On July 5, a "Notice on the Inadmissibility of Letters and Visits by Tang Yueying and Deng Zhensheng" issued by the Quanzhou County Health Bureau caused heated discussions on the Internet. In the notice, the Quanzhou County Health Bureau replied to the petitioners Tang Yueying and Deng Zhensheng that on June 28, 2022, the Quanzhou County Letters and Visits Bureau reported the two petitioners to the Guangxi Zhuang Self-help District Letters and Visits Bureau that "Gao Lijun and others were required to investigate the case of child trafficking, and the public security organs were required to file a case for investigation" to the Quanzhou County Health Bureau. "After verification", the Quanzhou County Health Bureau said that "(Tang Yueying and Deng Zhensheng) over-born children (belonging to the seventh child) were taken away by the whole county for social adjustment... No records were kept", so the "petition matters will not be accepted".

A calm tone, a righteous tone, tells a story of extreme cruelty. "Unify and carry out social adjustment" "In order to facilitate and promote the development of family planning work in the county, there is no record of the whereabouts of the super-born children who have been uniformly carried out social adjustment", so, people are no longer the purpose, no longer the subject, but become an object, a "for ......" tool person, your social role is not different from cats and dogs. This makes even the body in the heat of the people, can not help but also the hearts of the chill.

Author/Qi Xiaoling lawyer

What legal acts are covered up under the word "social adjustment"

A living baby is "uniformly carried away", but "there is no act of abducting and selling children". What is this behavior? If there is no "abduction" behavior, then whether there is "abduction" behavior? Where were these children taken? Since it is said that "in order to control the population", then how to control the population? Is it adopted by foreign families or eliminated on the spot, as circulated on the Internet? What is the purpose of "not keeping any records", is it to make parents stop thinking and live without worry, or are they afraid of revealing any secrets when parents find their children in the future? There is no record, all this is like a dream that has never happened. When the time is long enough, even the biological parents may suspect that this is an illusion of their own. If it hadn't happened to meet this pair of parents who put their children in the heart and really, who have been persistently seeking relief for decades, would such absurd events that occurred in the 1990 s have been sealed forever?

Reproductive rights do not allow "adjustment"

Having children is not only the natural instinct of human beings, but also the most important social function. The reproduction of human beings not only creates ethnic groups and culture, forms society and country, but also inherits national blood and unique spirit. In our traditional culture, "having a mother but not a mother" is a term used to curse people, but in the notice of Quanzhou County, it has become the object of the government's performance of its duties and the reasonable basis for complying with the policy, which is obviously unacceptable. It can be said that there is no law in the world prohibiting human reproductive rights, so even in the "1990 s" when the family planning policy was extremely strict, it was impossible for any normative document to make provisions similar to "unified adjustment". The custody of the children of the family is deprived and transferred to others without the consent of the guardian. The family planning policy is a long-term national policy, but it is not guided by the restriction of reproductive rights. Under the premise of "fewer births and eugenics", it does not deprive born children of their basic rights to be raised. Then using family planning as a "shield" cannot explain the legitimacy of "unified adjustment.

For a long time, there has been a typical misunderstanding, that is, "reproductive rights" is to give birth to children, and how to raise adults seems to have other ways. In fact, childbirth inherently includes two rights of "production" and "nurturing"-Article 43, paragraph 2, of the Law on the Protection of Minors stipulates that "orphans, those whose parents or other guardians cannot be identified, and other living minors who have no means of living shall be taken in and raised by child welfare institutions established by civil affairs departments". Article 1093 of the Civil Code also provides that "orphans who have lost their parents, minors whose biological parents cannot be found" may be adopted. This means that parenting after production is the core right of reproductive rights, which is also guaranteed by law and cannot be deprived by anyone under any pretext other than the law.

From this "Notice on the Inadmissibility of Letters and Visits by Tang Yueying and Deng Zhensheng", we can only read a kind of stubbornness and arrogance. There is no empathy for the grief and despair of parents who have lost their children for decades and have no right to relief. You must know that the "unified adjustment" and "unknown whereabouts" are living lives with flesh and blood and adoptive parents. In the notice, this life has become an object that can be requisitioned at will. The relevant staff standing behind the notice put the policy above the law, do not consider the general principles of human ethics, do not have the minimum emotional resonance of human beings, and do not have the boundary consciousness of exercising power over the common people as state functionaries. I am afraid this is what really makes people feel dangerous.

Accountability should not be used to "adjust"

There is such a remark that it is harsh and unkind for the current government to "pay the bill" for the events that have happened in those years and are in line with the policies of that time. Objectively speaking, this statement cannot be established. It is true that there is a statute of limitations system in the law to urge those who are lazy in exercising their rights. However, in this incident, the parents of the "transferred" children have been pursuing their rights and looking for their children. When the right holders have not slackened their rights, what reason do we have not to give them an explanation, and the current power holders should bear certain responsibilities, no matter what form of relief, both should and are necessary. The organ that was the executor of the policy at that time always existed, and the people who carried out the "social adjustment" at that time were not individual acts, so the government had the obligation to explain the policy at that time and provide relief to the rights of the counterpart. whether it is based on appeasing the parents who have lost their children, or giving an explanation to the public, this explanation is necessary. However, what we are seeing at present is that the Guilin municipal party committee and municipal government has set up an investigation team to "instruct Quanzhou County to suspend inspection of the county health bureau director and deputy director in charge of the county health bureau who ignore the demands of the masses and administrative inaction." this practice is extremely far-fetched and has a sense of "adjustment.

