Under the Jacaranda Tree

Separated at birth? Nancy Pelosi and the Transgendered Grinch

Ned Kelly — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:40:00 +0800

Twins separated at birth? Nancy Pelosi and the Transgendered Grinch:

Filed under: Ivan's Bunker, Ned Kelly's Pub Tagged: BLT, freaks, GBLT, GLBT, LGBT, Nancy Pelosi, transgendered

In memory of Mark Anthony Jones

Ned Kelly — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:54:29 +0800

Our friend “Sojourner” has informed us that one of our frequent former commenters, Mark Anthony Jones, died at age 40 in November 2009. He died in his native country, Australia, in which he had recently resettled after several years and many adventures in China, of which he told some beautiful stories.

We are aware of several posthumous praises of him posted in some parts of the Anglophone China-blogosphere. But Catherine and I (and our fictional friend Ivan) would prefer to say, as Scott Fitzgerald wrote near the end of “The Great Gatsby”, “Let us speak well of a man while he is alive.”

Mark Anthony Jones can speak for himself, with his peculiar charm, in this discourse he generously shared with us.

Catherine and I have faith that Mark is presently enjoying a discourse with God, Who will certainly enjoy Mark’s stories.

Filed under: Ivan's Bunker, Ned Kelly's Pub, Under the Tree Tagged: MAJ, Mark Anthony Jones

How Ivan’s career began

Ned Kelly — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:11:55 +0800

Film footage of how Ivan’s career began:

Watch Narcotics: Pit of Despair in Documentary | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Posted in Ivan's Bunker, Ned Kelly's Pub Tagged: drugs

The Will of Heaven Once Again Confuses the CCP!

C.A. Yeung — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:07:54 +0800

UPDATE

As of 3.30AM Beijing time, GFW is back to normal. YouTube is no longer accessible from behind the Wall. Party is over.

As I am writing this blog post, millions of netizens in China are celebrating the unblocking of their favourite websites, including Youtube, Picasa, Bloggers, etc. Many of these sites have been blocked since late 2008 as a part of a Chinese government sanctioned anti-vulgarity campaign.

Messages posted on Twitters suggest that blockages to Internet access have been lifted in Dalian, Changchun, Wuhan, Chongqing, Xiamen, Shenzhen, Beijing and Guangzhou.

It is not clear why or to what extent the blockage has been lifted. Some said that it was due to some telecom cables being damaged in the snow storms. Others warned that this unblocking on some ISPs was caused by GFW upgrading or undergoing maintenance, and should not be regarded as real unblocking. In any case, most Chinese netizens are taking this as a New Years gift and many of them are now busy uploading and/or downloading videos and photographs that are normally banned by the censors.

But Ivan, our co-blogger and present house guest who knows a few thing about astrology, maintains that recent events are typical of Mercury retrograde. “The will of Heaven is, once again, playing tricks on those who are transgressing their authority to rule.”

Posted in media censorship, Under the Tree Tagged: freedom of speech, Great Firewall of China, Internet censorship, YouTube

China’s Public Intellectuals Speak out on Liu Xiaobo

C.A. Yeung — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:50:53 +0800

Cui Weiping, a social critic and a professor at the Beijing Film Academy, has conducted some interviews with several famous public intellectuals in China to find out their views on the recent jail sentence of Liu Xiaobo. Public intellectuals, when used in the study of modern China, refer to a group of scholars, writers, activists and media workers who “guide China’s political and social development and have served as voices of introspection, reform, and in some cases dissent against the excesses of China’s leaders”. These public intellectuals do not all share the same ideology and may have different political affiliations. However, this time there seems to be a consensus among them that (1) Liu Xiaobo’s conviction constitutes some kind of Wenzi Yu (文字狱 means jail sentences for publishing articles on topics deem to be politically incorrect); and (2) it is both legally and morally unacceptable to punish a person for exercising his freedom of speech.

