My Opinion on the Amendment of Article 34 of the Minor Criminal Law

I haven't watched domestic news for a few days. When I do, I feel phlegm rising. The most concerned thing recently is the revision of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law". Article 34, paragraph 2 of the "Draft": Wearing or wearing clothing or symbols that are detrimental to the spirit of the Chinese nation or hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation in public places or forcing others to wear or wear clothing or symbols that are detrimental to the spirit of the Chinese nation or hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation in public places;
Paragraph 3: Those who produce, disseminate, promote or spread articles or speech that damage the spirit of the Chinese nation or hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation shall be punished with "detention for not less than five days but not more than ten days or a fine of not less than one thousand yuan but not more than three thousand yuan; if the circumstances are serious, they shall be detained for not less than ten days but not more than fifteen days, and may also be fined five thousand yuan."

Anyone with a discerning eye knows what the consequences will be if this amendment is successful in China. China is a country that absolutely lacks tolerance for dissent. It will eliminate and suppress any heterogeneous things if it can. Mr. Lu Xun once said that in China, moving a stool to a different place requires bloodshed. Back then, Zhou Enlai was busy with the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, but was labeled as a "foreign slave philosophy" by Jiang Qing and her gang. A dormitory manager in Harbin distributed chocolates to students, which was said to be "celebrating a foreign festival."

If a country has no tradition of tolerating different opinions, and a law with ambiguous terms is added, then this law will definitely become a tool to suppress different opinions. Lenin believed that a nation must have a common language and territory, a common history and culture, and a strong economic connection. The word "Chinese nation" is blunt and artificial. It is a word forcibly invented by the rulers in order to maintain the multi-ethnic territory. Do the Daur men who live in the Baishan Black Waters and wear deerskin to hunt, and the old women who listen to Huangmei Opera in the alleys of Jiangnan, have a common history and culture? If the word itself was invented by people and has no exact meaning, it is too easy to find its enemies. Wen Tianxiang was a man of the Han family. He was mighty and unyielding in the face of foreign races, but some people now say that his fight with the Mongols destroyed the unity of the nation and hindered the integration of the Chinese nation. Wen Tianxiang is dead, but there is still the Wen Tianxiang Temple in Beijing, which is a national key cultural relic protection unit and welcomes people to pay homage every day. So, should the Beijing Cultural Relics Bureau, which maintains, repairs and publicizes the Wen Tianxiang Temple, be fined or even detained according to law? Should the pilgrims who burn incense check his eighteen generations to see if he wants to restore "Great Han Chauvinism"?

Any historical figure or historical symbol of a country is controversial. The same flag with a blue sky, a white sun and a red earth was thrown down when Shanghai fell to the Japanese invaders, symbolizing the Japanese conquest of Shanghai as part of China; the Chinese Communist Army entered Shanghai and threw down the flag, symbolizing the defeat of the "Chiang Kai-shek gang" in front of the "People's Army". Some people hold a historical symbol and do something on an occasion. The meaning it represents needs to be analyzed in the specific context. If we only say "wearing" or "wearing" hurts national feelings, this is arbitrary.

At this point where the truth is so simple that it is almost common sense, the "Internet left" exposed their nature of opposing progress and wanting to strangle China in the Three Gorges of history. Luo Xiang, a "public intellectual", once criticized the vagueness of the law by using the existence or abolition of the crime of provoking disturbances. Dai Yuxiao started with the example of the United States in his article, citing many places in the United States where people were convicted because of vague laws. It seems that Mr. Dai himself knows that vague laws are not good, but because the United States also has this problem, if China also has this problem, it is nothing, and we China are still winning! As a result, China's problems have not been solved, and the next wave of leeks to be cut by literary inquisition has not grown yet. Mr. Dai can continue to enjoy the relaxed speech environment in the United States and be a Zhongshan wolf in New York.

Mr. Dai, who now lives in New York, does not have to worry about being visited by the police one day to accuse him of hurting American national sentiments (given his complaints about America being bad in this and that, according to our anti-rightist mentality, wouldn't he be sentenced to ten years of hard labor in Salt Lake City?). However, the people of China have to live in a land governed by harsh laws. Now there is news that this clause may be amended. I hope this is the last case of the law being coerced by extreme national populism.