Zhao Zhizhen Tries to Defend Himself Using the Excuse of "Freedom of Press in China"

Zhao Zhizhen, founder of the China Anti-cult Association (CACA) website and former Director of Wuhan City Television Station, cites freedom of the press in China as his defence to charges of aiding, abetting, co-perpetrating, conspiring and inciting the campaign of torture and genocide against practitioners of Falun Gong in China.

According to a report published in The New York Times on the 2nd of January, 2005, Zhao Zhizhen's lawyer, Bruce S. Rosen, submitted a response to the U.S. Federal District Court in New Haven, in which Zhao, who is currently in China, states that he "has a lot of freedom in making his TV programs, just like Western news reporters," and that the program he made about Falun Gong is not much different from the US TV programs "60 Minutes," "20/20," or "NOVA."

This is an insult to the U.S. TV stations. On the programs "60 Minutes," "20/20" or "NOVA," people are free to sharply criticise the U.S. President and government policies. Are there any such programs in China? Can Falun Gong practitioners have their own TV station? Do they "have a lot of freedom" to make TV programs to clarify the facts and expose the evil persecution? All the news media in China is under the control of the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and any media that dares to speak the truth inevitably suffers punishment and persecution. Of course, when a mouthpiece media makes programs in line with the interests of the CCP authorities, it indeed has "a lot of freedom," yet this freedom is none other than a one-voice privilege gained at the expense of slandering others.

The plaintiffs' lawyer Dr. Terri Marsh said, "The charges of 'incitement' to torture, genocide, and/or violence have been used by the European Court of Human Rights, the International Courts of Rwanda and Yugoslavia to hold members of the press, and especially journalists accountable for speech that promotes the use of torture and genocide as a means to punish and/or eradicate a targeted group. U.S. courts have also used the same kinds of charges to find defendants liable for incitement when the incitement is direct and imminent."

Zhao Zhizhen has used the only excuse he could find as his defence. He depicts himself as a journalist who enjoys the protection of freedom of press in China, and he also states that his depiction of Falun Gong practitioners (as serial killers, murderers, and criminals who must be "Reformed" -- but in China, "reform" means being arrested, interrogated under torture, and possibly killed) is objective and newsworthy.

Dr. Terri Marsh said, "The fact that there is no freedom of press in China and that the CACA website founded by Zhao Zhizhen does not present the actual and very different views of the Chinese people regarding the practise of Falun Gong, are facts to be presented by the plaintiffs at trial, facts that clearly undermine Mr. Zhao's defence."

In Western civilised countries, people generally enjoy freedom of belief. Many politicians in the U.S., including the President, are Christians. Prominent scientists such as Newton and Maxwell were also devout Christians. The so-called anti-cult website founded by Zhao Zhizhen is no more than a slanderous one-voice tool used under the instigation of the CCP against anyone whose beliefs they perceive as a threat. When Zhao Zhizhen set up this website, Falun Gong practitioners had already been completely deprived of freedom of speech and they could not set up their own website to refute the many slanderous stories and defamatory accusations, and to expose the facts of the persecution they have suffered.

At issue on the legal terrain, and as indicated by the statements of four lawyers interviewed in the news story, are 1) whether or not the plaintiffs can prove that the propaganda material published and disseminated by the defendant via his CACA website and Wuhan Television station demonises Falun Gong 2) whether they can show that the propaganda itself is a constituent part of the persecution along with the police brutality and brainwashing, and 3) whether the propaganda disseminated by Mr. Zhao was intended to cause imminent and direct harm.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Dr. Marsh, and the Executive Director of the World Organisation of Human Rights USA believe that the evidence supports the charges of incitement and that the defendant will be found liable as charged. The defendant's lawyer stated in his client's behalf that the speech is unrelated to the torture and genocide and that this is a "libel" case. A fourth lawyer, Peter Spiro, noted that the case, though different from the Rwanda press case, has a basis in both fact and law.