL THE TRUTH！” “高智晟在哪里？” “WHERE IS GAO ZHISHENG?” “TELL US WHERE HE IS!” “STOP ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES!”

正式集会结束后，参与者没有立即离开。 他们拿着准备好的英文资料走向经过旧金山市政厅的普通民众，介绍高智晟是谁、为什么九年来始终有人追问他的下落，以及强迫失踪对个人和家庭意味着什么。

一些路人在听取介绍后停下脚步，接过资料认真阅读；有人继续与参与者交流，询问相关情况。

从市政厅前数十人的呼喊，到把一张英文资料递给一个此前可能从未听说过高智晟的普通人，当天的“TELL THE TRUTH”也从一句口号变成了具体行动： 让不知道的人开始知道，让没有看见的人开始看见。

活动接近结束时，高智晟的妻子耿和联系主办方。

她表示，因为工作原因目前身在外地，非常遗憾未能亲自来到当天的活动现场，同时感谢所有前来参加活动、持续关注并声援高智晟律师的人。 这则来自家属的消息，也让现场那把空椅子有了更加沉重而具体的意义。

对于外界而言，“高智晟在哪里？”是一场持续九年的公共追问。 而对于他的妻子和孩子而言，这首先是一个再普通不过、却九年来始终无法实现的愿望： 丈夫回家。 父亲回家。

活动最终结束，人群会散去，横幅会被收起，2017至2026的十块年份牌也会被带走。 但只要那把椅子仍然是空的，这场追问就没有结束。

2017—2026。

九年的失踪，需要真相；

九年的等待，需要答案。

高智晟在哪里？

参加本次活动的民运人士名单：方政，郑云，李小林，周云龙，胡丕政，周小俊，李树青，刘静涛，吕小静，郭志军，常国栋，关永杰，高英芬，周祺禄，国盼，赵明，姚荣涛，李栩，张鹏展，高俊影，吴志创，郭鉴鑫，李晓艳，谷涛等（排名不分先后）

现场采访及活动剪影。

编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances

——San Francisco Rally Asks “Where Is Gao Zhisheng?”

Author: Lyu Xiaojing

On August 30, 2026, participants gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall to express solidarity with Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who has been forcibly disappeared for nine years, jointly asking: “Where is Gao Zhisheng?” (Photographs in this article provided by Guan Yongjie)

[San Francisco News] On the afternoon of August 30, 2026, the “International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances—Gao Zhisheng Solidarity Event,” hosted by the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party and the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation, was held in front of San Francisco City Hall.

Participants held Chinese and English placards reading “高智晟在哪里？” and “WHERE IS GAO ZHISHENG?”, continuously asking for the whereabouts of Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng in front of City Hall, while calling on the U.S. government, Congress, media, human rights organizations, and the general public to pay attention to the Gao Zhisheng case and the issue of enforced disappearance.

On that day, there was no complex staging at the scene.

An empty chair, ten year markers, nine seconds of silence.

Yet together they pointed to a question that has remained unanswered for nine years:

Where is Gao Zhisheng?

Nine years have passed, and a most fundamental question still has no answer.

The event was hosted by Democracy Party members Li Xiaolin and Guo Zhijun. In their opening remarks, the two introduced that Gao Zhisheng is a Chinese human rights lawyer who had provided legal assistance to religious believers, dissidents, and vulnerable groups, and was consequently subjected to long-term suppression, detention, and surveillance.

On August 13, 2017, Gao Zhisheng was secretly taken away from his residence in Yulin, Shaanxi. His family subsequently searched for him and reported the case to the police, but local police denied detaining him. It was not until more than three weeks later that the family learned from a local official that Gao Zhisheng had been taken to Beijing.

However, since then, where he actually is, who controls him, and how his physical condition is—the family members have never received any public or credible explanation.

From 2017 to 2026, a full nine years.

Therefore, all speeches, slogans, and actions on that day ultimately returned to the same question: Where is a living human being, a husband, a father? Where on earth is he?

Participants held high year placards from 2017 to 2026 in front of San Francisco City Hall. An empty chair at the center of the scene symbolized Gao Zhisheng’s nine-year absence.

At the event site, an empty chair was placed in the center of the crowd.

The hosts introduced that this empty chair represented a person who should have been able to freely return home and freely speak, yet has been absent for nine years.

Subsequently, participants raised placards in sequence: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026.

Ten years, recording nine years of disappearance, as well as recording nine years of a family’s waiting. In 2017, Gao Zhisheng lost his freedom.

One year passed, no answer; two years passed, no answer; five years passed, still no answer. Until 2026, when the last year placard was raised, people were still asking: “Where is Gao Zhisheng?”

Afterward, the entire crowd observed nine seconds of silence.

One second representing one year. Nine seconds is very brief, but for a family that does not know the life, death, or whereabouts of a loved one, nine years is more than three thousand days and nights without an answer. These nine seconds were also dedicated to all victims of enforced disappearance and to those families still waiting for their loved ones to return home.

Fang Zheng, Chairman of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, put forward three demands on behalf of the organizers at the scene:

First, immediately disclose the true whereabouts of lawyer Gao Zhisheng and restore his personal freedom;

Second, call on the U.S. government and Congress to continuously pay attention to the Gao Zhisheng case and pursue accountability for the persecution;

Third, call on American media, human rights organizations, and the public to speak out together to bring the Gao Zhisheng case into the public view of American society.

Fang Zheng expressed hope that all participants would, through various means, spread these demands across the United States and throughout the world, enabling the international community to sustain its concern for Gao Zhisheng and help him regain his freedom at an early date.

A period of nine years is enough for a news story to fade from the front page, but what Fang Zheng emphasized is precisely this: a person’s whereabouts cannot cease to be questioned simply because time has passed.

Zheng Yun, Secretary-General of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, stated in her speech that Gao Zhisheng was once a lawyer who used the law to defend the vulnerable and fight for the rights of those suffering from injustice. However, when a person who once strived to safeguard rights for others loses his own freedom, and when no one can even confirm where he is, this in itself serves as a grave interrogation of the rule of law and human rights.

Zheng Yun expressed that nine years of enforced disappearance have taken away not only Gao Zhisheng’s personal freedom, but have also plunged a family into a prolonged and agonizing wait.

A wife is waiting for her husband, and children are waiting for their father.

For a family, what they ask for is not any special privilege, but merely the hope to know where their loved one is, whether he is safe, and when he can return home.

Zheng Yun emphasized that the Gao Zhisheng case is by no means a story of the past. Nine years can allow a child to grow up and turn much news into old history, but it cannot allow a forcibly disappeared person to thereby vanish from public memory.

She maintained that enforced disappearance produces not only silence, but also attempts to manufacture oblivion; and that people standing here today are doing so precisely to reject this oblivion.

“As long as there are still people asking, Gao Zhisheng has not been disappeared; as long as there are still people shouting his name, these nine years of waiting will not be buried by silence.”

Zheng Yun concluded by calling for the disclosure of Gao Zhisheng’s true whereabouts, so that he may regain his freedom and be reunited with his family.

Hu Pizheng, Vice Chairman of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, began his remarks by reflecting on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s thoughts regarding “truth.”

He stated that under a system fearful of truth, speaking truth itself may carry a price. Some lawyers, journalists, writers, and civic activists have been suppressed, and have even lost contact with their families and the outside world, simply for investigating facts, criticizing power, and insisting on expressing themselves.

“If a government were truly confident, why would it fear a single word of truth? If a regime truly represented the people, why would it fear the people knowing the truth?”

Hu Pizheng expressed that genuine freedom does not mean everyone holds the same viewpoint, but rather that every individual possesses the right to support, criticize, speak out, or remain silent.

He said: “When the people choose not to know, that is freedom; when the government does not allow the people to know, that is a blockade. One is a choice, the other is coercion.”

At the conclusion of his speech, he remarked: “Truth will not destroy a country. What is truly terrifying is when everyone knows the truth, yet no one dares to speak the truth anymore!”

Liu Jingtao, a member of the China Democracy Party, further extended the focus to even more individuals who have suffered enforced disappearance, secret detention, and long-term loss of contact with the outside world.

He stated that enforced disappearance never harms just a single person. When an individual suddenly vanishes from society, leaving family members unable to even know whether their loved one is dead or alive, this unanswered waiting in itself constitutes continuous harm to the family.

He called on the international community to maintain sustained attention on related cases and emphasized: “Demanding truth is not a crime. Supervising government is not a crime. Making people ‘be disappeared’ cannot be a means of governance.” “Do not let them be forgotten, and do not let the truth be buried.”

Li Shuqing, a member of the China Democracy Party, asked a series of pointed questions at the scene: “Where on earth is Gao Zhisheng? Is he still alive right now? Who deprived him of his freedom? Who has the right to make a living person ‘disappear’ from this world?”

Li Shuqing stated that a government may disagree with a person’s viewpoints, but it has no right to make a living human being disappear, nor can it force his family to wait in prolonged darkness and the unknown.

“A person can be forcibly taken away, but the truth will not vanish forever; a voice can be suppressed, but justice will not fall silent because of it!”

He concluded by calling out loudly: “Gao Zhisheng, we have not forgotten you! So long as you are denied freedom for even a single day, we will not cease asking for a single day: Where are you?”

Lyu Xiaojing, deputy director of the Fremont Branch of the China Democracy Party, stated that the United Nations established the “International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances” precisely to remind the world that no government may secretly take a person away and make them vanish from the law and public view.

She said that people on that day were speaking out not only for Gao Zhisheng, but also for all victims of enforced disappearance, as well as for those families still waiting for fathers, husbands, wives, and children to return home. “Where is Gao Zhisheng? Forcibly disappeared for nine years—today we demand an answer!”

In addition, Zhou Xiaojun, Guo Jianxin, Wu Zhichuang, Yao Rongtao, and others also spoke at the scene successively, expressing concern over Gao Zhisheng’s situation and the issue of enforced disappearance. Different speeches ultimately converged on the same demand: nine years later, an open and credible answer is still needed regarding Gao Zhisheng’s whereabouts.

Following the expressions of solidarity for Gao Zhisheng, the day’s event entered another important segment—the official launch of the TTT Action | Truth Action.

Host Li Xiaolin introduced that the initial inspiration for this action came from this year’s commemoration of the 37th anniversary of June Fourth. On June 3 of this year, during the June Fourth commemoration event in front of the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco, Fang Zheng spoke about why, even after more than thirty years, people still commemorate June Fourth: because some try to let history be forgotten and truth be covered up, while what people need to do is to continue telling the truth. Li Xiaolin expressed that these words led him to begin thinking: Could “telling the truth” be made into an action that is simpler, easier to disseminate, and able to cross languages and national borders?

Thus came the three English words: TELL THE TRUTH. The first letters of the three words form: T—T—T. But the truth cannot remain merely in a slogan; it must also be transformed into action. Hence was formed: TTT ACTION | Truth Action. Its core concept is: Speak out the covered-up truth, let more people know, and let more people see.

Li Xiaolin simultaneously announced that as of that day, 7 organizations and more than 50 individuals had jointly become co-initiators of TTT Action. He emphasized that TTT does not belong to any single individual. Different people and different organizations can maintain their own identities and independence, yet can stand together for a common goal: TELL THE TRUTH—speak out the truth.

Fang Zheng announced: “TTT Action | Truth Action is officially launched!” Because Fang Zheng’s speech regarding “telling the truth” provided the initial inspiration for TTT Action, Fang Zheng personally announced the official launch of the action on that day.

Participants thereupon unfurled banners, raised their fists, and shouted together: “TELL THE TRUTH！” “WHERE IS GAO ZHISHENG?” “WHERE IS GAO ZHISHENG?” “TELL US WHERE HE IS!” “STOP ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES!”