Professor Cui first published the interviews at Twitter. A blogger named Shifeike then collated the tweets into a blog post. I am now selectively translating some tweets into English. Together with my translation is a brief description for each interviewee:

徐友渔的看法：宣判刘晓波，罪名中有零八宪章。宪章重申联合国人权宣言，因此宣判是对人类大家庭公认的文明准则的挑战，也是对中国现存宪法的挑战，因为该宪法载明了中国公民的言论自由。说到底，是对中国人民和人类良知的挑战。

Xu Youyu is a philosopher, proponent of Chinese liberalism and a Charter 08 signatory. He says: “Liu Xiaobo is convicted on charges in relation to Charter 08. Charter 08 is written in the spirit of the United Nation’s Human Rights Declaration. Therefore, Liu’s conviction constitutes a challenge to the idea of civilisation as commonly accepted by humanities. It threatens the right to freedom of speech as enshrined in China’s constitution. Most importantly, it goes against the conscience, not only of Chinese citizens, but also of mankind.”

秦晖的看法：现在还搞因言治罪那一套，真是太可悲了。我不是宪章的签名者，但我懂得“不赞成你的观点，但坚决捍卫你发表观点的权利”的道理，我坚决反对对刘晓波搞文字狱。

Qin Hui is a professor of history at Tsinghua University and a defender of a left-liberal position. He says: “It is very sad to see that in this day and age people are still being punished for their words. I am not a Charter 08 signatory. But I defend to death other people’s right to express their views, even though I may disagree with what they say. I therefore strongly oppose the conviction of Liu Xiaobo because of his writings.”

徐贲的看法：一个中国公民以宪法给他的权利，善意地对国家政治表达自己的看法，却受到如此严厉的惩罚，感到难以置信。中国是一个签署了国际人权公约的国家，中国要在国际上崛起，必须建立良好的言行一致的信誉。从许多国家对此事的报道来看，这是一件使中国信誉受到损害的事情。（关于刘晓波）

Xu Ben is a professor of English. He says: “(With regards to Liu Xiaobo,) it is hard to believe that a Chinese citizen will be so severely punished for exercising his constitutional right to express his views. China is a signatory to the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights. If China wants its rise in power to be recognised internationally, she must establish a reputation as a nation that practises what she preaches. It is not hard to tell from news reports worldwide that the conviction has damaged China’s reputation.”

袁伟时的看法：二十一世纪了，还以言获罪，侵犯公民权利，亵渎文明，又一次往中国脸上擦黑！当局认定的罪犯刘晓波成了众人心目中的英雄，鸿沟如此巨大，执政者如何面对？

Yuan Weishi is a historian and a professor of philosophy at Sun Yat Sen University. He says: “This is the 21^st century. How can one still be punished for his words? This is a violation of civil rights and a desecration of civilisation. It is, once again, an utter disgrace for China. Liu Xiaobo, who has been branded a criminal by the authorities, is now a hero in the eyes of the public. How can the ruling regime bridge such an enormous gap it has created with the general public?”

章诒和的看法：1968年，我以现行反革命罪，判处有期徒刑20年；2009年，刘晓波以煽动颠覆国家政权罪，判处有期徒刑11年。我们都是因言获罪，前后相距四十一载。这种状况不得不使人怀疑：我们的制度，到底改善了多少？我们的社会，究竟进步了没有？

Zhang Yihe is a historian and a writer whose books are banned in China because of her right-wing ideology. She says: “In 1968, I was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on counter-revolutionary charges. 41 years on, in 2009, Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment on charges of inciting subversion. Both of us have been incriminated for speaking out. This makes me wonder: how far has our political system been improved? Has our society made any progress?”

乐黛云的看法：一，看过零八宪章，觉得其中没有颠覆国家的想法，是希望改善；二、零八宪章是一个讨论，如果一个讨论也要定罪，是违背宪法的，不能让人心服口服；三、如果（弄得）大家都不敢说话，国家还怎么改善？

Yue Daiyun is a writer, a poet and a professor of literature at Peking University. She says: “1. I have read Charter 08. In my opinion, it expresses a hope for improvements and does not constitute subversion of state power; 2. Charter 08 is a discussion paper. It is against the constitution to convict someone for conducting a discussion. It will be difficult to persuade the public to accept the verdict; 3. If no one is allowed to speak frankly, how can there be improvements in our country?”

