[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 26619-26621]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CHINESE HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEYS TESTIFY BEFORE THE TOM LANTOS HUMAN 
                           RIGHTS COMMISSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 3, 2009

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my 
colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights 
attorneys who submitted testimony for a hearing last week of the Tom 
Lantos Human Rights Commission.

[Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission 
              on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009]

On the Religious Case in Shanxi and the Status of Religious Freedom in 
                                 China

                           (By Mr. Dai Jinbo)


       I. The Status of China's Religious Freedom in Recent Years

       Since the release of the Regulations on Religious Affairs 
     (hereafter abbreviated as Regulations) by China's State 
     Council in 2004, house churches and other unregistered 
     religious organizations have all been regarded as illegal by 
     the ruling administration. House churches that do not want to 
     join TSPM (Three-Self Patriotic Movement) churches, due to 
     disagreement concerning their beliefs, have become targeted 
     because they refuse to acquire administrative approval by 
     registering their house church as a religious organization. 
     The Regulations have become the basis for government 
     departments to carry out selective law enforcement on 
     unregistered religious organizations including house 
     churches. This is also a result of China's 
     institutionalization of religious issues.
       Therefore, with the official implementation of the 
     Regulations in 2005, house churches in various places have 
     all faced or have experienced being banned, fined and /or 
     requested to suspend their religious activities by the 
     government. This can cause such administrative sanctions 
     against them on the grounds that they are not registered. In 
     terms of banning, there are various kinds of different 
     rulings authorizing the ban. These rulings include 
     administrative penalties meted out by the religion management 
     departments to ban illegal religious organizations, ban 
     illegal venues for religious activities and ban illegal Bible 
     training workshops. The religious affairs departments also 
     manage civil affairs departments and use

[[Page 26620]]