After the formal rally concluded, participants did not leave immediately. Holding prepared English materials, they walked up to ordinary members of the public passing by San Francisco City Hall, introducing who Gao Zhisheng is, why people have continuously asked for his whereabouts for nine years, and what enforced disappearance means to individuals and families.

Some passersby stopped after hearing the introduction, taking the materials to read carefully; others continued communicating with participants to inquire about the situation.

From the shouting of dozens of people in front of City Hall to handing an English information sheet to an ordinary person who might never have heard of Gao Zhisheng before, the day’s “TELL THE TRUTH” transformed from a slogan into concrete action: enabling those who do not know to begin knowing, and enabling those who have not seen to begin seeing.

As the event neared its conclusion, Gao Zhisheng’s wife Geng He contacted the organizers.

She expressed that due to work obligations she was currently out of town and deeply regretted being unable to attend the day’s event in person, while expressing her gratitude to everyone who came to attend the event, continuously paying attention to and speaking out in support of lawyer Gao Zhisheng.

This message from a family member also gave the empty chair at the scene an even heavier and more concrete meaning.

For the outside world, “Where is Gao Zhisheng?” is a public inquiry that has persisted for nine years.

Yet for his wife and children, it is first and foremost a request as ordinary as can be, yet one that has remained unfulfilled for nine years: A husband returning home. A father returning home.

The event ultimately comes to an end, the crowd will disperse, the banners will be folded away, and the ten year placards from 2017 to 2026 will also be taken away.

But as long as that chair remains empty, this questioning does not end.

2017—2026.

Nine years of disappearance demand the truth;

Nine years of waiting demand an answer.

Where is Gao Zhisheng?

List of democracy activists participating in this event: Fang Zheng, Zheng Yun, Li Xiaolin, Zhou Yunlong, Hu Pizheng, Zhou Xiaojun, Li Shuqing, Liu Jingtao, Lyu Xiaojing, Guo Zhijun, Chang Guodong, Guan Yongjie, Gao Yingfen, Zhou Qilu, Guo Pan, Zhao Ming, Yao Rongtao, Li Xu, Zhang Pengzhan, Gao Junying, Wu Zhichuang, Guo Jianxin, Li Xiaoyan, Gu Tao, etc. (names listed in no particular order)

On-site interviews and event vignettes.

Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

——持续守望 拒绝遗忘

作者：吕小静

2026年8月23日，参与者在中共驻旧金山总领馆前举行“把光照进高墙，为良心犯发声”活动，手持良心犯照片进行声援（现场活动照片由关永杰提供）

【旧金山讯】2026年8月23日下午，中国民主党旧金山党部、中国民主教育基金会等在中共驻旧金山总领馆前举行“把光照进高墙，为良心犯发声”活动，参与者手持各自认领的良心犯照片，讲述他们被捕、判刑、被强迫失踪或身陷高墙的经历，为中国良心犯持续发声。

活动以“一人一犯·一对一守护”的方式，根据自己的籍贯或关注对象，“认领”一名或多名中国良心犯，通过现场举牌、公开演讲、写信关怀和社交媒体传播等方式，让一个个逐渐淡出公众视野的名字重新被看见。

活动提出“两地联动·双轨并行”的行动方式：在中国境内，在充分尊重当事人及家属意愿和安全的前提下，通过书信、问候及适当的生活关怀给予支持；在海外，则通过公开集会、举牌和社交媒体持续发声。

活动现场，一张张良心犯的照片被高高举起。照片背后，是一个个因政治观点、和平表达、公民行动或推动民主法治而遭受打压的人，也是一个个长期等待亲人归来的家庭。

参与者表示，声援的意义不仅在于记住一个名字，更在于打破强迫遗忘——当高墙试图隔绝一个人的声音，墙外的人就更应该替他们发声。

活动现场，发起人郭志军为中国法律学者、人权捍卫者许志永发声。

郭志军介绍，许志永长期推动官员财产公开、教育平权以及公民权利。2014年，他因推动新公民运动获刑四年；出狱后仍继续倡导法治与社会正义。此后，许志永因涉及“厦门聚会”案件再次被捕，并于2023年以“颠覆国家政权罪”被判处有期徒刑14年。

郭志军表示，许志永所追求的是法治、公平以及普通公民本应享有的基本权利。

“如果把许志永先生放在一个真正尊重言论自由和公民权利的民主社会，他不应该因为这些主张而身陷囹圄。”

他认为，重判一个和平倡导社会改革的人，无法让其坚持的理念消失，反而更加凸显中国异议人士和人权捍卫者所面对的严峻处境。

发言最后，郭志军高喊：“释放许志永！释放所有良心犯！”

“Free Xu Zhiyong! Free all prisoners of conscience!”

中国民主党全委会党员蔡晓丽将声援对象指向河南民主人士贾榀。

蔡晓丽介绍，贾榀曾参与南方街头运动，长期关注民主与人权议题，2014年曾因“寻衅滋事”相关指控遭刑事拘留。2022年9月，贾榀前往广西北海，其后曾向友人透露自己被河南国保带回。自当年9月24日起，他便与外界失去联系，至今公开渠道仍难以获得其确切下落。

蔡晓丽情绪激动地表示，一个公民不能就这样从社会中“消失”，家人、朋友和公众有权知道他的下落与安危。

她在现场连续追问： “贾榀在哪里？他是否平安？”

蔡晓丽呼吁当局公布贾榀的真实下落和身体状况，保障其基本人权，并结束以强迫失踪等方式压制异议人士。

她表示，今天不断喊出贾榀的名字，就是拒绝让一个人的命运被黑暗和沉默彻底掩埋。

活动现场，中国民主党党员李凯为重庆公民薛仁义、潘斌发声。

李凯介绍，薛仁义曾发起“绿叶行动”，关注医保、社保、食品安全、环境污染及公民基本权利。2018年，他在重庆参与公民活动后被带走，随后以“寻衅滋事罪”获刑三年。刑满后，他逐渐从公众视野中消失，近况难以确认。

另一名参与者潘斌也因相关公民行动被捕，并以“寻衅滋事罪”获刑四年，近年来同样鲜有可靠消息。

李凯表示，他们关注的只是普通人的切身利益和基本权利，却为和平表达付出了失去自由的代价。

“真正应该受到质问的，不是那些勇敢发声的公民，而是这个压制声音的制度。”

他表示，今天重新喊出薛仁义、潘斌的名字，就是要告诉所有被迫沉默的人：“有人还记得你们，也有人仍然在为自由、尊严和基本人权发声。”

中国民主党奥克兰支部主任、来自山东的高志彬，为家乡良心犯管晓燕发声。

高志彬表示，作为山东人，看到自己的家乡有人因为表达观点、追求自由与权利而身陷困境，他无法选择沉默。

“今天声援管晓燕，不仅因为她是我的山东老乡，更因为每一个人都应该拥有基本的尊严和权利。”

他指出，一个正常的社会应当能够容纳不同声音。公民表达意见、关注社会问题、批评不公，不应成为遭受政治打压的理由。

“当一个人的声音被压制，墙外的人就更应该替她发声；当一个名字试图被遗忘，就更应该不断喊出她的名字。”

高志彬随后面向现场喊道： “管晓燕，你并不孤单！”

他表示，在海外仍有山东老乡以及众多关注中国人权的人记得她、关注她。 “我们期待有一天，在山东、在中国的每一片土地上，每一个普通人都能自由表达自己的思想，不必因为说真话而恐惧，不必因为坚持信念而失去自由。”

中国民主党党员周云龙则将关注的目光投向重庆良心犯任建平和李怀庆在狱中的处境。他介绍，“推墙大联盟”主要发起人任建平2019年在重庆被捕，2023年被以“颠覆国家政权罪”判处有期徒刑10年。据相关消息，任建平因拒绝认罪以及曾为其他在押人员争取权益，在狱中遭受体罚、殴打、侮辱等不当对待，身体状况令人担忧。

重庆民营企业家李怀庆因网络言论等原因，于2020年被判处有期徒刑20年。周云龙表示，据家属反映，李怀庆在贵州兴义监狱遭受长期“严管”，与其他服刑人员的正常交流受到严格限制，其身心状况同样值得持续关注。

周云龙呼吁外界不要只看到一纸判决，更应该看到高墙之内一个个真实的人，要求有关方面停止虐待和不当管控，保障两人的人身安全、医疗权和人格尊严。

来自河南的中国民主党党员李晓艳，为河南公民张海涛发声。她表示，声援张海涛，不仅是在关注一个人的命运，更是在捍卫普通人表达观点、坚持信念以及有尊严生活的基本权利。

李晓艳表示，张海涛的遭遇让人看到，一个真正进步的社会，不应该只允许一种声音，更不应该让人因为表达不同观点而生活在恐惧之中。

“正义不应该因为沉默而消失，良知不应该因为恐惧而沉默，人的尊严不应该被任何力量轻易剥夺。”

她呼吁更多人加入声援，让身处困境的人知道，他们没有被遗忘，让良知与正义的声音继续传递下去。

中国民主党党员李树青声援被判刑12年的公民运动人士丁家喜。李树青介绍，2019年12月，丁家喜在北京被警方带走。此前，他曾参加厦门举行的公民、律师聚会，案件随后由山东方面侦办。经历长期羁押后，2023年4月10日，丁家喜被以“颠覆国家政权罪”判处有期徒刑12年。

李树青表示，丁家喜因推动公民社会、追求民主法治而付出沉重代价，他的遭遇也是中国异议人士和维权人士处境的缩影。

“只要中共一天不停止对异议人士的抓捕、镇压和迫害，我们就一天不会停止声援和控诉。”

他表示，持续声援不仅是为了丁家喜一个人，更是要告诉高墙内所有因政治观点和公民行动失去自由的人：他们没有被遗忘，对自由、民主与人权的追求也不会因为打压而停止。

中国民主党Fremont支部副主任吕小静声援已被囚禁二十多年的中国民主人士王炳章博士。

吕小静介绍，王炳章早年赴加拿大留学并获得医学博士学位。1982年，他创办《中国之春》，放弃原本可以安稳优越的人生，投身中国民主运动，推动中国走向民主、自由与法治。

2002年，王炳章在越南期间遭绑架并被带回中国，次年被以“间谍罪”和“领导恐怖组织罪”判处无期徒刑、剥夺政治权利终身，至今已失去自由二十多年。

吕小静表示，二十多年，对于一个人的生命而言，是一段极其漫长的岁月。 王炳章的遭遇不仅是一个人的悲剧，更折射出不受制约的权力对异议声音和政治表达的压制。

“当一个政党凌驾于人民和法律之上，受伤害的绝不会只是某一个人。” 她强调，今天声援王炳章，就是要反对一党专政，要求权力受到制约，让思想不再成为罪名，让不同政见不再成为失去自由的理由。

发言最后，她高喊： “释放王炳章！释放所有良心犯！”

她表示，海外民主人士将继续发声、继续抗争，“直到一个自由、民主、法治的中国真正到来！”

活动现场，民主党党员郭鉴鑫为“四通桥抗议者”彭立发发声。

郭鉴鑫表示，彭立发因反对严厉疫情封控、呼吁自由与选举、反对个人崇拜和一党专政等政治诉求而遭当局拘押。

他认为，彭立发所表达的不只是个人的不满，更是一个普通公民对自由、尊严和政治权利的公开呼喊。

郭鉴鑫表示： “一个人可以被带走，一座桥上的横幅可以被撤下，但追求自由的声音不会因此消失。”

他认为，越是有人试图让一个名字被遗忘，人们越应该不断说出他的名字。 发言最后，郭鉴鑫高喊：“立即释放彭立发！立即释放所有良心犯、政治犯！”并连续呼喊“独裁习近平下台”，表达对中国现行政治体制的强烈抗议。

