Contribution from Feng Yuan: Response to Mr. Hu Ping

First of all, I welcome Mr. Hu Ping's public comments on the Teng Biao case. He has participated in this public discussion on rights and freedom of speech with a background of thinking about the issue of freedom of speech for half a century, and his comments are worth serious consideration. Therefore, I am willing to respond to his views to continue the relevant discussions that we started with our joint open letter.

Mr. Hu Ping’s first point is that “I don’t think the threshold for attending an academic conference should be higher than running for the US presidency.” This view is a bit power-centered. In fact, the threshold for an academic conference should and is actually higher than running for the US presidency in many aspects. At least running for the US presidency does not require academic qualifications and academic ability, and this qualification and ability is exactly the starting point for Hu Ping to endorse Teng Biao’s invitation to attend this conference. If scholars who discuss freedom and rights are being questioned for violating rights, shouldn’t this qualification be questioned? When this question was submitted to the organizing agency, Teng Biao himself and the organizer should have made a public statement on this, but unfortunately, to this day, they have refused to respond.

Mr. Hu Ping's second point emphasizes that following the rules of Japanese law and the institute is "self-evident" and does not need to be further explained. I would like to point out that the rise of the #MeToo movement is precisely because many cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault cannot be tailored to meet the definition of existing laws influenced by gender stereotypes, or the evidence is difficult to meet the recognition standards of judicial personnel immersed in inherent gender norms, so that many victims cannot complain to their employers, to the management agencies of certain public places, to the organizers of the conference, let alone to the existing legal system. For help, so that their experiences can be heard and understood, and more people can be prompted to speak out, so that more people can hear, see, start to think from different angles and improve their understanding, which will help prevent similar incidents from happening again or further harm in the future and achieve the purpose of protecting rights. For example, what Teng Biao did to the female journalist Xinyu in India had already been exposed at the time, but the organizer of the conference (later admitted) did not take it seriously at the time. Not only did they not ask the parties involved and investigate and deal with them, but they suppressed the woman's voice. We know that such incidents, even if reported to the police, often fail to receive the attention they deserve. For other cases of violence, arson, poisoning, robbery, theft, and even sexual assault and harassment from strangers, even if the parties do not report the case, others can report it, or the police will take the initiative to investigate after discovering it, and the judicial institutions will handle it without any shirking. In cases of sexual harassment and attempted sexual assault by people they know, the police, who are mainly men, often treat the women with a similar attitude to suspects, or ask them in a voyeuristic way without paying attention to the collection and fixation of evidence, or objectively fail to protect the privacy of the women, and even simply refuse to file a case after the women experience all kinds of embarrassment. Such things cause a lot of secondary harm to the victims, and they cannot get justice from the judicial system. The open letter mentioned Shiori Ito of Japan. Her experience after reporting to the police and her difficult and long road to justice are a clear example.

Therefore, Mr. Hu Ping's view that "the organizers of the conference do not need to make a special statement" is an unconvincing conclusion. This statement is a disregard for the incident in which Teng Biao was accused, and a denial of the causes of the #MeToo movement. It is regrettable that he shows a lack of understanding of the current situation of dealing with gender-based violence, and opposes or does not understand the new understanding and new practices of the international community on rights in the post-#MeToo era.

In my limited experience, in recent years, the meetings held by the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations, seminars held by many academic institutions, and other public activities have specifically mentioned in the meeting instructions that inappropriate sexual behavior is prohibited, as well as the consequences of violations, the methods of reporting/seeking help/appealing, and some even require participants to sign/select consent before continuing the relevant meeting procedures. In this academic seminar at Meiji University, it seems that the organizers did not have similar reminders or requirements for the participants, whether they were guests or audience members. Moreover, some of Mr. Teng Biao’s previous complaints (more than one person complained about him at a certain time and place) almost all occurred in related occasions of the seminar. Why didn’t the organizers of this conference learn from the lessons of the past? In the context of the open letter questioning, they still refused to make a statement, which is harmful to the organizer’s own credibility and reputation.

