【新唐人2014年12月01日訊】最近，中國律師聯名簽署一封公開信，要求中共全國人大取消日前剛剛經過初審的一項有關「擾亂法庭秩序罪」的法律條款。律師們認為，該條款定義含糊不清，很容易被各級政府官員濫用，拿來打壓維權律師，令其噤聲，甚至被抓捕入獄。請看報導。
11月3號，中共全國人大在其官網公布了《中國刑法修正案（九）（草案）》。其中第三十五條對原有的「擾亂法庭秩序罪」進行了添加，將「侮辱、誹謗、威脅司法工作人員或者訴訟參與人，不聽法庭制止的﹔有其他嚴重擾亂法庭秩序行為的。」新增為犯罪。
這一新規在公示之後，立即引發大陸律師界的質疑和抗議。律師們認為，這一條款定義非常模糊，在中國大陸司法不公正、法官聽命於各級政府官員的環境下，該條款很容易被濫用，使律師本來就很受限制的辯護權，進一步被擠壓。
廣東維權律師隋牧青：「這一條規定很明顯是針對人權律師而來。因為它這種入罪就非常容易，比如說：它只要認定你有所謂『威脅』或者所謂『侮辱性的語言』等等，它就可以給你定罪。」
參與聯署公開信的廣東維權律師隋牧青解釋說，目前在大陸的法庭上，尤其是涉及到公權力時，法官通常連話都不讓律師說。如果律師抗議，很容易就發生一種言語衝突。那麼按照人大的這一新規，法庭就可以輕易把律師抓起來判刑。
隋牧青：「這種規定出臺，我們作為人權律師不可能不反它。否則的話你以後做任何案件，你只能配合當局，否則的話你就準備去坐牢。在公權力沒有得到有效約束以前，這種規定的出臺就是一個法制上的極大倒退。」
《德國之聲》引述《法新社》報導稱，在中國，數百名律師聯名發聲的有組織抗議十分罕見，這份有529位律師簽名的公開信，目前已上交到中共全國人大。
東南大學法學院教授張讚寧：「辯護律師和公訴人的法律地位應該是對等的。公訴人有甚麼權利，律師也應該有同樣的權利，現在新的《刑事訴訟法》有很多對律師不公正的一些規定、限制律師權益的規定。」
東南大學法學院教授張讚寧表示，除了辯護權之外，律師的調查權也受到很大限制，律師的調查居然需要獲得公訴方——檢察院的批准，這簡直是天大的笑話。
北京市衡卓律師事務所的朱愛民律師則談到，中共人大這一新規定存在一個明顯漏洞，就是當法官和他人發生衝突的時候，到底由誰來界定「擾亂法庭秩序罪」。
北京市衡卓律師事務所朱愛民律師：「如果把這個認定權交給了法院，那麼無形中加大了法院的自行裁量權。法官的自行裁量權就比較大，這顯然會做出對對方不利的判定。」
《德國之聲》報導，中共人大會議稱：要創立所謂「具有中國特色的法律規則」，這似乎意味著，中共要加大對法院的控制，而不是加強司法獨立。
近年來，中共對協助民眾維護正當權益的律師，不斷加大打壓力度，毆打、非法限制人身自由、吊銷律師執照、甚至抓捕入獄等幾乎已經成為常態。
今年3月份，唐吉田、江天勇、張俊傑、王成4位律師，前往黑龍江省佳木斯市的建三江農墾總局青農山農場的「法制教育中心」，也就是「洗腦班」，要求釋放被非法拘押的法輪功學員，結果被當局無理毆打抓捕，從而引發全國眾多律師、民眾前往聲援，造成轟動一時的「建三江」事件。
但這也只是中國大陸的黨大於法、司法不公的冰山一角。公民正當權益被隨意剝奪的情況比比皆是。11月27號，中國著名維權人士郭飛雄在廣州法院就被法官搶走陳述材料，並被剝奪了最後陳述的權利，甚至連律師上廁所也被全身攝像。
採訪/易如 編輯/李謙
More than 500 Lawyers Signed a Public Letter in Protest Of Injustice Law Amendment
Recently, more than 500 Chinese lawyers jointly signed
a public letter demanding changes
to a criminal law amendment.