与一般的抗议活动不同，此次活动特别提出“认领家乡良心犯”的持续行动理念。参与者根据自己的籍贯，选择一个或多个家乡良心犯作为声援对象。除了在海外集会现场举起他们的照片，还可以通过公开介绍其经历、持续追踪近况、写信或寄送问候等方式，让关注从一次活动延伸到日常生活。

主办方同时强调，所有国内关怀行动首先必须考虑当事人与家属的安全，并尊重家属意愿。对于明确不希望受到打扰的家属，不主动电话联系或寄送信件；无法联系家属时，可以通过社交媒体持续介绍良心犯的经历与近况。若条件允许，也可在遵守监狱寄信规定的情况下，以简短、非敏感的日常问候表达关怀。

这场活动试图传递的一个信息是：政治高墙最可怕的力量之一，不只是囚禁一个人的身体，也是让他的名字逐渐从公共记忆中消失。而对抗遗忘最简单的方式，就是继续记住。

活动参与者表示，他们希望通过“一人一犯”的持续行动，把一次集会变成长期关注，把一声口号变成持续的责任。让高墙内的人知道：你没有被遗忘。 你并不孤单。高墙之外，还有人在守望。 只要还有一个人因为思想、信仰、言论和和平表达而失去自由，良知的声音就不应该停止。

参加本次活动的民运人士名单：郑云，李树青，周云龙，郭志军，李小林，李晓艳，吕小静，范国林，国盼，吴志创，李凯，蔡晓丽，刘静涛，赵明，高俊影，姚荣涛，胡帅，高志彬等（排名不分先后）

活动采访发言及现场剪影。

编辑：韩立华 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

San Francisco Supports Chinese Prisoners of Conscience: “Shine the Light into the High Walls”

—Sustaining the Vigil, Refusing to Forget

Author: Lyu Xiaojing

On August 23, 2026, participants held a rally titled “Shine the Light into the High Walls, Speak Out for Prisoners of Conscience” in front of the Consulate General of the PRC in San Francisco, holding photographs of prisoners of conscience in solidarity (photograph of the on-site event provided by Guan Yongjie).

[San Francisco News] On the afternoon of August 23, 2026, organizations including the San Francisco Branch of the Chinese Democratic Party and the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation held a rally themed “Shine the Light into the High Walls, Speak Out for Prisoners of Conscience” in front of the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco. Participants held photographs of the prisoners of conscience they had “adopted,” recounted their experiences of arrest, sentencing, enforced disappearance, or imprisonment within the high walls, and continued to speak out for China’s prisoners of conscience.

The event adopted a “one person, one prisoner: one-on-one guardianship” approach. Based on their native places or areas of concern, participants “adopted” one or more Chinese prisoners of conscience. Through on-site placard-holding, public speeches, written care, and social media dissemination, they brought names that were gradually fading from the public eye back into view.

The event proposed a dual-track action plan of “two-place linkage and parallel tracks”: within mainland China, support is provided through letters, greetings, and appropriate material care, provided that the full respect and safety of the individuals and their families are maintained; overseas, sustained voices are raised through public rallies, placard displays, and social media.

At the event, photographs of prisoners of conscience were held high. Behind each photograph lies an individual who has suffered suppression for their political views, peaceful expression, civic action, or efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law, as well as a family enduring a long wait for the return of their loved ones.

Participants stated that the significance of solidarity lies not only in remembering a name, but in breaking through forced amnesia—when high walls attempt to silence a person’s voice, those outside the walls must speak out for them even more resolutely.

At the event, initiator Guo Zhijun spoke out for Xu Zhiyong, a Chinese legal scholar and human rights defender.

Guo Zhijun introduced that Xu Zhiyong has long advocated for the disclosure of officials’ assets, equal access to education, and civil rights. In 2014, he was sentenced to four years in prison for promoting the New Citizens’ Movement; after his release, he continued to advocate for the rule of law and social justice. Subsequently, Xu Zhiyong was arrested again due to his involvement in the “Xiamen Gathering” case, and in 2023 was sentenced to 14 years in prison on the charge of “subverting state power.”

Guo Zhijun stated that what Xu Zhiyong pursues is the rule of law, fairness, and the basic rights that ordinary citizens should rightfully enjoy.

“If Mr. Xu Zhiyong were placed in a democratic society that truly respects freedom of speech and civil rights, he would not be behind bars because of these propositions.”

He maintained that heavily sentencing a person who peacefully advocates for social reform cannot make the ideas he stands for disappear; instead, it further highlights the grim situation faced by Chinese dissidents and human rights defenders.

At the end of his speech, Guo Zhijun shouted: “Free Xu Zhiyong! Free all prisoners of conscience!”

“Free Xu Zhiyong! Free all prisoners of conscience!”

Cai Xiaoli, a member of the National Committee of the China Democracy Party, directed her expression of support toward Henan dissident Jia Pin.

Cai Xiaoli explained that Jia Pin had participated in the Southern Street Movement and long focused on democracy and human rights issues, having been criminally detained in 2014 under charges related to “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” In September 2022, Jia Pin traveled to Beihai, Guangxi, and subsequently conveyed to friends that he had been brought back by Henan domestic security officers (Guobao). Since September 24 of that year, he has lost contact with the outside world, and to this day, it remains difficult to obtain his exact whereabouts through public channels.

Cai Xiaoli emotionally stated that a citizen cannot simply “disappear” from society in this manner, and that family, friends, and the public have the right to know his whereabouts, safety, and well-being.

At the scene, she asked in succession: “Where is Jia Pin? Is he safe?”

Cai Xiaoli called on the authorities to disclose Jia Pin’s true whereabouts and physical condition, safeguard his fundamental human rights, and cease suppressing dissidents through methods such as enforced disappearances.

She expressed that repeatedly shouting Jia Pin’s name today is precisely to refuse letting an individual’s fate be completely buried by darkness and silence.

At the event, Li Kai, a member of the China Democracy Party, spoke out for Chongqing citizens Xue Renyi and Pan Bin.

Li Kai introduced that Xue Renyi initiated the “Green Leaf Movement,” focusing on medical insurance, social security, food safety, environmental pollution, and basic civil rights. In 2018, after participating in civic activities in Chongqing, he was taken away and subsequently sentenced to three years in prison for the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” After completing his sentence, he gradually disappeared from the public eye, and his current situation remains difficult to confirm.

Another participant, Pan Bin, was also arrested for related civic actions and sentenced to four years in prison for the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” with similarly little reliable news about him in recent years.

Li Kai stated that what they were concerned about was merely the vital interests and basic rights of ordinary people, yet they paid the price of losing their freedom for peaceful expression.

“The ones who truly ought to be questioned are not those citizens who bravely speak out, but this system that suppresses voices.”

He expressed that shouting the names of Xue Renyi and Pan Bin again today is to tell everyone who has been forced into silence: “Someone still remembers you, and someone is still speaking out for freedom, dignity, and fundamental human rights.”

Gao Zhibin, director of the Oakland Branch of the China Democracy Party and a native of Shandong, spoke out for Guan Xiaoyan, a prisoner of conscience from his hometown.

Gao Zhibin expressed that as a Shandong native, seeing someone from his home province plunged into hardship simply for expressing views and pursuing freedom and rights left him unable to choose silence.

“Supporting Guan Xiaoyan today is not only because she is my fellow Shandong native, but even more so because every individual should possess fundamental dignity and rights.”

He pointed out that a normal society ought to be able to accommodate diverse voices. Citizens expressing opinions, paying attention to social issues, and criticizing injustice should not become grounds for suffering political suppression.

“When an individual’s voice is suppressed, those outside the walls should speak out for her all the more; when a name is systematically forced into oblivion, her name should be shouted continuously all the more.”

Gao Zhibin then faced the crowd and shouted: “Guan Xiaoyan, you are not alone!”

He stated that overseas, there are still fellow Shandong natives as well as numerous individuals concerned about Chinese human rights who remember her and care about her. “We look forward to the day when, in Shandong and across every inch of land in China, every ordinary person can freely express their thoughts without fear for speaking the truth, and without losing their freedom for standing by their convictions.”

Zhou Yunlong, a member of the China Democracy Party, turned his attention to the prison conditions of Chongqing prisoners of conscience Ren Jianping and Li Huaiqing. He explained that Ren Jianping, a key initiator of the “Grand Push Down the Wall Alliance,” was arrested in Chongqing in 2019 and sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2023 on charges of “subverting state power”. According to relevant reports, because he refused to plead guilty and had advocated for the rights of other detainees, Ren Jianping suffered physical punishment, beatings, insults, and other improper mistreatment in prison, leaving his health condition in a worrying state.

Li Huaiqing, a private entrepreneur from Chongqing, was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2020 due to online speech and other reasons. Zhou Yunlong stated that according to family members, Li Huaiqing has been subjected to long-term “strict management” in Xingyi Prison, Guizhou, where normal communication with other inmates has been severely restricted, making his physical and mental condition equally deserving of sustained attention.

Zhou Yunlong called on the outside world not to look merely at a written verdict, but even more so to see the real individuals behind the high walls, urging the relevant authorities to cease abuse and improper controls, and to safeguard their personal safety, right to medical care, and human dignity.

Li Xiaoyan, a member of the China Democracy Party from Henan, spoke out for Henan citizen Zhang Haitao. She stated that supporting Zhang Haitao is not only about caring for the fate of an individual, but even more so about defending the basic rights of ordinary people to express their views, stand by their convictions, and live with dignity.

Li Xiaoyan expressed that Zhang Haitao’s ordeal makes one see that a genuinely progressive society should not permit only a single voice, nor should it force people to live in fear simply for expressing different viewpoints.

“Justice should not vanish because of silence, conscience should not fall silent because of fear, and human dignity should not be easily stripped away by any force.”

She called on more people to join in solidarity, letting those plunged into hardship know that they have not been forgotten, and allowing the voices of conscience and justice to continue to pass on.

Li Shuqing, a member of the China Democracy Party, spoke out in solidarity with Ding Jiaxi, a civil movement activist who was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Li Shuqing introduced that in December 2019, Ding Jiaxi was taken away by police in Beijing. Prior to this, he had attended a gathering of citizens and lawyers in Xiamen, and the case was subsequently investigated and handled by authorities in Shandong. Following a prolonged period of detention, on April 10, 2023, Ding Jiaxi was sentenced to 12 years in prison on the charge of “subverting state power.”

Li Shuqing stated that Ding Jiaxi paid a heavy price for promoting civil society and pursuing democracy and the rule of law, and that his ordeal serves as a microcosm of the plight faced by Chinese dissidents and rights defenders.

“So long as the CCP does not cease its arrest, suppression, and persecution of dissidents for even a single day, we will not cease our solidarity and denunciations for a single day.”

He expressed that sustained expressions of solidarity are not merely for Ding Jiaxi as an individual, but are meant to signal to all those inside the high walls who have lost their freedom on account of their political views and civic actions: they have not been forgotten, and the pursuit of freedom, democracy, and human rights will not come to a halt because of suppression.

Lyu Xiaojing, deputy director of the Fremont Branch of the China Democracy Party, spoke out in support of Dr. Wang Bingzhang, a Chinese democracy activist who has been imprisoned for more than twenty years.

Lyu Xiaojing introduced that in his early years, Wang Bingzhang went to Canada to study and earned a doctorate in medicine. In 1982, he founded China Spring, giving up what could have been a stable and comfortable life to devote himself to the Chinese democracy movement and to advance China toward democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

In 2002, while in Vietnam, Wang Bingzhang was abducted and brought back to China. The following year, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and deprived of political rights for life on charges of “espionage” and “leading a terrorist organization.” He has now been deprived of his freedom for over twenty years.

Lyu Xiaojing stated that twenty-some years is an extraordinarily long span in a human life. Wang Bingzhang’s ordeal is not only an individual tragedy, but it also reflects the suppression of dissenting voices and political expression by unchecked power.

