Chinaelections.org has an interesting essay on the rules pertaining to public assembly and protest in the PRC. This was written before the Games, and in light of all that (didn’t happen) during the Games, the information here might be worth reviewing to get a better legal and historical context for why commies love repression.
The author divides the legal conditions for protests into two categories: those that are protective and those that are restrictive. Although I think the categories make sense, I am not sure that I totally agree with how he divvied them up. For example, he considers article 21 of the Assembly and protest law to be protective. The article says, according to what he’s quoted, that when there are unforeseen circumstances the police responsible for regulating traffic with relation to the protest route can change the protest route—ideally that means that the routes aren’t changed at the whims of the police, but of course, this is China, and if you the protester wanted to take a route in front of Disneyland, where there are loads of people, or in front of the government offices, where there is a lot of symbolism and media, do you think the Chinese police would actually let you? Hell no. They would steer you into some street where the chefs squatting on the road or the old men playing chess could get a clear look at your and political demands and banners, but for the protester that might just be defeating the whole point.
The author claims that there are certain articles that aim to both be protective and restrictive. Article 8 says that there has be someone in charge, someone to be held legally responsible for whatever happens during the protest. This person has to deal with the red tape and provide information such as the purpose of the protest, the mode of protest, the banners used, the slogans to be shouted, the number of people, number of vehicles being used, the number of speakers or amplifiers being used, the time the protest starts, the route including where it starts and ends, the legally responsible person’s name, occupation and address.
Now I suppose on a general level you could say that having someone responsible, is better than having huge spontaneous crowds of hoi polloi that you can’t really pin down.
All that information is a catch-22: you have to tell them everything to get an approval to protest, but if you tell them everything truthfully you run the risk of being rejected. And then there’s the issue of who in their right mind would want to be one of the official organizers or people responsible, knowing what the system in China is like? It’s a huge risk to take.
Onto some of the restrictive conditions: Article 15 states that you can only participate in protests and demonstrations in the place where you are registered to live. Article 16: government employees cannot take part in protests that go against their duties and responsibilities—I surmise that this legalese means, in the real world terms, complete loyalty to the government. No whistle-blowers, no biting the hand that feeds you. Article 34: without special approval, no foreigners can take part in protests or demonstrations of Chinese citizens.
Restrictions on place: no protests or demonstrations 10-300 meters from government offices and organizations, such as NPC offices, military committees, the People’s Supreme Court, major military facilities, airports, air facilities, train stations, etc. Provincial and local governments have their own regulations as well: Lanzhou stipulates that all protests and demonstrations in the city squares must be approved by the municipal government, etc.
Time restrictions: Unless given special permission to do otherwise, all demonstrations must be held between 6am and 10pm.
Modes of protest restrictions: in general, all demonstrations must be peaceful and legal. They cannot go against the interests of the country, society or general collective interest or impinge on the legitimate rights and freedoms of other people. They must be peaceful: no weapons, explosives. All demonstrations must be follow the conditions filed in the application, i.e. use the slogans and banners that they applied for, start and stop at the time stipulated in the approved application, etc.
The author levels several criticisms against the rules. Regarding the time restrictions, the author says that the 6am-10pm rule contradicts the rules regarding the “immediate protest rules”: that is, Chinese citizens have the right to protest after some unexpected “event”—a demolition, a ruling, a murder, diplomatic brouhaha, badly called football match, etc. However, given the nature of these events, they could be happening sometime between 10pm and 6am—and therein lies the contradiction.
Modes of protest: you are not allowed to let people join–the people that are legally allowed to demonstrate are the ones that were included by name or organization in the application. Of course, this is quite different from how most protests and demonstrations work, both in China and elsewhere: other people, not affiliated with the sponsoring group, join, whether it be for fun or solidarity. However, doing so in China would, legally speaking, automatically render protest illegal.
The “content” of the protest: this one is perhaps the most devious one, because it states that you cannot protest against the country’s laws, the country’s territorial integrity and unity, etc. Of course, no one would ever be dumb enough to hold a demonstration calling for Tibetan independence, but this means that you might not even be able to legally protest against a law that you think is unjust.
On having your application rejected: if your protest application is rejected, you can re-apply once, and after that you have to take it to court. However, the People’s Supreme Court has decided that it’s better NOT to allow people to take the issue to court. Therefore, after having your application rejected twice, you have no further legal recourse and are, as they say, shit outta luck.
These are the laws as they hold for Chinese people, in “regular times”—one could reasonably expect the Olympics to be different, even if only because the Chinese love nothing more than putting on symbolic shows for the west. But as we saw, there were limits: no protesting on anything related to Tibet. Those that went ahead with that were either deported or given a ten day detention after which they were deported. As for other planned protests that ought to have been held in the official protest zones:
But Western media have reported that Chinese citizens who applied for a protest permit instead were arrested.IOC president Jacques Rogge told reporters Sunday that 77 protest-zone applications were received in a city of 16 million and a nation of 1.3 billion.
“We found that unusual that none of these applications have come through with a protest,” he said, adding that Beijing Organizing Committee officials told him the protests didn’t occur by “mutual agreement.”
On this point, I have to agree with most of the western media commentary. Some people were detained for just asking or applying to protest. I don’t think the Olympics ought to be overly politicized, but on the other hand, if Beijing decides that they are up to holding this most prestigious of international sporting events, they have to follow the accepted standards, and one of those standards is some respect for free speech and the right to demonstrate. But basically, everyone saw the opening ceremony and was ooh-aah’d into intellectual submission. Everyone got caught up in the sports and Beijing got away with this huge PR coup with nary a challenge.