2009-08-06 10:59 南方周末
“灰色宾馆”强暴事件
在被带进聚源宾馆后6个小时，安徽姑娘李蕊蕊遭到强暴，涉嫌施暴者正是宾馆的“看守”。案发之时，已有70多名各地来京的特殊“住户”被带进宾馆，拥挤于这家毗邻北京火车南站的灰色院落内的简易房里。此前已多次关注这家宾馆的警方在接警后立即介入，已连夜控制嫌犯。这到底是一家怎样的宾馆，人们为何被“看守”于此，在灰色的简易房内，他们有着怎样的遭遇？
“管吃管住，解决问题”
安徽姑娘李蕊蕊被带进聚源宾馆的时间是8月3日晚8点，确切说是被带进宾馆东侧的简易房中。当时天光逐渐黯淡，简易房内横七竖八地躺坐着几十号人，其中，34岁的王云丽刚喝过三天以来的第一顿玉米面糊糊，45岁的张建秀则困倦地躺在床上。“看着是个胆小的女孩子”。在王云丽的印象中，李蕊蕊性格内向，被带进这里后话不多。
6个小时之后，李蕊蕊在简易房内遭到强暴，多人指认涉嫌施暴者正是简易房的“看守”之一。在被关押的人们跑出宾馆向洋桥派出所报案后，刑警已将嫌犯控制并连夜进行讯问。
综合宾馆服务员和宾馆老板的说法，聚源宾馆与河南桐柏县驻京机构有着特殊的“业务关系”。
仅从外观上和宣传上看，这家位于北京南二环陶然桥西南角、毗邻北京南站的建筑没有任何特点，进入悬挂着大幅广告牌的大门右转，四层灰色老楼闯入眼帘。比邻的北京市民熟悉了类似的事实：两三年前开始，常有很多外地口音的人被各地工作人员从车里卸下，带进楼边的简易房中。透过家中的窗户能看到他们吃饭洗脸，夜里会传出争吵和尖叫声。
张建秀和王云丽被带进聚源宾馆的原因相同。她们来到北京想向有关部门反映各自的问题，随后被来自老家的工作人员找到，“找个地方，管吃管住，解决问题”。
目前尚无从得知20岁上下的李蕊蕊是带着何种心情，又是因何被带入聚源宾馆的。进入宾馆大门右转，穿越一条20米长的走廊，被带入平时封闭的木门，她就进入到简易房内。
木门内的世界不为外界所知。南方周末记者8月5日实地探访发现，150平米空间内，包括一个30平米左右的大厅，其他部分被分割成很多10平米左右的小间。每个小间内像大学宿舍一样摆着5-6张上下铺的床位，一些铺位上凌乱堆着破烂铺盖。而厨房和厕所紧挨着。在这里，手机信号是被屏蔽的。木门外，就是那7个身强力壮的“看守”。
对于这个简易房的用途，工作人员给出了截然不同的说法。一个女性宾馆工作人员说这是仓库，没关过人；另外一个男子说，这是食堂。而在一个角落，一位工作人员低声对我们说：人昨天都被带走了。
只有打开另外一边的一扇大铁门才能见到阳光，而那个门通常只有饭后才打开一小会，因而白天房间内都亮着灯。房内空气浊重，人们不能走出这150平米的房间，也无法与外界沟通。
按照多位“住户”的说法，这里有七十多个男女老少混住在一起，一半以上是老人，还有几个失去父母的孩子由爷爷奶奶带着。7个看守者住在大厅中，他们都是男人。其中那个叫做“小强”的年轻人看上去很帅，1.8的个子身材健壮皮肤白皙，但却经常打人骂人。
8月3日当晚，李蕊蕊被安排到了大厅中紧靠门的位置，上铺。下铺就是小强。
“灰屋”里的噩梦
年轻的李蕊蕊还没有时间适应这里的一切，但王云丽有。李蕊蕊的到来给王云丽带来了不祥之感。
从7月1日到14日的两周内，这位4个孩子的母亲被关了半个月——王云丽用“噩梦”二字形容自己的经历。
直到8月1日第二次被带到这里前，她害怕到这里来，但选择权显然不在她手里，“他们说名额早就分配好了”，不止一个人回忆说，“适应其中的生活完全凭借个人能力”。
除了封闭，还要适应简易房内的生存环境。仅有的几样菜是带瓤的冬瓜、咸菜和老茄子。没有枕头和被子，床上只有薄薄的一个褥子，七十多个人只有一个厕所，排队往往要40分钟。一个年轻小伙子因为想看电视新闻得罪了一个想看电视剧的看守者，被打了一顿。一个老人因为到厨房用洗涤剂也被打了。
王云丽挨打的理由是“门敲得太重了”。她被一个叫王学力(音)的年轻男子按着脖子推到两三米外摔倒在地。扶着床半天才起来，她又挨了两拳。有人抗议说“要告打人的人”，但打人者声音更高：“随便告！”
本报记者获知，宾馆所属的北京洋桥派出所曾介入调查，有打人者曾被带入派出所询问。在这些进京反映问题的人们被圈禁的时光中，这是他们惟一的希望。
王云丽也曾向警察寻求帮助，她被打之后努力争取到输液的机会，逃出宾馆外拨打了110。在警方介入后，她终于因此被调出大房，享受了聚源宾馆二楼5平米小单间的待遇。那里有被褥枕头和小电视。
来自男性看守者的威胁让女人们更为害怕，闷热的晚上睡觉根本不敢脱衣服。第二次被带进来后，王云丽特意选择了一间最靠里的床位，外边包裹着一层男访民，“这样安全些”。
