China's human rights lawyers speak out, 10 years after crackdown
The environment for human rights law has 'steadily regressed, especially after the pandemic', said Ren Quanniu, a disbarred human rights lawyer. 'Right now, the rule of law in China – especially in terms of protecting human rights – has deteriorated to a point where it's almost comparable to the Cultural Revolution era.' The Cultural Revolution was a decade of mass chaos unleashed by China's former leader Mao Zedong in 1966. During that time judicial organs were attacked as 'bourgeois' and the nascent court system was largely suspended.
Ren is one of hundreds of human rights lawyers to have been targeted since the '709 incident', a nationwide crackdown on lawyers and activists that started on 9 July 2015. According to human rights groups and the US government, about 300 people from the loose collective of a burgeoning rights defence movement, known as weiquan, were targeted in the round-up. At least 10 were convicted of crimes such as 'subversion of state power' and given jail terms, while dozens more have been subjected to surveillance, harassment and the revocation of their professional licences in the years since.
Modern China has never welcomed human rights lawyers. But in the relatively open years of the early 2000s, with the rise of the internet and China's increasing desire for approval on the world stage, the space for civil society grew to a degree that is now almost unrecognisable. Lawyers scored wins for defendants in cases ranging from tainted baby milk formula scandals to the abuse of migrant workers.
'It's hard to say we achieved success – we can only say that the services we provided have made it more difficult for the authorities to persecute certain groups,' said Jiang Tianyong, a 54-year-old former human rights lawyer known for taking on cases involving religious and ethnic minorities who served two years in prison for 'inciting subversion of state power'.
But the nascent movement that Jiang was part of was suppressed soon after Xi Jinping, China's leader, took power in 2012.
Although some weiquan lawyers were also interested in political reform, most were focused on working within the existing Chinese system. The daily grind was not about promulgating foreign ideas, said Ren. It was about defending ordinary citizens 'based on the existing laws of China itself, the laws of the Chinese Communist party's own legal system. Yet even within that framework, the lawyers were not allowed to help.'
Under Xi's rule, activists have been rounded up, independent law firms and NGOs have been reined in, and any kind of organised activity outside the auspices of the Communist party (CCP) has been tightly restricted.
'The Chinese government under Xi Jinping has sought to eradicate the influence of lawyers who defend people's rights,' said Maya Wang, associate China director at Human Rights Watch.
Ten years on from the crackdown, human rights workers say that the suppression of independent lawyers has become more systematic, and less visible, than rounding up individuals. Those affected by the 709 incident describe living under conditions of harassment and surveillance, and are often blocked from leaving the country. Jiang hasn't seen his wife and daughter, who left China, in over a decade.
More broadly, lawyers working on cases that the CCP considers sensitive have been stripped of their professional credentials, while legal and political reforms have strengthened the role of the CCP in law firms.
Ren escaped the first wave of reprisals after the 709 incident. For a few years, he tried to keep on taking up sensitive cases, including that of Zhang Zhan, the citizen journalist who was jailed after reporting from Wuhan on the early days on the Covid-19 pandemic.
In 2021, his licence was revoked.
According to data gathered by Chinese Human Rights Defenders, a US-based NGO, between 2017 and 2019, there were 29 cases of law firms or lawyers having their licences revoked or suspended, compared with nine cases between 2014 and 2016.
At the same time, China has expanded the provision of legal aid, which the government says will 'benefit more people in need'. According to a Chinese study published in 2022, 60% of defendants with legal representation would receive government-sponsored legal aid. But the legal aid law states that its aim is to 'uphold the leadership of the Chinese Communist party' and critics say that the changes, which include the insertion of Xi Jinping Thought into the charter of the All-China Lawyers Association, have narrowed the space for independent lawyers.
'The Chinese government has been increasing ideological control throughout the legal profession while also increasing the provision of public legal services, and at the same time requiring those legal services be provided by lawyers who are loyal to the party,' said Wang.
Many of China's human rights lawyers say their work has been pushed underground. Those without licences try to offer informal advice to people in need, but their ability is severely limited.
Under these conditions, 'no one is truly safe,' said Xie Yanyi, a lawyer detained in the 709 crackdown. 'Human rights belong to everyone, and the rule of law protects everyone.'
Still, Xie remains hopeful for the future. 'Although the year of the 709 incident marked a major regression in the rule of law in China … people, I believe, are gradually building resilience, maturing and becoming stronger.'