钱理群的看法：不一定同意刘晓波的所有观点和做法，这是另一回事；但刘晓波属于平和、理性的批评者，对他都要判刑，是一种虚弱的表现，觉得很难接受，

Qian Liqun is a writer and a professor of Chinese literature at Peking University. He is well-known for his research on Lu Xun and Zhou Zuoren. He says: “I don’t necessarily agree with what Liu Xiaobo said or what he did. But that’s beside the point. Liu Xiaobo is a peaceful and rational critic. It is an admission of weakness to send someone like him to jail. I find this difficult to accept …”

丁东的看法：文章自古多奇狱，又添十一载；思想从来要自由，何止零八年。——圣诞中国

Ding Dong is a historian, a writer and a literary critic. He says: “Since antiquity many essays have landed their authors in jail. So you may well add another 11 years to the toll. The pursuit for freedom has never ceased and will continue, beyond 08. – A Sage has been born in China.”

作家莫言同意将他的这句话放在这里：不太了解情况，不想谈。家里有客人，正在和他们说话。

Mo Yan is one of the best known contemporary Chinese writers for the English-speaking world. His seminal works such as Red Sorghum and the Wine Republic, among others, have been translated into many different languages. He says: “I don’t quite understand the situation and so I don’t want to talk about it. I have guests at home and we are having a conversation.” (The above statement is published with Mo Yan’s permission)

汪晖先生来信：谢谢来信和电话。我不赞成刘晓波的许多观点，但反对任何以言治罪的方式。我会关注此事的发展，在了解更多的情况之后，表达我的看法。

Wang Hui is the chief editor of Dushu magazine, a professor of Chinese studies at Tsinghua University and the leader of the New Left movement. He says: “Thank you for your letter and your phone call. I don’t agree with many of Liu Xiaobo’s points of view. However, I also object to the use of any means to convict people for what they have said. I will continue to monitor how this case will develop and will give my views when I have a better understanding of the situation.”

关于晓波11年郭泉10年之事唐荆陵的看法：每一个自由人被囚禁，都有我们普通民众的一份责任。因为一个政府，不论是善政，还是恶政，总是要靠公民的积极支持、消极合作和默默容忍才得以支撑。正是我们对专制的合作和容忍，造就了对自由的囚禁。

Tang Jingling is a human rights lawyer and activist. Commenting on the 11-year jail sentence of Liu Xiaobo and the 10-year jail sentence of Guo Quan, he says: “Whenever a free man is imprisoned, every member of his community is held responsible, because all governments, regardless of whether they are good or bad, will need the active support, passive collaboration or silent tolerance of their citizens in order to govern. The imprisonment of a free citizen is made possible if we tolerate or wilfully collaborate with tyranny.”

Posted in media censorship, Under the Tree Tagged: 08 Charter, Charter 08, China rule of law, Chinese intellectuals, freedom of speech, Liu Xiaobo

Teng Biao: A Testimony about My Testimony

C.A. Yeung — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:35:50 +0800

The original Chinese article written by Teng Biao:

关于我的证言的证言

北京市一中院对刘晓波的刑事判决书里提到：“证人徐君亮、智效民、滕彪的证言证明：2008年11月至12月间，他们的电子邮箱先后接收到电子邮件《零八宪章》，不知是谁发给他们的，他们分别签名后将《零八宪章》发回了原邮箱。”

我不得不来说几句。

一、《零八宪章》公布后几天内，北京市公安局传唤我，询问宪章签名的事情，他们最想知道的就是303人是如何协调行动的，背后有没有组织，这种思维非常可笑。我谈了对08宪章的看法，大意是：宪法保障公民表达的自由，08宪章属于表达自由；它在很大程度反映了自由知识分子和民间的共识，不应该因言治罪。08宪章不但没有任何社会危害性，反而有利于中国社会朝着健康的方向发展。签署过程，说的和判决书引用的一样。之后签了字。