预感还是应验了，漆黑夜里一个叫做老赵的中年看守者爬到了她的床上，她把他轰走了。老赵又爬到了另一个韩姓女人的床上，一次喝醉了还摸她。这个胆小的女人此后跟王云丽挤在一张一米宽上铺的硬板床上。
漫长的白天有人睡觉有人聊天。其他访民大多在互相倾诉彼此安慰，实在憋闷了，大家就一起唱革命歌曲，比如“东方红”。“希望外边的人听到，帮我们出去”。
对于新来的李蕊蕊，还没有人来得及告诉她这里发生的一切。
沉默中的强暴
8月4日凌晨，时间在狭窄、燠热、散发着酸臭味的空间里推移到大约凌晨两点。睡在大厅里的安徽金德人王春听到门口钢管焊成的床架有大的声响。黑暗中，隐约能看到看门的小强站在床下，往新来的女孩身上摸。“当时没有多想，以为是通奸呢。”王春说。
在稍早一些时候，这个奇特的人群中，的确存在过“看守”和“住户”之间的“爱情”。
据多个“资深住户”回忆，一个叫韩丽的女人在凉菜盆里挑了几粒花生米被打出了黑眼圈，一天没吃饭后想通了，不久就跟那位打了她的看守者“好上了”，由此换来被带出几个小时的优待，出去散步，购物、吃东西、打电话。
在旁观者的叙述里，她和看守者之间的关系有些像斯德哥尔摩症(犯罪的被害者对于犯罪者产生情感，甚至反过来帮助犯罪者的心理情节)。但“恋情”的确让韩丽开始相信这里的合法性，她曾很诚恳地安慰后来者：这里免费给你们提供吃住，还帮你们解决问题，安心住下去吧。
小强的手伸向李蕊蕊的时候，她已经睡着了。李蕊蕊事后面对镜头回忆说，被摇醒过来后，她听到小强说，走吧，出去玩。李蕊蕊拒绝了。
6个小时之前，当她被拉到这里的时候，小强就已经注意到她。彼时夜幕已降，李蕊蕊独自趴在床上发呆，小强曾站在床下，拍着她的屁股，喊，美女，出去逛逛。但李蕊蕊以“我不认识你为由”，拒绝了。
李蕊蕊到聚源宾馆的时候，晚饭已经错过。据王云丽回忆，大约10点左右，李蕊蕊曾拿钱给小强，央求后者去给她买了三包方便面。她自己留下了一包，并送给了自己的年长老乡和同时被关进来的人各一包。
王春看到，强壮的小强爬上了李蕊蕊的床。他听到李蕊蕊叫喊的声音，他开始确信是强奸而不是通奸。但屋里其他人都和他一样保持了沉默。“听说看守有家伙，他们人多，我们这边多是老弱妇幼，黑灯瞎火怕吃亏。”8月4日中午，王春为人群的沉默辩护。“我怕他们。”来自河南的老邢说。“小强经常打人，随便找理由打人，我们都怕他。”8月5日早上，记者在聚源宾馆隔壁的马家堡23号院了解到，临近的居民经常听到隔壁传来很大的吵骂声，“但我们都不知道里面发生了什么”。
王春和老邢事后说，他们都看到小强爬上了李蕊蕊的床，用床单盖住自己，趴在了刘的身上。
8月4日中午，在去派出所报案的路上，面对一个好心人的镜头，李蕊蕊对这一个过程的讲述如下：“他开始站在我床前，在我脸上亲，我推他，推不开。他亲了一会就爬了上来，又往我脖子上亲，我还推，我喊你下去，还是推不开。他把我胸前的东西都撕开。我不让他摸，他非摸。我把他的手推不开。然后他把他的裤子脱掉，把我的裤子也脱掉。”
在镜头里，这个瓜子脸，细长眼睛的年轻姑娘语调近乎漠然，在叙述的结尾，她猛地激动起来，声音尖利，。
事发时有人似乎听到一个老者喊，“你再不下来我用棍子敲死你”。二十多分钟后，小强下来了。老邢看到李蕊蕊从床上坐起来喊，“他强奸我，别跑”。
“我们的事情不要你们处理了”
绝大多数人，是在天亮之后才知道发生了什么。因为几乎每个夜晚都有吵闹、哭喊以及梦魇，所以当晚睡在里屋的人们并没有从李蕊蕊哭喊中听出什么异常。
天亮之后，住在里面的人开始出来抱怨说昨夜外面太吵。但人们很快看到李蕊蕊白色的床单上，蝴蝶状的淡红血迹。几个目击者开始讲述强奸事件。群情开始沸腾，有人已经被关了4个月。
李蕊蕊已经在洗手间里清洗过自己。不止一位目击者称，血迹留在水龙头下。开始，李蕊蕊担心这么多人看到自己被强奸，以后没法嫁人，决定装作什么都没发生，但前一天吃过她方便面的两个女性提醒她，“如果就这么认了，以后小强逮到你的软，会经常占你便宜”。“当时李蕊蕊呆呆的，都有些神志不清。听到一些有社会经验的妇女这么说了以后，便开始找小强哭打，抓他挠他。”王云丽说，小强当时就坐着，也不还手。
早晨六点多，往日，已经是大家开始做早饭的时候了。但是当天没有人张罗，人们只想着离开牢笼。女人们开始在大厅的右侧拍打铁门并高喊：“有人被强奸了，救命啊。”外面没有任何声响。小强曾尝试着阻止女人们的叫喊，但他的骄横已经失去了往日的威力。“要冲出去报警，给小女孩讨一个公道。”二十多个小时后，王云丽已经回想不起当初是谁最早提出这个提议，但彼时，这是群情激奋的人一个共同的想法。
