->point

翟明磊報平安：我回來了。

晚十點剛回到家，很累。

還是寫一點東西，告訴大家平安。

但實在支持不住，第二天早上又補寫的。

難忘的晚上

29號上午文化市場執法大隊五人光顧我家抄走雜誌與硬碟。為防意外，在網吧將緊急情況通報發給朋友，請他貼在壹報。心想如有進一步的意外，也算是讀者的告別吧。

下午，晚上接到了新聞界與朋友們的四十多個電話與短信。

海鵬最逗：一開口就是“明磊，別搞什麼民間了，搞個色情雜誌吧。我給大隊長支個招，就說明磊家藏了很多春宮畫，抓起來多省事，我領賞當個文彙集團副總……”此兄一慣沒心沒肺，沒多久他又打來電話侃開大山，明顯是讓我解悶放鬆。

王克勤一打來電話就是一陣怪笑，我說：“哎，老兄，我怎麼聽著你有點興災樂禍呀。”“沒想到抄家抄到翟胖子。哈哈哈。”“是啊，我是我們圈裡最老實的一個啊。”“哈哈哈，有沒有搜出金條啊”“沒有，搜到蔣介石送的中正劍一把。”

“上次查封了，我沒打電話，今天抄家了，覺得稀罕，打個電話慰問一下。”

聽到王大俠的笑聲，便覺得天下沒啥事。

一位老朋友一通電話笑呼：“鬥牛士。”我說：“什麼鬥牛士，鬥狗士罷了。”說來怪，這麼多朋友的支持記掛，首先想起的就是這三位不正經的傢伙。

更多的電話銘記在心了。

後來來了許多採訪電話，遠至西班牙，近到香港。臨睡時很累，卻睡不著了。

胡思亂想：編民間，查封，網上搞壹報，遮罩，現在硬碟沒有了，電腦也寫不成了，實在不行，我就到大街上用毛筆寫在牆上……

（被拆走硬碟的私人主機，現場）

鬥爭

30號下午三時三十分正式與執法大隊二位老少爺們談話。按他們的術語叫接受詢問和協助調查。

我先說幾句：“你們是執法的，是我的對手，但不是我的敵人，在十三年的新聞生涯中我批評過許多人，其中一些甚至因為我批評的公允成為我的朋友。

請你們轉告那些幕後操縱的先生，感謝他們幫助我開始了爭取新聞出版自由的旅行，既然開始了，就不會停下。我以一個資深新聞人的榮譽與生命宣告：不達目的，絕不甘休。我的目的是，為民間平反，明確它不是非法出版物。也謝謝他們選擇了這種相對光明一點的方法較量。雖然開頭是不光彩的私闖民宅的搜查。”

“請問你們是個什麼機構，又不是公安，有什麼法規支持你們搜查民宅，請你們出示一下。”

那二位先生沒有出示任何法規，說“我們不是搜查，我們是只是接受舉報認為你涉嫌非法出版物，所以檢查檢查。”

（後來，律師稱，現在公安進入民宅，也需要搜查證。文化大隊只有非法出版物鑒定書，是不能進入私宅的。現在回想，那天上午，那五人站在我門口沒有表明任何搜查意圖，只是說進來談談，我這才放他們進家口，之後的搜查卻連打印紙都沒放過，這是不是欺騙行為？！

事後，我愛人問他們為什麼要在一個員警陪同下，（這個員警沒進門）他們開玩笑說＂我們執法都要有員警陪同，怕你們拿刀對付我們。＂）

我指出，認定民間是非法出版物是違憲的。他們一聽說就打斷，你這些話對我們不用說，這是制度的問題。我說你們無所謂，我必須說。憲法第三十五條規定，中國公民有出版，言論，集會，示威遊行的權利。憲法是規定政府與公民權利的界線，是最高大法。而你們私闖民宅，手裡只有國務院出版管理條例，注意這是法規還不是法律，這不是經人大通過的法律，你們只有法規。這個條例說：未經批准出版的……是非法出版物。那麼經誰批准，什麼部門批准，並無明確規定。經過批准的出版與出版自由是不是矛盾的？這就是我們的悲哀，也是你們的悲哀：我們沒有新聞法與出版法，你們用個條例就可以私闖民宅，侵犯別人的私有財產！憲法規定了公民的出版自由，政府卻在限制。先進國家刊號是自由取用，我們卻還要批准！且說國務院這個條例是確立的，民間也沒有違反，我們有中山大學批准，蓋了二十多個公章。他們連說“不要扯遠了，不要扯遠了。”

