联合国难民署将难民定义为：
因有正当理由畏惧由于种族、宗教、国籍、特定社会团体身份或持有特定政治见解的原因留在本国之外，并且由于此项畏惧而不能或不愿受该国保护的人；或者不具有国籍并由于上述事情留在他以前经常居住国家以外而现在不能或者由于上述畏惧不愿返回该国的人。
基于以上论述（摘自un.org）我想谈论一个问题：中国教育体系中的必修学科政治是否是一种政治迫害亦或是否可以成为申请政治庇护的理由，以及能否以《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》为由申请政治庇护。在英国的政治庇护申请中我们可以看到移民局、法官往往要求的是回国后会发生迫在眉睫的安全或自由风险才批准政治庇护，但是最近的庇护申请案件首次成功率却高达70%以上。出于数据我可以暂且认为这是英国政府对人权的再次重视，同样也是对于庇护者的重大利好消息。
接下来我想以个人观点论述在中国接受教育而被迫学习政治这门学科的人是否有权力申请政治庇护。政治作为必修科目贯穿了中国从基层教育到高等教育，从中考、高考、研究生招考到博士生招考，政治都作为一门必修的学科算作成绩进入考生的笔试分数。因此政治作为必修科目得到了最广泛且最深入的普及。
首先“政治”这门学科在中国作为必修课程的内容是以向未成年及青年强制输出单一政治观点为主的课程，并要求学习者要与当局在思想上保持绝对统一，最后再以考试方式检查对学生单一思想输出成果且与学生升学成绩挂钩。这就造成了很多中国学生在面对升学压力时不得不向政府低头去学习“政治”这门科目，同时在教育中利用强制教学+考试检查的方式向未成年人及青年人输出单一政治价值观是不道德且违反人性的。这种行为的直接后果就是利用教育系统给每个受教育者从小开始灌输当权者所认可的思想并促成惯性思维，令受教育者丧失独立思维能力，本质上这是一种“政治洗脑”行为。“政治洗脑”简称“洗脑”，沿于上世纪1950年代的朝鲜战争，美国士兵被中国人民志愿军俘虏之后，接受中国共产党的思想改造，获救之后回到美国仍然支持中国共产党政府，于是美国记者Edward Hunter就用“brainwash”一词来描述此事。（摘自wiki）而在中国教育系统的必修性政治学科目的也在于此，在年轻人的思维中植入支持共产党政府的思想，以达成更好控制整个社会的目的。那么认定这是一种来自政府的迫害，我即有如下理由：
1. 教育体系中的政治学科的学习行为是强制性
2. 中国教育中的政治学科所输出的是单一政治思维且不接受质疑
3. 拒绝学习政治会遭到惩罚
4. 政治这门必修性学科与升学进行挂钩，侵犯了人的受教育权。是否可以受到更高等级的教育应取决于个人意愿及个人能力而非取决于是否接受政治观点的强制灌输。
当以上理由成立并且当事人因抵制这种强制性政治教育而承担不同程度的后果时，即可认为这种来自政府要求的强制性政治教育对个人的迫害成立。如果你以这个理由来申请政治庇护那么这就可以对应来自联合国难民公约中申请政治庇护因持有特定的政治见解的原因留在本国之外，并且由于此项畏惧而不能或不愿接受本国保护的庇护理由。
对于新出台的《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》，它引起社会广泛关注之处在于赋予执法者更宽泛的执法权与违法行为的定义权尤其是第34条中第2、3款“在公共场所或者强制他人在公共场所穿着、佩戴有损中华民族精神、伤害中华民族感情的服饰、标志的”“制作、传播、宣扬、散布有损中华民族精神、伤害中华民族感情的物品或者言论的”，出现这两条内容涉及的言行，将被拘留和罚款。再者，法案的第27条新增展示煽动扰乱公共秩序等内容的标语、第28、31条新增擅自设置无线电台，也成为了执法者可以抓捕中国居民的理由。我认为该法律的新修订草案能引发社会广泛关注有两点原因。
第一立法工作的不透明与不合理。在长期的中国立法、司法、行政三权一体化是个不争的事实，这点也在这次《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》表现的淋漓尽致。该法案制定源于中国政府对国内公民更强烈的管制愿望，其目的在于面对如今经济巨幅下滑的状况，政府需要一个更强硬的手段对公民进行恐吓威胁以防止群体事件的发生。而参与立法工作的人员皆非民选官员，而且对于法律能否通过的表决阶段也是黑箱操作不予公开，这就使得立法工作本质上是为了执法过程的合法而立法，而这个执法又是为了维持政权的稳定。同时因为中国公民没有真正意义上的选举权，失去了对立法过程的干预使得每次的立法过程都是政府主导控制的，势不可挡。
