Legal Reply to Beijing Police Charges that the Church of the Ark Disturbed Residents and Violated

photo: Four Beijing police raided Beijing Ark House Church on January 15, 2006

Mr. Li Baiguang, 37, graduate of Beijing University Law School and a prominent legal rights defense scholar in China wrote a legal reply regarding Beijing Police accusations against Beijing Ark House Church. The police disrupted the church service on January 15, 2005.




Legal Reply to Beijing Police Charges that the Church of the Ark Disturbed Residents and Violated the State Council\\\’s \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\”

Cc: The legal self-help cards of all religious believers in mainland China.
 
—Li Baiguang (Night of January 15, 2006)

At about 4:30 on the afternoon of January 15, 2006, as a brother from Beicun was giving a sermon to fellow Christians, uniformed police officer, Gao Xijun (Policeman No. 035250), from Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau came to the Church of the Ark located at Room 1904, Building 111, West Nanhu Garden, Wangjing Region, Chaoyang District of Beijing. With him were one of his colleagues in police uniform and two plain-clothed agents. One of these four law enforcement officers said that they received a 110 call from neighbors that our Church of the Ark was disturbing the residents. At this time, a plain-clothed policeman carrying a bag took out a booklet of \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” published by the State Council and charged that the Sunday service at the Church of the Ark violated \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” of the State Council of China. This policeman opened the booklet of \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” and read to us Article 12 of the regulation: \\\”Group religious activities of religious citizens shall, under normal circumstances, be held at registered sites for religious activities (e.g. Buddhist monasteries, Taoist temples, mosques, churches and other fixed premises for religious activities). Then he said: \\\”This meeting site of yours has not been approved by the relevant authorities and it is therefore illegal.\\\” For this, I told the policeman: Our meeting doesn\\\’t need the approval of the government agencies for the following reasons:
 
First, the provision in Article 12 of \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” of the State Council of China states that \\\”Under normal circumstances, group religious activities of religious citizens should be held at registered sites for religious activities\\\” and the provision in Article 13 of this regulation that preparation on establishing a site of religious activities should be approved by the government at the county, district (municipality) and provincial levels\\\” are a violation of the provision in Article 36 of the current Constitution of China that states \\\”Citizens of the People\\\’s Republic of China enjoy the freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.\\\”
    
The provision in Article 36 of the current Constitution of China means every citizen has the right to freely believe in any religion or ghosts or refuse to believe in any religion or ghosts. They even have the right to believe in devils or worship any idols.  As long as citizens do not do anything prohibited by law, the law enforcement agencies cannot take any action in any manner to restrict or interfere in the freedom of belief enjoyed by the citizen who has the above-mentioned beliefs. Even if the citizen commits a crime, what the law punishes should not be the contents of their belief itself, but the external behavior of this citizen.
    
Therefore, given the freedom of belief stated in Article 36 of the current Constitution of China, no state organ, public organization or citizen has the right to make a legal evaluation on the contents of belief of any citizen or use this evaluation as a basis to restrict or interfere in the freedom of belief of this citizen. This is the idea of freedom of belief widely accepted in civilized societies.
    
The provision on the freedom of belief specified in Article 36 of the current Constitution of China means at the same time the sites of meetings for religious believers do not need the approval of governments at county, district (municipality) and provincial levels because religious belief is purely an inner emotional activity of a citizen. The secular laws can only control the external behavior of people and should not peep into one\\\’s inner thoughts and emotions. The secular law must not get involved at any time or evaluate the content of the belief or exercise the right of \\\”permission\\\” on its activities as defined in the secular law. At most, the sites for religious believers may be filed with organs of public power and there is no need whatsoever to obtain \\\”permissions or approvals.\\\” Otherwise, the conduct of organs of public power would constitute illegal interference or discrimination against freedom of belief.
    
Judging from the above perspectives, Article 12 and Article 13 of \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” of the State Council of China contravene Article 36 of the current Constitution of China and are therefore unconstitutional administrative regulations. Given this situation, how should we treat the administrative regulations that contravene the current Constitution of China?
         