我說“另外我們是內部資料，請你拿出內部資料需要內刊號的規定，廣州方面查處拿的廣東省部門的內部檔：未經出版行政機構批准非出版單位供內部使用的圖書期刊音像屬非法出版物。那麼上海有這樣的規定嗎？”

他們說：“是不是內部資料也不是你說了算的。”我反問：“那也不是你認定的。”他們說：“我們由權威部門鑒定的。”隨後他們拿出署名張永發的上海新聞出版局鑒定檔，上面寫的條款如下：

“根據國務院出版管理條例（2001年，12月25日，343號文）第二章，第九條：報紙，期刊，圖書，音像製品和電子出版等應由出版單位出版”

第十二條：設立出版單位，由其主辦單位向所在地省，自治區，直轄市人民政府人民政府出版行政部門審批。”

根據中華人民共和國新聞出版總署令2003第20號《出版市場管理規定》第二十四條和《上海市出版物發行管理條例》第二十二條規定經鑒定以下壹種壹期期刊屬非法出版物。“

我笑道：這是新聞出版局哪個部門，我在廣州聽說有個什麼出版物鑒定委員會，很象宗教裁判所，這批人認定誰是非法出版物，誰就是。

我再次重申民間大學辦的學術內部資料，沒有營利行為，沒有任何黃色反動政治宗教民族問題。套哪個法規也套不到我們頭上。

我要求拿走這個鑒定書，他們不給，我就拍下來了。

“你們用這些擺不上檯面的部門的規定來限制自由，還自稱是中國國情，中國人得尊守，那麼小腳是中國的國情，你要不要裹啊。”

走下去

“我們決不是沖你來的”他們忙說。

“沖我來我不怕，民間停刊告讀者書是我個人申明，是一個新聞記者的良心發言。”

他們終於承認，我的確不是私下編輯，而大學的組織聘用行為。我說有關內容的問題都可以來找我，“這個爛山芋，你為什麼要一個人扛著呢？”一位說。我回答：“你說什麼話！民間是堂堂正正的刊物，不是爛山芋，說個燙山芋也好聽一些。”

這位又說：“我給你三條出路。”我立即打斷：“我不是犯人，不需要你給出路！”

我同時給了他們中山大學四個證明，並要求按昨天約定取回硬碟，沒想到他們不同意，我頓時火了，據理力爭。認為“這是出爾反爾的行為”。

最後他們請示領導後讓步，在拷走《民間》所有資料後，將硬碟還給我。

(在執法大隊拆開封存的硬碟，他們拷走了所有民間的資料）

在發火中，我說了一句：“你這小子。”事後就這句話我向小夥子表示歉意。整個過程，我還是做到了理性維權，對事不對人。

因為在我家中他們拿走我留存的整套民間共十期，因此有可能加重處罰，一位笑道說：“廣州罰你們三萬，我就罰你們三十萬。”我一瞪眼同樣笑道：“錢是我命根子，要錢就要我命吧。”

從我判斷，後果可危，也可能坐牢，但我寧願傾家蕩產，也要堅持爭取出版與新聞自由的昂貴旅行。我不知最後等待我的是什麼。

如果坐文字獄，我不是第一人，也不是最後一人，但將是坐得最響亮的一個。

沖決網羅

黃慶南等深圳維權工人陸續被砍傷！而政府並不積極過問。一些公益組織被查，不敢告訴別人，導致別的組織無從準備，他們就是利用人們明哲保身，各個擊破！我已看清楚！請你們自醒，自救，相互呼應！

開弓沒有回頭箭！善良的另一個弱點正是軟弱，我不再軟弱，因為軟弱無用！我並不是一個持不同政見者，我只是一個老百姓。因此我有兩種本能，相關部門做錯了事，不管是誰，錯了就要改。這麼多冤假錯案都平反了，民間為何不能平反？其二，被打就要叫。許多策略想那麼多沒用。所以從某種意義上說我和維權的老百姓是一樣的，只是我從前寫報導為無數人維過權，也救過人出獄，現在我為自己維權。