二、看了判决书，感到很可笑，他们要证明什么？我提都没提到刘晓波，既证明不了刘晓波写了08宪章，也证明不了他给我发送了08宪章和征集我的签名。这份证言和案件无关。

三、我当时还提到，我提出了修改意见，比如去掉环境保护、社会保障等内容，减少条目，重点放在人权法治和政治构架上。我的意思是，你们抓晓波而不抓我就没道理，不只他一人参与起草；我也愿意承担与08宪章有关的法律责任。这些话，都在北京市公安局完整的笔录里。

四、刑事诉讼法第47条规定，“证人证言必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辩护人双方讯问、质证，听取各方证人的证言并且经过查实以后，才能作为定案的根据。”最高人民法院《解释》第五十八条规定：“证据必须经过当庭出示、辨认、质证等法庭调查程序查证属实，否则不能作为定案的根据。”“对于出庭作证的证人，必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辩护人等双方询问、质证，其证言经过审查确实的，才能作为定案的根据；未出庭证人的证言宣读后经当庭查证属实的，可以作为定案的根据。”因此，引述我的证言而不让我出庭作证，是不能作为定案依据的。

五、其实，当局此种做法，并非想用我和他人的证言证明什么，而是他们惯用一种卑劣手段；他们想告诉公众的是：“你看，刘晓波的亲人、兄弟、战友都做出了不利的证言，以此来混淆视听、制造矛盾、怨恨和分裂。这种事情，我代理刑事案件的过程中见得太多了。蔡卓华案，公安局在抓捕过程的记录里都说是某某亲戚带着去找的。甘锦华案，故意混淆甘锦华妻子的证言所提到的事件，来暗示甘锦华有作案时间。胡佳案的判决书也提到我的证言，说我在海外的网站上看到了胡佳的文章。他们想证明胡佳在海外发表了文章完全不需要这类证言，但就是要把我的证言掐头去尾，目的就是要让胡佳怨恨我，并企图在看到判决书的民众中隐隐约约产生“滕彪人品不佳、没有骨气”的印象。嘿嘿，我都被气笑了。高瑜老师文中提到，“1993年审判我，安全局约我丈夫儿子谈话，让他们各写一份证言，说对我会很有利，他们信以为真，各自为我做无罪证言。在要求之下还各自签了字。等判决书下来，竟然最后有一句话：‘有 xx证言为证。’一句证言未引。我丈夫气的去找预审吵架，已无任何作用。”当局公检法之龌龊荒唐，一至于此！

六、我没有在《“刘晓波一审判决书”证人严正声明》上面签字，至少和我自己有关的部分，《声明》与事实有所不符。我愿意相信是营救刘晓波心切，善意而为。不过我觉得，目的不能证成手段，不能用谎言去回击谎言。我在广州市民抗议番禺垃圾焚烧项目时，和大家一起喊：“我们不要被代表！”这是喊给共产党听的，但又何尝不是喊给争取自由的同仁们呢？

七、既然把我列为证人，检察院法院的同志就有义务传我出庭作证，在二审时候能够避免此一程序上的瑕疵，我强烈要求出庭，就我的证言接受控辩双方的质询。

八、但我不仅仅是证人。刘晓波如果犯了罪，我就是“共犯”。作为08宪章的首批联署人，如果你们认定08宪章有罪，我要求承担同样的罪责。如果签署和传播08宪章构成煽动颠覆国家政权，我也签署了，也传播了，而且还会继续传播。我要求分担刘晓波先生的苦难，因为这等于分享他的光荣。站在你们的被告席上，住在你们的监狱里，不是我的耻辱。

滕彪，2009年12月26日

The following is my English translation of Teng Biao’s article:

A Testimony about My Testimony

I find it necessary to say a few words about certain parts of the verdict that the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court has handed down for Liu Xiaobo’s case. The relevant section reads, “Testimonies from witnesses such as Xu Junliang, Zhi Xiaomin and Teng Biao prove that during the months from November to December 2008, their email boxes had received emails concerning Charter 08 from an unknown source. They signed and returned the Charter 08 document to the original sender.”