“When a political party places itself above the people and the law, the injured will never be just a single individual.” She emphasized that expressing solidarity with Wang Bingzhang today means opposing one-party dictatorship, demanding that power be kept in check, ensuring that thoughts are no longer treated as crimes, and ensuring that differing political views no longer serve as a reason for the loss of freedom.

At the conclusion of her speech, she shouted: “Free Wang Bingzhang! Free all prisoners of conscience!”

She expressed that overseas pro-democracy activists will continue to speak out and continue to resist, “until a free, democratic, and constitutional China truly arrives!”

At the event, Democracy Party member Guo Jianxin spoke out for Peng Lifa, the “Sitong Bridge protester.”

Guo Jianxin stated that Peng Lifa was detained by authorities for expressing political demands, including opposing severe epidemic lockdowns, calling for freedom and elections, and opposing personal cults and one-party dictatorship.

He maintained that what Peng Lifa expressed was not merely personal dissatisfaction, but a public cry by an ordinary citizen for freedom, dignity, and political rights.

Guo Jianxin expressed: “A person can be taken away, and banners on a bridge can be removed, but the voice pursuing freedom will not disappear because of it.”

He maintained that the more people try to make a name forgotten, the more people should continuously speak his name. At the end of his speech, Guo Jianxin shouted: “Immediately release Peng Lifa! Immediately release all prisoners of conscience and political prisoners!” and repeatedly shouted “Down with the dictator Xi Jinping,” expressing strong protest against China’s current political system.

Unlike general protest events, this event specifically put forward the continuous action concept of “adopting prisoners of conscience from one’s hometown.” Based on their native places, participants selected one or more prisoners of conscience from their home regions as targets of support. In addition to holding up their photographs at overseas rally sites, they could also extend attention from a single event into daily life by publicly introducing their experiences, continuously tracking their current situations, writing letters, or sending greetings.

The organizers simultaneously emphasized that all domestic care actions must first consider the safety of the individuals concerned and their family members, and respect the wishes of the families. For family members who explicitly express a desire not to be disturbed, no proactive telephone contact or mailing of letters should be initiated; when family members cannot be contacted, continuous introductions to the experiences and current situations of the prisoners of conscience can be conducted via social media. If conditions permit, care may also be expressed through brief, non-sensitive daily greetings while complying with prison letter-mailing regulations.

One message this event attempted to convey is that one of the most formidable powers of political high walls is not merely imprisoning a person’s body, but also causing their name to gradually vanish from public memory. And the simplest way to confront forced amnesia is to continue to remember.

Participants of the event stated that they hope, through the sustained action of “one person, one prisoner,” to transform a single rally into long-term concern, and a single slogan into continuous responsibility—letting those inside the high walls know: You have not been forgotten. You are not alone. Beyond the high walls, there are still people keeping vigil. As long as even one person loses their freedom on account of thought, belief, speech, or peaceful expression, the voice of conscience should not fall silent.

List of pro-democracy activists participating in this event: Zheng Yun, Li Shuqing, Zhou Yunlong, Guo Zhijun, Li Xiaolin, Li Xiaoyan, Lyu Xiaojing, Fan Guolin, Guo Pan, Wu Zhichuang, Li Kai, Cai Xiaoli, Liu Jingtao, Zhao Ming, Gao Junying, Yao Rongtao, Hu Shuai, Gao Zhibin, among others (names listed in no particular order).

Event interview speeches and on-site snapshots.

Editor: Han Lihua Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

——和平表达不是颠覆

作者：吕小静

2026年8月23 日，各界人士在中国驻旧金山总领馆前声援李卓人、邹幸彤（本文照片由关永杰提供）

【旧金山讯】2026年8月23日下午，中国民主党旧金山党部、中国民主教育基金会、美国香港人会馆、支持香港自由协会（AHKF）等团体及各界人士，在中国驻旧金山总领事馆前举行紧急声援活动，声援香港支联会前主席李卓人、前副主席邹幸彤，并呼吁释放所有因和平政治表达而遭监禁的人士。

活动现场，参与者手持李卓人、邹幸彤照片，以及“和平表达不是颠覆”“FREE HONG KONG”“END ONE-PARTY DICTATORSHIP”等横幅和标语。来自香港、中国大陆以及美国当地的参与者先后发言。

这场集会距离香港高等法院8月21日就“支联会案”作出有罪裁决仅两天。

一纸判决引发旧金山紧急声援

活动由李小林、郭志军共同主持。活动开始后，中国民主党旧金山党部活动部副部长李小林首先介绍了此次紧急声援活动的缘起。

他表示，两天前，香港高等法院就“支联会案”作出判决，李卓人、邹幸彤被裁定“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”成立。

面对这一判决，他们没有选择只在手机上转发一条新闻，而是来到中国驻旧金山总领事馆前，把一个无法回避的问题公开说出来：

“纪念历史，为什么会成为罪？和平表达，为什么会成为颠覆？”

现场表示，这场集会不仅是为了李卓人和邹幸彤，更是为了所有因和平表达、纪念历史和追求民主而失去自由的人。

中国民主党旧金山党部秘书长郑云随后简要介绍了支联会的历史。

她表示，支联会全称“香港市民支援爱国民主运动联合会”，成立于1989年六四期间。三十多年来，支联会长期推动六四纪念、支援中国民主运动、声援政治犯，并坚持“平反六四、结束一党专政、建设民主中国”等政治主张，每年在香港维多利亚公园举行六四烛光晚会。

2021年，在《香港国安法》实施后的政治环境下，支联会解散，多名核心成员被捕、起诉。如今，其前主席李卓人、前副主席邹幸彤又因“支联会案”被裁定罪名成立。

曾经照亮维多利亚公园的烛光，如今却成为当局追诉一个组织及其领导人的历史背景之一。支联会的命运，也成为现场参与者观察香港自由空间急剧变化的一面镜子。

北加州香港会代表陈国禧（Ken Chan）表示，当“结束一党专政”这样的和平政治主张都能够被视为“颠覆”，受到审判的就不只是李卓人、邹幸彤两个人，更关系到一个社会能否容纳不同政治意见。

陈国禧回忆，李卓人数十年来投身香港劳工及民主运动。十多年前李卓人到访旧金山湾区，在旧金山市政厅附近偶遇一场关注劳工权益的抗议活动。尽管此前并不了解该活动，他仍主动走进人群，与组织者交流并举牌声援。

这个细节让陈国禧一直记忆深刻。在他看来，这正是李卓人的本色——不仅是一名政治人物，更是一名长期站在普通劳动者身边、为权利和尊严发声的行动者。

谈到邹幸彤，他表示，即使香港纪念六四的空间不断消失，她仍选择站出来；即使身陷囹圄，也没有放弃自己的信念。

陈国禧还分享了来自狱中信件传递的信息：身在监狱之外的人仍然拥有公民社会，仍然能够关心身边与世界发生的事情，因此更应该珍惜并善用这种自由。

当有人因为和平表达而失去自由，高墙之外的人就更没有理由沉默。

美国香港人会馆代表施臻营（Jeni）当天带伤来到活动现场。 她表示，香港六四集会已经举行三十多年，历年活动场地亦曾获得香港政府批准。如今，支联会及其领导人却因相关政治主张被控“煽动他人颠覆国家政权”。

她反问，如果过去和平举行的集会曾经获得政府批准，如今却被视为“颠覆”的一部分，那么这种逻辑本身是否更值得追问？

她认为，当“煽动颠覆国家政权”能够被如此广泛解释，人们必须追问：这究竟是在维护国家安全，还是在以国家安全之名打压政治异见？

施臻营引用香港劳权监察总干事蒙兆达的话说： “判决不单单对李卓人和邹幸彤定罪，也对良知和真相定罪。” 她表示，今天海外香港人能够站在自由的土地上集会、发声，能够呼吸自由的空气，并不是理所当然。 “我们不能忘记，仍然有很多香港抗争者身陷囹圄，还有很多人每天承受政治威吓。”

她当天带伤站在现场，也让这句话有了更加直接的重量：自由不仅意味着自己走出了高墙，也意味着不能忘记仍被留在高墙之内的人。

UC Berkeley学生梁啓骏（Jeffrey）表示，在众多《香港国安法》案件中，支联会案尤其值得警醒，因为支联会并非一个以激进抗争为主要方式的团体。 三十多年来，支联会所做的重要工作之一，就是纪念六四、保存天安门事件的历史记忆，让下一代知道曾经发生过什么。

梁啓骏认为，当一个政权连人民“记住历史”都感到恐惧，甚至将纪念、教育和和平政治主张视为威胁，恰恰反映出它对历史真相与自身正当性的深刻不安。

他说，支联会案带来的答案不应该是停止纪念，而恰恰相反： 越是有人想让六四从历史中消失，人们越应该继续记住；越是有人因为纪念而付出自由的代价，高墙之外的人越不能沉默。

发言之后，梁啓骏在现场演奏《自由花》。乐声响起，参与者举起“FREE HONG KONG”以及声援李卓人、邹幸彤的标语。

长期在旧金山参与、支持中国民主运动的美国音乐家、1989年“六四”事件亲历者赛颂菲（Valerie Samson）也在现场发言。 她回忆当年与哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）记者共同经历的一些往事。她表示，面对中共当局的拘禁，那些记者依然保持冷静和勇气，并拒绝为自己的新闻工作道歉。

她特别谈到中国记者所面对的处境。 赛颂菲表示，她相信中国记者需要付出更大的勇气，因为人们仍然记得当年《人民日报》记者所处的艰难环境。 她说，自己敬佩那些坚持履行新闻职责的人，也不希望看到记者因为从事新闻工作、行使言论自由而受到惩罚。

曾在中国大陆生活、后来移居香港的Keiko Sato（赵桂弘），则把香港政治环境的变化带回到了一个母亲最具体的生活记忆中。 她表示，香港民主运动对自己而言并不是遥远的政治新闻，因为自己孩子曾经的老师黎颖霖在2019年反送中运动后因案件被判入狱。

黎颖霖曾经教导、帮助并陪伴自己的孩子成长。对Keiko而言，那不是新闻报道里一个冰冷的名字，而是一位真正走进过自己家庭生活的老师。

Keiko转述黎颖霖曾对她说： “香港是我们的家，即使我只是一只萤火虫，也要发出一点光，守护我们的家。” 她表示，作为一名母亲，当看到孩子的老师从课堂走进监狱，又看到纪念历史、和平表达和公开声援都可能付出沉重代价，她感到震惊和痛心。

Keiko还表示，自己曾通过合法方式支持香港民主运动，包括在2019年向香港民主党作出政治捐款。在她看来，那不是暴力，也不是犯罪，而是对民主、自由、法治和香港人权的支持。

她最后表示： “我支持李卓人先生，我支持邹幸彤女士，我支持所有香港政治犯，也支持所有仍然相信自由、法治和良知的人。” 她呼吁，不要让历史被擦掉，不要让和平表达被定义成犯罪，更不要让恐惧迫使人们沉默。

在这之后，活动发起人关永杰把问题进一步指向香港自由与法治的变化。 关永杰表示，作为一名广东人，香港曾是他从小认识文明、自由与法治的重要窗口。然而2019年以来，从黎智英案、47人案，到李卓人、何俊仁、邹幸彤等民主人士被定罪，他认为，那个曾经以自由和法治闻名的香港正在发生根本性的改变。

谈到邹幸彤，他表示，网传她被押解上庭时遭戴上手铐、脚镣等高度戒备措施，而她所坚持的却是和平政治表达。 在关永杰看来，一个政权越需要动用强大的国家机器对付和平表达者，越暴露出它对不同声音的恐惧。 他特别指出，邹幸彤是一名接受完整普通法训练的香港大律师，如今却被这套法律体系判处罪名成立，而她在法庭听取判决时依然面带微笑。 关永杰认为，这个微笑，是一个真正理解法治尊严的法律人，对如今香港“只有人治、没有法治”司法体系的蔑视，也是面对强权仍然拒绝低头的姿态。

