Two months after spontaneous protests broke out in response to a deadly fire in Urumqi, China, against the draconian laws underpinning the pandemic controls, a number of peaceful protesters are being held in detention on charges of picking quarrels or provoking trouble and gathering in a crowd to disrupt public order. Human rights groups have called for the release of the A4 or blank paper detainees.
China Digital Times claims that they know of thirty detainees taken into custody and estimate that at least 100 of the protesters have been detained, and others have been released on bail pending a trial. Some of those held at the Langmahe Bridge demonstration, are current and former journalists. According to CNN, there was a sense of confusion over the detentions, they described the young women as professionals working in publishing, journalism and education. The women are described as “engaged and socially minded, not dissidents or organizers.
It has been suggested that the Police are aware and suspicious of young, politically aware professional women. Chinese police have a history of targeting feminists, with some being questioned during interrogation about whether they were involved with feminist groups or social activism.
Identifying the protesters seems to be key to the Chinese police. Li Yuanjing an accountant for Price Waterhouse Cooper graduated with a master’s degree from UNSW Sidney. She was arrested on 18th December for being a participant in a vigil on 27th November 2022. Li Siqi, a freelance journalist and photographer was arrested on the 18th December 2022. Li Siqi, has a masters from Goldsmiths University, London, where she studied cultural studies. Zhai Dengrui, a teacher with a literature degree, was arrested on 22nd December 2022 for participating in a vigil. Cao Zhixin, works as an editor at Peking University Press, also arrested on 23rd December, she had plans to take a PhD on Chinese environmental history in the United States. Cao published a video saying that if you are watching this video, she had been taken away by the police. In the video she claimed that her friends had been forced to sign blank arrest warrants, without criminal accusations listed, and the police had refused to reveal where they were being held.
A New York Times article argued that the authorities wanted to deflect from the underlying dissatisfaction that caused the protests was an attempt to pin the blame on foreign forces, in an attempt to “deter others who might draw inspiration.” The Chinese government needs a reason that fits their understanding of the demonstration and that there must be a “black hand” organising the demonstration. According to Liu Pin, a Chinese feminist, “feminism is the last active, visible social movement.”
There have been stories of the women being sixty miles from Beijing, shackled and chained during their detention. But, it is the fact that these women have disappeared from view that has most worried their supporters.
According to Yaqiu Wang, a senior member of Human Rights watch “Young people are paying a heavy price for daring to speak out for freedom and human rights.” Human Rights Watch argue that the world should show support and call on the Chinese authorities to release [the protesters] immediately.”
Article 293 of China’s criminal law, views the protesters as criminal, which carries a sentence of up to five years in prison for first time offenders. Activists call Article 293 a “pocket crime”, which is used by authorities to criminalize peaceful protests and online criticism. The police have also threatened lawyers for trying to provide legal assistance to the detained and have also suspended group chat lawyers use. They have also harassed friends of detained protesters who have provided support and on the internet, information related to the protest has been censored.
Article 19, with 48 partners call on the Chinese government to abide by its obligations in both Chinese constitutional law and the United Nations Convention against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to respect basic rights to privacy, freedom of expression, press, association and peaceful assembly.
Whether this is enough or not is dependent on the Chinese state, but because the authorities have behaved in such a manner and arrested those dissenting, there seems to have been either an over reaction or the state itself realized that the protesters were a more significant threat than realised by the protest movement. The core argument was that the authorities failed to respond to the fire in a building because of China’s policy of lockdown, but the voices were carried by a white A4 paper without a word or symbol written on that paper.
Published on a WeChat account (Shengsheng Bu Xi De Women) “We who will not be silenced. “Because of you [young people], the suffering we have endured for the past three years, seems to have a small shred of meaning after all. It was you who, by boldly speaking your minds, [that we] won back a modicum of dignity for every person who has been harmed and enslaved.
But I suppose that the peaceful protests did challenge the authority of the state because of the cruelty of the lockdown and a realisation that the lockdown could not continue indefinitely. The fire and reaction of the peaceful protest movement signified a change in focus from the governments edicts and determination to continue the lockdown. With the lockdown ending, the security apparatus has moved to imprison or silence their critics, but ultimately it was the voices of those mourning those killed in the fire in Urumqui, who perhaps have empowered those mourning to have a voice that created change in China.
Current Affairs 
Leave a comment