Second - according to Article 5 of the current Constitution of China, China is ruled by law and its people build a socialist country ruled by law. The state upholds the uniformity and dignity of the socialist legal system. No law or administrative or local rules and regulations shall contravene the Constitution.\\\” In this way, Articles 12 and 13 of \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” of the State Council that contravene Article 5 of the current Constitution of China are invalid administrative regulations.  According to the provision in Article 78 of the current \\\”Legislative Laws\\\” of China: \\\”The Constitution has the highest legal authority, and no national law, administrative regulation, local decree, autonomous decree and special decree, or administrative or local rule may contravene the Constitution.\\\” According to the provision in Article 88 of \\\”Legislative Law,\\\” administrative regulations that contravene the Chinese Constitution shall be amended or canceled by the Standing Committee of the National People\\\’s Congress.
    
Therefore, I told that plain-clothed policeman, his colleague and all the brothers and sisters at the site of the meeting: When the current laws, administrative rules, local rules and regulations contravene the Constitution promulgated by the Chinese government itself, we can only abide by the Constitution and refuse to abide by the laws and administrative rules that contravene the Constitution because the Constitution has the highest legal validity. That\\\’s why the service at our Church of Ark totally conforms to the provision specified in Article 36 of Constitution of China.  It is legally untenable for Beijing police to accuse us at Church of Ark by citing administrative regulations that contravene the Constitution.
    
For this, I told the police of Beijing that we will file an application for review of the laws and regulations to the Standing Committee of National People\\\’s Congress in accordance with Article 88 of the current \\\”Legislative Laws\\\” of China. We will demand that the Standing Committee of the National People\\\’s Congress amend or cancel according to law Article 12 and Article 13 of \\\”Regulations on Religious Affairs\\\” of the State Council, the administrative regulations that contravene the Constitution. We also demand that the Chinese government must respect the rights and freedom stated in the Constitution and laws it promulgated and that it must treat in a serious manner and respect the citizens who freely exercise the rights and freedom of the citizens stated in the Constitution and laws. At the request of the citizens, the organs of public power have the obligation to remove the obstacles to the exercise of the above-mentioned rights and freedom. Otherwise, the organs of public power shall be held liable for failure of proper administration.
    
Third - as for the accusation by Beijing police that the meeting of our Church of the Ark \\\”disturbed the neighboring residents,\\\” I asked that plain-clothed policeman why is it that the Church of the Ark had never received a complaint to the police through 110 calls from the neighbors in the past two years and has mysteriously received two consecutive complaints of disturbance to the police from neighbors through 110 calls after Attorney Gao Zhisheng attended the Church of the Ark a few times. (The first time was on January 8, 2006).  I suggested to the plain-clothed policeman: Since someone thinks the activities at the Church of the Ark \\\”disturbed the neighbors,\\\” does he/she mean our singing of hymns, the sermons of the pastor or does he/she mean other types of \\\”disturbances?\\\”  If our hymns and the pastor\\\’s sermon \\\”disturbed the neighbors,\\\” both parties can ask Beijing Municipal Bureau for Environmental Protection or National Bureau for Environmental Protection to conduct a test outside our meeting site with professional equipment for testing the noise level to see whether the sound in our room reaches a level that \\\”disturbs the neighbors\\\” as specified in \\\”Laws to Prevent Noise Pollution\\\” of China.  I asked him if this was okay, but the policeman didn\\\’t give an answer to my suggestion and consistently claimed my interpretation of the law does not conform to the Chinese law and that it is a foreigners\\\’ interpretation of the law.
    
I told that policeman that my interpretation of the freedom of belief not only conforms to the Chinese Constitution and laws, it also conforms to the idea in Article 18 of the United Nations \\\”International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights \\\” signed by China on the freedom of belief. My interpretation on the freedom of belief conforms to the idea of freedom of belief widely held in civilized societies.

Finally, that plain-clothed policeman suggested that he take down the names, ID numbers and phone numbers of all the brothers and sisters present.  I told this policeman in a loud voice: \\\”I refuse to register. You may take me away and lock me up in a jail and I will still refuse to register.\\\” The reason is simple: spiritual belief is purely an inner emotional activity of a citizen and the secular law can only be applied to the external conduct of a person and it must not pry into the inner thoughts and emotional feelings of a human being.

Meet Our Founder

As the “Countdown Clock” on Tian’anmen Square ticked backwards toward the July 1 takeover of Hong Kong, Bob Fu and his pregnant wife, Heidi, knew their time was running out, too... Learn More >