Free Hao Wu!

On March 22nd it will be one month since filmmaker and Global Voices Northeast Asia editor Hao Wu was detained without charge. We appeal to the Chinese government for Hao Wu's immediate release!

What happened to Hao?

Hao Wu (Chinese name: 吴皓), a Chinese documentary filmmaker who lived in the U.S. between 1992 and 2004, was detained by the Beijing division of China’s State Security Bureau on the afternoon of Wednesday, Febuary 22, 2006. On that afternoon, Hao had met in Beijing with a congregation of a Christian church not recognized by the Chinese government, as part of the filming of his next documentary.

Hao had also been in phone contact with Gao Zhisheng, a lawyer specializing in human rights cases. Gao confirmed to one of Hao’s friends that the two had been in phone contact and planned to meet on Feb. 22, but that their meeting never took place after Gao advised against it. On Friday, Feb. 24, Hao’s editing equipment and several videotapes were removed from the apartment where he had been staying. Hao has been in touch his family since Feb. 22, but judging from the tone of the conversations, he wasn’t able to speak freely. One of Hao’s friends has been interrogated twice since his detention. Beijing's Public Security Bureau (the police) has confirmed that Hao has been detained, but have declined to specify the charges against him.

The reason for Hao’s detention is unknown. One of the possibilities is that the authorities who detained Hao want to use him and his video footage to prosecute members of China’s underground Churches. Hao is an extremely principled individual, who his friends and family believe will resist such a plan. Therefore, we are very concerned about his mental and physical well-being.

More about Hao: From Scientist to Computer Guy to Filmmaker.

Hao began his filmmaking career in 2004, when he gave up his job as a senior product manager at Atlanta-based Earthlink Inc. and returned to China to film Beijing or Bust, a collage of interviews with U.S.-born ethnic Chinese who now live in China's capital city. Before working for Earthlink, Hao worked as a product manager for Internet portal Excite from 2000 to 2001 in Redwood City, CA Before that, Hao had also worked as a strategic planning and product development director for Merchant Internet Group, an intern for American Express Co. and a molecular biologist with UCB Research Inc.

Hao earned an MBA degree from University of Michigan Business School in May 2000 and a Master of Science in molecular and cell biology in July, 1995 from Brandeis University, where he was awarded a full merit-based scholarship. Before studying in the U.S., Hao earned a Bachelor of Science degree in biology from the China University of Science and Technology in Hefei, Anhui province in June, 1992.

Hao the Blogger.

Hao has also been an active blogger, writing as "Beijing Loafer" on his personal blog, Beijing or Bust, named after his film. Due to Chinese government internet blocking of his blog hosting service Blogger.com, he also has a mirror version of the site on MSN Spaces. In early February Hao began contributing as Northast Asia Editor to Global Voices Online, an international bloggers' network hosted at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Writing under the pen name Tian Yi, Hao's contributions aimed to bring citizens' online voices from China and the rest of North East Asia to readers in the English-speaking world.

Why didn't we speak out about his detention earlier?

Hao’s family and friends in China have deflected questions about his detention for the past month, as authorities in contact with people close to Hao have urged them not to publicize the case. There had been hope that his detention was only for a short period of time, in which case publicity would not have been helpful.

For more information...

Hao's family and friends inside China do not want to be interviewed directly by the media at this time, and thus we will not provide journalists with their contact information. We have set up a website dedicated to Hao's release at: www.freehaowu.org. It will be updated regularly with new information that emerges about Hao's situation.

All further queries can be e-mailed to: freehaowu@gmail.com.

Comments

[mahathir_fan]

"One of the possibilities is that the authorities who detained Hao want to use him and his video footage to prosecute members of China’s underground Churches."

This is quite touchy. If the authorities use his videotapes to prosecute members of China's underground cult related churches, the future members of these Christian cults may no longer be willing to allow foreign/Chinese media to interview and follow them through their rituals.

