Wu's second trial sentenced on August 27: from pollution reporting to punishment, "provocation and evasion" is again in question to suppress citizens' supervision

One leaflet, involving a 95-year-old unmarried youth more than a year in prison, 12 days in administrative detention on the day of sentencing, half a year in prison, and countless netizens are generally anxious about "who will be next".

Medieval People's Court of Hong Kong

What did Wu do? He shot a video of river pollution sent to the internet and refused to delete the post — that was all. The next day, he was sentenced to prison for a year by the police for an old case that had been tried two years ago and strictly had nothing to do with him.

On the day of sentencing, Wu and others were not released, but an administrative arrest warrant (referring to a suspect he was involved in two years ago) and a second-instance court surveillance residence warrant. From a polluted citizen, to an accused in captivity – only because he exercised the citizen’s supervision power conferred by the Constitution.

This is not an isolated case. Trai Red Yuan to the village cadres to question the "wage and identity" issue was sentenced, Wang Shuang for posting criticism of the land was chased across provinces, Wu Guosheng was convicted of exposure to the illegal land, Qin Zhengfu for a poem of timelessness was arrested for imprisonment ...

History is always strikingly similar – the ancient man is guilty of a word, the present man is in prison for a post. The only difference is that the ancient literal jail is the thought cleansing initiated by a king, and today’s “post” is the revenge of power initiated by some local officials to block the leakage of information, safeguard the dignity of the officials and the “governor”.

This case exposes three deadly issues:

In the first place, "pocket crime" became a private punishment tool for power. The crime of provocation is blurred because of the wording, and is considered as "all-powered crime" to be applied at will. Wu Jing aid applicants referrals rights material to the media community, but is identified as "provocation", although a judgment ruling that the reason for its compilation of facts is widespread

• if the transfer is a crime, then the daily work of the media should be grabbed.

Second, the selective enforcement of the law made the “left man” a pretext for retaliation. The Liu Xiao case allegedly involved was closed two years ago, and Wu Xiao was never summoned or investigated. Two years later, the following day after Wu Xiao pollution, the old case “resurrected”. The so-called “left man” is a system designed for objective negligence, not a backdoor to the power at any time to repair the account.

Thirdly, the abuse of public power cost almost zero. The Hug 18 years reversal, the Hug 21 years shower, the accusers are few. Uncle Wu Zhang II is also sentenced to sit down (meaning he purchases a toy gun) for "only being with him often"

• this kind of seating strike, the case officers have not yet been investigated.

The real accusation of Wu's case was not "provocation", but "disobedience". he rejected the deletion request of the leadership of Zhou Yuan District, so he was overturned from the old case two years ago.

When public authority can make any disobedient citizen guilty at any time through the “repair of accounts”, we are no longer safe and who will be next?”—this is the most frightening question in this case.

The public verdict of August 27 is not only a turning point for Wu's personal fate, but also a test for whether justice can keep the bottom line.

Public power derives from the concession of civil rights, power is the public instrument is not private property, the law is the armor is not the knife. If we continue to tolerate the double standard of "government of the people without the governor", we lose not only a few citizens who dare to speak out, but also the ultimate foundation of the rule of law society.