The amendment draft, which makes changes
to the definition of the “disrupting court order" crime,
was announced by the National People’s Congress (NPC)
this month.
The letter states that the ambiguity in the proposed
amendment can be used as a tool of power abuse
by governmental officials.
Rights lawyers will be more easily silenced
or even arrested.
Let’s look at the following report.
On Nov. 3, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) NPC
released on its website “the Ninth (Draft) Amendments
to the Criminal Law".
In Article 35, the draft makes changes to definition
of the crime “disrupting court order".
It adds, “insulting, defaming, or threatening a judicial officer
or participant to the litigation" and “engaging in other acts
that seriously disrupt the order of the court"
to the circumstances covered under the crime.
The changes were soon questioned and protested
by Chinese lawyers upon release.
Lawyers said the language of the new terms
are too ambiguous.
This can easily lead to abuse in mainland China where judicial
justice is lacking and judges follow party officials’ orders.
The already severely restricted rights of defense lawyers
will be further oppressed.
Sui Muqing, Guangdong right lawyer: “This term is obviously
directed against rights lawyers, as it can be easily used
to convict us of such crime.
For example, you may be put into prison as long as they claim
any of your speech is a threat or insult to judicial officers."
Sui Muqing has signed the joint public letter.
Sui said the reality is, sometimes lawyers are not even
allowed to say anything in a CCP court trial,
especially for a case involving public power.
If lawyers challenge the judge, this usually leads
to verbal conflicts.
According to the new term in the NPC amendment,
now CCP courts can easily sentence any lawyer
who verbally challenges them.
Sui Muqing: “As rights lawyers, there is no way
we can accept it.
Otherwise the only thing we can do in the future
is to do whatever the CCP asks or be prepared
to be put into prison.
Without any effective constraint over public power,
such an amendment is simply a great retrogression
in rule of the law."
A Deutsche Welle report quoting AFP said organized
protest by hundreds of lawyers is rarely seen in China.
The letter, with 529 lawyer signatures,
has been delivered to the NPC.
Zhang Zanning, professor of law at Southeast University,
China: “Lawyers and procurators should be equal
in legal status.
Lawyers should have all rights that procurators have.
However, the amended criminal law adds many injustice
terms that make constraints over lawyers only."
Zhang Zanning said that besides rights of defense, lawyers’
rights of enquiry are also greatly constricted.
Any enquiry by lawyers has to be approved
by procuratorates, which is horribly ridiculous.
Zhu Aimin, a lawyer at Beijing Hengzhuo Law Firm, said there
is a significant flaw in the CCP’s amendment of criminal law.
That is, who has the power to define “disruption of court
order" when the judge himself clashes with others?
Zhu Aimin: “If the power is given to court, that virtually gives
more discretionary power to judges.
It will be easier for them to make unfavorable court
decisions against the accused."
Deutsche Welle said the NPC meeting claimed that they
attempt to set up “legal rules with Chinese characteristics".
This may suggest the CCP prefers more control over courts
instead of improving in judicial independence.
In recent years, the CCP continues to press harder on lawyers
who stand for legitimate rights of Chinese citizens.
It has become normal to see lawyers beaten or illegally
detained, having licenses revoked or even jailed.
This March, Tang Jitian, Jiang Tianyong, Zhang Junjie
and Wancheng, all lawyers, visited a so-called
“legal education center", or brainwashing center, located
at Qinglongshan Farm, Jiansanjiang of Heilongjiang Province.
They demanded the release of an illegally detained
Falun Gong practitioner, but were beaten and detained
by local CCP officers.
Following that, many Chinese lawyers and civilians
went to Jiansanjiang to voice support for those four lawyers,
resulting in the sensational “Jiansanjiang incident".
The sad truth is the incident only reveals a tip of the iceberg
in judicial injustice under the CCP’s one-party dictatorship.
Cases of arbitrarily violating citizens’ legal rights
can be seen everywhere in China.
On Nov. 27, the famous Chinese rights lawyer Guo Feixiong
was tried in a Guangzhou court.
In the trial, the judge directly took away Guo’s defense
materials, and deprived Guo’s right to make a final statement.
Furthermore, Guo’s lawyer was subjected to whole-body
camera filming even in the restroom.
Interview/YiRu Edit/LiQian