Twenty cases of Wang Qiao were dealt with: three persons were held in administrative detention, and how procedural guarantees for 16-year-olds were implemented

On 10 October, the Beijing Ishio-Shin police issued a circular revealing that 20 people involved in the siege and verbal abuse of the national ping-pong team coaches were treated differently during the World Telecommunication China’s full-time tournament on 6 October: three were held in administrative detention and 17 were criticized for their education. The three detainees were two women, aged 19, and one woman, aged 16.

The events themselves have clear conflict of rights. Trainers are normally travelling outside the arena and should not be subjected to siege, continuous verbal abuse and the dissemination of insulting videos on the Internet; At the same time, administrative detention is a punishment that directly restricts the personal liberty of citizens, and even if the subject ' s behaviour is manifestly inappropriate, it requires an accurate description of the legal composition, the circumstances of the case, and the measures of protection of minors. Twenty people at the same scene. Why are the penalties different?

The police claimed that the authorities had repeatedly verbally abused the coaches passing through the stadium to vent their emotions and had disseminated statements and live videos on the Internet, with adverse social consequences. The public distinction in determining the penalty is “three aggravating circumstances” and “the other 17 persons”. However, the circular did not disclose individual acts, whether groups were organized, whether there was continued follow-up, the number of verbal abuse and the impediments on the ground.

Administrative penalties have an independent fact-finding procedure. “Several circumstances” may affect the range of legal penalties, but should not replace an individual determination of the actual conduct of each party. The nature and gravity of the responsibility of a person who is present and convulsed on the ground is not necessarily the same as the ongoing organization of the siege and the uploading of insulting content. The youngest person to be punished is 16 years old, and the procedure for minors deserves separate attention.

The persons informed of this detention included a 16-year-old. Age does not automatically exclude responsibility for breaches of the law and order, but the application, enforcement, notification of guardians and education protection of minors are all subject to special norms. In particular, a distinction needs to be drawn between “decisions of administrative detention” and “de facto detention”, which are not always equivalent in the relevant juvenile rules.

(b) The public need not discuss cases by making public the names, photographs and schools of minors; The real value of the rule of law is the ability of the police to explain whether the basis for punishment and the legal procedures are being implemented. Misconduct against young people is dealt with by law and can be established at the same time as avoiding the perpetuation of their identity as a target of cyber-shamming.

The logic of the interests and the power of law and order in the sports community

Extreme fans of athletes and coaches often spread through social platforms, and are emotionally magnified, then extend from screens to specific premises. In this process, legitimate public criticism of the results of the competition may be transformed into organized harassment of individuals. The national sports administration wishes to reduce similar behaviour through exclusionary systems and order management, but the management of the premises, platform governance and public security penalties have different power bases and cannot be confused.

The fact that the police deal with verbal abuse and blockage in accordance with the law does not mean that any violent fans should be placed in administrative detention. Professional athletes, coaches and public figures can be subject to sharp criticism, and insults and harassment may infringe on the rights and interests of the person and public order. The distinction between these acts requires that actual action and specific damage be seen, rather than being based solely on whether the coaches are supportive or dissatisfied.

This case is of concern because it touches a socially regulated border: it is the responsibility of the public security organs to protect the person concerned in order to maintain security on the ground; The other half of the rule of law is to be bound by a clear legal basis, individualized and proportionate punishment. Three of the 20 persons were detained and could not be justified by the figures “three and seven”. The public has the right to expect that the rules will apply to all those who are blocked and that all those who are punished will be afforded the same clear procedural guarantees.