随后，活动进入现场短采访环节。

主持人李小林向嘉宾、党员及参与者连续提出几个问题：

“你认为纪念六四，就是颠覆国家政权罪吗？”

“主张结束一党专政、建立民主中国，有罪吗？”

“今天的香港，和十年前最大的不同是什么？”

“为什么一个和平政治主张，会走到今天这一步？”

“今天之后，你们准备继续做什么？”

现场多名中国民主党党员及参与者接过话筒。 有人表示，纪念六四是保存历史，不应该成为犯罪；有人认为，“结束一党专政、建立民主中国”是一种和平政治主张，不应因为表达这种观点而受到刑事惩罚；也有人谈到，今天香港与十年前最大的变化，就是能够公开表达、组织和纪念历史的空间正在不断收缩。

不同的声音最终汇聚成一个共同追问： 如果一个政权连纪念历史、和平表达和不同政治主张都无法容忍，那么它真正恐惧的究竟是什么？

现场参与者表示，即使已经身在海外，也会继续发声，不让六四被遗忘，不让香港政治犯的名字从公众视野中消失。

当天活动的另一个重要环节，是“撑港会｜支持香港自由协会（Association for Hong Kong Freedom）”正式发起。

李小林表示，希望建立一个长期平台，持续支持香港的自由、人权、民主与法治，关注政治犯和受迫害人士，并推动美国社会和国际社会持续关注香港。

周云龙表示： “今天只是一个开始。” 他表示，未来将公开寻找核心筹备成员，希望更多志同道合者共同建设、共同承担，并进一步完善协会方向、章程和未来行动。

李小林同时向所有关心香港、认同自由、人权、民主与法治的人发出邀请。 他说： “过去，香港支援中国的民主与自由。今天，我们也应该站出来支持香港。撑港会，从今天开始。”

“撑港会”发起后，三名代表分别宣读当天的三项诉求。

范国林宣读第一项诉求： 立即释放李卓人、邹幸彤，以及所有因和平政治表达而遭监禁的人士。

国盼宣读第二项诉求： 停止以国家安全之名，打压和平表达、历史纪念和民主诉求。

张鹏展宣读第三项诉求： 呼吁美国政府和国际社会，持续关注香港的自由、人权与法治。

随后，参与者共同举起李卓人、邹幸彤的照片以及现场横幅。

“和平表达不是颠覆” 怒吼响彻中领馆前

活动进入尾声，现场参与者面向中国驻旧金山总领事馆，高举李卓人、邹幸彤的照片和横幅，一遍遍高喊：

“释放李卓人！” “释放邹幸彤！” “和平表达不是颠覆！” “释放香港政治犯！” 现场的愤怒，不仅来自两个人被定罪。 在参与者看来，更令人愤怒的是：一个曾经可以让十几万人手持烛光纪念六四的香港，如今连记住这段历史都可能付出失去自由的代价；一句“结束一党专政”、一个和平政治主张，也能够成为刑事追诉的一部分。

他们质问：一个真正自信的政权，为什么如此害怕一支纪念六四的蜡烛？为什么害怕一个律师的坚持？为什么害怕人民说出不同的政治主张？

现场人士认为，当权力试图把历史记忆变成罪证，把和平表达定义为颠覆，把政治异见者送进监狱时，被囚禁的不只是一个个具体的人，也是在不断收紧整个社会可以说话、可以记忆、可以反对的空间。

主持人在结束时表示，真正重要的不是今天喊了多少口号，而是明天以后，人们是否仍然愿意继续做这件事。

高墙可以夺走李卓人、邹幸彤的自由，却不能命令人们遗忘他们；强权可以禁止一场烛光晚会，却无法抹去六四留下的历史记忆；国家机器可以制造恐惧，却无法让所有追求自由的人同时沉默。

在参与者看来，只要还有一个人因为和平表达被关在高墙之内，高墙之外的人就有责任继续说出他们的名字；只要还有人试图抹去六四、压制香港的自由，就仍然需要有人站出来守住历史、守住良知、守住自由的底线。

因为真正应该被追问的，从来不是人民为什么要纪念、为什么要发声，而是一个政权为什么如此恐惧人民记住历史、表达思想和追求自由。

（ 活动采访发言及现场剪影）

编辑：韩立华 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

San Francisco Supports ‘HKA Alliance Case’ Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung

— Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion

Author: Lyu Xiaojing

On August 23, 2026, people from all walks of life held a rally in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to support Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung. (Photos in this article provided by Guan Yongjie)

[San Francisco News] On the afternoon of August 23, 2026, organizations including the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation, the US Hong Kongers Club, and the Association for Hong Kong Freedom (AHKF), along with individuals from all walks of life, held an emergency rally in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to voice support for Lee Cheuk-yan, former Chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKA), and Chow Hang-tung, former Vice Chairwoman of the HKA, and to call for the release of all individuals imprisoned for peaceful political expression.

At the demonstration site, participants held photographs of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, as well as banners and placards reading “Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion,” “FREE HONG KONG,” and “END ONE-PARTY DICTATORSHIP.” Participants hailing from Hong Kong, Mainland China, and the local American community took turns speaking.

This rally took place just two days after the High Court of Hong Kong handed down guilty verdicts in the “HKA Case” on August 21.

A Single Verdict Triggers Emergency Support in San Francisco

The event was co-hosted by Li Xiaolin and Guo Zhijun. As the demonstration began, Li Xiaolin, Deputy Director of the Events Department of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, first introduced the origin of this emergency support rally.

He stated that two days prior, the High Court of Hong Kong handed down its verdict in the “HKA Case,” finding Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung guilty of “incitement to subvert state power.”

In the face of this verdict, they did not choose to merely forward a news item on their mobile phones, but instead came to the front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to publicly voice an unavoidable question:

“Why has commemorating history become a crime? Why has peaceful expression become subversion?”

It was expressed at the rally that this gathering was not only for Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but even more so for all those who have lost their freedom due to peaceful expression, commemorating history, and pursuing democracy.

Zheng Yun, Secretary-General of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, subsequently gave a brief introduction to the history of the Hong Kong Alliance.

She stated that the Hong Kong Alliance’s full name is the “Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China,” founded during the June Fourth period in 1989. For over thirty years, the Hong Kong Alliance long promoted June Fourth commemorations, supported the Chinese democracy movement, voiced support for political prisoners, and adhered to political goals such as “vindicate June Fourth, end one-party dictatorship, and build a democratic China,” holding the annual June Fourth candlelight vigil in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park.

In 2021, under the political environment following the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the Hong Kong Alliance disbanded, and multiple core members were arrested and prosecuted. Today, its former Chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former Vice Chairwoman Chow Hang-tung have again been found guilty in the “HKA Case.”

The candlelight that once illuminated Victoria Park has today become part of the historical backdrop against which authorities prosecute an organization and its leaders. The fate of the Hong Kong Alliance has also become a mirror for the rally participants to observe the drastic shrinking of Hong Kong’s space for freedom.

Ken Chan, representative of the Northern California Hong Kong Club, stated that when a peaceful political stance such as “end one-party dictatorship” can be deemed “subversion,” what is put on trial is not merely the two individuals Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but something that bears directly on whether a society can tolerate differing political opinions.

Chan recalled that Lee Cheuk-yan has devoted himself to Hong Kong’s labor and democratic movements for decades. Over a decade ago, when Lee Cheuk-yan visited the San Francisco Bay Area, he happened upon a protest focused on workers’ rights near San Francisco City Hall. Although he had no prior knowledge of the event, he still took the initiative to walk into the crowd, engage with the organizers, and hold up a sign in solidarity.

This detail left a deep and lasting impression on Chan. In his view, this exemplifies Lee Cheuk-yan’s true character—not merely a political figure, but an activist who has long stood alongside ordinary workers, speaking out for rights and dignity.

Speaking of Chow Hang-tung, he noted that even as the space for commemorating June Fourth in Hong Kong continued to vanish, she still chose to step forward; even while trapped behind bars, she never abandoned her convictions.

Chan also shared a message conveyed from letters written in prison: those outside the prison walls still possess a civil society and remain capable of caring about what happens around them and in the world, and therefore should all the more cherish and make good use of this freedom.

When people lose their freedom because of peaceful expression, those outside the high walls have even less reason to remain silent.

Jeni Shi, representative of the US Hong Kongers Club, came to the event despite carrying an injury that day.

She stated that the Hong Kong June Fourth vigils had been held for over thirty years, and the event venues over the years had also received approval from the Hong Kong government. Today, however, the Hong Kong Alliance and its leaders are charged with “incitement to subvert state power” due to their relevant political stances.

She questioned: If the peaceful assemblies held in the past had received government approval, yet are today deemed part of “subversion,” then shouldn’t this logic itself be questioned all the more?

She believed that when “incitement to subvert state power” can be interpreted so broadly, people must ask: Is this truly safeguarding national security, or is it suppressing political dissent in the name of national security?

Quoting Mung Siu-tat, Director of Hong Kong Labour Rights Monitor, Jeni Shi said: “The verdict not only convicts Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but also convicts conscience and truth.” She stated that today, overseas Hong Kongers being able to stand on free soil to assemble and speak out, and being able to breathe the air of freedom, is not something to be taken for granted. “We must not forget that there are still many Hong Kong protesters trapped behind bars, and many more who endure political intimidation every day.”

Her standing at the rally while injured that day gave these words an even more direct weight: Freedom not only means that one has walked out from behind the high walls, but also that one must not forget those who remain left inside.

UC Berkeley student Leung Kai-chun (Jeffrey) stated that among the numerous Hong Kong National Security Law cases, the Hong Kong Alliance case warrants particular vigilance, because the Hong Kong Alliance is not an organization whose primary method is radical resistance.

For over thirty years, one of the important works done by the Hong Kong Alliance was to commemorate June Fourth, preserve the historical memory of the Tiananmen Incident, and let the next generation know what once transpired.

Leung Kai-chun believed that when a regime feels fear even towards the people “remembering history,” and goes so far as to regard commemoration, education, and peaceful political stances as threats, it precisely reflects its profound anxiety regarding historical truth and its own legitimacy.

He said that the answer brought by the Hong Kong Alliance case should not be to stop commemorating, but quite the contrary: The more someone wishes to make June Fourth disappear from history, the more people should continue to remember; the more someone pays the price of their freedom because of commemorating, the less those outside the high walls can remain silent.

Following his remarks, Leung Kai-chun played “Flowers of Freedom” (Zi Yau Far) on site. As the music sounded, participants held up placards reading “FREE HONG KONG” and those voicing support for Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung.

American musician Valerie Samson, a long-time participant in and supporter of the Chinese democracy movement in San Francisco as well as an eyewitness to the 1989 “June Fourth” Incident, also spoke at the event.

She recalled past events she experienced alongside Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) journalists back then. She stated that in the face of detention by CCP authorities, those journalists remained calm and courageous, refusing to apologize for their journalistic work.

She specifically spoke about the plight faced by Chinese journalists.

Samson expressed her belief that Chinese journalists need to display even greater courage, as people still remember the difficult environment faced by People’s Daily journalists back then. She said she admires those who persist in fulfilling their journalistic duties and does not wish to see journalists punished for engaging in news work or exercising their freedom of speech.

Keiko Sato (Zhao Guihong), who previously lived in Mainland China and later moved to Hong Kong, brought the changing political environment of Hong Kong back to a mother’s most concrete living memories.

She expressed that the Hong Kong democracy movement was not distant political news to her, because her child’s former teacher, Lai Wing-lam, was sentenced to prison in a court case following the 2019 Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement.

Lai Wing-lam had once taught, helped, and accompanied her child as they grew up. To Keiko, that was not a cold name in a news report, but a teacher who had truly entered her family’s everyday life.