     their capacity as a governing entity for social organizations 
     and religious organizations to ban and crack down on house 
     churches on grounds that they are illegal social 
     organizations. An example is the persecution experienced by 
     the Autumn Rain Church in Chengdu in June 2009. Even public 
     security agencies would also interfere in the internal 
     affairs of religious organizations and prevent them from 
     making progress towards autonomy. Further evidence of this 
     type of religious persecution is the case in Baixiang, 
     Wenzhou, in March 2009.
       While the Chinese government was attempting to control and 
     crack down on unregistered religious organizations, including 
     house churches, these unregistered religious organizations 
     did not succumb. Instead, they took the path of defending 
     their rights in accordance with Chinese law. By defending 
     their rights, they have exposed the Chinese government's 
     violation of the rule of law and the principle of human 
     rights. While cracking down on unregistered religious 
     organizations on grounds that they are not registered, it is 
     a violation of the international convention and the relevant 
     provisions concerning religious freedom in China's 
     constitution. This has also made more religious organizations 
     reach a consensus, that is, whether being registered or 
     unregistered is not a criterion for defining a religious 
     organization as legal or illegal. If they are no legally 
     registered, this should not deprive the citizens of their 
     right to religious freedom.
       An excessive number of cases involving violations of 
     citizens' religious freedom would negatively affect China's 
     international image. Controlling unregistered religious 
     organizations by banning them could not achieve the desired 
     effect. Some local governments have changed their strategies 
     of cracking down on the unregistered religious organizations 
     and turned religious issues into non-religious issues, thus, 
     trying to control unregistered religious organizations by 
     means of limiting their access to venues. This is mainly 
     reflected in two approaches. One approach is targeted at 
     urban religious organizations that primarily rent their 
     venues. The government departments often secretly force the 
     landlords to cancel the lease or not to renew their lease so 
     that the religious organizations will not have stable venues 
     for religious activities. The second approach is to 
     forcefully demolish unregistered facilities for religious 
     activities on grounds that they were illegally built. The 
     religious case in Xiaoshan in 2006 was evidence, as was the 
     case in 2009 where the Land and Resources Bureau in Jinghai 
     County, Tianjin, ordered the party concerned to demolish 
     their newly-built church facilities. They also fined the 
     church in excess of 10,000 Yuan on grounds that they had 
     violated the law of land management. Therefore, the 
     unregistered religious organizations in China cannot obtain 
     legal church assets. This has caused a breakdown in achieving 
     religious freedom in China.
       The recent case in Linfen, Shanxi, will produce a profound 
     impact on China's religious freedom. This is also an issue of 
     church assets. Since according to the current Law of Land 
     Management and the relevant provisions in the Urban Planning 
     Law, a construction project not only requires a certificate 
     of land use but also requires a planning permit for the 
     construction project. However, the government departments 
     would absolutely not want to process these procedures for 
     houses that may be used for gatherings of house churches. 
     Churches are often unable to obtain approval when they are 
     trying to resolve the problem of meeting venues by building 
     new houses, this includes some TSPM churches. Some registered 
     legitimate historical facilities, used for religious 
     activities also found it very hard to obtain approval for 
     construction of new churches. If houses are built without 
     approval, they would be considered ``illegal constructions'' 
     and would face the risk of being demolished at any time.
       At dawn, on September 13, 2009, more than three hundred 
     police officers, without producing any legal paperwork, 
     stormed into ``Gospel Shoes Factory,'' a gathering venue for 
     house churches in Fushan County, Linfen, Shanxi. The 
     government broke into the gathering place of the church 
     members and used military weapons, wood sticks, bricks, iron 
     hooks and other sharp instruments beat the people, while 
     smashing and looting the property. They severely beat more 
     than one hundred Christians who were caught entirely off 
     guard. Many lost consciousness and many more collapsed in 
     pools of their own blood. At the same time, bulldozers and 
     other heavy machinery were dispatched to destroy and demolish 
     many buildings. All this had occurred because the government 
     departments deemed their meeting venue as ``illegal 
     buildings'' for the sake of cracking down and oppressing 
     house churches.
       The local government has tried to negotiate with local 
     church leaders since this religious incident. The 
     negotiations between the government departments and the 
     church failed. On September 23, Yang Rongli of Linfen Church 
     and six other church members decided to report the situation 
     to the provincial government. On their way to the province 
     capital they were stopped by the local government. A large 
     number of PAP officers were stationed at the Cathedral in 
     Linfen city, blocking the entrance to the church and 
     confiscated important items in the church. They also 
     prohibited believers from going to meet there. Many church 
     members, including the pastor of the Linfen Church, Huang 
     Xiaoguang, were detained illegally, put under house arrest, 
     or closely monitored. It seemed that the local government 
     wanted to completely destroy the house churches in Linfen. At 
     present, the situation is still developing yet the media has 
     not reported any incidences on this case.
       According to Mr. Fan Yafeng, who is rather familiar with 
     the situation, states that house churches in Linfen, Shanxi, 
     are one of China's ten major house church systems in China. 
     If house churches in Linfen were destroyed by the government 
     through the use of illegal force, this would be the ultimate 
     invasion in the Chinese government's crackdown on house 
     churches and persecution of citizens. According to Professor 
     Li Fan's research at the World and China Institute, a non-
     governmental think tank, house churches in China make up at 
     least half of China's NGO resources. If such respectful and 
     honorable house churches are destroyed, this will be a major 
     regression of China's religious freedom and a serious 
     violation of citizens' religious freedom. This would cause a 
     massive blow to China's non-governmental forces of freedom 
     and would seriously hinder China from making any progression 
     toward religious freedom and the rule of law.


             II. Specific suggestions to the U.S. Congress

       1. We request that the U.S. Congress review and forward the 
     religious case in Linfen and relevant information concerning 
     the status of religious freedom in China to President Obama. 
     It is our desire to increase attention to the religious case 
     in Linfen. Furthermore, it is our desire for President Obama 
     to convey this religious persecution to the Chinese 
     government during his visit to China.
       2. We request the U.S. Congress to immediately ask the 
     spokesperson of the U.S. State Department to hold a press 
     conference focusing on the religious persecution case in 
     Linfen.
       3. We request the U.S. Congress pass a resolution to adopt 
     strong measures in response to the Chinese government's 
     infringement of human rights and religious freedom.
       4. We request the U.S. Congress encourage and support the 
     U.S. Embassy in China to periodically meet and communicate 
     with the groups of Chinese human rights lawyers and 
     advocates. We also request that the U.S. Embassy will make 
     U.S. entry visas more accessible for these people who are 
     fighting for China's democracy, freedom, and rule of law.
       5. We request that the U.S. Congress send a letter to the 
     Chinese government expressing concern for Pastor Wang 
     Xiaoguang of Linfen Church in Shanxi who is currently being 
     detained, as well as church leaders, such as Yang Rongli, 
     Yang Hongzhen, Li Shuangping, Yang Chaizhen, Yang Xuan, Cui 
     Jiaxing, Gao Fuqin, and Zhang Huamei.

[Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission 
              on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009]

 The Challenges Rights Defense Attorneys in China Face and Its Future 
                                Prospect

                          (By Mr. Li Fangping)

       We are now living in the China set against such a dramatic 
     background of the times: First, the economic system is fast 
     evolving while its political system has seen little changes 
     over the years. Second, its legal system is increasingly 
     improving, but the public power is often not restrained by 
     the law. Third, the citizens' awareness of their rights is 
     increasing and the more the awareness to defend one's rights, 
     the more prominent the abuse and the shirking of 
     responsibilities by the public power becomes.
       With the advent of the Internet in China, the first 
     widespread and passionate participation by the citizens in 
     political matters occurred in 2003 during the ``Sun Zhigang 
     Incident,'' which successfully made the State Council 
     announce the annulment of the system of ``internment and 
     deportation.'' In the next year, ``The State respects and 
     safeguards human rights'' was solemnly written into the 
     Constitution. In the next five years, right defense attorneys 
     have, as a professional social group committed to promoting 
     rule of law and safeguarding human rights, presented 
     themselves before the world.
       Certainly, in a country where rule of law is still far from 
     realized and where there is full of terrible things against 
     ordinary citizens, the work and life of right defense 
     attorneys must be full of obstacles and frustrations. Just 
     because we engage in work involving human rights, government 
     departments not only do not understand the significance of 
     our existence, they also regard us as the targets of their 
     domestic defense. We seem to have become personae non gratae 
     in the eyes of the government and we are often treated 
     unfairly. Some of us have been beaten and kidnapped. The 
     personal freedom of some of us is illegally restricted and 
     some of us are illegally stalked by force. Some of us are 
     forced to report our activities and some are driven out by 
     our landlords due to pressure from the government. Some are 
     threatened and given a disciplinary warning by Bureau of 
     Justice and lawyers' associations. Some

[[Page 26621]]

     are simply fired by their law firms due to pressure from the 
     government.
       This year, the right defense attorneys as a social group 
     are enduring more pressure than ever before. As far as I can 
     confirm, there are now at least 17 attorneys at this time 
     unable to practice law. These attorneys have always persisted 
     in providing legal assistance or defense services for clients 
     to safeguard their legitimate rights. They include victims of 
     Sanlu poisonous milk powder, parents of children victimized 
     in the earthquake, HIV carriers, peasants who have lost their 
     land, detained Tibetans, house church Christians, Falun Gong 
     practitioners, right defense activists, political dissidents, 
     victims of family planning policies and clients from other 
     various areas.
       Judicial administrative departments in Beijing and other 
     places have terminated attorneys' rights to practice on the 
     ground that these right defense attorneys have not passed the 
     so-called ``annual evaluation'' or that the law firms where 
     they work have not passed the ``annual inspection.'' However, 
     the ``annual evaluation'' for attorneys and the ``annual 
     inspection'' for law firms themselves are not the 
     administrative penalty that can terminate the right to 
     practice of the attorneys or of their law firms. We can see 
     that the ``annual evaluation'' for attorneys and the ``annual 
     inspection'' of law firms have degenerated into an illegal, 
     disorderly and remediless administrative penalty in disguised 
     form that overrides the disciplinary penalty in the industry 
     and administrative penalty on the practicing attorneys.
       What delights us is that on the one hand, the right defense 
     attorneys have not given up their idea of safeguarding rule 
     of law and human rights. Each time they negotiate with 
     judicial administrative departments, they express their 
     criticism on the illegal administration and their firm belief 
     that China will certainly develop into a country under rule 
     of law. On the other hand, the disadvantaged social groups 
     whose rights are harmed also express their desire of 
     ``attorneys for us, and we for attorneys.'' It is my belief 
     that the appeal for rights by the ordinary people whose 
     rights are harmed, and the sense of mission of the attorneys, 
     will combine to form a powerful synergy in promoting the 
     progress of our country in human rights and rule of law.
       Though the road to rule of law and human rights in China 
     will be hard and long, yet the long march of this time is 
     attracting more and more people, including you, us and them. 
     Given this situation, I, as a member of this social group of 
     defense attorneys, personally am full of confidence for the 
     ``Same World, Same Human Rights.''
       Finally, let me express my gratitude for all my friends who 
     are concerned about the rule of law in China and the progress 
     in human rights!

                          ____________________