China's Ministry of Justice and Public Security Bureau did not respond to a request for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
M&S chief says cyber attack likely instigated by ex-computer gamers
Marks & Spencer's chairman, Archie Norman, described a cyber attack on the retailer as "traumatic", attributing it to hacking group Scattered Spider and ransomware operation DragonForce. The attack, which began in late April, left M&S unable to take online orders for over six weeks, causing significant operational disruption. Appearing before MPs, Mr Norman refused to confirm if M&S paid a ransom following the incident, stating that the damage had largely been done. M&S estimates the cyber attack will cost around £300 million in lost profits, though it anticipates recovering up to half through cost management and insurance. DragonForce, the ransomware operation involved, is believed to be based in Asia and composed of former computer gamers.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
How to stop a bear in big city: Japan issues shoot-to-kill guide
For years, they have become ever bolder and more aggressive, entering towns and cities, walking along busy streets and trespassing into homes, even military barracks. Now Japan has authorised drastic measures for dealing with its plague of bears: turning the guns on them. The environment ministry has sent to local governments guidelines on a new law allowing them to deploy armed hunters against invading bears in urban areas. After centuries of shy coexistence with humans, occasionally glimpsed in the mountains by hikers and hunters, the creatures have run amok in recent years, killing and injuring more people than ever before. In the past, most bear encounters took place in the wild, often involving attacks on people gathering mushrooms and mountain plants. Every year, however, there are more reports of bears entering the human domain.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Only ECHR withdrawal can stop Britain from becoming like America
'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so,' warned Mark Twain. What everyone 'knows' about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is the claim that it was a British invention, comprising traditional British rights, eagerly adopted by Attlee and Churchill. The problem is, 'that just ain't so'. In fact, Attlee reluctantly ratified the convention in 1950 only on condition it had no jurisdiction in the UK – a position upheld by Churchill and his Conservative successors. Even so, the myth that the ECHR is our British and Churchillian heritage is endlessly deployed to bolster Conservative support. Yet leaders of both parties have found the ECHR problematic. Even Tony Blair told ministers to consider resiling from parts of it, whilst David Cameron, Theresa May and Rishi Sunak all threatened to leave. If the convention just incorporated long-standing British rights, it would have had little effect when Wilson – 15 years later and without Parliamentary debate – allowed British people to take cases to the European Court in Strasbourg. But far from cases being few and trivial, the Strasbourg court has found the UK to have violated Human Rights in 329 cases out of 567, ranging from military operations to environmental policy. Why is it such a problem for Britain? Attlee refused to accept the court's jurisdiction following official warnings against giving 'an international court… unprecedented legislative powers which Parliament would never agree to entrust to the courts of this country'. Those 'unprecedented legislative powers' arise because convention rights are so vague that the Strasbourg court has to create new law to give them concrete meaning. The court also decides how rights may be balanced against other objectives. Under the pretext that he was 'bringing rights home' from the international court, Blair's Human Rights Act did extend those 'unprecedented legislative powers' to the courts of this country, which since 2000 can also interpret and apply ECHR rights in domestic cases – though still subject to appeals to, and rulings of, Strasbourg. So 'rights' mean whatever the courts – initially British, ultimately, Strasbourg – decide they mean. The right to life sounds clear. But when does life start and who can end it? If Strasbourg were to rule, quite plausibly, that the Right to Life means the state cannot help to end it, Britain would be treaty-bound to abandon the assisted dying Bill. Equally, given that the court treats the ECHR as a 'living instrument', they might decide it implies a far more extensive right to die than in the Bill. Either way, the point is that voters would have no say. The Strasbourg court recently overruled a Swiss referendum declaring that: 'Democracy cannot be reduced to the will of the majority of the electorate and elected representatives in disregard of the requirements of the rule of law' – as interpreted by the court, needless to say. Making laws and balancing rights are intrinsically political processes that used to be the job of Parliament, accountable to voters. Transferring those powers to the courts, here and in Strasbourg, inevitably politicises the judiciary, through no fault of the judges themselves. It exposes them to political criticism – even Sir Keir Starmer has criticised immigration tribunal judges. It provokes demands for political vetting of judges. It undermines faith in the rule of law. Maybe only withdrawal can save us from ending up like America, where Supreme Court judges are appointed based on their political loyalties and life expectancy. The claim that withdrawal would bracket Britain with Belarus and Russia is fatuous. We would be joining other common law democracies – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – who uphold human rights without submitting to a supranational court. I would prefer minimal change and to consider alternatives short of leaving the convention. Some of these would reduce, though none avoid, politicising the judiciary. But there is no hope of serious reform unless Britain provoked it by withdrawing until substantial changes are agreed. Paradoxically, the Labour Government's recent proposal to legislate to tell courts how to interpret convention rights for immigrants destroys the whole rationale of the ECHR. This was the belief that only the courts – free from political considerations – could determine the 'true' meaning of each human right. Once Parliament takes back control, as it should, of spelling out our rights in law, the original case for adhering to the ECHR will evaporate.