Mr. Hu Ping's third point is to emphasize the legal principle of territoriality and the principle of nationality. I believe that the principle of territoriality and nationality is only a threshold for resorting to justice, rather than a boundary for public issues and freedom of speech. For example, whether Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a war crime, the eligibility of the US presidential election, whether it is the general rules or whether someone should still run for election after being fined for sexual harassment, people from all over the world can and have been paying attention to and commenting on it. As for #MeToo, the parties affected by the incident have the right to resort to justice, and they also have the freedom not to resort to justice and take other legal means to seek justice for themselves. If we follow Mr. Hu Ping's logic, can we not express our opinions on this matter if we do not resort to justice?

As for those who follow the #MeToo movement, as long as they are not direct victims or stakeholders of a case, they have no chance of taking legal action. No matter based on the principle of nationality or the principle of territoriality, they do not meet the threshold for filing a case, unless they are sued for defamation by the perpetrators of the #MeToo incident. I believe that Mr. Teng Biao has no legal basis to sue me, the author of the article, or the initiators and other co-signers of the open letter. So, apart from going to court, can we not express our own opinions? I think what we did completely falls within the scope of freedom of speech that Mr. Hu Ping argued from multiple angles back then.

This open letter and my personal contribution are not to resort to justice, but to raise questions, express concerns, and issue proposals for the social responsibility of academic institutions and public intellectuals. Even though Japan is not the place where the incident against Teng Biao occurred, nor is it the place of origin or current residence of the parties involved, the feminist activists in Japan expressed doubts to the organizers and initiated the open letter. They are not making additional demands on the organizers, the invited guests, and Teng Biao himself. I have already written about the reasons in my previous contribution.

Reality shows that public speech outside the judicial process, that is, speech expression, is of extraordinary significance. As far as the #MeToo movement is concerned, for those affected by the incident, speaking out is the beginning of a good healing process, which helps to get out of the shadow and harm caused by the incident, overcome the negative cognition and emotions caused by it, defeat the stigma, live a good life, and is a form of self-empowerment. For other women, it is a process of reviewing and reflecting on their own experiences, seeing each other, especially understanding and supporting our injured compatriots, and increasing their awareness of rights and the ability to realize their rights. For many men, this is nothing short of a revolution. In February 2018, I published an article in the China Women's News about a sharing session in Beijing by Nicolaas Toulson, president of the Swedish Performing Arts Directors Association. He said that in Sweden alone, between November 8, 2017 and January 22, 2018, there were at least 32 hashtags similar to #MeToo on social media. Actors, singers, musicians, film and television people, lawyers, social workers, medical staff, journalists, scientists, engineers, financial and insurance professionals, scholars, church volunteers, people with disabilities, nightclub workers... 61,781 women from all walks of life spoke out about their experiences. Many of the perpetrators are well-known people in the industry or even in the country. Many people can't do anything else but watch those testimonies for hours, crying as they watch. "This shocked us and confused us. Work in the entertainment industry requires passion, and physical contact is often required at work. The characteristics of the industry are not an excuse to harbor filth." "For Swedish men, this is a revolution. Now, we should face it, we should talk about it, and what should we do." On January 10, 2018, the Swedish Performing Arts Directors Association issued an appeal, signed by 109 directors in support of the #MeToo movement, especially emphasizing that every director has the responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for all staff.

In short, we cannot just use existing laws and practices as the starting point and basis for discussing #MeToo. When "law" is used as a shield for the perpetrator, it will only continue to hurt victims and potential victims. The current legal system, judicial system, and law enforcement agencies are far from being able to effectively restrict and punish sexual harassment, and public discussions and social movements such as #MeToo have an inestimable role in promoting the progress of law and society. The protection of rights from sexual harassment and sexual assault is not the exclusive territory of existing laws and law enforcement agencies. Mr. Hu Ping, who has long studied the right to express and freedom of speech, should not limit the discussion of rights protection issues to the scope of law and courts, and should not ignore that it is the inherent meaning of freedom of speech. In that case, it would essentially close the door to the advancement of rights, violate the purpose of the law to protect rights, and hinder freedom of speech. It is definitely not the direction that intellectuals think about and advocate.