2/08/2013 China (CA)
- A well-known Chinese minister taken into police custody twice for evangelizing
before Christmas in a public park and administratively detained for 13 days has
initiated administrative litigation against the police, using the law to protect
his legal and religious rights.
Cao Nan was taken into police custody on Dec. 8 and 15 while he was evangelizing at the Lychee Park in Shenzhen. On the first occasion, seven other church lay leaders who were evangelizing with him were also detained, and everyone was released the next day. On Dec. 15, eight other church lay workers evangelizing with Cao were also detained. They were released the very late the same day, but Cao was transferred to the local detention center. The next day, he was administratively detained by the Futian Sub-Bureau of the Public Security Bureau for "masquerading under the name of Christianity to disturb social order multiple times at Lichi Park in Futian District." He was not released until Dec. 28.
…
Litigation Request:
Confim, according to the law, that the “Public Security Administrative Penalty Decision” Shen Gong Fu Jue Zi (2012) No. 044018 imposed on the plaintiff by the defendant on December 16, 2012 was illegal and rescind the administrative penalty decision.
Facts and reasons:
At about 15:30 on December 16, 2012, the plaintiff, Wang Ruien, Wang Silang and several other Christians arrived of their own accord at Lizhi (Lychee) Park in Futian District, found a suitable place (many other people were singing and dancing nearby) and began to sing song, dance and talk about life experiences and Christian ideas. Some spectators gathered around, including some park security guards who were using their cameras to videotape the plaintiff, Wang Ruien, Wang Silang, and the others. As the plaintiff, Wang Ruien, Wang Silang and the others were engaged in their activities, a police officer and a government security officer arrived at the scene and told us to stop. The plaintiff stepped forward to explain, and the police officer took the plaintiff to the local police station, where they took down a written record of the questioning of the plaintiff. After the questioning, they made the plaintiff wait at the local police station until about 11 o’clock at night when the defendant issued “Public Security Administrative Penalty Decision” Shen Gong Fu Jue Zi (2012) No. 044018. The reason given was " harming society by masquerading under the name of religion,” and the punishment of 12 days of administrative detention was imposed based on Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security. The plaintiff did not agree and asked that the implementation be delayed. But they refused and sent the plaintiff straight to the detention center. Therefore, the plaintiff refused to sign the papers for the “penalty decision.”
…
To sum up, the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff violates the statutory procedures stipulated in the Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security and the Law of People’s Republic of China on Administrative Penalty and is illegal and invalid. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the plaintiff is filing a complaint against the defendant in accordance with the law, asking the People’s Court of Futian District of Shenzhen City to confirm that the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff violates the law and to rescind the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant on December 16, 2012(Source).
Cao Nan was taken into police custody on Dec. 8 and 15 while he was evangelizing at the Lychee Park in Shenzhen. On the first occasion, seven other church lay leaders who were evangelizing with him were also detained, and everyone was released the next day. On Dec. 15, eight other church lay workers evangelizing with Cao were also detained. They were released the very late the same day, but Cao was transferred to the local detention center. The next day, he was administratively detained by the Futian Sub-Bureau of the Public Security Bureau for "masquerading under the name of Christianity to disturb social order multiple times at Lichi Park in Futian District." He was not released until Dec. 28.
…
Litigation Request:
Confim, according to the law, that the “Public Security Administrative Penalty Decision” Shen Gong Fu Jue Zi (2012) No. 044018 imposed on the plaintiff by the defendant on December 16, 2012 was illegal and rescind the administrative penalty decision.
Facts and reasons:
At about 15:30 on December 16, 2012, the plaintiff, Wang Ruien, Wang Silang and several other Christians arrived of their own accord at Lizhi (Lychee) Park in Futian District, found a suitable place (many other people were singing and dancing nearby) and began to sing song, dance and talk about life experiences and Christian ideas. Some spectators gathered around, including some park security guards who were using their cameras to videotape the plaintiff, Wang Ruien, Wang Silang, and the others. As the plaintiff, Wang Ruien, Wang Silang and the others were engaged in their activities, a police officer and a government security officer arrived at the scene and told us to stop. The plaintiff stepped forward to explain, and the police officer took the plaintiff to the local police station, where they took down a written record of the questioning of the plaintiff. After the questioning, they made the plaintiff wait at the local police station until about 11 o’clock at night when the defendant issued “Public Security Administrative Penalty Decision” Shen Gong Fu Jue Zi (2012) No. 044018. The reason given was " harming society by masquerading under the name of religion,” and the punishment of 12 days of administrative detention was imposed based on Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security. The plaintiff did not agree and asked that the implementation be delayed. But they refused and sent the plaintiff straight to the detention center. Therefore, the plaintiff refused to sign the papers for the “penalty decision.”
…
To sum up, the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff violates the statutory procedures stipulated in the Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security and the Law of People’s Republic of China on Administrative Penalty and is illegal and invalid. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the plaintiff is filing a complaint against the defendant in accordance with the law, asking the People’s Court of Futian District of Shenzhen City to confirm that the administrative penalty imposed by the defendant on the plaintiff violates the law and to rescind the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant on December 16, 2012(Source).
No comments:
Post a Comment