Keiko recounted what Lai Wing-lam had once told her: “Hong Kong is our home. Even if I am just a firefly, I must emit a little light to guard our home.” She stated that as a mother, when she saw her child’s teacher move from the classroom into prison, and saw that commemorating history, peaceful expression, and public support could all carry a heavy price, she felt shocked and deeply pained.

Keiko also stated that she had supported the Hong Kong democracy movement through legal means, including making a political donation to the Democratic Party of Hong Kong in 2019. In her view, that was neither violence nor a crime, but support for democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and Hong Kong’s human rights.

She concluded by saying: “I support Mr. Lee Cheuk-yan, I support Ms. Chow Hang-tung, I support all Hong Kong political prisoners, and I support everyone who still believes in freedom, the rule of law, and conscience.” She appealed to not let history be erased, to not let peaceful expression be defined as a crime, and above all, to not let fear force people into silence.

Following that, event initiator Guan Yongjie further directed the question toward the changes in Hong Kong’s freedom and the rule of law.

Guan Yongjie expressed that as a native of Guangdong, Hong Kong was once an important window through which he learned about civilization, freedom, and the rule of law from a young age. However, since 2019, from the Jimmy Lai case and the 47-person case to the conviction of pro-democracy figures such as Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Chow Hang-tung, he believed that the Hong Kong once famous for freedom and the rule of law is undergoing fundamental changes.

Speaking of Chow Hang-tung, he noted that according to online reports, she was subjected to high-security measures such as handcuffs and leg irons when escorted to court, yet what she insisted upon was peaceful political expression.

In Guan Yongjie’s view, the more a regime needs to deploy a powerful state apparatus to deal with peaceful expressers, the more it exposes its fear of dissenting voices. He specifically pointed out that Chow Hang-tung is a Hong Kong barrister fully trained in the common law, yet today she was found guilty by this very legal system, while remaining all smiles when listening to the verdict in court.

Guan Yongjie believed that this smile is the contempt of a legal professional who truly understands the dignity of the rule of law toward today’s Hong Kong judicial system that has “only rule by man and no rule of law,” as well as a stance of refusing to bow her head when facing totalitarian power.

Subsequently, the event moved into a short on-site interview session.

Co-host Li Xiaolin posed several consecutive questions to guests, party members, and participants:

“Do you believe that commemorating June Fourth constitutes the crime of subverting state power?”

“Is advocating to end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic China a crime?”

“What is the biggest difference between today’s Hong Kong and ten years ago?”

“Why would a peaceful political position reach such a point today?”

“After today, what do you plan to continue doing?”

Multiple members of the China Democracy Party and event participants at the scene took the microphone.

Some expressed that commemorating June Fourth is about preserving history and should not be made a crime; some believed that “end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic China” is a peaceful political stance that should not incur criminal punishment for expressing such views; others spoke of the biggest change in Hong Kong today compared to ten years ago—that the space to publicly express, organize, and commemorate history is continuously shrinking.

These different voices ultimately converged into a common question: If a regime cannot even tolerate commemorating history, peaceful expression, and differing political views, then what exactly is it truly afraid of?

Participants at the site expressed that even though they are now overseas, they will continue to speak out, refusing to let June Fourth be forgotten and refusing to let the names of Hong Kong’s political prisoners vanish from the public eye.

Another important segment of the day’s event was the official launch of the “Association for Hong Kong Freedom (AHKF)” (known as Cheng Gang Hui).

Li Xiaolin expressed hope to establish a long-term platform to continuously support freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Hong Kong, keep focus on political prisoners and persecuted individuals, and promote sustained attention to Hong Kong within American society and the international community.

Zhou Yunlong stated: “Today is just the beginning.” He noted that in the future, they will publicly recruit core organizing members, hoping more like-minded individuals will join to build and bear responsibilities together, as well as further refine the association’s direction, bylaws, and future actions.

Li Xiaolin also extended an invitation to everyone who cares about Hong Kong and identifies with freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. He said: “In the past, Hong Kong supported China’s democracy and freedom. Today, we should also step forward to support Hong Kong. The Association for Hong Kong Freedom starts today.”

Following the launch of the Association for Hong Kong Freedom, three representatives separately read out the three demands of the day.

Fan Guolin read the first demand: Immediately release Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung, and all individuals imprisoned for peaceful political expression.

Guo Pan read the second demand: Stop suppressing peaceful expression, historical commemoration, and democratic aspirations in the name of national security.

Zhang Pengzhan read the third demand: Call upon the United States government and the international community to maintain sustained attention on Hong Kong’s freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.

Subsequently, participants together held up the photographs of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, as well as the banners at the site.

“Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion”—Shouts Resound in Front of the Chinese Consulate

As the event drew to a close, participants on site turned toward the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco, holding high the photographs of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung alongside banners, chanting again and again:

“Free Lee Cheuk-yan!” “Free Chow Hang-tung!” “Peaceful Expression Is Not Subversion!” “Free Hong Kong Political Prisoners!”

The anger at the site stemmed not merely from two individuals being convicted.

In the view of the participants, what inspired even greater outrage was that a Hong Kong that could once allow over a hundred thousand people holding candles to commemorate June Fourth now exacts the loss of freedom as the potential price for merely remembering this history; and a single phrase “end one-party dictatorship”—a peaceful political stance—can likewise become part of a criminal prosecution.

They questioned: Why is a truly confident regime so afraid of a single candle commemorating June Fourth? Why is it afraid of a lawyer’s perseverance? Why is it afraid of the people voicing differing political positions?

Those present maintained that when power attempts to turn historical memory into evidence of crime, define peaceful expression as subversion, and send political dissidents to prison, what is incarcerated is not merely individual, concrete human beings, but also the continuous tightening of space in which an entire society can speak, remember, and oppose.

The host stated at the conclusion that what truly matters is not how many slogans were chanted today, but whether, after tomorrow, people remain willing to keep doing this work.

High walls can strip away the freedom of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, but they cannot command people to forget them; totalitarian power can prohibit a candlelight vigil, but it cannot erase the historical memory left by June Fourth; the state apparatus can manufacture fear, but it cannot force all who pursue freedom into silence simultaneously.

In the eyes of the participants, as long as a single person remains confined behind high walls for peaceful expression, those outside the high walls bear the responsibility to continue speaking their names; as long as someone still attempts to erase June Fourth and suppress Hong Kong’s freedom, there remains the need for people to step forward to hold the line for history, conscience, and freedom.

For what truly ought to be questioned has never been why the people commemorate or speak out, but why a regime is so profoundly terrified of the people remembering history, expressing thoughts, and pursuing freedom.

(Event Interview Remarks and On-site Vignettes)

Editor: Han Lihua Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

《陳情書》在831七週年悼念會上傳誦

美國香港人會館（US Hongkongers Club）

撰文：關永傑  

上一位被稱為“香港的女兒”的，是香港著名歌星梅艷芳。

如果說梅艷芳是香港從小漁村發展成為亞洲金融中心的輝煌歷程見證者，那麼鄒幸彤，則是見證了香港從高度自由、文明與法治的巔峰，到被中共正式接管後，經濟萎靡，並且公民權益日益破敗、令人悲愴的沒落時代。

但她們有一個共同點：無論時代如何改變，都沒有放棄對良知、公義、自由與尊嚴的堅守。

根據公開資料，鄒幸彤出生、成長於香港。自幼她便跟隨母親到維多利亞公園參加“六四”燭光悼念。2003年，她以香港高級程度會考5A的優異成績進入英國劍橋大學，後來繼續攻讀地球物理學博士，研究方向涉及喜馬拉雅山、青藏高原的地質運動與地震。

然而，2008年的汶川大地震改變了她的人生。當一些同行看到的是一堆難得的地震研究數據時，她首先看到的，卻是無數失去生命和家園的人。但更令她失望的是，科研並不能獨立於政治環境而存在，中共政府因政治、維穩等因素撤走了青藏高原上的地質數據收集站，她原本的科研道路因此難以繼續。

她開始意識到：自己真正關心的，也許不應該是冰冷的科學數據，而是數據背後一個個活生生的人。於是，她放棄了已近在咫尺的博士學位，回到香港。

如果說魯迅當年因為“學醫已救不了中國人”而棄醫從文，那麼鄒幸彤走的，是一條相似卻屬於這個時代的道路——科學確實是有助推動社會進步，但現實中卻有很多人被遺棄在原地，於是，她便選擇去幫助那些正在現實中受苦的人。

2010年回港後，她曾在支聯會（香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會）工作，後來轉為義工，並參與中國內地勞工權益工作。那時她發現自己的法律知識不足，於是她再次發揮她那超強的學習能力，從頭開始讀法律，最終成為香港執業大律師。2014年，她當選支聯會常委；2015年底，成為支聯會副主席。

她本來完全可以選擇另一種人生。憑她的學歷和能力，她可以成為一個生活優渥的專業人士，可以遠離政治，可以擁有穩定、體面而且安全的中產生活。

但她沒有，因為她無法對苦難袖手旁觀。

2021年，香港國安法實施後，支聯會被迫解散。鄒幸彤也因此被捕、長期羈押。2026年8月21日，香港高等法院裁定支聯會、李卓人及鄒幸彤“煽動顛覆國家政權罪”罪成。法院認定，支聯會“結束一黨專政”的行動綱領構成相關犯罪意圖。

但真正震撼世界的，可能不是8月21日的判決，而是她8月28日的陳情。

在香港法律程序中，這原本應該是“求情”階段。然而，鄒幸彤在法庭上明確拒絕使用法律術語中的“求情”（Mitigation），而堅持使用“陳情”。她強調自己無罪可求，所做的一切是為了守護歷史記憶。

陳情書重點總結：

1.拒絕求情，堅稱無罪：她認為悼念六四無罪，真正需要求情和認罪的是那些掩蓋歷史、打壓自由的人。

2.寧做罪犯，不背叛良知：她表示如果法庭必須判刑，她寧願在體制中做一個“永遠的罪犯”，也絕不背叛自己的良知。

3.守護真相與記憶：她強調點燃燭光是為了對抗遺忘，不能讓威權抹殺歷史。

4.對香港法治的質問：她直言如果法律淪為剝奪人民基本權利的工具，那麼這種法律就已經失去了公義。

此陳情書一出，即在網絡快速傳播。八九學運領袖之一、“中國人權”執行主任周鋒鎖先生發推文力薦：“……她的法庭陳情書字字千鈞，值得鏤之金石。世界各地的抗議者都應該接力朗讀——這是一篇屬於我們時代的民主自由宣言。”

這是一份寫給歷史的陳情書。法律可以限制人的身體，卻未必能夠控制人的思想；牢籠可以讓一個人失去自由，卻不能強迫一個人相信謊言。

梅艷芳被稱為“香港的女兒”。1989年，她站出來聲援八九民運，並在六四鎮壓後深度參與並支持“黃雀行動”，為營救學運人士出錢出力。她用自己的名望和財富，幫助那些身處險境的年輕人逃出生天。

而鄒幸彤沒有梅艷芳那樣耀眼的舞台，卻選擇站在另一個時代的風暴中心，在謊言成為政權基石，效忠威權成為主流，爭取自由反而會成為罪犯的當今香港，她堅持不背叛自己的良知。

梅艷芳，是從香港的輝煌中站出來的人；鄒幸彤，則是在香港的自由不斷收縮之後，依然不肯低頭的人。一個用財富和影響力，一個用自己的專業、青春乃至自由，她們卻共同守護著同一樣東西——香港人的良知與尊嚴。

當一個人擁有足夠的能力去選擇安逸的時候，她仍然選擇了責任；當她擁有足夠的條件遠離政治的時候，她仍然選擇面對不公；當她終於無法逃避要面對高牆和牢獄的時候，她仍然沒有背叛自己的良知。

在剛剛過去的舊金山灣區“831”七週年紀念活動中，我們悼念那些因為爭取自由、權利與尊嚴而身陷囹圄，甚至失去生命的香港人。

七年前，只有七百萬人口的香港，竟然有數次上百萬人走上街頭表達訴求，場面之宏大，震撼了世界。

七年後，鄒幸彤的一紙陳情書，卻帶來了另一種震撼——從街頭的集體吶喊，走向了個人的精神堅守。

8月31日，我們依然能看到太子地鐵站口有人手持白花默站，期間有人高喊“831我們要真相”等口號；港鐵車廂內，有人在站點路線圖太子站位置貼上“法治已死”貼紙；由於當天香港下雨，更有人撐起印有“撐自由，反惡法”字樣的黃雨傘出現在太子地鐵站出口。隨後，有多名在封鎖線內情緒激動的市民被強押上警車。

831灣區傍晚的海邊，寒風蕭瑟。我們也在這裡默站、獻花，在感懷過往中抒發情感，並摯情回應周鋒鎖先生的倡議，分別用普通話與廣東話朗讀鄒幸彤的陳情書。對於在場每一位關心香港、熱愛香港，並為那片土地此刻所經歷的苦難而感到無比憤恨的人來說，我們心中都翻湧著一種幸存者的內疚，同時，也感受到跨越地域的苦難共鳴。

編輯：鐘然 校对：毛一炜 翻译：沈美花

（陳情書全文，圖片內容來自網絡，關永傑搜集整理，旨在傳播，無經營用途，如有侵權，請通知刪除）.

