(Clearwisdom.net)
Editors' Note: A mugger has no right to say his victim's cries for help are "disturbing the peace," just as an oppressive, totalitarian regime that blatantly tramples the constitution, and arbitrarily abducts, tortures, and murders its citizens has no right to accuse kindhearted people who appeal peacefully of "violating the law." If the head of state is allowed to commit arson, but common people cannot even light a lantern, and if the ruler can persecute people, but victims of the persecution are not permitted to voice their grievances, then such "laws" are illegitimate, as well as unconstitutional.
The foundation of the constitution is to safeguard justice; therefore, the law must abide by moral standards. If the law contravenes justice and moral standards, and if it is used to persecute innocent people, then the law is malicious.
Based on justice and ethics, the spirit of modern law is to limit the ability of the government and officials in power to infringe on the people's rights and freedoms. Therefore the legislative and judicial branches of the government must be separated from the executive branch to keep the executive branch in check. Yet in China, the governing officials and Party deputies completely control all three government branches. The legislative and judicial branches are actually the hatchet men for the ruling officials.
Even though there was a clause for the purported "Group Assembly, March, Demonstration Statute" in the Communist Chinese Constitution, no application for such "Group Assembly, March, Demonstration Statute" has ever been approved for Chinese citizens. Instead, any applicants will earn themselves a ticket to prison. The so called "Group Assembly, March, Demonstration Statute" is really a "Prohibition of Group Assembly, March, Demonstration Statute." This statute in China was never intended to safeguard the constitutional right of free assembly and speech endowed to citizens of the country. Rather, it was designed to strip people of their rights granted under the constitution. It is totally different from the "Group Assembly, March, Demonstration Statutes" in democratic countries, and is a deception used to cover up the oppressive, totalitarian regime that routinely violates its own constitution and denies the rights of its citizens.
For your reference, we list below the personal experience of a practitioner's rebuttal, and his fight against the persecution. Even though this practitioner did not elaborate on the moral and ethical points of the law, with the spirit of the law limiting government power and the premise of judicial independence, even based on the details of the law, it can be seen that the actions taken by Falun Gong practitioners were lawful. The Jiang regime twisted and vilified the "April 25" appeal by Falun Gong practitioners. This fundamentally violated the Chinese Constitution, the "Appeal Regulations" by the State Council, as well as the UN Human Rights Convention signed by China.
I was imprisoned in a labor camp from February to May 2001. The Unit Guard was well educated and was a smooth talker and debater. He was licensed to practice as a lawyer. He started "transforming" Dafa practitioners in his unit. I recall an incident of ideology confrontation between us.
Because this guard received education in law, he first tried to convince me of my ignorance of the law. He explained that the law wouldn't change because of the mere will of people, that the law was very impassive and dogmatic. Then he went on to affirm that the April 25 incident was an unlawful group assembly and demonstration. I denied his allegation and told him that it was a group appeal. He replied that it was an incident of group appeal, but it was at the same time a group assembly and demonstration.
He then took out the "People's Republic of China Statute on Assembly, March and Demonstration" and tried to show me that the April 25 incident violated the criteria of the statute. First he pointed to "Assembly," asking me whether more than 10,000 people gathering together was an "Assembly," whether staging around Zhongnanhai was "in the open," and in a "public area," whether "opinions" were declared or expressed, "whether we proposed three demands at the Appeal Office."
Although I could explain many issues clearly, and achieve the result of safeguarding the Fa and demonstrating the positive image of a Dafa practitioner, I felt truly helpless when it came to the specific details of the statute. How could I have no choice but to acknowledge that it was an "unlawful assembly and demonstration?" But I did not budge and continued to study the statute. Later I thought to myself that I must fundamentally negate him in all the basics. So I researched further on his definition. I found that the key point here was "Assembly," because "Demonstration" was related to "Assembly." I again read carefully about the "Assembly" several times, and I finally discovered the issue. Ours was not an "Assembly." Please check the original text of this statute:
"This statute defines Assembly as - Activities of gathering in open public areas, to express, declare opinions and intentions."
The April 25 event met each individual criterion, but the article was a complete sentence, expressing the idea, "Assembling in public area to express or voice opinions." Obviously the law addresses such activities that are carried out in the open, yet we expressed and voiced our opinions inside the State Council. It was raised by several Falun Gong representatives inside an office, therefore it did not meet the definition of "Assembly," let alone "Demonstration."
The next day the guard reviewed my written opinion, and I discussed my thoughts with him. I also made an example of Martin Luther King's Speech "I Have A Dream" that was given in a public assembly at the Washington Mall. This expressed a joint wish of the masses, and this was a true assembly. Ours was different, and it was not an assembly. He was speechless.
Later on we had many confrontations and exchanges on this and other legal issues, but there were no loopholes that he could exploit. I summarized this experience and understood that stepping out of humanness is to fundamentally negate it. Looking back at it today, I feel that my negation was not quite thorough. Today the Fa rectification requires us to not simply safeguard the Fa, but to explain the facts and save sentient beings that have been deceived by lies. I feel that we should view the issue from the root, and fundamentally negate everything of the old forces.
December 3, 2004