This would then only result in a "small catch" by the Chinese authorities.

To fight against Christian cults, I think the Chinese authorities would be able to do better by exposing them the way they did with Falun Gong.

For example, issuing booklets that question the Catholics fundamental beliefs and adoration for mortals like pope and Virgin Mary which is not in accordance with the Bible's teaching.

The truth of the matter is there are many Christian groups in the West that have been accepted as mainstream but in the more conservative and strict Christian soceity are considered cults. For example, in the last 20 years, there has been a rise in church cults that claim that its members have been showered by gifts by the Holy Spirit that gave them the gifts of speaking in tongues. This has been exposed to be non-sense and fake by a news journalists a few years ago. But this cult movement is still going strong despite the scientific evidence.

Of course, when you try to test their wild imagined claims now about speaking in tongues or miracle healing, they come back and say you cannot put God to the test.

In any case, the Western media should learn from the Massage Milk hoax and be sure that they have spoken to the right person before accusing the Beijing authorities of not having filed any charges. Sorry, but since the Massage Milk hoax, I am now a bit concern and skeptical about everything that I read from the Western media. Good to know that he is still in good health. Perhaps this arrest is also something that he can put in his documentary.

When a person is aware of criminal activies in progress but refuses to cooperate with authorities to expose or prosecute these criminals, is that a crime in itself? I will try and look up US Supreme Court cases to see if such precedences have been set. Clearly, as a law abiding citizen myself, it is a disgust to see a fellow law abiding citizen refusing to testify against criminals, but in this case he is a journalist so I do respect a journalist's right to defend "his sources".

[richard]

Thanks so much for your outstanding service in providing this information, Rebecca. I really look up to you.

Leave it to "mahathirfan," whom I have proudly banned from my own blog, to post the nonsense you see above.

[mahathir_fan]

I have just checked on US Supreme Court ruling to see if journalists have the right to keep their sources confidental. It turns out that in 1972, the US Supreme court had ruled that journalist MUST cooperate with grand juries investigate crimes.

The name of the case is Branzburg v. Hayes (1972).

In the ruling: "The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment."

"Justice Byron White declared that the petitioners were asking the Court "to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do."

It appears therefore that Wu Hao must cooperate with Beijing officials to disclose information and evidence to Beijing officials based on the precedence of law that has been set by the US Supreme Court. If Wu Hao does not cooperate with Beijing, it appears that Beijing have the legal right and accepted international law and practice to prosecute Wu Hao.

See:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/48/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

The ruling was very close, 5-4. So it is possible still that Wu Hao may be able to bring his specific case to the Supreme people's court, and China's supreme people's court may rule otherwise. But the odds are not good because a precedence have been set.

Again, for those so inclined, the name of the landmark case that set the precedence is Branzburg_v._Hayes (1972). This case is very similar to the case that Wu Hao is currently facing.

[James J. Na]

Wow. Who'd thunk it, I agree with Peking Duck, for once.

[mahathir_fan]

The likes of Richard like to post their support for freedom of speech on their blog spaces, yet when confronted with dissenting comments from me are unable to themselves respect that very principle. It appears that many blogs on the web has proliferated with bloggers linking to each other all shared a very similar agenda creating a herd behavior in this case China bashing. They each visit each other's blog and pat each other on the back for their latest stinking remark, and when one individual like me enters their blogspace and post a series of dissenting opinions that weakens their argument to the unsuspecting reader, I become a threat and become banned even though my comments were well and consistently within the topic under discussion. They act just like the CPC. In CPC case, they own the internet servers so they claim to have the right to allow or disallow any websites to pass through. In their case, their claim is their blog ownership but in principle, these bloggers do not respect freedom. They only want freedom because they don't have it, but if they are the ones in power, they would have acted the same to restrict other's freedom considered to be a threat.

