(Clearwisdom.net)
(Part 1: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2009/6/4/108003.html)
Five: Even Within the Framework of the Chinese Communist Party's Legal System, the Persecution is Illegal
Currently, the courts' process for sentencing Dafa practitioners is based on Article 300 of the Penal Code, referencing punishment prescribed for "using cults to disrupt the implementation of law." In the past ten years, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has used the People's Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Procuratorate to make various interpretations on the law to justify the persecution against Falun Gong, but none of them have solid legal standing.
Article 36 of the People's Republic of China's Constitution clearly states that "citizens have the freedom of religion." Article 3 of the Penal Code states that "an act explicitly defined as a crime can be punished according to the law; where the law does not explicitly stipulate an act to be a crime, it is not punishable by law." Falun Gong is not mentioned by name in any of the Penal Code or the accompanying documents often referenced by the courts.
To dig down a little further, the lead passage establishing intent for article 300 of the Penal Code was revised in 1997 from "stopping counter-revolutionary activities" to "safeguarding the nation's laws and ensuring the carrying out of administrative laws." Further explanation given by the penal code lists several conditions that need to be met for the crime to be established. First, the crime is intended to disrupt the implementation of law, such as using the incitement of violence to do so. Second, the crime must be committed with intent, meaning intentionally using superstitious sects, secret societies, cult organizations, or superstition to disrupt the implementation of law. Third, the crime must materially obstruct the execution of law.
There are a few things to take away here. First, in order for this statute to apply, the crime in question must violate a law as defined by the People's Congress, not an ordinary regulation established by a given government organ. Second, the perpetrator must be intentionally doing something to disrupt the execution of such a law. Specifically, "disrupting the implementation of law" is distinctly different from "violating a regulation." For example, hitting a policeman to stop him from making a traffic stop constitutes "disrupting the implementation of law." Running a red light does not.
In general, the courts will typically use Falun Gong flyers or CD's as evidence against practitioners and to make an argument that Falun Gong is a cult. However, this does not show Falun Gong to be a cult, nor does it have anything to do with disrupting the implementation of law at all. The CCP's courts are making several leaps of logic, none of which are justified, in imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners for "using cults to disrupt the implementation of law."
