If the Malaysian government was truly worried about bloggers effecting social unrest, now they have it. Remember, this is a country where any politician worth their mutton—Jeff Ooi was one of several Malaysians who rode their blog and calls for reform to Parliament in recent elections—has a blog, and even the old goats now blog too.

Ex-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has a highly-read blog, as does PM hopeful Anwar Ibrahim.

“They set up their blogs, and they try to close down our blogs.”

Raja is one of the sharpest voices both online and off in Malaysia, so it’s highly suggested you check out his statements to the public right after his sentencing, vlogged by Malaysian citizen media stronghold, Malaysiakini.

Raja Petra (or RPK) has had his case brought to parliament, where MP-bloggers are calling RPK’s arrest politically-motivated retaliation sought by the current ruling coalition following its heavy losses in recent elections, elections that saw for the first time popular bloggers winning seats, on a platform of increased transparency and post-colonial racial integration.

As the Malaysia Star points out, this is the first time that a blogger has been charged under the Sedition Act, and RPK now faces a fine of up to just over USD 1,500 and/or three years in prison. The trial, which saw businessman Syed Akbar Ali charged with sedition for a comment he left on RPK’s blog, appears to have been carried out with no clarification given as to which part of the Act RPK had supposedly violated.

Multi-ethnic reform lobby group Aliran looks at the text of the Sedition Act, and expresses shock that this led to anything more than a defamation charge.

As of Thursday morning, RPK’s readers have raised online far more than what he stands to be fined, and also today comes news that Raja Petra is on a hunger strike, and refusing to meet even with his own wife.

Following a candlelight vigil held outside Sungai Buloh prison last night, another vigil will be held at 8pm this evening in downtown Kuala Lumpur.

A Facebook group that has been set up to call for RKP’s release is buzzing today, and a whole set of images can be found there, among other places, for anyone who wants to put a badge on their blog to show their
support:

At the center of all this is still the murder of Mongolian former model and polyglot Altantuya; Raja Petra’s blog post calling for justice in her death to be resolved has been posted widely in recent days; here’s how it begins:

Today, we shall not be talking about politics. We shall also not be talking about race or religion. Today, we shall talk about doing the human thing. Today, let’s discuss how to launch a ‘Justice for Altantuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign. And let’s send those bastards who murdered Altantuya to hell where they belong.

An invitation was extended earlier to Mr. Kamarudin to come speak at this year’s Global Voices Advocacy summit to be held in Budapest this June, and remains extended now.

According to Global Voices Advocacy, Al Farhan was arrested on 10 December 2007 for unspecified “violation of non-security regulations.”

Saudi Arabia:

For Saudi Jeans, Al Farhan’s release was a good way to start his day. He writes:

I woke up around 5:30 this morning on the beeping of my iPhone which received a short message from the wife of my friend and fellow blogger Fouad al-Farhan telling me that Fouad has been released and that he is back home with his family now. That’s great news and this is just how I wanted to start my morning!

Al Farhan’s fellow blogger, Mashi 97 (Ar), from Saudi Arabia, received more than 140 congratulatory comments when he made this announcement:

قبل دقائق قليلة فقط

رجع المدون السعودي فؤاد أحمد الفرحان لمنزله بعد خروجه من السجن .

الحمدلله الحمدلله الحمدلله

A few minutes ago only
Saudi blogger Fouad Ahmed Al Farhan has returned home after being released from prison.
Thank Allah, Thank Allah, Thank Allah.

Another Saudi blogger Ibrahim (Ar) wants an explanation to why Al Farhan was arrested. He writes:

في الأمس كنا فرحين بالإفراج عن فؤاد الفرحان
ولازلنا فرحين
ولكن سؤالي .. ماذا بعد الإفراج عن فؤاد؟
أربعة أشهر قضاها الأخ فؤاد في سجن أو توقيف ( مانختلف ) تحت الإستجواب
وكان السبب في كل هذا هو ” تهمة غير أمنيه” و ” إختراق لبعض اللوائح ”
وأستغرب من هذه الكلمات الفضفاضه
أنا كمدون أحب أن أعرف ماهي اللوائح التي تم اختراقها , ليتم تفاديها
أو ماهي التهم الغير أمنيه ليتم تفاديها أيضاً
هذا في حال أنها تستحق هذا المسمى (اختراق للوائح) فكلنا يجب أن يعرف ماهي اللوائح المخترقه