在鄒幸彤那法理清晰、風骨凜然的文句中，我們看到了堅韌與希望，她彷彿在召喚：牢籠鎖不住思想，香港人追求自由、勇於抗爭的精神不會泯滅，只要還有人在傳誦，只要還有人在傾聽，這粒種子就會不斷傳播下去。

“結束一黨專政，建設民主中國”，這是和平理性的表達，絕不是罪。強權的紅線，從來都不是我們的底線；有些真相，不能遺忘；有些自由，值得用一生去守護。

香港的燭光雖然已被禁止，但它並沒有熄滅。

燭光如海

人心成濤

粉身拍岸

不平不休

香港831事件七週年舊金山灣區悼念會現場圖片與內容摘要

（上圖為當天活動派發的民間傳單，其內容主要是對多年來網絡上流傳的社群輿論及大眾訴求進行的摘要與收集。儘管這些針對當年具體衝突傷亡的激烈措辭，在法律層面上至今缺乏官方確鑿的證據支持，但它們在網絡與民間的廣泛存在，恰恰折射出一個無可爭議的現實：由於政府當局在事件處理過程中的信息不透明、僅公開部分監控片段，其回應完全無法讓公眾信服，從而引發了社會大眾長期的、巨大的質疑。本文將這份傳單作為現場檔案予以完整記錄，並非為了進行司法意義上的事實定論，而是為了留存這段因強權掩蓋真相而衍生出的民間集體記憶符號，以及大眾對真相未竟的追問。）

支聯會五大綱領之一：結束一黨專政。

悼念會現場，灣區的傍晚時分氣溫驟降。

831七週年悼念會主持人施臻營（左）、關永傑（右）。施臻營指出，“831事件”至今已過去七年，但太子站當晚的監控畫面仍沒有全部公開，真相至今未明。她提到，今年前往太子站悼念、手持鮮花的民眾仍會被警方帶走或封鎖限制，反映出香港自由空間依然在持續收窄。對此，她呼籲外界不要遺忘，應持續關注和支持目前仍被關押的香港抗爭者。

主持人關永傑補充道，長期生活在中國大陸的高壓環境下，並且一直接受著愚民、弱民教育，許多內地民眾在潛移默化中已對強權產生了麻木與畏懼。相比之下，香港人受惠於昔日正常的文明教育與法治傳統，其基因里自帶對基本權利的敏感與捍衛精神，因此在2019年展現出了震撼世界的抗爭勇氣。然而，香港人當時顯然低估了中共政權的邪惡與殘酷程度，誤以為理性的訴求能換來正常的反饋，但迎來的卻是暴力的鐵腕鎮壓。運動期間，全港離奇出現了大量“無遺書的高空墜樓”以及“雙手被捆綁的全裸浮屍”等多發且疑點重重的非正常死亡案件。儘管當局一概將其定性為“無可疑”，但這些無法自圓其說的恐怖現實，徹底暴露了強權的殘酷面目，也印證了抗爭者當時面對的是何等龐大、何等邪惡的國家機器。

與會者為近年來在香港抗爭運動中失去自由甚至犧牲生命的香港人靜默一分鐘。

中國民主黨舊金山黨部主席、六四幸存者方政先生（坐輪椅者）表示，2019年後香港法治環境發生重大變化，因此流亡海外的港人快速增加，舉辦紀念活動，有助保存歷史記憶，更重要的是傳承抗爭精神，讓更多人認清中共的本質，加入到推翻一黨專政的行動中去。

美國香港人會館館長Bruce 發言，他首先感謝冒著寒風前來參與悼念會的同仁，只要美國香港人會館還存在，相關紀念活動就不會停止，永遠不會忘記那些在抗爭中失去自由的人。他同時強調，中共目前內憂外患，垮台只是時間問題。

醫院精神科心靈關顧師Cindy牧師（右，左為普通話翻譯者）指出，移居海外港人的精神創傷並未因離港而消失。目前灣區當地已有由牧師、精神科專家及心靈關顧師組成的團隊持續提供支援。她並鼓勵社區大眾發揮專長與能力，給予受創者最實質的陪伴與協助。

首次來參加香港831活動的中國民主黨黨員張繼順表示，一直都非常敬佩香港人的勇氣與抗爭精神，提醒自己關注歷史及認清真相，不要被中共的謊言所欺騙，要堅守良知，並希望與香港人站在一起。

就讀UC Berkeley的梁啓駿將「831事件」定性為2019年香港局勢的分水嶺。他回顧721元朗襲擊41天後警方在太子站的執法，痛批政府不僅沒有履行保護人民的基本責任，反而成了國家暴力的施害者。他指出，如今紀念831的核心意義在於：除了追尋歷史真相，更要讓獄中的手足知道，他們的犧牲從未被大眾遺忘。

徐同學（去年畢業於UCLA）在香港油尖旺區長大，小學離太子站僅需步行10分鐘。這種地緣親近感，讓她在新西蘭看到“831事件”影像時深受震撼。她回憶自己當時氣得雙手發抖、眼淚直流。雖然當時已身處海外，但這場經歷成為了她成長和看待香港政局的重要分水嶺。時隔七年，畫面依然歷歷在目，曾參與過2019年街頭活動的她直言，那些震撼至今無法忘記。

中國民主黨黨員劉武平來自廣州，他表示香港在過去30多年一直堅持紀念六四，令他十分感動。

華語青年挺藏會創辦人段荊棘，普通話朗誦《鄒幸彤陳情書》。

美國香港人會館成員施臻營，廣東話朗誦《鄒幸彤陳情書》。

梁啓駿演奏《這地》，他補充說，這是《願榮光歸香港》團隊創作的第三首歌，他引用網上一評論：“終有一日，我要升旗時唱《榮光》，步操時唱《不屈》，為烈士紀念碑獻花時唱《這地》！”

之後，全體齊唱《願榮光歸香港》。

在樂聲伴奏中，與會者為831太子站事件點燃燭光並獻花。

Hong Kong’s Daughter — Chow Hang-tung

Her “Statement of Mitigation” Recited at the 831 7th Anniversary Memorial

US Hongkongers Club

By: Guan Yongjie

Abstract: Chow Hang-tung has faced long-term suppression due to her persistent defense of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. This article reviews her life journey and the 7th anniversary memorial events of the “831 Incident,” showcasing the perseverance of Hong Kong pro-democracy figures in safeguarding historical memory and human dignity.

The last person to be called “Hong Kong’s Daughter” was the famous Hong Kong pop star Anita Mui.

If Anita Mui was a witness to Hong Kong’s glorious journey from a small fishing village to an Asian financial center, then Chow Hang-tung is a witness to a tragic era—one where Hong Kong plummeted from the peak of high freedom, civilization, and the rule of law into a decline marked by economic stagnation and the daily erosion of civil rights following its official takeover by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Yet, they share one common trait: no matter how the times changed, neither ever abandoned her steadfast commitment to conscience, justice, freedom, and dignity.

According to public records, Chow Hang-tung was born and raised in Hong Kong. From a young age, she followed her mother to Victoria Park to attend the June 4th candlelight vigils. In 2003, with an outstanding result of 5 As in the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination, she entered the University of Cambridge in the UK, later pursuing a Ph.D. in geophysics focusing on tectonic movements and earthquakes in the Himalayas and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.

However, the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake altered the course of her life. While some of her peers saw a rare set of seismic research data, what she saw first was the vast number of people who had lost their lives and homes. Even more disappointing to her was that scientific research could not exist independently of the political environment; due to political and stability-maintenance considerations, the CCP government removed geological data collection stations on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, making it difficult for her original research path to continue.

She began to realize that what she truly cared about might not be cold scientific data, but the living, breathing individuals behind those numbers. Thus, she gave up her near-complete doctorate degree and returned to Hong Kong.

If Lu Xun abandoned medicine for literature in his day because “studying medicine cannot save the Chinese people,” Chow Hang-tung embarked on a similar path belonging to this era—science indeed helps drive social progress, but in reality, many people are left behind; therefore, she chose to directly assist those who were suffering in real life.

After returning to Hong Kong in 2010, she worked at the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance), later becoming a volunteer and participating in mainland Chinese labor rights work. Realizing her legal knowledge was insufficient, she once again leveraged her extraordinary learning capability to study law from scratch, eventually becoming a practicing barrister in Hong Kong. In 2014, she was elected a standing committee member of the Alliance, and by late 2015, she became its vice-chairperson.

She could have chosen an entirely different life. With her academic background and capability, she could have become a prosperous professional, stayed clear of politics, and enjoyed a stable, respectable, and safe middle-class life.

But she did not, because she could not stand by and watch suffering with folded arms.

In 2021, after the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the Alliance was forced to disband. Chow Hang-tung was subsequently arrested and detained long-term. On August 21, 2026, the Hong Kong High Court ruled that the Alliance, Lee Cheuk-yan, and Chow Hang-tung were guilty of “incitement to subvert state power.” The court determined that the Alliance’s operational platform to “end one-party dictatorship” constituted the relevant criminal intent.

However, what truly shocked the world was perhaps not the verdict on August 21, but her statement on August 28.

In Hong Kong’s legal procedures, this was supposed to be the “plea in mitigation” stage. However, Chow Hang-tung explicitly refused to use the legal term “mitigation” in court, insisting instead on using “statement” (陳情). She emphasized that she had no guilt to plead for, and that everything she did was to guard historical memory.

Summary of the Statement:

1. Refusal to Plead for Mitigation, Maintaining Innocence: She maintained that commemorating June 4th is not a crime, and that those who truly need to seek leniency and admit guilt are those who cover up history and suppress freedom.

2. Preferring to Be a Criminal Over Betraying Conscience: She stated that if the court must sentence her, she would rather be a “perpetual criminal” within the system than betray her conscience.

3. Guarding Truth and Memory: She emphasized that lighting candles is to combat forgetting, and that authoritarian power must not be allowed to erase history.

4. Questioning Hong Kong’s Rule of Law: She stated frankly that if the law becomes a tool to deprive people of their fundamental rights, then such law has lost its justice.

Once this statement was released, it spread rapidly across the internet. Zhou Fengsuo, a leader of the 1989 student movement and Executive Director of “Human Rights in China,” posted on X strongly recommending it: “…Her court statement carries immense weight, worthy of being carved in stone and gold. Protesters around the world should read it in relay—this is a declaration of democracy and freedom belonging to our era.”