第二缺乏对违法行为的客观定义。在《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》34条中的“有损中华民族精神、伤害中华民族感情”缺乏客观定义。到底何为“有损中华民族精神、伤害中华民族感情”，法案没有给予明确定义和解释。这就造成了该法案在执行的过程中，没有客观标准可以判断当事人是否违法。执法人员可能会将更多的主观意志加至执法过程中，而大多数时候中国执法人员的执法行动往往来源政府上下达的行政命令而非维护宪法法律要求，这就造成了政府对于公民的“有损中华民族精神、伤害中华民族感情”行为认定可以根据维稳工作方面的需要而弹性变动，同时在人群中制造“社会主义白色恐怖”使人人自危以达到人们不敢反抗政府的维稳目的。
因为以上两点原因，《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》在中国得到了社会的广泛关注及知识分子这个群体的一致性反对。在中国的网络上可以看到很多知识分子表达对于该法案正式实施后政府利用“有损中华民族精神、伤害中华民族感情”的定义模糊性对各种意见人士的广泛性打压的担忧，同时也伴随着很多有政府背景的网红公开支持《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》并攻击对新法案不满者给他们戴上“汉奸、间谍”等高帽。
《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》的颁布，好比2020年7月在《香港特别行政区基本法》附件三中强行加入《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区维护国家安全法》（又称港版国安法）的目的，都旨在为政府抓捕异议人士提供合法化依据及制造人群中的“社会主义白色恐怖”氛围。那么在港版国安法颁布后，大量港人都以担心在香港被香港政府以港版国安法为由进行抓捕迫害而在外申请政治庇护并很快得到批准。同理，我认为中国人同样可以以担心中国政府以《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》对自己抓捕迫害为由申请政治庇护，因为该法案的目的性决定了它对于中国人的迫害性质，并使中国在一步步走向苏联化甚至是纳粹化。
为了帮助各位更好理解《治安管理处罚法（修订草案）》，我举个通俗易懂的例子：在2022年12月7日前说解封是伤害中华民族感情，在2022年12月7日解封后说封控是伤害中华民族感情，中国疫情封锁解除很长时间后提起疫情封控是伤害中华民族感情。本质就是对于中国政府任何不利的消息都可以以伤害民族感情为由来对你进行制裁。
总结：
在当前环境下的中国，任何人都有资格在海外申请政治庇护。每一个出生在中国的人都遭受到中国政府不同程度的迫害，甚至于中共高层自己都人人自危。这是一个没有法制的国家，今天别人的大难临头很有可能明天就降临自己身上，即使高高在上的人也是如此。中国掺杂在教育体系的强制政治教育，给所有人灌注统一且符合中国政府利益的政治标准及理念，试图创造符合他们利益的理想社会在利用社会压力去孤立、打压清醒者或者异议人士。中国对于法律的定义使用缺乏客观标准，往往执法者的主观甚至掌权者的主观决定了法律的使用范围，使得法律最终成为中国的政治工具，官场的官员用来内斗消灭竞争对手、国企央企用来打压民企外企、政府安全部门用来抓捕异议人士等等。此上观点，即在当前环境下的中国，任何人都有资格在海外申请政治庇护。
Discussion on the reasons that all Chinese people can use to apply for political asylum
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees defines refugees as:
People who are afraid of staying outside their country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, specific social group status or holding specific political opinions, and who are unable or unwilling to be protected by the country because of this fear; or who do not have nationality and are not able to stay outside the country where he used to live because of the above things. Or people who are unwilling to return to the country because of the above fear.