Yesterday were were happy for Fouad Al Farhan’s release.
And we are still happy.
But my question is .. what after Fouad’s release?
He spent four months in prison or custody (we won’t differ on this), where he was interrogated.
The reason given was “a non-security related accusation” and “breaking some laws.”
I am surprised at those vague words.
As a blogger, I want to know what are the laws he has broken so that we don’t commit them and what are the non-security related offences, so that we can overcome them. In case they deserve to be labelled as “breaking laws,” we all need to know what are the laws which have been broken.

Rasheed Abou-Alsamh too has questions in his head and writes:

Fouad was arrested in Jeddah on Dec. 10, 2007, and was held in a detention center for for more than four months because of the various entries on his blog that called for less corruption and more accountability in Saudi Arabia.

Will he continue blogging now that he has been released? That is a question that only Fouad can answer. I’m sure we will find out soon enough. For now, Fouad probably just wants to forget his ordeal and bond with is family.

Egypt:

From Egypt, Al Anany is also excited about Al Farhan’s release and shares the following wish:

اليوم فرحة المدونين العرب وبالخصوص السعوديين منهم لا توصف بعد الإفراج اليوم عن المدون السعودي فؤاد الفرحان .. ومن هنا ، من سيناء نهنئ أنفسنا وكل من آزر فؤاد الفرحان بخروجه من السجن وعودته الي منزله ، ونتمنى من الله عز وجل أن يتم الإفراج عن كل المدونين العرب ، وعن مسعد أبو فجر ابن سيناء وصاحب مدونة ودنا نعيش

Today is a happy day for Arab bloggers, and in particular the Saudis, whose happiness cannot be measured after the release of Saudi blogger Fouad Al Farhan. From here, from Sinai, we congratulate ourselves and all those who stood by Fouad until his release from prison and his return home. We ask Allah for the release of all Arab bloggers, especially Musad Abu Fajr, the son of Sinai, who runs the blog, We Want to Live.

Still in Egypt, Zeinobia awaits the news of the release of another blogger - this time in Syria. She writes:

Congratulations for Fouad and his family.
Hopefully all the other bloggers detained in the Arab world will be free soon and return to other families especially Tarek from Syria.

Bahrain:

Bahraini blogger Mahmood Al Yousif is still scratching his head. He writes:

We don’t know the details of his release and what he had to give up or sign for the authorities to finally let him go, I suspect we will hear his stories quite soon - I hope.
In any case, I am very happy indeed for his release.
Welcome home Fouad!

Bahraini Esra’a wonders if Al Farhan will continue blogging after his release. She writes:

We are really happy to see him safe and free, however I wonder if he will continue blogging after what had happened. Let’s hope that he will never endure what he has gone through these past few months.

Sudan:

The Sudanese Thinker makes the following announcement:

Saudi blogger Fuad alFarhan has finally been released after spending 137 days in jail for simply speaking his mind politely and eloquently. Meanwhile, the Saudi government has no problem whatsoever allowing the shouts and rants of many preachers of death.

Lovely!

Meanwhile, The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (Ar) demands the lifting of the ban on Al Farhan’s blog in Saudi Arabia. It says:

من الجيد التراجع عن استمرار اعتقال فؤاد الفرحان ، ولكن رغم سعادتنا بالإفراج عنه ، فنحن ننتظر أن تعلن الحكومة السعودية بوضوح أسباب اعتقاله ، ومن كان صاحب قرار اعتقاله ، و أن يرفع الحجب عن مدونته فورا”.

It is good that Fouad Al Farhan is no longer arrested, but despite our happiness with his release, we are waiting for the Saudi government to announce clearly why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. We also call for the immediate lift of the ban on his blog.

Banners from Egyptian Facebook groups calling for the May 4 Strike.

