Creation: Political Economy Group of the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association
ㅤㅤRecently, the Ministry of Public Security and eight other departments jointly issued the “Opinions on Strengthening the Implementation of the Family Violence Warning System” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”), which stipulate the basic evidentiary conditions and eight types of auxiliary evidence for the recognition of family violence by public security organs. The “Opinions” specify that the basic evidence conditions for recognizing family violence include: if the perpetrator has no objection to the act of family violence, statements from the perpetrator, the victim, or witnesses are required; if the perpetrator denies the act, the victim’s statement or witness testimony along with another type of auxiliary evidence is needed. The types of auxiliary evidence include: audiovisual data recording the process of family violence, related phone recordings, text messages, instant messaging information, emails, and other electronic data, testimony from relatives, neighbors, and other witnesses, statements made by minor children involved that are appropriate to their age and intelligence, remorse or guarantee letters previously issued by the perpetrator, medical opinion on injuries, medical records, and records of complaints, reflections, or help requests received by relevant departments and units, totaling 8 categories of evidence.
ㅤㅤZhongxiu states that the purpose of this regulation is to further enhance the role of the family violence warning system, actively intervene to resolve family and romantic relationship disputes, effectively prevent and stop family violence, maintain equal, harmonious, and civilized family relations, promote family harmony, and social stability. However, according to data from the research team of Beijing Qianqian Law Firm cited in this news, out of 1073 cases involving family violence, only 29.8% of plaintiffs submitted evidence related to family violence, and more than half of these submitted only a single piece of uncorroborated evidence. In terms of evidence types, the most common are family violence-related photos, including injury photos and scenes of domestic violence, accounting for 33.44%; followed by evidence issued by public security organs, such as police dispatch records and mediation documents, accounting for 32.81%; and third, hospital-issued evidence, such as outpatient reports and diagnostic results, accounting for 28.44%. In these cases, photos, police dispatch records, and hospital certificates often lack sufficient validity; for example, police dispatch records often only record “family disputes” and cannot be used to recognize family violence due to vague descriptions. A police station chief in Yunnan, interviewed by media in 2021, stated that they received over 180 domestic violence reports last year but only issued six warning letters.
ㅤㅤFrom the outset, the “Opinions” reveal their absurdity: “if the perpetrator has no objection to the act of family violence, statements from the perpetrator, the victim, or witnesses are required.” In reality, which perpetrator would honestly admit to committing domestic violence? And when the perpetrator denies the violence, the eight types of auxiliary evidence the victim needs to provide—injury assessments, medical records, complaints, and reflections received by relevant departments—have been proven to often be unreliable due to vague descriptions. Lawyer Li Ying mentioned that victims in family violence cases face very unfavorable evidence collection conditions. For victims, collecting evidence not only requires authenticity and legality but also relevance to family violence. In many cases, victims need to prove that their injuries are recurrent and long-term. “Many victims only start collecting evidence when they can no longer tolerate it, and much of their past records are lost,” Li Ying explained. With increased legal awareness, both victims and perpetrators are becoming more conscious of legal issues. “Many victims say that when the other party tries to hit them, they immediately confiscate their phone to prevent recording or filming.” As a result, audiovisual recordings of family violence and related phone recordings, texts, instant messages, and emails often become difficult to collect as evidence. Three-quarters of the eight types of evidence thus become empty words.
ㅤㅤIt is evident that the introduction of such a law cannot fundamentally change the painful reality faced by women subjected to domestic violence. After enacting this law, Zhongxiu even counterattacked women who resist, claiming that family violence has its particularities, and in interviews, police officers complain that many victims, when angry, finally, under the persuasion of relatives or after their anger subsides, end up reporting their own family members to the authorities for severe punishment. The enforcers of the ruling class’s order, instead of being protectors, become betrayed by the very system they serve, while victims suffering oppression are falsely accused of making trouble. It seems as if the police themselves have become helpless justice agents, reluctantly resorting to “verbal warnings.” But even official statistics from Zhongxiu expose their hypocrisy: in a related empirical analysis of domestic violence cases in Jianli City, Hubei Province, it was found that the recurrence rate of family violence after verbal handling was more than six times higher than after written handling. Zhongxiu claims that “anti-family violence is a shared responsibility of the state, society, and every family,” yet in practice, they impose numerous restrictions on anti-family violence efforts. Such empty words alone can provoke outrage among male chauvinists, who claim that laws only protect women and not men in domestic violence cases. Yet, those in the position of oppressors have never heard the deep cries of women at night, nor have they seen them bow their heads in silence after being beaten, nor have they ever stood in the oppressed position, only to swallow tears after being beaten. The issuance of this “Opinions” clearly exposes the bourgeoisie’s hypocritical legal facade, which cannot truly protect oppressed women but merely serves as a superficial ornament, subjected to heavy patriarchal pressure. “Long song must be sung after crying,” as the saying goes. Once aware of Zhongxiu’s hypocrisy, countless oppressed women will eventually move forward with greater resolve.