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

I won't ban you MF. I disagree with you most of the time. Generally I can't be bothered to argue with you. But I know a fair amount of people in China and elsewhere in Asia who share your views. I find it instructive for my readers to know that such views exist - and to think about why that might be the case.

[prayer]

Thank you to let me know this, Rebecca.I wll pray for Wu.

[bobby fletcher]

I went to church in China and nobody arrested me, what gives? Could it be that I, as a guest to their country, show the curtisey of not breaking their laws?

http://chruchinchina.blogspot.com/

Let's for the moment put aside the argument weither China's laws are right or wrong according to our senstivity. The fact remains their laws exists according to their sensitivity, and it has effect in their land.

Rule of law dictates laws are to be observed - else it's anarchy. Unjust law should be changed within the existing reality and current states - else pay the price of civil disobidience.

I'm sure by now you are bord of these obvious principles of our proud western tradition which many neglects while indicting China. Let's talk about weither the law that's involved is just.

The reason church go underground IMHO isn't because they are "unauthorized" Catholics or Prostants. The Church I attended in Zhengzhou was a Protestant church.

My understanding of the reason chruches go "underground" is because they refuse to observe China's law protecting children's right to religious freedom that bars adults from indoctrinating children until the age of 16 (with flexibility).

Reailty is there ain't enough GongAN to kick down the doors and arrest every parent that reads the Bible to their kids, or grandmothers who BaiBai the Kitchen God with little MeiMei.

But when pastors encouraged by American missionaries to break China's law and hold bible school, advertise to the whole village, invite the policeman's kid to come every sunday for the brainswashing cession - what do you think happens?

[bobby fletcher]

BTW, I'm proud to joing MF's rank as "banned by pkd".

[Dobel]

It is a pity to read such blog entry. Have you ever been to China? How much do you know about religion in China?

I am a Chinese Christian. I have been a protestant since the age of 8 month old. Now you are talking about no freedom of religion in China. You should feel shamed for what you said. That is totally nonsense.

Organizors of those unrecoginzed churchs attemp to control congregants who usually are not well-educated and to manipulate them to do something against Chinese government.

Shame on you. You know nothing right about China, but you dare disseminate your ridiculous opinion to those who have a good wish of knowing what is going on china.

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Dobel,
Actually I lived in China for a total of 11 years, and I speak fluent Chinese. As a journalist I did a lot of stories about religion in China. I interviewed people who had been persecuted and family members of people who are in jail because of their activities in underground Christian churches.

Of course, it is ture that there are many Christian churches that are sanctioned by the government and agree not to contradict the authority of the Communist Party. People who are members of these churches are free to attend church and practice their religion.

So yes, there is relative freedom of religion in China as long as your religius practice stays within certain government-sanctioned boundaries. But freedom ends if you cross those boundaries.

It's also true that some of the undergound churches are very cultish and manipulative, while others are quite similar in their practices to relatively mainstream and respectable groups in other countries. However I think that if these groups were not driven underground, if filmakers were allowed to do documentaries about them and if the Chinese media could interview those religious leaders, people would actually get a chance to judge who are the tricksters and cultists, and who are honorable.

[gerry nucifora]

I worked on a film, American/ Chinese co prodution in China last year , on which Hao Wu was our Translator/assistant...
He is a fine sensitive person who I believe could do no harm to anyone ....
During the filming Hao was constantly helping with anything he could even out of work hours..
The crew was made up of 90% Chinese and a very small amount of Foreigners so Hao's help for both crews was immeasureable ...
I think there must be some mistake, maybe wrong place at the wrong time ...
I hope he is released soon and reunited back to his family soon ....
my thoughts are with you and your family ...

[fiddlesticks]

hao's detention is not comparable with branzburg v hayes.

hao has been held for over a month without having been charged with a crime.

branzburg v hayes compels testimony before grand jury investigations, and says such compulsion does not infringe upon journalists' first amendment rights.