次日，与聚源宾馆一墙之隔的马家堡23号单元楼的很多居民，听到简易房传来巨大的叫喊和打砸声。看到女人们的叫喊无人应答，男人们开始盯上了大厅另一侧通向宾馆前台的木门。老邢等几个人拉着门上的铜把手，连拉带踹，门很快就被踹坏。人开始水一样往外涌。
几个人抱着证据、沾有血迹的白色床单、白绿条纹的垫褥跟着人群往外走。小强站在门口试图阻挡人群，走在前面的几个男子一下子冲开了他。七十多个被关押的人，除了三个残疾者，都跟了上来。
走廊里有四五个工作人员试图劝阻。“你们的事情都还没有处理呢。”
人群高喊：“我们的事情不要你们处理了！”
出了狭小的宾馆大厅，就是院子，院子外就是广阔的城市。老板大喊，“你们如果去了，你的事以后就不处理了。”
“我们今天就处理你们强奸人的事。”人群高声回答，涌向距离聚源宾馆不到500米的洋桥派出所。
宾馆老板的呼喊还是分解了队伍，一些人被解决问题的说辞劝回；有一些则惧怕于宾馆里的生活而直接回老家了。等到最后到洋桥派出所时，人群已经稀薄了。
8月5日凌晨，在洋桥派出所，干警介绍说，刑警已经迅速介入此案。在派出所的密闭审讯室里，刑警对当事人的讯问持续到事发次日凌晨。目击者中多人被要求配合警方调查，而包括小强的弟弟在内的3名嫌犯已被控制。派出所干警说，受害人的家属已接到通知，即将赶往北京。
而这个晚上，那些冲出宾馆的被关押者们，则打算在一个街道花园里，度过他们出逃后的第一个夜晚。
(文中王云丽、张建秀为化名)(本报记者丁补之亦有贡献)
8 Comments
Rob, this time you beat me to the translation.
Unfortunately, there is a legal justification for black jails under the criminal procedure law.
———–
Article 63. Any citizen may immediately seize and deliver to the public security organ, the people’s procuratorate or the people’s court for handling:
1. any person who is committing a crime or is discovered immediately after having committed a crime; or
2. any person who is on the wanted list; or
3. any person who has escaped from the prison; or
4. any person who is being pursued for arrest.
———–
What this means is that if someone is reported as wanted by the police in jurisdiction A, then it is legal for any citizen to detain them in another jurisdiction until they can be transferred home.
This law has a huge loophole and is obviously being abused and needs to be changed. Among other things Article 63 allows people to do an end run against all of the time limits in the criminal procedure law.
But it is the law… (Don’t shoot the messenger) Just because something should be illegal doesn’t mean that it is….
The situation with Sun Zhigang is different. Under Article 8 of the Legislation Law, you can only detain someone as a result of a law that is passed by the NPC. Custody and repatriation was passed as a result of a State Council regulation, which made that regulation legally challengable. This isn’t the case with black jails.