After little less than a month following the April 6 strike in support of the textile workers in Mahalla City, during which a number of prominent Egyptian bloggers and internet activists were arrested, preparations for the next round of a planned general strike to mark the 80th birthday of President Hosni Mubarak, on May 4, 2008, are currently spreading all over the blogosphere and the Internet. And like the preparation for the April 6 strike, the internet has a vital role to play in mobilizing for the upcoming protest. SMS, email, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter: almost all of these outlets are used by Egyptian Internet activists in their campaign the May 4 event. We’ve even seen a Facebookist Movement to Overthrow Mubarak being created. Another group entitled “We don’t want Muslim Brothers” is calling for the strike but without participation of the Muslim Brotherhood, who recently decided to join May 4 protest.

Logo of the Egyptian Facebook group “Facebookist Movement to Overthrow Mubarak“

This approach of politicising the internet is not taking place without concerns being raised not only by pro-government and state-run newspapers (who recently waged a campaign against web 2.0 services like Youtube, Blogger and Facebook used by online activists) but even by opponents of Mubarak’s regime and outspoken bloggers. And while the Al-Gomhuriya daily called for a “boycott [of] Youtube and Facebook websites” and the weekly Rose El-Youssef portrayed the former website as “a secret room aimed at running Egypt”, blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy, an outspoken Egyptian blogger, wrote, in a blog post titled “I do NOT endorse the May 4th General Strike Call” criticizing what he described as a call “coming from the cyberspace by bloggers, “Facebook activists” and the Islamist-leaning Labor Party whose leaders have declared themselves more or less as some “provisional govt” in cyber-exile”, that:

We, the Egyptian bloggers, have always prided ourselves on the fact that we have one foot on the ground and the other in the cyberspace… But this time, it seems some have thrown both their feet as well as brains in the cyberspace and are living some virtual reality, mistakenly believing (helped by the media sensationalist coverage of the “facebook activism“) that they are the ones behind the events in Mahalla…

Blogger and activist Nora Younis was kind enough to agree to this interview over email. Nora shares some of her ideas with us about the role of Internet in Egypt as a platform for political activism.

Sami Ben Gharbia: What was the role of internet in mobilizing Egyptian citizens to participate in the April 6 strike and do you believe that the kind of Facebook Group, with its 71,200 members, has an effect on the street?

Nora Younis: Internet was the main tool in mobilizing for the 6 April strike. It’s true a tiny fringe of Egyptians have access to Facebook but the 70,000+ members of the group acted as strike advocates in the society and took the debate from PC screens to taxis, workplaces, dinner tables and breadlines. This forced the topic on the independent main stream media. The second tool in mobilizing for the strike was SMS. People I have known for years with no relation to politics or public participation were circulating messages advocating the strike. The word “strike” has never been uttered and repeated that much in Egypt during my lifetime. However, we should not forget that what gave April 6 its weight was the labor movement uprising and their struggle for a dignified minimum wage. Internet alone, without the popular base, wouldn’t have led to the successful strike we witnessed April 6.

Sami: we’ve seen an anti-strike Facebook group formed to counter the pro-strike group and it seems that the political battle is taking place on blogs and on social networking websites. How do you describe this new development and do you believe that the Egyptian government or the ruling party is behind the aforementioned group?

Nora: Young members of the ruling party have initiated blogs and Facebook groups to polish the regime’s image and counter the call for dissent. Such pages are probably encouraged by party officials, because when it comes to content they lack the passion. Furthermore, they remain unable to attract members and visitors.

Sami: It seems that the Egyptian regime is trying to calm down the situation. During the last week many of the previously arrested activist and bloggers have been released such as Khaled Hamza Salam the editor-in chief of Ikhwanweb, and blogger Mohamed Sharkawy and Esraa Abdul Fattah. How do you assess the situation in Egypt at this stage?

Nora: The Egyptian regime took preemptive measures to abort the April 6 strike by arresting activists early morning from their homes, and taping their calls days before. After the day was over and with the rising riots in Mahalla measures were taken to contain and calm the situation, as a way to weaken the planned May 4 strike. A government delegation headed to Mahalla, met some 2000 textile workers, and promised bonuses and privileges. Government statements have alienated Mahalla workers from the riots. Popular bloggers-activists have been released. All seems to be in attempt to calm the situation before May 4 - the president’s 80th birthday.

