Defense Statement for Pastor Lou Yuanqi

China Aid Association
(DEFENSE STATEMENT — November 24, 2008)

Dear Chief Judge and judges,
Entrusted by the family of the client, I am serving as the defense counsel of the Lou Yuanqi, the defendant in this case. After I accepted their commission, I reviewed the files on this case and conducted investigations on some of the people related to this case. After carefully reading and analyzing the evidence provided by the investigators and the procuratorial agencies, I have a basic understanding of the case. Hereby, I am stating my defense opinions on this case:
1.  The defendant did not engage in superstitious activities. The accusation against the defendant shows the people handling this case have completely mixed up the boundary between religion and superstition.
Four generations of the defendant’s family have been devout Christians, and what they have engaged in is religious activities, not superstitious activities. Neither religious people nor superstitious people are atheists. They share this in common, but there are fundamental differences in nature between religion and superstition. Superstition refers to the blind belief or worship of a person or a thing. Divination, physiognomy, Feng Shui, fortune telling, Chinese scrabble, exorcism and oneiromancy which began in feudal society or were popular in feudal society, are generally referred to as feudal superstition. Judging from an epistemological perspective, there are really common grounds shared by religious belief and superstition. They both believe in and worship spirits or supernatural forces, but superstition does not fall into religion, and the differences between the two are:
First of all, in historical development and social functions, religion is a social ideology and a historical phenomenon when the human society developed to a certain level. It follows an objective law of establishment, development and extinction. In adapting to the long-term development of human societies, religion has formed its specific religious beliefs, religious sentiments and the corresponding religious theories, doctrines, rules and strict religious rituals. There are relatively fixed sites for religious activities, and there are strict religious organizations and systems. On the other hand, however, superstitions do not have a common object that all the people worship, nor do they have fixed goals, rules or rituals. They do not have a common site for their activities. The objects of a superstition could be fairies, demons and could also be mountains and trees. Superstition generally refers to activities conducted by wizards, witches and superstition workers such as palmistry, fortune telling, lot-drawing, Chinese scrabble, oneiromancy, descending of fairies and Feng Shui. When people go for palmistry, it is for the prediction of their future life, not to take it as one’s own world outlook. The superstition workers only use these activities to cheat people of their money and properties in order to make a living.
Second, judging from the cultural perspective, religion is a cultural phenomenon. As it forms and develops, religion constantly absorbs various types of thoughts and cultures of human beings. Religion and ideological forms such as politics, philosophy, law and culture (including literature, poetry, architecture, art, painting, sculpture, music, morality, etc.) permeate and incorporate each other, enriching the world culture. In comparison, superstition does not have these characteristics.
Third, on the matter of internal identity, religion is a world outlook. It answers the question of ultimate goal of the world and the life of human beings. It belongs to the realm of metaphysics. In comparison, superstition is an activity of consciousness which tries to address specific issues in the individual’s life and reality. It belongs to the sphere of a physical tool.
Fourth, as for the elements that form religion and superstition, religion is a complete set of ideological system with both internal and external elements. In comparison, superstition is a crude and scattered ideology.
Fifth, in their different goals; religion explores the value and meaning of man’s life and the question of life and death, while superstition only concerns the present world.
Sixth, as for their social functions, as a mode of ideology, religion provides the society a way to know the world and also provides a practical ethical system or a value system to judge social behaviors. On the other hand, superstition is only a simple, direct and non-rational means of psychological adjustment. It is these fundamental differences between the two that have made religion into a gem of human civilization, while superstition is only part of a remnant left from man’s irrational savagery.
The three criterions proposed by Professor He Guanglu from Institute of World Religions are based on shrewd assessment. He thinks one of the differences between religion and superstition is different attitudes. Superstition is arrogant and it always attempts to stir up trouble and control development; religion is humble and it aims at accepting the world and revering its roots. The second difference is different goals: superstition pursues material gain. It wants the “power of gods” to serve the interests of man and to secularize the “holy entity;” religion is about morality. It wants man’s interests to fit into the “will of God” and “sanctify” the secular. The third difference is difference in concerns:  The concern of superstition is the worldly things and joy of oneself, not the ultimate goal; the concern of religion is the root of the world or the source of all things, the meaning of life or the root of values that transcend this life and this world and it is about the ultimate goal.
