The People's Legal Right to Freedom

Magazine article

By: Zhinazi

Date: 1903

Source: Angle, Stephen, and Marina Svensson. The Chinese Human Rights Reader. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2001.

About the Author: "Zhinazi" is a pseudonym for an unknown Chinese political thinker writing in 1903.

INTRODUCTION

Chinese thought on the subject of human rights has developed along partly independent lines from Western thought, although, over the last two centuries, there has been considerable Western influence. This article is a manifesto proclaiming what the author believed to be essential human rights, especially appealing to the standards of what the author repeatedly describes as "civilized" states, namely European states. This article was first published in 1903 in a magazine called Zhejiang Chao, which was produced for one year by a group of Chinese men studying in Japan.

PRIMARY SOURCE

The right to freedom (ziyou quan) is one of the rights (quanli) that people hold against the state (guojia). If we examine the history of Europe, we will see that this right could not have been obtained if [European] states had not gone through numerous revolutions and their people had not gone through endless bloodshed. Uncivilized, despotic states feared only one thing: the freedom of their people, which would be able to limit the states' despotic powers. So long as the people's knowledge was deficient, their intellectual and physical strengths did not suffice to defy their states, and therefore they could not but lower their heads and obey [their rulers]. As people became more civilized, and also as they were pushed by the trends of the times and pressed by social changes, they were no longer willing to be fooled and manipulated. They mounted opposition movements aimed at recovering the rights that they ought to enjoy (yingxiang zhi quanli). The people of modern civilized countries are all [able to] bustle about under the aegis of their constitutions. Their states not only do not dare to interfere arbitrarily, but actually pay particular attention to protecting them. Isn't all this the result of fantastically ardent efforts by their predecessors?

Alas, our people always speak of freedom, freedom. Yet what after all is the right to freedom? And what eventually distinguishes the limit of freedom? I am afraid that our people are still utterly ignorant of these things….

Here I list the kinds of rights to freedom below.

1. The freedom of residence and movement. The most essential among people's rights to freedom is the right of residence. The state is composed of people. Whoever resides in the territory of a state is its subject. Therefore the state allows its people to freely move without any restriction within its territory.
2. The freedom of physical security. In a civilized country people have noble personalities. Even a hair or a tress should not sustain any unreasonable restraint, so the state does not dare to improperly act to arrest, imprison, or punish anyone. Crimes in violation of the law, of course, are separate matters.
3. The freedom of safe residence. "Residence" is the place that people use for their daily living. Legally speaking, "[safe] residence" means not to damage a person's safety within his abode. So long as people are not suspected of a crime, the state ought not to intrude upon and search their residence without a reason, in order to protect their safety.
4. The freedom of secrecy in correspondence. "Correspondence" is when a particular person conveys his ideas to another particular person in written words. It is sealed carefully, unlike public mass advertisements that are intended to be known to all people. Thus the state's administrative organs, except as required by law, should not purposely open correspondence or show it to others, no matter what the enclosed content.
5. The freedom of assembly and association. "Assembly" is the gathering of a large number of people for a common end. "Association" is a contractual relationship; in order to fulfill their common end, a large number of people gather and contract to permanently and continuously seek their objective. During the old despotic era, the state prohibited and force-fully guarded against this right, fearing that people would initiate acts of resistance. In modern constitutional states, on the other hand, so long as the peace and order of the state and society are not harmed, the state should never interfere with this right.
6. The freedom of thought and expression. Certainly the law has no way to interfere with a person's inner thoughts. Only after the thought is published externally does it become the object of law and the state is able to limit or protect it. That which is put forth orally is called speech; that which is put forth in written words or illustrations is called writing; that which is put forth using stone-block, wood-block, or lead-block [printing] is called printed matter. So long as they do not transgress the limits of law, the state ought not arbitrarily interfere.
7. The freedom of ownership. The right to ownership (suoyou quan) is a relation between individuals in public law. As stipulated in the constitution, the right to ownership has two meanings. The first restricts the operation of the state's power, making it unable to violate people's freedom of ownership. The second protects people's freedom; if the state's administration violates [someone's property], [he or she] is permitted to be compensated by way of an administrative lawsuit.
8. The freedom of worship. Prior to the eighteenth century, the power of the Roman Pope was unlimited. Even all the rulers of European countries were subject to his power. Therefore politics and religion were subject to his power. Therefore politics and religion were hardly separable, and his strength was able to force the people not to convert to their religions [sic]. In the modern age, after many revolutions and with the advancement of civilization, the state's politics and religion have become absolutely separate and independent. The state grants its people freedom of worship and does not interfere, though [religious activities] should not cross the boundary of peace and order.

In all, then, there are eight kinds of rights to freedom. They are set down in the law code, declared in the constitution, and all have sworn to comply and do not dare to disobey. But where are these rights [actually] respected?

Alas, when I think about this, I cannot help sighing deeply. Please consider: have the four hundred million people of our China completely enjoyed these rights? Should our citizens desire to put into practice their freedom of assembly and association, and so gather a large number of people to form an organization, the government would certainly label it as a rebellion, uprising, or riot, and would employ its despotic force to dispel them, arrest them, imprison them, and would not stop until all are stamped out. Should our citizens desire to put into practice their freedom of thought and expression to make manifest the common principles of mankind, the government would definitely hold [the principles] to be rumors, heterodoxies, insults to the court, or sacrilege, and would proscribe them, destroy them, and would not be content until the principles can no longer be heard.