我們不談政治，不談政見，只是一份老百姓辦給老百姓看的東西，我尊敬的一位新聞報人說：“民間，我一期期都讀過，不僅沒有政治的內容都是做實事的朋友在民間的故事。 而且言辭溫和，態度誠懇，這樣的刊物容不下，還能容下什麼。你的事情，新聞界的朋友都知道了。”

也勸告一些人，對知識份子迫害沒有好處，五十年代後中國為何步步走向文革泥沼？正是從1957年開始反右打壓了一批敢言的知識份子。為何胡耀邦至今口碑甚佳，青史留名？因為他為一大批知識份子平反成為他們的朋友。歷史是人民寫的，但人民也要請手中有筆的人來寫啊，得罪知識份子沒有好處。

1973年出生的我只聽說過文革抄家，沒想到親歷之，抄家是損毀知識份子尊嚴，因此我必將為維護尊嚴而戰。當我提出不應當用小商小販的方式對待教授博士記者等文化人，當時執行人員對我說：在我們眼裡，你們和小商小販是一樣的。其實這個文化大隊執法私闖民宅是家常便飯，我知道有一本寫給農民的小冊子《田間地頭》，是一位女士主編，這個大隊私闖她家查抄，嚇得二個孩子哇哇亂叫。還有一本《五十人雜誌》，也是一位杭州女士所編，懷孕期間被闖入家中。我認識的朋友默默在九十年代自印詩集《在中國長大》被查，人被勞教。所以民間只是冰山一角，所幸的是因為新聞界的朋友的關注，才為人所知。

這個新聞出版不自由的制度如同導致孫志剛案的收容審查制度，由一系列沒有法理的機構組成，出版物鑒定委員會，文化市場執法大隊等等。他們利用政府部門種種內部規定違憲。而老百姓，包括以前的我，還不知道他們是違法的。甚至我還糊裡糊塗讓他們進了家門。

一個新聞與出版自由的情境是怎樣的？根本不需要各種罰款為生的大隊。書號刊號自由取用，只是起備案作用，作者，編者自負其職。如果書的內容有問題，那麼自己承擔法律責任。無須什麼政府部門批准，替你把關。大家都是成年人，不用你政府覺得你是孩子似的。

我們因為長期生活在精神受禁錮的環境中，由習慣而認同這套落後的政府管理精神世界的體系。因此象活在冷水煮沸的青蛙，慢慢習慣了，臨死而不知。

一句話：沖決網羅！

2007年11月30日晚十二點

12月1日上午十二點

另我會將所有的過程透明化，陽光化，我相信一切在陽光下都會更真實，更安全。另外我只是一個百姓維權的故事，請任何媒體不要斷章取義，整體理解為盼。幫助我更好的做事！

“Tolerance evaporates”: Editors from two ill-fated journals try in vain to reason with Chinese authorities

By David Bandurski – In an article earlier this week, Nick Young explained the circumstances surrounding the shutdown this summer of his non-profit journal, the China Development Brief. Based on Chinese journalist Zhai Minglei’s (翟明磊) account of the closure of the civil society journal Minjian, both publications seem to have been the victims of a concerted campaign by government authorities against publications servicing the NGO sector in China.

The decisions to shut down the China Development Brief and Minjian were not made in consideration of China’s laws, but administrative regulations offered the pretext when those in power — fearful, says Young, of “color revolutions” elsewhere in the world — felt it was time to move against them. Alluding to periodic law-enforcement crackdowns, Zhai has suggested the recent moves are part of an “intellectual strike hard campaign.”

Both journals had taken advantage of a degree of apparent tolerance in China’s publishing sector that allowed them to operate without official publishing licenses, or kanhao (刊號).

Young and Zhai Minglei cite similar reasons for deciding to publish in the way they did:

YOUNG: “Neither [our English or our Chinese] newsletter complied with China’s highly restrictive publishing laws, which entail political controls that prevent the kind of objective and independent reporting that we offered. But we seemed to have found a lacuna of tolerance that, I believed, might presage the gradual advance of free expression.”