(setting aside for now the lack of such rights under the chinese constitution...)

it doesn't say the government can hold a journalist in secret without right to an attorney, right to regular communication with family, or that they can detain someone indefinitely without charging them.

(for that expansion of powers you have to look to the patriot act...)

[mahathir_fan]

"(setting aside for now the lack of such rights under the chinese constitution...)"

What do you mean that there is no freedom of press in chinese constitution? Chinese constituion guarantees in it rights that are accorded by the US first amendment in Article 35. In fact, it is more clear about this than the first amendment. The first amendment stated that 'Congress shall pass no law' and it is only the Supreme Court that interpreted it to mean that it is a right, while the Chinese constitution explictly state that it is a right.

It is because of the same rights enjoyed by both Americans and Chinese in both countries by the constitutions that I suggest that precedence from the US Supreme Court is applicable to the People's Court.

"Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."

You said: "it doesn't say the government can hold a journalist in secret without right to an attorney, right to regular communication with family, or that they can detain someone indefinitely without charging them."

Based on my reading from Rebecca's posting, Hao is not held in secret. Hao has an attorney and is allowed to speak with his family:

"Hao had also been in phone contact with Gao Zhisheng, a lawyer specializing in human rights cases. "

"Hao has been in touch his family since Feb. 22,"

The only accusation from your statement that I agree with based on my reading of the matter is that he is held without charge. I do not know why this is the case, but I suspect that the reason is because the authorities do not wish to formally press charges because this could result in longer detention time for Hao as the case winds its way through the bureaucracy. My speculation is that the authorities hope that Hao will quickly decide to cooperate and hand over evidence so that he can be released promptly.

Afterall, what could be the motive of the authorities for holding Hao aside from that he has evidence and can provide testimony against the underground Christian cults?

[bobby fletcher]

Rebecca, your comment about "relative freedom of religion" comment applies to US as well. I needn't remind you what happened to the Davidian's "absolute freedom of religion".

[fiddlesticks]

branzburg v hayes has nothing to do with anything. you are talking about using the principle of precedence to argue before the people's court in china which does not recognize precedence as legally binding -- the concept of stare decisis is core to the common law system of the US and England, and China is a civil law system (like the French and the Germans). aside from the issue of sovereignty, it makes no more sense to use a US supreme court case to argue the principle of precedence before a court in China than it would in Germany.

i repeat: as far as is known right now, hao is being held without knowing the charges against him, he is not able to communicate freely and regularly without duress to his family, it is not known where he is and what condition he is in, and there is a big difference between his family members having retained a lawyer and he himself having direct access to representation.

this sweet, bright, and maybe a touch naieve young man has found himself being held by state security police. to argue simply in a circular fashion that 'the police must have a reason' and to conclude therefore that hao must have done something wrong and therefore does not deserve to have access to a lawyer, to have visitation with his family, and does deserve to know the charges against him is fraudulent and fallacious reasoning at best.

[bobby fletcher]

fiddlesticks, if you want to take the line of sovereignty, then it's not possible to ignore the fact administrative detention is part of China's law enforcement regime, is it?

And IMHO is not unresonable to use other cases, legally effective or not, to demonstrate certain legal principles, either.

Many Americans are willing to conceed on the issue of our government's detention of innocent people in Guantanamo Bay, in contradiction of international laws and even our own laws; I don't see where the consistency is.

If we really believe in these values, then we had better practice it ourselves. If in actuality we can't even do it ourselves, because some silly political reason, then in reality such rights and values are merely "theoritical" which may not exist at all.

[mahathir_fan]

"aside from the issue of sovereignty, it makes no more sense to use a US supreme court case to argue the principle of precedence before a court in China than it would in Germany."

True, however, judges from both common and civil laws still relies on precedence to achieve consistency. The difference is whether precedence becomes law. The results of branzburg v. hayes is not legally binding for the people's court, but it is still a VERY valid argument point for the prosecutors.