A few days after the publishing of Charter 08, I was summoned to the Beijing Public Security Bureau to answer questions about my signature on the Charter. The line of interrogation focused on the method in which the 303 signatures were collected, as well as the organisation responsible for coordinating such action. I found this way of thinking rather amusing at the time. During the interrogation, I talked about my view on Charter 08. To summarise, what I said was: Our constitution protects the rights of citizens to freedom of speech, and Charter 08 is our way of exercising this right. It is unfair to criminalise us for speaking out because Charter 08, to a very large extent, represents a consensus among liberal intellectuals and civil society. Charter 08 is not harmful to society. On the contrary, it ensures the health of China’s future development. The signatures were collected in the same manner as stated on the verdict. Afterward I put down my signature.

Now that I have read the verdict, I find it pathetic. What is it trying to prove? At no stage did I mention Liu Xiaobo during my interrogation. So my testimony could not be used as a valid proof that Liu Xiaobo had authored Charter 08. Nor could it be used to prove that Liu had forwarded a copy of Charter 08 to me for my signature. In other words, my testimony is totally unrelated to the case.

During interrogation, I also mentioned that I had made a few suggestions to improve the draft of Charter 08. For instance, I suggested that certain sections in relation to environmental protection and social security should be deleted in order to maintain a focus on human rights and political infrastructure. What I implied was that Liu Xiaobo was not the only person responsible for drafting Charter 08. So it was not fair to target Liu Xiaobo alone for arrest. I indicated that I was also willing to bear the legal consequences for Charter 08. The Beijing Public Security Bureau has a full written record of these words of mine.

Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates: “A witness’ testimony can only be included in a verdict after it has been verified through subjecting the witness to questioning and cross-examination in the court of justice by the victims and the prosecutors, as well as by the accused and their defence counsels.” Article 58 of the Supreme Court’s <Interpretation> of the Code also stipulates: “Evidence must be investigated and verified by the Court of Justice through a process of presenting, identifying and witness questioning before it can be used as a basis of a final verdict.” “A witness who attends the court of justice to give evidence must be subjected to questioning and cross-examination by the victims and the prosecutors, as well as by the accused and their defence counsels. Only testimonies verified in this manner can be used as a basis of a final verdict. Testimonies given by witnesses who do not attend the trial must be read aloud in court and must be verified by the court as true evidence before they can be used as a basis of a final verdict.” Hence my testimony cannot be used as the basis of a final verdict when I am not allowed to attend to give evidence in court.

It is not the intention of the authorities to use our testimonies to prove Liu’s guilt. This is just a nasty habit of vilification. What they intend to say to the public is: “Have a look. All of Liu Xiaobo’s relatives, friends and comrades are giving testimonies against him.” Their intention is to mislead the public by creating contradictions, hatred and division. There is nothing novel about this tactic. I have witnessed many of such tactics in the criminal cases that I have handled. In Cai Zhuohua’s case, police records claimed that Cai’s arrest was instigated by his relatives. In Gan Jinhua’s case, Gan’s wife’s testimony was deliberately misquoted to justify prosecution’s claim that Gan had sufficient time to commit a crime. Hu Jia’s verdict also mentioned my testimony and it claimed that I had read Hu Jia’s articles at some overseas websites. There was no need to use my testimony to prove that Hu Jia had published online articles at overseas websites. My testimony was deliberately quoted out of context, with a hope that Hu Jia would blame me for his conviction. It was also intended to mislead the public so that those who read the verdict would have an impression that “Teng Biao is a crook who betrays his friends”. This is so pathetic. Gao Yu also had a similar experience: “In 1993 during my trial, the Security Bureau invited my husband and my son for a chat. They were each made to write a statement and were told that their testimonies will help me. They believed in what they were told and each made a statement to claim my innocence. They even put down their signature upon request. When the verdict was finally handed down, my husband discovered his testimony was mentioned but not quoted as evidence to prove my guilt. My husband went to confront the prosecution, but it was all too late.” This is the kind of corruption and absurdity we are facing with our public prosecution system.

I did not sign the document titled <A Solemn Declaration from Witnesses Quoted in Liu Xiaobo’s Verdict>, on the basis that there were some factual discrepancies in the part of the <Declaration> that mentioned me. I believe that the declaration was issued out of a good intention to save Liu Xiaobo. However, the ends cannot justify the means. We cannot use lies to defeat lies. During our protest against the building of a rubbish incinerator at the city of Panyu, we joined other Guangzhou residents to proclaim, “We do not need to be represented!” We neither want to be represented by the Chinese Communist Party, nor by those who claim to be advocating freedom on our behalves.