ZHAI: “One reason Minjian did not have a publishing license is because under China’s current publishing environment, publishing licenses are held and controlled by publishing organs designated by the state . . . As a resource for the public good promoting action on public welfare, Minjian had no aims to profit in the marketplace, nor did we want to bear this unjust cost. Even more important was the sponsoring institution and press censorship that would come with the publishing license. [Note_Bandurski: In China all licenses for publishing are held by sponsoring institutions, or zhuguan danwei (主管單位), that are responsible for ensuring party propaganda discipline at publications under their watch.] Minjian had no intention of tying its own hands and feet.”

Zhai and Young were not alone. Literally thousands of magazines and newsletters, academic and otherwise, continue to publish in China without licenses. And as Zhai points out, if the authorities were to uniformly apply their logic in going after Minjian and the China Development Brief , then . . .

“all of the internal organizational publications and materials of NGOs in China are illegal publications . . . [a]nd so it is with all of those small booklets we circulate among friends and acquaintances in China as a form of interaction or to seek the appreciation of friends, or those various poetry collections we call people’s publications (民刊), all reading materials shared among colleagues. All they need is to be printed and they are illegal publications.”

The experiences of Zhai and Young suggest publications in this grey area may be living on borrowed time as Chinese leaders grow ever more wary of China’s nascent civil society, particularly amidst growing civil unrest.

As Young put it: “The tolerance evaporated this summer.”

In many cases, the accusations leveled against the editors by state police cross the border into the bizarre, suggesting Chinese leaders are growing increasingly paranoid about social and political unrest and the role information might have in organizing resistance.

Both Young and Zhai attempt to reassure authorities that their actions are not politically motivated, that they are not “enemies” taking part in conspiracies against those in power. Nevertheless, Zhai is accused at one point, utterly without basis, of helping form a “reactionary organization” with U.S. backing:

Last year the Center for Civil Society held a workshop and posted a pre-announcement online. After the announcement appeared, the abovementioned Web authorities maintained that a reactionary organization called “Workshop” had recently been formed, supported by Americans. Only after a lot of explaining from a number of sides did the authorities admit they had been seriously misinformed by this grave notice of enemy threats.

Likewise, when facing his mysterious interlocutor, Mr. Song, Young gets a glimpse of the brutal, manichean logic of Chinese security officials, for whom there are only enemies and friends. “You can be the government of China’s friend or our enemy; there is no other way,” he is told.

In an interesting parallel with Zhai’s case, Mr. Song tells Young police have “evidence” that the China Development Brief was linked to Xinjiang freedom fighters:

He began by saying he had evidence of our links with Xinjiang separatist organizations. This opening gambit shows both how closely we had been monitored and how sensitive an issue Xinjiang is for Beijing. The “evidence” almost certainly referred to an e-mail exchange two years ago with a Uighur exile group. We contacted them while researching a report that, in the end, I did not publish because it had been too hard to find information that was both new and reliable.

In both cases, the editors fail ultimately to reason with authorities. In response to the suggestion of “links” with Uighur separatists, Young says to Mr. Song:

I told Song this [about an e-mail contact with a Uighur exile group], adding that I believe Beijing is courting disaster in Xinjiang by using heavy-handed treatment against its Muslim population. China, I argued, should learn from rather than mimic the calamitous failures of Western countries in their relations with the Islamic world.

Young’s only answer is his brutal choice: enemy or friend. When he attempts to re-enter China after a stay overseas, he is turned back and his visa nullified.

As a Chinese citizen, Zhai Minglei potentially faces more serious consequences for his actions –even if they do not violate Chinese laws — and that could include a prison term.

Nevertheless, Zhai too attempts to meet the authorities with reason. Faced with the same confrontational logic, Zhai Minglei’s first words to his own interlocutors last week re-iterate that he is not an enemy.

The following is a translation of Zhai’s exchange last Friday with officers from the Cultural Sector Enforcement Squad. The entry was posted on his personal blogpaper, Yi Bao, which Zhai continues to maintain:

An Unforgettable Night

On the morning of the 29th, five people from the Cultural Sector Enforcement Squad (文化市場執法大隊) paid a visit to my home and took away my hard drive and copies of the magazine. To guard against the unforeseen, I went to an internet bar and sent an urgent message to a friend, asking him to post it on Yi Bao. I suppose I was thinking that if things got worse that would be my goodbye to readers.