Sami: The use of web tools has caused the arrest of some of those activists, but it also helped release the American student James Karl Buck who was arrested while photographing the 6 April demonstration. His Twittered message ‘ARRESTED‘ through his cell phone alerted the world about his arrest. Who do you believe is going to win this new kind of battle of information?

Nora: On April 5 the number of my Twitter update followers was 90. On April 6 it was 130, and today it is 180. Only because I was Twittering strike and detainees updates. James Buck gained wide support through his Twitter SMS. More people are joining the blogsphere, Facebook, and Twitter by the hour. I don’t think this could ever be reversed. There is a techie, passionate, frustrated generation now on the playground….and one could only expect more to come. In few years time there will be no need for registration of political parties. Like-minded people will organise and will be heard.

On the San Francisco leg, protesters went viral, covering the event through Twitter, video and even audio live updates.

Come next Tuesday, however, what you might not be seeing on YouTube is any cellphone-shot footage of human rights protests uploaded by Vietnamese bloggers as the Olympic torch makes its way through Ho Chi Minh City; Nguyen Van Hai, a prominent citizen reporter there who blogs under the name Dieu Cay, was arrested this past week as he led efforts to organize local bloggers to follow the torch’s passing.

One world, one voice?

Some are saying that Nguyen’s arrest comes as Chinese authorities have been putting pressure on their Vietnamese counterparts to keep Beijing’s sacred flame procession as harmonious as possible, a goal which apparently now requires everything from death threats to readiness to shoot to kill.

RSF made a call upon the Vietnamese government this week to release all prisoners of conscience, many of whom once blogged, before the Olympic torch arrives on April 29:

Bloc 8406 members Huynh Nguyen Dao, Le Nguyen Sang and Nguyen Bac Truyen have been sentenced to jail terms of three, four and two years respectively on charges of “propaganda hostile to the government” in what they posted online.

In one video of Dieu currently found on YouTube, he looks to be hearing out a group of women’s grievances; in another, part of a set uploaded late last winter, someone can be seen being confronted and then ushered away by police while Dieu and friends film the scene from nearby:

According to Emirates Business 24/7, DU informed its customers of plans to filter the internet on Sunday 13 April, 2008 via SMS text message: “We wish to inform you that from April 14, 2008, we will be blocking sites with content that do not conform to the moral, social and cultural values of the UAE.” DU also issued a public statement as follows:

It is our constant endeavour to maintain the perfect balance between ensuring that all our customers’ requirements are met, and that we comply with all the guidelines of the TRA, including those on internet content filtering.

The World Wide Web offers us great opportunities to get and share information and to communicate. However, it is imperative that when making use of this technology for its enormous benefits, we respect the moral, social and cultural values of the United Arab Emirates.

DU will be blocking all content that is not in line with these values, effective from 14 April 2008. Due to the nature of the content filtering process, some harmless sites may also inadvertently be blocked. We request our customers’ assistance in informing us when a site that they consider harmless has been blocked, by writing to safesurf@du.ae so we can look into the matter.

This move means that the uncensored internet enjoyed until recently in UAE free zones is over and that the ISP DU will bring its internet content filtering in line with the strict guidelines of the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) that have already been implemented for years by the government-owned Internet provider Etisalat. “These are not new regulations we are implementing, this is an initiative we have chosen to take to filter some content after receiving complaints from concerned customers,” Osman Sultan, chief executive of Dubai’s ISP DU told ArabianBusiness.com.

As a result, Secret Dubai Diary has been reported blocked along with the U.S.-based Arab Times (both websites are already banned by Etisalat), a Wikipedia article on fitna, the film by the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, playboy.com (and its IP: http://216.163.137.3).

Users trying to access blocked websites have been re-directed to a page displaying the error message: “Surf Safely. The website is not available in the UAE”.

And in the meantime, some United Arab Emirates bloggers are reporting that Etisalat, the major telecommunications company that services much of the country, is blocking part of Facebook, preventing style sheets (CSS), javascripts and applications from loading properly.

Please tell me: is this a just verdict?

Zeng Jinyan, 4 April 2008

In a hearing on 3 April 2008, the court convicted Hu Jia (胡佳) and sentenced him to three years and six months imprisonment and subsequent deprivation of his political rights [1] for one year. They also confiscated his laptop computer, his wireless internet access card, his WiFi router, ZTE ADSL modem, an internet access card, one sheet of A4 printer paper with Cai Chu’s (蔡楚) e-mail address written on it, and his PHS limited-range mobile phone.