I have been listed as a witness. Because of that, the public prosecution and the court of appeal have an obligation to summon me to appear in court. To help them avoid making further procedural mistakes, I strongly demand to be summoned to appear in court in the second trial, so that I can be examined and cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defence.

I am not just a witness. If Liu Xiaobo were guilty, I would be his “accomplice”. I am one of the first people who signed Charter 08. If Chinese authorities are determined to treat Charter 08 as illegal, I demand to be held responsible for breaking the law. If the signing and disseminating of Charter 08 did constitute inciting subversion of state power, I must admit my guilt in signing and disseminating the document, and for my intention to continue to do so in future. I therefore demand to share Liu Xiaobo’s suffering, so that I can also share his glory. I am not ashamed to stand trial as an accused in your law courts. I am not ashamed to be imprisoned in your jail.

Teng Biao 26 December 2009

Teng Biao’s article was first published at Boxun.

A copy of the judgement for Liu Xiaobo’s verdict can be found at the Freemorenew website.

Posted in media censorship, regional security, Under the Tree Tagged: 08 Charter, Charter 08, China rule of law, freedom of speech, Liu Xiaobo, Teng Biao

China Says NO to Democratic Reforms

C.A. Yeung — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:07:36 +0800

Christmas day of 2009 will be remembered in Chinese history as the day China’s ruling party openly and resolutely said “NO” to public demands for democratic reforms. This was expressed in the form of a harsh jail sentence of 11 years, delivered today to the patriot Liu Xiaobo on subversion charges. Liu Xiaobo was arrested in 2008 for co-authoring Charter 08, an open appeal for political and legal reforms to protect civil rights of PRC citizens. Liu’s verdict indicates that the PRC’s ruling party considers reform initiatives proposed in Charter 08 as a direct challenge to its precarious claim to authority.

The significance of today’s jail sentence has been put very succinctly by a Beijing based independent commentator Wang Guangze. According to Wang, the unusually harsh sentence delivered today is significant because:

It demonstrates Hu Jintao’s determination to secure power for CCP’s fifth generation successors;
It represents a complete breakdown of any chances of political reconciliation between the CCP, under the leadership of Hu Jintao, and those who advocate liberal reforms both inside and outside of the Communist Party;
It hastens the transformation of liberal reformers into revolutionary forces.

Contrary to Hu’s wishes, his reluctance to share power will be a catalyst for many more intense struggles for civil rights in China. Such a surge in public demands for liberal democracy in China will pose severe challenges to the CCP’s grip on power.

Why should we in Australia, the USA or in Europe care about Liu Xiaobo and his jail sentence? Wang Dan, a Chinese dissident and student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests, now in exile in Taiwan, wrote a reply to a similar query about this incident. Wang Dan said, ver batim:

审判结果出炉，刘晓波被重判11年有期徒刑。作为追求自由的中国人，我对中共表达强烈的抗议，这是他们对中国人民的又一桩暴行，中国人不会忘记的。作为晓波的好友，我含泪为他祝福，希望他能够保重身体，面对苦难。中共对刘晓波的审判，再次证明了一句话：上帝让谁灭亡，必先让谁疯狂。我呼吁外界正确认识今天的中国的现状，那就是在中共经济崛起的掩护下，中共的统治已经一步一步迈向法西斯化。这是我们必须警惕的。我呼吁有志于推动中国民主化的朋友不要忘记刘晓波，让营救刘晓波的行动成为成为未来中国民主运动的新的焦点。

The following is my translation:

The verdict has just been announced. Liu Xiaobo was given a harsh jail sentence of 11 years. As another Chinese national who pursues freedom and liberty, I hereby express my strongest protest to the Chinese Communist Party against this verdict. I consider this as another atrocity this Party has inflicted upon Chinese people, and Chinese people will never forget it. I am a good friend of Liu Xiaobo, and so I am deeply saddened by the verdict. With tears in my eyes I give my best wishes to him; I can only hope he will take the best care of himself in the face of suffering. The CCP’s trial of Liu Xiaobo once again gives substance to a famous proverb that says: ‘Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.’ I am therefore urging the international community to carefully examine current conditions in China today: Under the disguise of a rising economy is a regime marching steadily and surely towards Fascism. It is imperative for the future of mankind that the world takes notice of this trend. I am also calling upon those who are dedicated to promoting democracy in China not to forget Liu Xiaobo. Let us make the release of Liu Xiaobo from imprisonment our renewed goal of a democratic movement for China.