That afternoon and evening I received more than 40 phone calls and short messages from friends and fellow journalists.

Haipeng was the most amusing. As soon as he opened his mouth it was: “Ah, Minglei, don’t go and do this Minjian — do a pornographic magazine instead. Look, I had a word with the head of the squad and told him you had a bunch of ancient Chinese pornographic art stashed away at your place, and it would be a lot less trouble if they went after you for that. As a prize for informing against you they’re going to give me a post as number two at Wenhui Publishing … ” Before long, he called again. He was clearly trying to get me to relax.

When Wang Keqin called it was with a strand of strange laughter. “Ay, Brother,” I said, “How is it that you’re laughing up your sleave when I’m beset with troubles?”

“I never thought the axe would fall on you, my chubby friend!”

“Yeah, I know,” I said, “I’m the least combative one in our circle!”

“Ha ha. So, have they found any gold bullion yet?”

“No, but they did find the sword Chiang Kai-shek gave me.”

“Well, I didn’t call last time you were shut down, so I thought this was a rare opportunity to call and express my condolences.”

When I heard Wang’s great big laugh, I felt like there was nothing on earth to worry about.

“Hey there, Matador,” another old friend began when they called.

“What matador?” I said. “Fighter of dogs, more like it.”

It’s funny, but the first thing I think of with all of these friends in support of me is that shady third party [i.e., the authorities].

There are other calls etched in my heart.

After that came a lot of calls for interviews, from as far away as Spain and as near as Hong Kong. When it was time to sleep I was tired but couldn’t settle down.

Thoughts kept running in my head: Running Minjian, being shut down, doing Yi Bao online, being blocked, and now my hard drive gone so I can’t even write with my computer. If I must, I’ll take my pen out onto the streets and scribble on the walls.

At 3:30 in the afternoon on the 30th I was talking with a couple of old guys from the enforcement squad. According to their way of talking I was ‘accepting questioning and cooperating with the investigation’.

First, I said a few things: “You guys are enforcement, and you’re my antagonists, but we are not enemies. In my 13 years as a journalist I’ve criticized many people, and some of these have later became my friends because of that criticism.”

“I ask that you please let those men pulling the strings behind the scenes know that I thank them for their help in making my journey toward winning freedom of speech and press. And now that I’ve started I won’t stop. As a veteran journalist with a calling I will not rest until I’ve reached my goal. And that goal is to rehabilitate Minjian, to make clear that it is not an illegal publication. Please also thank them for opting for these comparatively civilized tactics, even if this began with a rather undignified raid of my personal residence.”

“I ask that you inform me of what organization you are from, and as you are not police, what legal grounds you have for searching a citizen’s place of residence.”

(After this my lawyer informed me that now even police need a warrant to search the residence of a private citizen. With only a Certification of Illegal Publication (非法出版物鑒定書) the Cultural Squad cannot enter a private residence. Thinking back now to that morning I realize that those five men standing in my doorway did not express any intent whatsoever to search my home. They said only that they wanted to come in and talk, and only then did I allow them in. After that they searched everything, including the paper for my printer. Is that not false pretenses? Afterwards, when my wife asked why a policeman had come along with them — this policeman never came in) — they joked and said, “We have to have police along for all our enforcement activities. They’re afraid you’ll pull knives on us.”)

I pointed out that the determination Minjian was an illegal publication violated the constitution. As soon as they heard that they cut me off. That was a question about the system, and we didn’t need to talk about that, they said. Do with it what you like, but I’ve got to say it, I said. Article 35 of the constitution says that citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of demonstration. The constitution defines the boundaries between the government and civil rights and is the highest law of the land. You have entered a private resident bearing only a publishing ordinance from the State Council — and, notice, that this is a regulation, only a regulation, NOT a law passed by the National People’s Congress. That ordinance says: publications that are not approved … are illegal publications. As to who must approve, what agency must approve, it says nothing. Is there not a contradiction here between this approved publication and the freedom to publish? This is where our grief lies, and it’s a problem for you too [because your enforcement actions are based on a contradiction]. We don’t have a press or publishing law, and you guys can enter people’s homes holding just an ordinance and violate their private property! The constitution guarantees citizens the right to publish, and the government prevents it. In advanced nations, publishing licenses are there for the taking. There is not need for approval! But even if this ordinance from the State Council stands, Minjian is not in violation. We have approval from Sun-Yatsen University, with more than 20 public seals.