After the verdict was announced, I had to struggle with the state security squad police just for the right to walk by myself. They dropped me off at the Babaoshan subway station exit. A group of friends, some of whom I recognised, came running up to meet me. Many of them asked me: ‘Is this a just verdict?’

Now let me ask you: if someone in your family got sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment and one year of deprivation of their political rights for writing five articles and giving two interviews, having already been subjected to long term house arrest – would you think that just?

And let me ask President Hu Jintao and our various leaders responsible for the administration of justice: given that the Constitution accords priority to the protection of freedom of speech, does a verdict of three and a half years of imprisonment and one year of deprivation of one’s political rights for writing five articles and giving two interviews manifest the ‘spirit of the rule of law’? Does it exhibit the justice of our judicial system?

The ‘witnesses’ and ‘evidence’ relied on by the court and the ‘crime’ it found Hu Jia guilty of

I have read the decision carefully several times. (It contains a number of typographical errors.) [2] The court held that ‘the accused Hu Jia engaged in fabrication and slander and the incitement of others to overturn our country’s ruling power and socialist system, by means of articles published on the internet and interviews given to overseas media, with the aim of overturning the ruling power of our country’s people’s democratic dictatorship. His acts constitute the crime of incitement to subversion of state power, and merit punishment according to law.’ These are the essays on account of which Hu Jia was charged with this crime:

1. Catch the train of democracy: Wake up, East Asia’s sleeping lion. [3] This was originally a private letter Hu Jia wrote in 2001 to a friend. It is not known who added the title. The court did not actually rely on this article to convict Hu Jia. For when the police questioned the letter’s addressee Wang Lixiong (王力雄) and Hu Jia about it, neither of them could remember anything clearly, due to lapse of time.

2. The five other articles, which the court relied on for its conviction, were: Revered old Mr Lin Mu passed away at about 2 pm today [4], Guo Feixiong and Jiang Wei and the ‘Shenyang political earthquake [5], One Country Does Not Need Two Systems [6], The Political and Legal Authorities is creating a general atmosphere of terror in the run-up to the Seventeenth Communist Party Congress [7], and A series of rights violations against citizens before the National Holiday and the Seventeenth Communist Party Congress. [8]

3. The two interviews the court relied on for its conviction were entitled Hu Jia comments on the process of Lawyer Gao Zhisheng’s abduction [9] and Mounting a peaceful challenge to dictatorship. [10] It was said that these interviews given by Hu Jia were produced in the form of audio recordings, and that their content had been edited and the titles added by the interviewer.

Freedom of speech is protected by our Constitution as well as by international law. Hu Jia’s words did no harm to society. Instead they helped to alleviate the contradictions between some groups in society and the government. For instance, some petitioners once said that if it had not been for Hu Jia’s help in passing on reports about the wrongs they had suffered, they could only have taken resort to suicide, or even to blowing themselves up together with others. [11] And anyway, at the very least, citizens have a right to criticize the methods of government officials who violate citizens’ rights. ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.’ (Voltaire). Locking someone up under house arrest just because you don’t like their acrid criticism, and then sending them to prison – who would have thought that it takes a court of law to do that kind of job? Those essays of Hu Jia’s can all be found on the internet. To readers, I suggest that you have a look at them for yourselves.

The court relied on the following witness statements. [12]

1. Zeng Jinyan (曾金燕): testified that Hu Jia was using his own white computer to go online.

2. Teng Biao (腾彪): testified that he knew Hu Jia, and that he knew that Hu Hia published essays online.

3. Qi Zhiyong (齐志勇): testified that he knew Hu Jia and that he knew that Hu Jia published essays online, that those essays were sent to the email address of Cai Chu, the Boxun editor, and that the voice on the tape the police gave him was Hu Jia’s.

4. Ye Minghua (叶明华): testified that Hu Jia had once rung him up to ask about the detention of his father Ye Guoqiang (叶国强) by the police, and that Hu had rung him a second time to tell him that he had posted an essay concerning the detention of Ye Guoqiang online on the Boxun website.