This is a statement written for history. The law can restrict a person’s body, but it cannot control their mind; a cage can deprive a person of freedom, but it cannot force a person to believe lies.

Anita Mui was called “Hong Kong’s Daughter.” In 1989, she stepped forward to voice support for the 1989 democracy movement, and deeply participated in and supported “Operation Yellowbird” after the June 4th crackdown, contributing both funds and effort to rescue student movement figures. She used her fame and wealth to help those young people in danger escape to safety.

While Chow Hang-tung did not possess Anita Mui’s dazzling stage, she chose to stand at the center of the storm in a different era. In today’s Hong Kong, where lies have become the cornerstone of the regime, loyalty to authoritarian power has become mainstream, and striving for freedom makes one a criminal, she insists on not betraying her conscience.

Anita Mui was someone who stepped forward from Hong Kong’s glory; Chow Hang-tung is someone who refuses to bow down even after Hong Kong’s freedom continues to shrink. One used wealth and influence, while the other uses her profession, youth, and even freedom—yet both guard the exact same thing: the conscience and dignity of the people of Hong Kong.

When a person has sufficient capability to choose comfort, she still chooses responsibility; when she has sufficient conditions to stay away from politics, she still chooses to confront injustice; when she ultimately cannot avoid facing high walls and prison, she still does not betray her conscience.

During the recent “831” 7th anniversary memorial event in the San Francisco Bay Area, we mourned those Hong Kong people who were imprisoned or even lost their lives for striving for freedom, rights, and dignity.

Seven years ago, in a Hong Kong with a population of only seven million, over a million people took to the streets on several occasions to express their demands—a grand scene that shocked the world.

Seven years later, a single statement from Chow Hang-tung brought another kind of shock—transitioning from collective shouts on the streets to an individual’s spiritual stance.

On August 31, people could still be seen standing silently holding white flowers at the exit of Prince Edward MTR Station, with some shouting slogans like “We want the truth for 831”; inside MTR carriages, stickers reading “The Rule of Law is Dead” were placed over the Prince Edward station mark on route maps; as it was raining in Hong Kong that day, some even opened yellow umbrellas printed with “Support Freedom, Oppose Evil Laws” at the Prince Edward MTR exit. Subsequently, multiple citizens who became emotional within the police cordon were forcibly taken away in police vans.

On the evening of August 31, the wind at the Bay Area seaside was bleak and cold. We also stood silently and laid flowers here, expressing our feelings while reflecting on the past, and responded with deep emotion to Mr. Zhou Fengsuo’s initiative by reading Chow Hang-tung’s statement in both Mandarin and Cantonese. For everyone present who cares about and loves Hong Kong, and feels immense indignation over the suffering that land is undergoing at this moment, a sense of survivor’s guilt surged in our hearts, alongside a resonance of suffering that transcends geographical boundaries.

Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Shen Meihua

(Full text of the Statement; image contents are sourced from the network, collected and compiled by Guan Yongjie, intended solely for dissemination without commercial purpose. If there is any copyright infringement, please notify us for deletion.)

Within Chow Hang-tung’s legally coherent and principled prose, we see resilience and hope. She seems to call out: a cage cannot lock up thought, and the spirit of Hong Kong people pursuing freedom and courageously resisting will not be extinguished. As long as someone continues to recite it, and as long as someone continues to listen, this seed will keep spreading.

“End one-party dictatorship, build a democratic China”—this is a peaceful and rational expression, absolutely not a crime. The red line of authoritarian power has never been our bottom line; certain truths cannot be forgotten, and certain freedoms are worth guarding with a lifetime.

Although Hong Kong’s candlelight has been banned, it has not been extinguished.

Candlelight like the sea,

The hearts of the people turn into waves,

Crashing against the shore,

Relentless until justice prevails.

On-site photos and summary of the 7th Anniversary Memorial for the Hong Kong 831 Incident in the San Francisco Bay Area

(The image above shows a community flyer distributed at the event that day. Its content is primarily a summary and collection of community opinions and public demands that have circulated online for years. Although these intense expressions regarding specific casualties from the conflicts back then still lack official, conclusive evidence to support them at the legal level to this day, their widespread existence on the internet and among the public accurately reflects an undeniable reality: because of the government authorities’ lack of transparency during the handling of the incident and their choice to release only partial CCTV footage, their response failed completely to convince the public, thereby triggering long-term and immense public skepticism. This article records this flyer in full as an on-site archive, not to reach a definitive judicial conclusion on facts, but to preserve this symbolic collective memory born out of authoritarian suppression of truth, as well as the public’s unfinished quest for the truth.)

One of the five operational goals of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China: End one-party dictatorship.

支

At the memorial event, temperatures dropped abruptly in the Bay Area as dusk fell.

Shi Zhenying (left) and Guan Yongjie (right), hosts of the 831 7th Anniversary Memorial. Shi Zhenying pointed out that seven years have passed since the “831 Incident,” yet the CCTV footage from Prince Edward Station that night has still not been fully disclosed, leaving the truth obscured to this day. She noted that people holding fresh flowers who went to Prince Edward Station to mourn this year were still taken away by the police or cordoned off, reflecting that the space for freedom in Hong Kong continues to shrink. In light of this, she called on the outside world not to forget, and to continue paying attention to and supporting the Hong Kong protesters who remain imprisoned.

Co-host Guan Yongjie added that having lived long-term under the high-pressure environment of Mainland China and subjected to education designed to dull and weaken the populace, many mainland citizens have subtly developed numbness and fear toward authoritarian power. In contrast, Hong Kong people benefited from normal civil education and rule-of-law traditions of the past, possessing an innate sensitivity to and drive to defend their fundamental rights within their DNA; thus, they demonstrated world-shaking courage in their resistance in 2019. However, Hong Kong people at the time clearly underestimated the extent of the CCP regime’s cruelty and malice, mistakenly believing that rational demands could yield a normal response, only to be met with a violent iron fist of suppression. During the movement, an unusually high number of bizarre, highly suspicious non-natural death cases abruptly emerged across Hong Kong, including “high-altitude falls with no suicide notes” and “completely naked floating corpses with hands bound.” Although the authorities categorized every single one as “non-suspicious,” these terrifying realities—incapable of being logically explained away—thoroughly exposed the cruel face of authoritarian power and proved just how immense and evil a state machine the protesters were facing at the time.

Participants observed a minute of silence for the Hong Kong people who have lost their freedom or even sacrificed their lives in the Hong Kong protest movement in recent years.

Mr. Fang Zheng (in the wheelchair), Chairman of the San Francisco Branch of the Democracy Party of China and a Tiananmen Massacre survivor, stated that the rule-of-law environment in Hong Kong underwent a major shift after 2019, leading to a rapid increase in Hong Kong people fleeing into exile overseas. He noted that holding commemorative events helps preserve historical memory, and more importantly, passes down the spirit of resistance, allowing more people to recognize the true nature of the CCP and join the movement to overthrow one-party dictatorship.

Bruce, President of the US Hongkongers Club, delivered a speech thanking the attendees who braved the cold wind to participate in the memorial service. He stated that as long as the US Hongkongers Club exists, such commemorative events will not cease, and those who lost their freedom in the struggle will never be forgotten. At the same time, he emphasized that the CCP is currently facing internal and external troubles, and its collapse is merely a matter of time.

Rev. Cindy (right, left is the Mandarin interpreter), a psychiatric spiritual care practitioner at a hospital, pointed out that the psychological trauma of Hong Kong people who have relocated overseas has not disappeared simply because they left Hong Kong. Currently in the Bay Area, a local team consisting of pastors, psychiatric experts, and spiritual care practitioners is providing ongoing support. She also encouraged the broader community to leverage their expertise and abilities to offer the most concrete companionship and assistance to those suffering from trauma.

Zhang Jishun, a member of the Democracy Party of China participating in the Hong Kong 831 event for the first time, expressed that he has always deeply admired the courage and spirit of resistance of the Hong Kong people. He reminded himself to stay attentive to history, recognize the truth, avoid being deceived by the CCP’s lies, uphold conscience, and stand together with the people of Hong Kong.

Leung Kai-chun, a student at UC Berkeley, characterized the “831 Incident” as the watershed moment of the 2019 Hong Kong situation. Reflecting on the police law enforcement actions at Prince Edward Station 41 days after the July 21 Yuen Long attack, he harshly criticized the government, stating that instead of fulfilling its fundamental duty to protect the people, it became the perpetrator of state violence. He pointed out that the core significance of commemorating 831 today lies in this: beyond pursuing historical truth, it is crucial to let imprisoned comrades know that their sacrifices have never been forgotten by the public.

Ms. Xu (who graduated from UCLA last year) grew up in Hong Kong’s Yau Tsim Mong District, with her primary school located just a 10-minute walk from Prince Edward Station. This geographical proximity made the impact particularly profound when she saw the video footage of the “831 Incident” while in New Zealand. She recalled shaking with rage and crying uncontrollably at the time. Although she was already overseas, this experience became a major turning point in her personal growth and how she viewed Hong Kong’s political landscape. Seven years later, those images remain vivid in her mind; having participated in street movements in 2019, she stated frankly that the shock from back then remains impossible to forget.

Liu Wuping, a member of the Democracy Party of China from Guangzhou, expressed that he was deeply moved by Hong Kong’s steadfast commemoration of the June 4th movement over the past 30-plus years.

Duan Jingji, founder of the Chinese Youth for Tibet Alliance, reciting “Chow Hang-tung’s Court Statement” in Mandarin.

Shi Zhenying, a member of the US Hongkongers Club, reciting “Chow Hang-tung’s Court Statement” in Cantonese.

Leung Kai-chun performed “This Land” (Zhe Di). He added that this was the third song created by the team behind “Glory to Hong Kong,” quoting an online comment: “One day, when raising the flag, I will sing ‘Glory’; when marching, I will sing ‘Indomitable’; and when laying flowers at the martyrs’ memorial, I will sing ‘This Land’!”

Afterward, all participants sang “Glory to Hong Kong” together.

Accompanied by music, participants lit candles and laid flowers for the 831 Prince Edward Station Incident.

【美国首都华盛顿大型联合抗议中共独裁习近平！】

2026年9月24日，中共领导人习近平访美。中国民主人权联盟将与其他多个组织一起，于9月23日至9月25日在美国华盛顿举行大型抗议集会，三天内有可能受邀会见国会议员。

🎤 针对习近平反人类、反自由的种种罪行，在其访美期间公开表达我们的立场。

🎤 通过公开、合法的方式，让更多人听见来自中国的人的大声疾呼，痛斥习近平及中共极权统治对人权、宗教自由、言论自由与政治异议群体的人道主义打压。

长期以来，中国境内的许多异议人士因为表达观点、参与公共事务、坚持宗教信仰或维护基本权利而遭受打压、拘禁、失踪！我们认为，自由言论表达不应成为被惩罚的理由；信仰不应成为被迫害的原因！任何人都应享有一个“人”的基本尊严，并应得到宪法的保障。

此次集会将围绕以下主题发声：

反对政治迫害！

反对压制言论自由！

关注中国人权！

声援良心犯与政治犯！

维护宗教自由与基本人权！

释放王炳章!

释放高智胜!

释放黎智英!

释放宗教牧师与教徒！

我们同時呼吁美国政府、国际社会、人权组织及新闻媒体持续关注中国的人权问题。

活动时间：2026年9月23日—9月25日之间，具体时间地点另行通知

活动地点：美国华盛顿白宫前

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500United States

联合发起组织：

中国民主人权联盟

中国民主党

自由雕塑公園

民主中国阵线

六四纪念馆《

在野党》杂志

联系人：美东：李中平（858）858- 6 8 58

美东；钱家发（929）666-8222

美西史庆梅：6262168680

美西董波：6266707211

西雅图金秀红：4255358869