cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/43336645
Chinese courts are systematically weaponizing vague national security and public order laws to silence human rights defenders, Amnesty International said today in a new report exposing the judiciary’s central role in sustaining the Beijing authorities’ crackdown on fundamental freedoms.
The research briefing, How could this verdict be ‘legal’?, published on China’s National Day, analyses more than 100 official judicial documents from 68 cases involving 64 human rights defenders over the past decade. It details how Chinese courts are rubber-stamping convictions against peaceful activists, journalists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens, often on the basis of their words, associations or international contacts.
“China’s leaders like to play up a message of international cooperation and commitment to the rule of law. The reality is, this masks a system in which Chinese courts operate as instruments of repression rather than justice when handling politically sensitive cases,” said Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s China Director.
“Human rights defenders in China are being treated as enemies of the state for no more than speaking out, organizing peacefully, or engaging with the outside world. Their bravery is met with prison, torture and sham trials.”
In over 90% of cases analysed in Amnesty’s research, courts relied on national security or public order provisions that are vague, overly broad and inconsistent with international standards. Charges such as “subversion of state power,” “inciting subversion,” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” were most frequently applied, enabling authorities to criminalize peaceful speech and association.
Courts frequently treated online expression – including blog posts, social media comments, or sharing human rights articles – as evidence of “subversion.”
International engagement was routinely cited as criminal activity. Giving interviews to foreign media, publishing articles on overseas websites, or attending NGO trainings abroad were presented as proof of “collusion with foreign forces”.
[…]