I do not blame the arbitrariness of the government, though: I only blame the ignorance of our citizens. Which among the so-called civilized governments was not barbaric and despotic before their reforms? Why is rights consciousness (quanli sixiang) so weak in the minds our citizens? Why do they treat rights so casually that they do not fight to reform the law, to stipulate clearly the limits of law, and hence to recover the rights due to them (yingyou zhi quanli)?

I cannot but blame those today who call themselves advocates of freedom (ziyouzhe). They do not have a sense of the civic consciousness (gonggongxin) nor a capability for self-rule (zizhi). They make the destruction of the community their purpose and regard the transgression of rules as freedom. They indulge themselves in individual selfishness and harm the rights of the commonality. Even up to the day they lose both fortune and honor, they still speak boastfully to others about "freedom, freedom," whereas they have degraded the value of freedom to nothing. Could they possibly know that what is called freedom and what are called rights in civilized states are [in each case] acknowledged by the law that has been approved publicly by the citizens? People together make up a state. If the elements of a state are all [passive and lacking in rights consciousness,] as I described above, then there will never be a day when the citizens recover their freedom. If the elements [have no civic consciousness nor sense of self-rule,] as I just described, then there will never be a day when the citizens peacefully enjoy their freedom. Civilized countries have no people who merely fulfill duties, nor do they have governments that exclusively enjoy rights. Those under heaven most capable of fulfilling duties while not enjoying rights are slaves and animals. If our citizens are willing to be slaves or animals, and allow a shepherd to reprimand them and thrash them, then there is nothing more to say. Otherwise, they should rise up at once.

SIGNIFICANCE

At the time this article was written, China was governed by its next-to-last emperor, Emperor Zaitian of the Qing dynasty. China had been ruled by emperors of various dynasties for approximately 2,000 years. The last emperor (Puyi) conceded in 1908 that a constitution was needed, and, in 1910, even took steps toward convening a national parliament, but these half-hearted measures never took shape. Puyi abdicated in 1912, and, from 1912 to 1916, China was governed by its first republic. The constitution of this republic explicitly recognized some of the principles articulated in this rights manifesto by Zhinazi, including freedom of religion.

However, the recognition of rights in constitutional documents does not necessarily correspond to reality. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China, enacted in 1982, states that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration," but in practice, citizens of China are routinely jailed and tortured or executed for practicing forbidden religions or criticizing the government. Hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were massacred in Tiananmen Square in the capital city of Beijing in 1989. It is one thing to proclaim rights in a constitution and another for them to be available to citizens.

Chinese thought on the subject of human rights dates to the sixteenth century, when neo-Confucian philosophers debated the subject of "legitimate desires" and "legitimate interests." In this setting, a right is seen as a means to an end (the realization of a legitimate desire or protection of a legitimate interest) rather than as an end in itself. In the nineteenth century, partly under influence from Europe and Japan, the concepts of "rights" (quanli, the word used by the writer of this primary source) and "people's [political] rights" (minquan) were articulated. Early in the twentieth century, about the time this manifesto was written, the term renquan came into use, which is usually used in modern Chinese to signify rights. According to China scholars, the concept of rights that developed at this time was—in keeping with its Confucian heritage—oriented toward ends and interests, including economic ends and interests, rather than toward absoluteness and innateness, as in much Western thought. In the nationalistic May Fourth Movement in China from 1919 to the mid-1920s, intellectual freedoms were a central concern. The idea that religion should be forbidden as irrational and harmful superstition co-existed in the Movement with ideals of freedom of speech, association, and the like.

Despite China's long history of intellectual engagement with the concept of human rights, the government of China today systematically violates many human rights. Some writers have argued that China should not be held to Western standards in such matters. They contend that the concept of human rights is relative, not absolute, and has evolved over the last few centuries of Western intellectual history. It would, therefore, be a form of cultural imperialism to impose Western ideals about freedom on the Chinese people. By protecting law and order and seeing to the orderly economic development of China, the government of China is protecting human rights according to Chinese rights. The Chinese government itself makes this argument. Its delegation to a U.N. human rights meeting in 1993 said, "The concept of human rights is a product of historical development…. Different historical development stages have different human rights requirements." China also accuses the West of hypocrisy, pointing to recent U.S. claims that human rights can be violated in the name of "the war on terrorism."

As noted above, there has, indeed, been a distinct school of Chinese thought on the nature of human rights for centuries. However, as documents such as this primary source and the constitution of the People's Republic of China show, the ideals articulated by that Chinese school of thought do not differ radically from those that are generally held in the West.

Western Internet companies such as Yahoo! and Google, which have cooperated with the Chinese government in censoring the Internet inside China, offer a rights-through-development argument that echoes that of the Chinese government. These Western companies and others that do business with the Chinese security apparatus argue that the best way to help human rights advance inside China is to speed China's economic development—while, of course, making a profit. U.S. foreign policy has usually reflected a similar philosophy, with China retaining Normal Trade Relations status (formerly Most Favored Nation trading status) despite its numerous human rights violations in occupied Tibet and within its own borders.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Svensson, Marina. Debating Human Rights in China: A Conceptual and Political History. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Periodicals

Cody, Edward. "China, Others Criticize U.S. Report on Rights: Double Standard at State Dept. Alleged." Washington Post (March 4, 2005).

Web sites

Calvin College. "Human Rights, Religious Freedom, and Chinese Christians." February 19, 2004. 〈http://www.calvin.edu/minds/vol01/issue02/chinese-christians.php〉 (accessed May 3, 2006).