They said to me: “Now, now, let’s not get carried away!”

I said, “Besides that, we were circulated internally. Please show me the regulation that says internal materials require a publishing license. When authorities in Guangzhou did a search they were bearing a document from Guangdong provincial authorities saying ‘printing and reproduction of books, periodicals, audiovisual materials, etc, for internal use without prior approval from administrative offices dealing with publishing’ is illegal. Well, does Shanghai have this sort of decision on record?

They said: “Whether or not it is an internal publication is not for you to say.” I responded: “Nor is it decided by you.” They said: “We are acting with the approval of authorities.” Then they pulled out a document from the Shanghai Administration of Press and Publications (上海新聞出版局) signed by Zhang Yongfa (張永發). On it was the following passage:

“According to the State Council’s Publishing Management Ordinance (of December 25, 2001, No. 343), Clause II, Article 9: Newspapers, periodicals, books, audiovisual materials and electronic publishing must be published through a [designated] publishing unit.”

“According to Article 12: The set up of a publishing unit must be approved by the publishing agencies of the people’s government of the relevant province, autonomous region or municipality following application by the sponsoring institution (主辦單位).

“According to Article 24 of ‘Regulations on Management of the Publishing Market’, No. 20, 2003, issued by General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) of the People’s Republic of China, and Article 22 of ‘Shanghai Municipal Ordinance on Management of Circulation of Published Materials’, we determine that the following publication is an illegal publication.”

I laughed out loud. “Exactly what office of GAPP is this? I’ve heard that in Guangzhou there is some so-called Publications Authorization Committee (出版物鑒定委員會). It resembles a religious inquisition, and if this group of guys decides your an illegal publication, then you are.”

I emphasized again that Minjian was an internal academic publication put out by a university, that it was nonprofit and had no content of a reactionary, religious, political or pornographic nature. Whatever regulation they were trying to nail us with, it didn’t apply.

I asked for a copy of this document and they refused, so I took a picture:

“You use an order from an invisible office to limit freedoms. You say it proceeds from China’s unique character and situation (中國國情), and that the Chinese people must respect it. Well, foot-binding is also a product of China’s unique character and situation — should we bind our feet too?”

“Look, we’re not out to get you,” they said.

“I’m not afraid if you’re out to get me. My letter to Minjian readers was a personal statement I made out of conscience as a journalist.”

They eventually admitted that I wasn’t an editor acting on my own, but that I was hired by a university. I said that any questions concerning the content [of Minjian] could be addressed to me.

“Why do you insist on carrying this rotten potato all by yourself?” one of the officers said.

“What are you saying? Minjian is a publication with dignity, not a rotten potato. It would be more appropriate to call it a hot potato.”

This guy said: “We’ll give you three ways out … ” And I broke in, saying, “I’m not a criminal, I don’t need your way out!”

Then I showed them four documents of proof stamped by Sun-Yatsen University and demanded they return my hard drive as they had arranged for the day before. Much to my surprise, they refused. I was furious. I had my reasons, so I stood firm. “You’re not living up to what you promised,” I said.

In the end they referred the matter to their superiors and compromised, saying they would return my hard drive after they had confiscated all of the materials concerning Minjian.

In my anger I said, “This damned kid!” Later I apologized to the guy for this. Through the whole process I rationally defended my rights, dealing with matters not with men.

Because they had entered my home and confiscated all copies of 10 issues of Minjian I had saved, this meant they might deal with me more severely [having more physical evidence against me]. One of officers joked, saying: “Guangzhou fined you 30,000 yuan, so we’ll fine you 300,000.” I laughed out loud: “Money is the root that feeds me, so you might as well take my life.”

The way I see it, things could get rough for me, and this might even mean jail time. But even if it means giving up everything I have, I’ll continue this precious journey toward freedom of expression. I have no idea what’s in store for me.

If I go to prison for my words (坐文字獄), I won’t be the first, nor will I be the last — but I can make it mean something.