Based on the above discussion (extracted from un.org), I would like to talk about a question: whether politics, a compulsory subject in China’s education system, is a kind of political persecution or whether it can be a reason to apply for political asylum, and whether it can apply for political asylum on the grounds of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft). In the UK’s political asylum applications, we can see that immigration and judges often require that there will be imminent security or freedom risks after returning to China to approve political asylum, but the first success rate of recent asylum applications is more than 70%. For the time being, I can think that this is the British government’s renewed attention to human rights, and it is also a major good news for asylum seekers.
Next, I would like to discuss from my personal point of view whether people who are educated in China and forced to study politics have the right to apply for political asylum. Politics, as a compulsory subject, runs through China from grassroots education to higher education. From the middle school entrance examination, college entrance examination, postgraduate enrolment to doctoral enrolment, politics is counted as a compulsory subject to enter the written examination score of candidates. Therefore, politics has been the most widely and deeply popularised as a compulsory subject.
First of all, the content of the subject “politics” as a compulsory course in China is a course that focusses on the compulsory export of a single political point of view to minors and young people, and requires learners to maintain absolute ideological unity with the authorities. Finally, it checks the output results of a single thought to students in the form of examination and links it with students’ performance. As a result, many Chinese students have to bow to the government to learn the subject of “politics” in the face of the pressure of further education. At the same time, it is immoral and unhumane to export single political values to minors and young people by means of compulsory teaching + examination inspection in education. The direct consequence of this behaviour is to use the education system to instill ideas recognised by those in power and promote habitual thinking to every educated person from an early age, so that the educated can lose the ability to think independently. In essence, this is a “political brainwashing” behaviour. Political brainwashing is referred to as “brainwashing”. Following the Korean War in the 1950s, after American soldiers were captured by the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army, they accepted the ideological transformation of the Communist Party of China. After being rescued, they returned to the United States and still supported the government of the Communist Party of China, so Edward Hunter, an American journalist, used The word “brainwash” describes this matter. ( Excerpt from the wiki) and the purpose of the compulsory political discipline in the Chinese education system is to embed the ideas of supporting the Communist Party government in the minds of young people to achieve the purpose of better control of the whole society. Then I believe that this is a kind of persecution from the government, and I have the following reasons:
1. The learning behaviour of political disciplines in the education system is mandatory.
2. The political discipline in Chinese education outputs a single political thinking and does not accept questions.
3. Refusing to study politics will be punished
4. Politics, a compulsory subject, is linked to further education, which violates people’s right to education. Whether you can receive a higher level of education should depend on personal will and personal ability, not on whether to accept the coercive indoctrination of political views.
When the above reasons are established and the parties bear different degrees of consequences for resisting this compulsory political education, it can be considered that the persecution of individuals by this compulsory political education required by the government is established. If you apply for political asylum on this reason, then this can correspond to the reason why you apply for political asylum from the United Nations Refugee Convention to stay outside your country for specific political opinions and cannot or are unwilling to accept your country’s protection because of this fear.
For the newly promulgated Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft), it has aroused widespread concern in the society that it gives law enforcers a broader right to enforce the law and the right to define illegal acts, especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Article 34, “In public places or forcing others to wear and wear in public places, which is detrimental to the spirit of the Chinese nation, Costumes and signs that hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation “making, disseminating, promoting and disseminating articles or speeches that damage the spirit of the Chinese nation and hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation”. Those words and deeds involved in these two contents will be detained and fined. In addition, Article 27 of the bill adds slogans that incites to disrupt public order, and articles 28 and 31 add radio stations without authorisation, which have also become the reason why law enforcers can arrest Chinese residents. I think there are two reasons why the new revised draft law can attract widespread social attention.