Let me just remind everyone at this point that while Hu Jia was in pre-trial detention, I was being kept under illegal house arrest and all my contact with the outside world was cut off. The plainclothes police agents at one point illegally moved into my home. They said to me, ‘If you don’t co-operate, we can detain you too.’ The police came to me several times to take my statements, occasions on which they elaborated, ‘if you don’t co-operate we can take you away too; then as a special kindness on our part you may have the child once every three hours to feed it.’ At last, on 12 February, I agreed to have my statement taken by them. The content of my statement is as described above: After Hu Jia was put into detention, Teng Biao was several times threatened with accusations of ‘the crime of inciting state subversion’ and requested to collaborate; his passport was confiscated, plainclothes police abducted and illegally detained him for two days, and he was subjected to frequent house arrests. Qi Zhiyong was forced to leave Beijing by the plainclothes police and had to stay out of town for over one month, after which time he was subjected to further house arrest. Ye Minghua’s father and cousin were formally detained on suspicion of ‘inciting state subversion’ and are currently at home awaiting trial having been released on bail. His uncle, Ye Guozhu (叶国柱), remains in prison, where he is serving his sentence.

How can it be inferred from these so called ‘witness statements’ that Hu Jia committed any crime? And from a procedural perspective, I would like to ask everyone in the world – but particularly the legal professionals: is it right to use the statements obtained from witnesses who were subjected to abductions, house arrests, and hostage-takings? Is that in accordance with the claim, made by Chinese government officials, that Hu Jia’s case would be handled according to the principle that ‘all are equal before the law’?

Now let us look at the other pieces of evidence used by the court:

1. The Internet Surveillance Centre of the Beijing Public Security Bureau’s Internet Security Supervision Squad [13] provided information, for each of the essays, about the domain names and websites they had been published on and then reposted to, as well as details of the servers used, the number of times they had been viewed, and the number of comments that had been posted on each of them;

2. The Beijing Internet Business Association’s Centre for the Use of Electronic Data as Expert Evidence in Court [14] provided ‘Expert evidence letter no. 1/2008’, testifying that pictures that had been obtained from Hu Jia’s computer were identical with those posted on the internet;

3. Public Security organs provided the essays downloaded from the internet, signed by Hu Jia;

4. Public Security organs provided the number of Hu Jia’s PHS mobile phone number phone 86000663;

5. Chinese Internet Providers (Group) Inc. [15] testified that the user of the PHS mobile phone was Hu Jia;

6. Public Security organs provided Hu Jia’s ID and records of his criminal detention.

I would like to ask everyone, what do these pieces of evidence prove? Do they prove that Hu Jia subverted this country’s state power?

Hu Jia’s and his family’s view on the matter

Lastly, let’s take a look at how the court sums up the statement Hu Jia made during his trial on 18 March 2008: ‘At trial, the defendant Hu Jia acknowledged the facts alleged by the prosecution.’ The announcement of the verdict on 3 April 2008 took about 20 minutes altogether and apart from answering the judge to say that he was ‘Hu Jia’, and nodding once in the direction of his lawyers, Hu Jia did not speak another word or make any other sign on this occasion. He did not even seem to notice his relatives. Apart from his mother and myself there were several housewives, students, and strange men - one of whom I saw falling asleep - in the audience. After the verdict had been announced I saw that Hu Jia, looking apathetic, turned around as though he wanted to leave. I called out to him, ‘Hu Jia!’ At that time he was only about one metre away from me, but he did not hear me. Then he was led away by the police.

Hu Jia acknowledged that he had written those essays. But that does not mean, of course, that he had committed a crime. True, Hu Jia wrote and published essays for the whole world to read. In doing so, he was only exercising his constitutional right to free speech. The law also gives citizens the right to remain silent during a criminal investigation. [16] But Hu Jia is a human being, not a God whom guns and knives cannot penetrate. During the first month of his detention he was interrogated almost every evening over periods of 6-14 hours. During the day he still had to participate in the activities of the police detention centre, such as for instance each morning’s ‘sitting on a bench’ session, where from 6 am to 12 pm one has to sit motionless on a bench. According to what the state security squad police told me, the so-called interrogations for the most part consisted of ‘doing persuasion and education work’ on Hu Jia, ‘to get him to repent and change his mind so that he could be returned to society sooner.’ Should we call that indoctrination or brainwashing? [17] He could not see any relatives or friends who could give him help and support, and he had barely any opportunities to get fresh air. How could he have been able to show any resistance under such conditions of extreme fatigue and perhaps grave danger to his health? Sleep deprivation and deprivation of opportunities to go out for fresh air all violate Chinese police detention centre regulations.