What Lou Yuanqi believes in is one of the three major religions universally accepted in the world—Christianity. He reveres and serves God and does not pursue extreme arrogance. He works to make the interests of man fit into the will of God and he does not demand that God work for the interests of man. What he pursues is the meaning of life that transcends this life, and he hopes that he can become one of the chosen people by God on the Judgment Day, instead of pursuing the self-enjoyment in this world. He completely meets the aforementioned three criterions. Besides, what he believes in is not ordinary religion, but the most influential religion currently in the world that has a history of more than two thousand years. It is the religion in which both the governments and the people believe in the great majority of countries in the West. However, the local law enforcement officers shockingly denounced it as superstition. This is defiance against the universal will of the people of the world and is a backward understanding that runs against the progressive forces of the entire world. Only the Red Guards in Mao Zedong’s era could have such an ignorant understanding.
2. The conduct of the defendant did not undermine the implementation of any law. The accusation against the defendant itself is a violation of the law, which shows the people handling this case do not understand the relevant laws, regulations and policies in China on religion.
One of the major pieces of evidence used by the investigators and procuratorial agencies is that the defendant did not hold his gathering in a place designated by the state, and there was no approval on the gathering by relevant agencies. Therefore, it is illegal. This is the wrong interpretation of the defendant’s religious activities and the one-sided understanding of the law of the state by the investigation agencies and the procuratorial agencies. As a Christian, the defendant was in a gathering, which is a normal Christian activity of religious service and it is a normal religious worshipping activity. It is stated in Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China that citizens enjoy the freedom of religious belief and the state protects normal religious activities. Article 3 of the White Paper of “Status of Freedom of Religious Belief in China” promulgated on October 16, 1997 by the Information Office of the State Council of China states: “All the normal religious activities held by believers in their own private homes according to religious customs, such as Sunday services, prayers, Bible lectures, sermons, Mass and baptism, etc., shall be handled by the religious organizations and their believers themselves.  These activities are protected by the law and nobody may interfere with … the religious activities held in their own private homes and mainly attended by their relatives such as praying and Bible reading (habitually referred to by Christians in China as ‘house meetings,’) are not required to register.”
1.  Article 12 of “Regulations on Religious Affairs” implemented by the State Council on March 1, 2005 states that religious activities “shall, in general, be held at registered sites for religious activities” and it does not require that they must be held in registered sites. From this we can see that the state encourages and advocates that people conduct their religious activities in registered sites, but it does not prohibit people from engaging in normal religious activities in unregistered sites. Therefore, one cannot judge whether a religious activity is legal or illegal just by checking whether it is held in a registered site or not.
Therefore, whether a religious activity is legal or not cannot be determined by whether it is held at a registered site or not. This is because as long as the law does not prohibit it, a legal religion is legal at any place that the law does not forbid. As for superstitious activities, whether they are held at registered places or unregistered places, they are still superstitious activities.
Requiring all religious activities to be conducted in registered sites is not realistic. Currently in our country, regulations in religious administration are seriously behind the times and can no longer meet the needs of realities. The state is considering formulating laws on religion to regulate exclusively religious activities. This shows the state has already realized the flaws in the current regulations and the system in religious administration and is trying to go with the current in meeting the needs in the new situation. Various places, especially the developed areas more open to outside influences such as Beijing, are changing from harsh restrictions on religious activities to more tolerance on religious activities. In the past, they would disperse all the house church activities, but they are now implementing non-interference policies. This is a sign that their administrative skills are improving. Why don’t we learn from advanced and developed areas?
We can see that the “in general” requirement in the above regulation of the state is based on the needs of the reality and the respect for the freedom of religious belief of the people. The interpretation that all religious activities must be held in registered site is very wrong and is a one-sided interpretation of the law of our country. Regarding normal Sunday service activities in unregistered sites as a crime is blasphemous to the law and a violation of freedom of religion.
2. Whether accepting interviews is entirely within the freedoms and rights of the citizen and does not need approval from any agencies.
The prosecutor charges that one of the pieces of evidence that the defendant is suspected of having committed a crime is that the defendant accepted an interview from a reporter. This accusation deprives a citizen of his freedom of speech and the freedom of expression. It not only violates the international covenants on human rights, it also violates the Constitution and law of our country. It is stated in Article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China that Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech. There are no laws or regulations, including “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on News Covering Activities of the Permanent Offices of Foreign News Agencies and Foreign Journalists” that forbid citizens to accept interviews by reporters and it is impossible that there can be such a prohibitive regulation.
3. The accusation that the defendant has overseas contacts which is also illegal.
The prosecutor charges that the defendant contacted overseas people on many occasions and provided them with untrue information. There are no laws or regulations in China that prohibit Chinese citizens from contacting overseas people. On the contrary, as China further opens up, the state encourages government at all levels, organizations and citizens to have contacts with people in foreign countries. The recent visit by President Hu Jintao to America to attend a financial conference; the negotiations between China and the Pope in Rome and so on, are all examples of such a international exchange. There is an old Chinese saying “The magistrates are allowed to burn down houses while the common people are forbidden even to light lamps.” Do you really want this to happen here and now in China? Don’t the common people have the same rights as the leaders in this aspect?
Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China only stipulates that “Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.” It does not prohibit international exchanges. When our citizens and religious organizations participate in international exchanges, does that mean they are subject to foreign domination? Is our local government so diffident of itself? Why don’t they think that foreigners can be subject to China during the exchange? Why can’t they think that everybody conducts exchanges on an equal footing? In any era, participating in international exchanges should not be the right of only the government, let alone in this time of reform and opening-up.
As for the accusation that Lou Yuanqi provided untrue information, this is pure fabrication. In Lou Yuanqi’s written record, he talks about being taken away by the police and being beaten by other inmates during the detention. But, Lou Yuanqi said unequivocally that those other inmates were not ordered by the police in beating him.
Which of these matters is not true? That Lou Yuanqi was arrested is a fact that his family and his neighbors have all witnessed. That Lou Yuanqi was beaten can be proven by the record of his injuries; also, there is a hospital evaluation as a proof. As to whether other inmates were ordered by the police, Lou Yuanqi said, “no.” If such a statement by Lou Yuanqi is not true and in reality, the police did order the inmates to beat him, how could Lou Yuanqi conclude that the police ordered the inmates to beat him without any evidence? Even if this is not true, this only shows he did not know the truth. There has never been a law that states that a citizen commits a crime when he or she publishes or tells untrue stories due to a mistake. Last year before the May 30 Incident, a high-ranking official from Ministry of Finance vowed solemnly to the reporters both in China and abroad that China would not raise stamp duty. Yet, China doubled the stamp duty on the very second day. That person was openly making a statement that is just the opposite of the fact and it was made by a high-ranking official from the central government. When even such a statement is not considered a violation of the law or does not constitute a crime, how can a citizen commit a crime when he says the inmates were not ordered by the police in beating him?
In fact, the violators of the law in this incident are the police. When Lou Yuanqi was taken away before Christmas of 2006, the police did not process any legal procedures, nor did they give any explanations of why he was arrested. They did not have any just purpose, either as they did not conduct any interrogations or questioning while he was under arrest or during the detention. He was only beaten by an inmate in the same cell for a night, detained for a week and then was released.
In this entire process, it was the police who were violating the law. Certainly, these police officers who violate the law are only a minority in China, but it is this minority of police who have damaged the image of Chinese police in the eye of the common people. In the incident when Yang Jia attacked the police, why did 90% of millions of people stand on the side of Yang Jia though they do not know him personally or the police, have no relationship with him or have grievances or hatred for him? It is because a few police officers have blackened the image of the Chinese police and the Chinese police should take this incident as a warning.
4. Defending human rights is the obligation of the Chinese government. Reporting that one’s human rights are violated is not only legal, but it is also encouraged by the Chinese government and the law.
During the interrogation with written record, the investigators accused the client of telling the international human rights organizations and media about his human rights being violated. This is the reason why the county procuratorate originally wanted to convict him of disclosing state secrets. This is very absurd. This reminds us of a Russian novel which is the mockery of the corruption in Russia under the rule of a czar, except that it is a fictitious novel. Yet it is reality here in this case. In this Russian novel, a Russian is sentenced to five years in prison for calling a Russian official a fool. The five years is a sum of four years for disclosing state secrets and one year for slandering. Altogether, the sentence is five years.
That the client reported that his own human rights were violated is a fact known to all, and it is not a state secret. The Chinese government has never protected violations of human rights as state secrets. On the contrary, the Chinese government protects human rights in accordance with the criminal law and punishes the criminals who violate human rights. Article 247 of the “Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China” states: “Judicial workers who extort a confession from criminal suspects or defendants by torture, or who use force to extract testimony from witnesses, are to be sentenced to three years or fewer in prison or put under criminal detention. Those causing injuries to others, physical disablement, or death, are to be convicted and severely punished according to articles 234 and 232 of this law.” Article 248 of the same law states: “Supervisory and management personnel of prisons, detention centers and other guard houses who beat or physically abuse their inmates are to be sentenced to three years or less in prison or placed under criminal detention if the case is serious. If the case is particularly serious, they are to be sentenced to three to 10 years in prison.
“Those causing injuries to injuries, physical disabilities, or death, are to be convicted and severely punished according to article 234 and 232 of this law.
“Supervisory and management personnel who order inmates to beat or physically abuse other inmates are to be punished according to stipulations in the above paragraph.”
Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them.”