China Times has also published an interview with Wang Dan about Liu Xiaobo’s jail sentence.

Posted in media censorship, regional security, Under the Tree Tagged: 08 Charter, Charter 08, China rule of law, freedom of speech, Liu Xiaobo, Wang Dan

Give a goat for Christmas!

Ned Kelly — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:29:55 +0800

Ivan discovered these sweet and wonderfully weird American musical geniuses. Please enjoy this Christmas song, from Catherine and Ned and Ivan to all of our readers, and then follow the instructions to give someone a goat for Christmas:

Posted in Ivan's Bunker, Ned Kelly's Pub, Under the Tree

Chinese history simplified

Ned Kelly — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:02:33 +0800

From The Onion:

Either Ming Or Yuan Dynasty Seizes Control Of Mainland China

In one of the most important events in all of Asian history, either the Ming dynasty or the Yuan dynasty seized control of mainland China during the eighth, 12th, or maybe even the third century. “The rise of one of these two dynasties, at the turn of whatever time it was, ushered in a bold new age of either unity, feudal infighting, or perhaps both,” said historian Robert Grossman, who has devoted his career to parsing out China’s incredibly rich and convoluted history. “Not since the days of the Shang dynasty—unless I happen to be thinking of the Qin dynasty—had China undergone such radical change.” According to Grossman, either the Ming or the Yuan dynasty is a perfect example of why the other failed to work.

Posted in Ned Kelly's Pub

Charter 08 Signatories Called for the Release of Liu Xiaobo

C.A. Yeung — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:04:57 +0800

A year ago, on 8 December 2008, Liu Xiaobo was detained on suspicion of inciting subversion of State power. Hours later, Charter 08, a document that Liu helped to draft, was released online. Charter 08, signed initially by 303 prominent Chinese citizens, calls for 19 changes to improve human rights situation in China. Since then more than eight thousand people around the world have signed the Charter.

In spite of straight censorship the Chinese ruling regime has imposed on the dissemination of information about the Charter, news continue to leak out about Chinese citizens commemorating the first anniversary of the release of the document. There are also renewed calls for support from the international community to secure the release of Liu Xiaobo.

The following is a report by Sun Wenguang, one of the original 303 Charter 08 signatories. Here Sun wrote about a seminar held in Shandong province to mark the first anniversary. The English translation is mine. Apart from calling for the release of Liu Xiaobo, the seminar also discussed an item in Charter 08, namely “the nationalisation of the Chinese military”. My co-blogger Ned Kelly asks me to add a note here for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the history of the People’s Republic of China. Unlike in most countries, China’s military establishment, or the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is the military arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It is under the command of the Central Military Commission of the CCP. The Chinese Ministry of National Defence, which operates under the State Council, does not exercise any authority over the PLA.

【孙文广：山东各界纪念《08宪章》一周年】

Shandong Signatories met to commemorate the Anniversary of Charter 08

By Sun Wenguang

零八宪章，公布一周年前夕，山东济南、泰安、聊城、烟台、签署宪章的各界人士十余人，聚会纪念。

A group of over 10 signatories gathered a day before the first anniversary of the release of Charter 08 to commemorate the event. They were from various regions in Shandong province, including Jinan, Taian, Liaocheng and Yantai.