When the announcement of the verdict was over, the judge asked us, the family members, if we had any questions. So I told in detail how Hu Jia has been subjected to illegal house arrest and inhumane treatment, and asked the judge whether these factors had been taken into account. The judge gave an explanation to the effect that it was his professional responsibility to make a decision based on what the prosecution and defence had said, and that what I had mentioned was outside the scope of his professional responsibility.

I insisted on leaving the court by myself but the state security squad police would not allow it. Their attitude was very bad and one of them was really uncivilized, but on the whole they still exercised some self-restraint. I said to them, ‘the court is supposed to be a place that protects human dignity and citizens’ rights. Are you going to unlawfully restrict my rights even here?’ The employees of the court also kept persuading me that I should sit in a police car. I said very sadly to the court employees, ‘our lot will not improve while China has no genuine rule of law.’ Immediately one of the state security squad police officers cut in, saying sharply ‘and that is why you want to subvert state power…’ I retorted, ‘you said that. All I want is genuine rule of law!’

Hu Jia agreed that the lawyers should make a not guilty plea. But he also hoped that the procedure would be over quickly, and above all he did not want anyone else to become implicated in his case. (I think perhaps he was thinking of Lawyer Teng Biao there, because they had jointly published an essay and Teng had already been questioned several times.) He said to Lawyer Li that he did not want even a minute’s delay; he wanted to get home and hold his baby. He did not disclose any further details about what had happened to him in the police detention centre. He did not say anything, so we don’t know. But there are some things I dare not talk about because I fear that it might lead to further retaliation. They have so many ways of inflicting pain on him without beating him. And that may damage his health even more. As his wife, I hope that he will consider his health and take care of himself.

I am terrified. When they said to me, ‘if you don’t co-operate, we can detain you too’ and ‘if you don’t co-operate we can take you away too; then as a special kindness on our part you may have the child once every three hours to feed it,’ I asked myself over and over what I should do. In 1993 when Beijing lost to Sydney its bid to host the Olympics, Hu Jia cried. He was so happy that the Chinese people were finally able to host the Olympics, but he wasn’t hoping for an Olympic Games that would tread on people’s human rights; he was not hoping for an Olympic Games held at the cost of the pain and suffering of weak and powerless ordinary people. He was hoping for an Olympic Games that would really make the Chinese people proud, and that was why he criticized official corruption and called for improvements of the human rights situation, again and again. Now this had landed him in prison. I feel great pain and hopelessness. But no matter what, I will do my best to protect my family, and do all I can to allow Hu Jia to come back home as soon as possible.

Who will be able to meet with President Hu Jintao? If you meet the President, please ask him on my behalf what he thinks: was Hu Jia’s verdict just?

Appendix: Xinhua News Agency article, English and Chinese versions.

新华社对胡佳案宣判的中英文报道：

新华社：胡佳被判处有期徒刑3年6个月新华社北京４月３日电记者从北京市第一中级人民法院获悉，北京市第一中级人民法院３日对胡嘉煽动颠覆国家政权案宣告一审判决，认定胡嘉犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪，判处有期徒刑３年６个月，剥夺政治权利１年。法院经审理查明：被告人胡嘉于２００６年８月至２００７年１０月间，先后以在境外互联网站发表文章、接受境外媒体电话采访的方式，多次煽动他人颠覆中国国家政权和社会主义制度。在其发表的《中共十七大之前中国政法系统大范围制造恐怖气氛》、《一国无需两制》等文章和接受媒体采访时的谈话中，胡嘉进行恶意造谣、诽谤和煽动，妄图达到颠覆中国国家政权和社会主义制度的目的。胡嘉撰写的煽动性文章以及被制作成音频或整理成文字的采访录音，被境外多家网站链接和转载。北京市第一中级人民法院认定，被告人胡嘉诽谤、煽动颠覆国家政权和社会制度，其行为已构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪。鉴于胡嘉在法庭庭审中能够悔罪，表示愿意接受法律制裁，依法可对其酌予从轻处罚。遂依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第二款、第五十六条第一款和第五十五条第一款的规定，作出前述判决。本案审理期间，法庭充分保障了被告人胡嘉的诉讼权利。在庭审中，胡嘉除自己行使辩护权，其委托的辩护律师也发表了充分的辩护意见。庭审和宣判时，胡嘉的家属均到庭旁听。