Also the politics is very different. There is very, very little sympathy among urban Chinese for migrants and petitioners from rural areas. In Sun Zhigang’s case, he was seen as an urban intellectual (i.e. one of us) which caused outrage. Rural migrant petitioners are usually seen as “one of them” and so get a lot less sympathy. Sun Zhigang was by no means the first person to die under C&R regulations, but he was the first “urban intellectual” and so the sense was, “if it can happen to him, it can happen to us.”
Unfortunately (and again don’t shoot the messenger), that’s very unlikely to happen in a “black jail.” If you are an urban dweller, all you have to do is to call the local PSB, and you will be released. The system is set up so that only “one of them” is likely to get caught in the system.
@Twofish, I don’t accept Article 63 as a legal justification for holding petitioners. Citizen’s arrests are permitted in many countries around the world. Article 63 is almost identical to Section 494 of Canada’s criminal code which states:
Reference to Article 63 raises various questions. Here are two:
1) Can it be legitimately used to legally justify the detention of petitioners?
2) Can it be used in practice as an excuse to detain petitioners?
The answer to the first question would appear to be no, unless one interprets the words “immediately seize and deliver to the public security organ, the people’s procuratorate or the people’s court” to mean “detain for several weeks or months, without delivery to the public security organ, the people’s procuratorate or the people’s court, until the prisoner agrees to stop excercising his/her right to go to the Office of Letters and Visits.”
On the second question, yes, this could probably could be used as an excuse, but in the vast majority of cases it would still be false imprisonment.