会上发言的有：车宏年、史若平、李世骏、孙文广、秦志刚、李红卫、鲁扬、李对龙等，他们指出：

The speakers at the Seminar were: Che Hongnian, Shi Ruoping, Li Shijun, Sun Wenguang, Qin Zhigang, Li Hongwei, Lu Yang and Li Duilong. The speakers affirmed:

零八宪章，是六四之后，一个最重要的集体创作，表达了关于人权、民主、自由、法制的诉求。08宪章签署者受到公安的调查时，纷纷表达了对08宪章的认同，没有一个人表示后悔！或撤销签署。

“Charter 08 is the most important collective declaration since June 4th 1989. It expresses a demand for human rights, democracy, freedom and rule of law. The Charter 08 signatories, even after being subjected to investigation by National Security agencies, have unanimously confirmed their support for Charter 08. No one has expressed regret or has revoked his signature.”

与会者一致要求，当局立即释放刘晓波先生！刘晓波先生组织08宪章的起草，这是是他个人的光荣记录！他为中国的民主运动，写下了光辉的一页。刘晓波先生，08年12月，被从家中带走，既无拘留证也无逮捕证，很长时间，不准律师介入！不准家属接…见，这都是程序违法！说明现在中国缺少司法正义！在中国呼吁司法正义的人，被剥夺了司法权利，呼唤自由的人，失去了自由，这既表明了08宪章的必要和及时，也表明了，在中国民主化的过程中，一批勇敢者，要付出代价！他们应该受到人们的尊重！

Those who attended the Seminar made a joint pleading for the immediate release of Mr Liu Xiaobo, the coordinator of the drafting of Charter 08. Mr Liu has made a remarkable personal achievement and has written a glorious page in the history of China’s struggle for democracy. Consequently he was taken away from home in December 2008. His arrest was illegal, because the Police failed to produce any warrant for his arrest and detention. For a very long time, Mr Liu had been denied his rights to meet with his lawyer and his family. The lack of legal justice in China becomes obvious when people who advocate the rule of law are deprived of legal rights, and when those who call for freedom are imprisoned. Mr Liu’s arrest explains why the release of Charter 08 is timely. It also reminds us of the price that many brave people have paid for the democratisation of China. These people deserve our respect.

会上，大明湖暴力拆迁的受害者李红卫，用她切身体会，控诉了当局是如何侵害她的个人财产权，她多次起诉都被驳回不予受理，她切身体会到司法正义的重要，！她的上访没有人理睬，她在公共场合表达民意，结果被带到了公安机关受到了关押！她用亲身的体会，说明零八宪章的重要性！他表示完全支持零八宪章关于人权，关于自由关于民主的诉求！

During the Seminar, Ms Li Hongwei, a victim of the Daming Lake forced evictions, came forward to tell her personal story. She told the audience how her property rights were violated, how her attempts to take legal action against the violators were repeatedly dismissed in court, how her petitions were ignored, and how she was taken away and locked up by the Police when she expressed her opinion in public. Her personal story testifies to the importance of legal justice; it also testifies to the importance of Charter 08! Ms Li expressed her unconditional support for those articles in Charter 08 that advocate human rights, freedom and democracy.

参会者，很多人都表达了，支持零八宪章关于军队国家化的论述，按照世界民主国家国的惯例，军队应该效忠于国家。最近一段时间，国内很多人在议论，中国如何实现军队国家化，认为这是中国实现民主化、法制化的重要前提，也是建立宪政的重要基础。

Many Seminar participants also expressed their support for the part of Charter 08 about the nationalisation of China’s military. It is a common practice in most countries to have military forces pledging loyalty to the Nation. Many recent discussions in China have come to the conclusion that the nationalisation of the military is a prerequisite, not just for the implementation of democracy and the rule of law, but also for the establishment of a constitutional government.

关于宪政的口号，关于民主自由的口号，是共产党在上世纪四十年代反复呼喊的口号！今天应该是实现这些口号的时候了！

Back in the 1940s, the Chinese Communist Party repeatedly shouted slogans about democracy, freedom and the need for a constitutional government. Today, it is time for these slogans to become a reality.

这次座谈会，开了约三个多小时。 2009年12月7日

The Seminar was held for approximately three hours on 7 December 2009.

Posted in media censorship, Under the Tree Tagged: 08 Charter, Charter 08, China rule of law, freedom of speech, Internet censorship, Liu Xiaobo