The first legislative work is opaque and unreasonable. It is an indisputable fact that the long-term integration of legislative, judicial and administrative powers in China has also been fully demonstrated in this Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft). The bill was enacted because of the Chinese government’s stronger desire to regulate domestic citizens. The purpose is that in the face of today’s huge economic downturn, the government needs a tougher means to intimidate and threaten citizens to prevent mass incidents. The people involved in the legislative work are not elected officials, and the black box operation is not public at the voting stage of whether the law can be passed, which makes the legislative work essentially legislated for the law enforcement process, and the law enforcement is to maintain the stability of the regime. At the same time, because Chinese citizens do not have the real right to vote, they have lost their intervention in the legislative process, so that every legislative process is controlled by the government, which is unstoppable.
Second, there is a lack of objective definition of illegal behaviour. Article 34 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft) lacks an objective definition of “damaging the spirit of the Chinese nation and harming the feelings of the Chinese nation”. The bill does not give a clear definition and explanation of what is “damage the spirit of the Chinese nation and harm the feelings of the Chinese nation”. As a result, there is no objective standard to judge whether the parties violate the law during the implementation of the bill. Law enforcement personnel may add more subjective will to the process of law enforcement, and most of the time, the law enforcement actions of Chinese law enforcement personnel often come from administrative orders issued by the government rather than upholding the constitutional and legal requirements, which leads to the government’s determination of citizens’ behaviour of “damage the spirit of the Chinese nation and hurting the feelings of the Chinese nation”. It can be flexibly changed according to the needs of stabilisation work. At the same time, the creation of “socialist white terror” in the crowd makes everyone in danger to achieve the goal that people dare not resist the government’s stability maintenance.
For the above two reasons, the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft) has received extensive attention from the society in China and the consistent opposition of the group of intellectuals. On China’s Internet, many intellectuals can be seen expressing concern about the government’s extensive suppression of various opinions by using the vague definition of “damaging the spirit of the Chinese nation and hurting the feelings of the Chinese nation” after the formal implementation of the bill. At the same time, it is also accompanied by many Internet celebrities with government backgrounds who openly support the Public Security Management. The Punishment Law (Revised Draft) and attacks those who are dissatisfied with the new bill to put on “traitors, spies” and other high hats.
The promulgation of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft), like the purpose of forcibly joining the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Safeguarding National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China in Annex III of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in July 2020, all of 2020, all of which are aimed at providing services for the government to arrest dissidents. Legalisation is based on and creates an atmosphere of “socialist white terror” in the crowd. Then, after the promulgation of the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law, a large number of Hong Kong people applied for political asylum for fear of being arrested and persecuted by the Hong Kong government on the grounds of the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law, and were soon approved. In the same way, I think that the Chinese can also apply for political asylum on the grounds of worrying about the Chinese government’s arrest and persecution of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft), because the purpose of the bill determines the nature of its persecution of the Chinese people and makes China move towards Sovietisation or even Nazisification step by step.
In order to help you better understand the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (Revised Draft), I will give an easy-to-understand example: before December 7, 2022, it was said that unblocking was to hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation, and after it was lifted on December 7, 2022, it was said that it was to hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation. China’s epidemic blockade was lifted for a long time. Later, it was mentioned that the epidemic control was harmful to the feelings of the Chinese nation. The essence is that any unfavourable news from the Chinese government can be sanctioned on the source of hurting national feelings.
Summarise:
In China in the current environment, anyone is eligible to apply for political asylum overseas. Everyone born in China is persecuted by the Chinese government to varying degrees, and even the senior officials of the Communist Party of China are in danger. This is a country without the rule of law. Today, other people’s disaster is likely to come to them tomorrow, even for those who are superior. Compulsory political education in China’s education system instills unified political standards and concepts that are in line with the interests of the Chinese government for all people, and tries to create an ideal society that meets their interests by using social pressure to isolate and suppress sober people or dissidents. China lacks objective standards for the use of the definition of law. Often the subjectivity of law enforcers and even those in power determines the scope of use of the law, making the law eventually become China’s political tool. Officials infighting to eliminate competitors, state-owned enterprises and central enterprises are used to suppress private enterprises and foreign enterprises, and government security departments are used to arrest. Dissidents and so on. From this point of view, in China in the current environment, anyone is eligible to apply for political asylum overseas.
中国民主党英国总部 