胡嘉（曾用名胡佳），男，１９７３年出生，汉族，大学文化，无业。（完）

Hu Jia sentenced to 3.5 years in jail

Hu Jia was sentenced Thursday by the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court to three and half years imprisonment, with one year deprivation of political rights, for subverting the state. The verdict said Hu, a married father aged 34 and the holder of a college degree, libeled the Chinese political and social systems, and instigated subversion of the state, which is a crime under Chinese law. Considering Hu’s confession of crime and acceptance of punishment, the court decided the ruling with leniency and announced a less harsh prison sentence. The court heard that from August 2006 to October 2007, Hu published articles on overseas-run websites, made comments in interviews with foreign media, and repeatedly instigated other people to subvert the Chinese political and socialist systems. In his two website articles, ‘China Political Law-enforcement Organs Create Large-scale Horror ahead of CPC National Congress’, and ‘One Country Doesn’t Need Two Systems’, Hu spread malicious rumors, libel and instigation, in an attempt to subvert the state’s political and socialist systems, the court said in the verdict. The articles written by Hu and his interviews were widely relayed by overseas-run websites, the court said.

Link: http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/china/2008/04/200804042040.shtml

Footnotes:

[1] Including the right to free speech under Chinese law. Article 54 (2) PRC Criminal Code.
[2] Examples of typographical errors are provided in the original.
[3] 赶上民主列车时 东亚睡狮猛醒日.
[4] 林牧老先生于今日下午14：00前后过世.
[5] 郭飞雄和江伟与〈沈阳政坛地震〉.
[6] 一国无需两制.
[7] 中共十七大之前 中国政法系统大范围制造恐怖气氛.
[8] 国庆及十七大来临 警方连续侵犯公民权利.
[9] 胡佳谈高智晟律师被绑架前后的情况.
[10] 向专制的体制发起和平的挑战.
[11] Directed against those who had wronged them.
[12] The statements were taken before the trial and none of the witnesses were allowed to attend the trial.
[13] 北京市公安局公共信息网络安全监察处监控中心.
[14] 北京市网络行业协会电子数据司法鉴定中心.
[15] 中国网通（集团）有限公司.
[16] The P.R.C. Criminal Procedure Code actually requires criminal suspects to answer truthfully when questioned about their case. Hu Jia’s lawyers argued that in this case, the truth could at any rate not support a guilty conviction. To quote: ‘Article 93 When interrogating a criminal suspect, the investigators shall first ask the criminal suspect whether or not he has committed any criminal act, and let him state the circumstances of his guilt or explain his innocence; then they may ask him questions. The criminal suspect shall answer the investigators’ questions truthfully, but he shall have the right to refuse to answer any questions that are irrelevant to the case/ 侦查人员在讯问犯罪嫌疑人的时候，应当首先讯问犯罪嫌疑人是否有犯罪行为，让他陈述有罪的情节或者无罪的辩解，然后向他提出问题。犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问，应当如实回答。但是对与本案无关的问题，有拒绝回答的权利.’
[17] [Note in the original:] The highly secretive persuasion and education session conducted with Hu Jia to make him ‘correct his thinking’ are by no means a new method. The scholar Zhu Hongzhao (朱鸿召) once mentioned to Wu Si (吴思) that in October 1942 a meeting of high cadres of the Northwestern Bureau had the purpose of making certain persons who did not share Mao Zedong’s viewpoint change their mind; the meeting lasted 88 days and it was not dissolved as long as they had not changed their view. (Wu Si, The hidden order – decoding history’s chess game [隐蔽的秩序-拆解历史弈局] at p. 181.