Chinese law and Canadian law is very different. Among other things, the term ‘arrest’ means something very different in Chinese law. There are a lot of restrictions under Chinese law for arresting someone, so the police detain people for investigation before they arrest them. (The police can hold you for six months before arresting you.)
Also invoking Canadian law is not a legally valid argument in a Mainland Chinese court (although it *is* a legally valid argument under Hong Kong law). If you file a brief in a mainland Chinese court, and say Canadian law says this, then the court will say so what?
And then you have to explain why Canadian law is more valid in a mainland Chinese court than say North Korean law. Using comparative law here is pretty dangerous.
In most common law countries there are extremely stiff civil sanctions that people can use to prevent unauthorized arrest. Also US law has what are called “color of law” statutes to prevent this sort of abuse.
As far as “legitimately” that means what you mean by legitimate. Under Chinese law, it’s clearly legal, because if you were to bring this case in from of a Chinese court, they would almost certainly interpret the law to allow for these detentions.
Now if you mean “legitimate” in the sense of moral, then I’d say that the answer is no, but in that case why does it matter what Article 63 says?
Legal arguments are different from moral arguments, and if you are trying to make a moral argument that something is wrong even if it is legal, then you are better off not worrying what the law says. The problem with mixing legal and moral arguments is that pretending that the law is on your side when it isn’t, means that you can’t just say “this is legal, but it’s wrong, and we need to change the law.’
There is a very clear and well organized process under Chinese law for getting an interpretation for what a law means. I think it would be a very bad idea to try to use that mechanism, because you will get an interpretation that will almost certainly interpret Article 63 to support black jails, and you run the risk that this interpretation will be contain things that will make things worse for completely different topics.
Also, without a formal interpretation, its possible that at some point in the future, the interpretation will change. If you have something in black and white that says Article 63 allows for “black jails” then it becomes harder to change in the future.
The danger in making these sorts of arguments is that you risk ending up with arguments that are totally disconnected with reality. You can say that you don’t care what the Chinese courts and legislatures and party officials says, Chinese law bans black jails, but that’s pretty out of touch with reality.
In particular, one reason that Party *likes* rule of law is that if it has a problem with the law, it can change it.
One final but important point. It’s rather irrelevant what you or I think about what the law says. As far as legal arguments, what matters is what the relevant court or legislature (whether it’s Canadian or Chinese) thinks.
If you think that you can come up with an argument in which a Chinese court or state agency would agree with, then we can get somewhere, and there are instances where I think you can do that.
Now you can argue that we ought to care more about what Canadian courts say because Canada is better at human rights than China. That’s a fine argument, but it’s not a legal argument.
So what is the government doing about this issue? It seems they’ve just banned petitioning in Beijing, or at least that’s what the BBC thinks:
China bans petitioners in Beijing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8210047.stm
This case was reported in a Hong Kong English-language newspaper a few days ago, with a picture of a young woman taken from the back, which I suppose was meant ot be the victim though I suspect it was just a stock photo.
5 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[…] background of a recent rape case in a Beijing “black jail” hotel for petitioner with a translation of local investigative report by Southern weekly on 6 of August. The Chinese report was censorsed […]
[…] http://www.blackandwhitecat.org/2009/08/15/rape-and-beatings-in-a-beijing-black-jail-hotel/ […]
[…] This seems like a good time to step back from the day to day atrocities that is our world, during these dark days. These are going to be some tough times, and it doesn’t look good for […]
[…] The case would have gone largely unnoticed, had Southern Weekend, one of China’s most liberal newspapers, not reported on the incident in August, resulting in a public outcry at the state of the petition system and the inhumane treatment of the noble petitioners. Signaling its impact, the article was quickly taken down from the newspaper’s website due to government pressure. While a trial is currently awaiting judgment, neither the victim nor her lawyer was given a chance to speak in court. […]
[…] the capital to stop petitioners in order to avoid embarrassment for provincial officials resort to extreme measures to stop people from filing their petitions, including locking petitioners up in makeshift […]
Post a Comment