The government is responsible for the development of family planning work, and should be responsible for the interpretation, implementation and accountability of the family planning policy, and should not be limited to the level of handling the over-birth of the administrative counterpart. Since it is a government action, how to carry out the work, how to arrange the process, how to remedy the rights and how to investigate the responsibilities, these rules should be formulated in advance and conform to the legal norms. Therefore, the government must explain the issues related to the "unified adjustment" of super-born children in that year, such as whether this practice is supported by relevant documents, what procedures are used to form the rules, and how it is implemented at work. Who will raise the children after the "adjustment", whether it is necessary to examine the qualifications for raising the children after the adjustment, and how to determine the status of the children after the "adjustment, obviously, these matters cannot be summed up as" in order to facilitate and promote the development of family planning work in the county, no records are kept. However, the investigation team did not respond to the core demands of these people's concerns at all. Instead, it turned its guns and suspended the director of the Health Bureau and the deputy director in charge on the grounds of "administrative inaction". It "transferred" the entity responsibility that should have been investigated into "improper notification". It is not "perfect" to transform the petitioner's demands into a notification ". The implication is that it does not matter whether the matter itself can be solved or not, and it does not matter whether the answers to the above questions need to be studied in depth, but the response to the masses should be watertight, and the common people should not be allowed to pick out the problem. This practice of putting the cart before the horse does not help solve the problem, but deepens the gap between the people and the government.

Conclusion

There are many remaining problems in history. When some incidents occurred, the rule of law was not clear and the concept was not advanced enough. However, this is not the reason to deal with these incidents with confidence. Mistakes are not terrible in themselves, but it is terrible to face mistakes and do not know how to reflect and change. When the problems left over by history surface, it can at least be the choice of modern power organs to blame all the responsibility on history or to respond sincerely from the current position. In the face of the dying parents looking for their children's demands, they should look down at them sincerely anyway.

Obviously, rights cannot be "adjusted"; after rights are illegally "adjusted", they cannot avoid evading. For the micro-tragedy created by macro policies, we should face the problem directly and actively seek solutions and relief, instead of arbitrarily throwing the responsibility to the "history" that cannot speak or defend.

(End of full text)

Lawyer Presentation

Qi Xiaoling

Lawyer Qi Xiaoling, member of the Management Committee of Beijing Huixiang Law Firm, Dean of the Criminal Defense Research Institute, Doctor of Criminal Law of Renmin University of China, Postdoctoral of Criminal Law of Beijing Normal University. Distinguished researcher of Criminal Compliance Research Center of East China University of Political Science and Law, legal practice tutor of part-time master's degree students outside Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, member of Beijing Criminology Research Association, published five CSSCI journal articles and more than a dozen professional core journal articles, published many public number articles, participated in the compilation of professional works such as "Understanding of Criminal Law Provisions and Judicial Application" published by Law Publishing House in 2021, the article "Difficulties and Countermeasures in the Transfer of Community Rehabilitation to Compulsory Isolation and Drug Rehabilitation" published in the "China Anti-drug News" on January 29, 2021 was reprinted by "Learning Power. He has handled a series of major job-related crimes, economic crimes, financial crimes, underworld-related crimes, and cyber crimes.

Areas of Expertise:
Criminal Defense Business, Criminal Prosecution Business, Criminal Compliance Business

Typical cases:
1. The illegal operation of Chen Mou, chairman of a private equity fund investment management co., ltd. in Fujian;
2. The case of Zhao, chairman of a group in Beijing, illegally absorbing public deposits;
3. Case of illegal absorption of public deposits by the former chief operating officer of Xinhe Group Jinxin Network;
4. A contract fraud case involving Li, chairman of a Hong Kong group;
5. The case of copyright infringement by Wang Mou of a famous cultural media Co., Ltd. in Shanghai (no prosecution);
6. The case of an employee of an Internet giant company in Beijing damaging business reputation (no prosecution);
7. Jiangxi a network technology company Lu to help information network criminal activities (not to prosecute);
8. The case of illegal use of information network by the technical director of a bitcoin exchange in Hangzhou (cancellation case);
9. The bribery case of Yang, chairman of Longjiang Bank;
10. Case of bribery and dereliction of duty by Feng, director of the Environmental Protection Bureau of a county in Baoding City (sent back for retrial);
11. The bribery case of Chen Mou, assistant general manager of the head office of China Construction Bank;
12. Wang, general manager of an industrial co., ltd. in Ningxia, is involved in a major black case;
13. Jiang, the security chief of a group in Yingkou, is involved in a major black case;
14. A major case involving Wang, chief financial officer of an investment guarantee company in Lanzhou;
15. The bribery case of Ma Mou, executive vice mayor of a county-level city in Tangshan City (sent back for retrial).