We can see here that the Chinese law stipulates that citizens have the right to report a fact that one’s human rights are violated, and the state has the obligation to punish the criminals who violate the human rights of inmates. As for the supervision by the media, no state organs or functionaries dare to say that they have the right not to be supervised by the media. As one of the five standing members of the Security Council of the United Nations and as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, China has the international obligation of protecting human rights. It also has the right and obligation of accepting complaints from victims of other countries about the violation of human rights. It certainly cannot object to people within China for complaining to international organizations about their human rights being violated. When the client disclosed to an international human rights organization and media the fact that he was beaten, how can it be a crime? Furthermore, how can it be a disclosure of state secrets? No country should be so silly as to protect the violation of human rights as state secrets. Furthermore, this disclosure of one’s human rights being violated has nothing to do with superstition. How can this be “utilizing superstition to undermine the implementation of law?”
Even now, the local public security agency still foolishly regards Lou Yuanqi’s disclosure of his being beaten in the prison to the media as revealing state secrets and therefore does not allow the attorney to meet with the client. As a Chinese saying goes: the more one tries to cover up a secret, the more it will be known. This is not only foolish, it is also a violation of the law. No other place in the country would refuse to let attorney meet with the client during the prosecution and trial like the people here in Huocheng county. I hereby request that the local judicial supervisory agencies urge the public security agency to correct its illegal conduct and enhance its supervision on the illegal activities of the public security agency in future judicial activities, so as to heighten the level of professionalism in law enforcement in remote areas.
3.  I request that the court would seek to understand religion on a higher level, protect freedom of religion according to law and set an example of civilized professionalism.
The development of house churches is the trend of our times, and it is hard for anyone to suppress it. In the China that is increasing opening up to the rest of the world, authorities should no longer suppress religious activities with old methods of the past. In view of China and the entire world, the more developed an area is, the more tolerant it is to religion; on the other hand, the poorer, the more backward and the more ignorant an area is, the more severely it cracks down on religion. House churches in Zhejiang, Shenzhen and other developed areas are very popular, but people seldom hear that there is suppression on house churches there. On the contrary, most incidents of suppressing house churches occur in poor and backward remote places such as Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Heilongjiang. The mentality of many people still stays in the era of Mao Zedong more than 30 years ago. They think religion is superstition and claim that theism is feudal superstition. This case is a typical demonstration of such a mentality.
Suppressing Christianity as a superstition is out of step with the trend of the world and is a blatant defiance of the trend. This not only shows the lack of knowledge in religion and cannot distinguish what is superstition and what is religion, it also shows a total failure to understand the general situation in the world and a positioning into the opposite side of the civilization of the Western world. Christianity itself is an important part of the Western civilization and the civilization of science in the West originated from the Christian civilization.
This type of house gathering is being gradually accepted by the government. In fact, before Article 3 of the White Paper of “Status of Freedom of Religious Belief in China” recognized this type of house gatherings, Ye Xiaowen, director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, mentioned on many occasions that China allows such a form of house gatherings to exist.  There are now thousands upon thousands of house churches in various parts of China, especially in such developed areas as Zhejiang. When I talked with friends in Zhejiang about the house churches here in Xinjiang, they sighed with resignation: “If things here were like that of Xinjiang, several million believers in Zhejiang would have been arrested.” They might have been like this 40 years ago. In recent days, however, they are truly enjoying the freedom of religion. People both in Zhejiang and Xinjiang are living in the same country of China. Yet, the people in developed areas cannot only enjoy material civilization, but also spiritual civilization and progress. Meanwhile, the people in backward regions are not able to enjoy material civilization. Don’t they at least have the right to enjoy spiritual civilization?
Law enforcement officers should have a higher level of knowledge than the common people. No one in the general population of China would think participating in a house gathering is a crime. I once talked with some experts in religious and legal circles and discussed with them this case of Xinjiang, they all think this case is absurd. Whether gathering at a designated site or at an undesignated site does not affect the final determination on the nature of the gathering. If it is a gathering of superstitious activity and even if the activity is held at a designated site, it is still a superstitious activity; if it is a gathering of non-superstitious activity and even if the activity is held at any site, it is still a non-superstitious activity. As for the fact that Lou Yuanqi told people from foreign countries that he was physically tortured during the detention, whether this statement is true or false, it has nothing to do with superstition. Regarding this type of conduct as utilizing superstition to undermine the implementation of law is the greatest joke of our times!
In summary, Lou Yuanqi has neither engaged in superstitious activities nor undermined the implementation of law and his conduct is entirely a normal activity of religious belief. Christianity is the most important and most influential religion in the world and it is not a superstition on which the world has reached a consensus. Therefore, I hereby request that the court find the truth of this case and rule that Lou Yuanqi is innocent according to law.
Li Dunyong
Defense counsel of Lou Yuanqi
Read the news story related to this document.
To request permission to reproduce ChinaAid photos and/or information, please contact: [email protected].