Niu Tengyu’s Mother: Rights-Defense Diary in Guangzhou (3)—The Guangdong High Court Set Up a Series of “Intimidation Cudgels” to Threaten Me.
In《Water Margin》,when the authorities imprison criminals,they first give them a round of “intimidation cudgels”,to make them submit out of fear。This time,when I went to the Guangdong High Court to defend my son Niu Tengyu’s rights,although the court did not dare let its security guards beat me,it arranged a series of measures through the guards to threaten me,producing the effect of an “intimidation cudgel”。
Measure One、 Shouting Threats of Violence and Killing
At 3 p.m. on May 26,I once again came to the entrance of the High Court to defend my rights。Police vehicles were parked outside the High Court,their warning lights flashing;inside the High Court were more than 20 security guards,who saw me arrive through the fence,immediately assembled in formation,began practicing their punches and kicks,and shouted threats of violence and killing。
Generally speaking,the normal training times for military and police personnel are scheduled in the morning because temperature needs to be taken into consideration。It was 3 p.m. at the time,when Guangzhou was experiencing temperatures of 30 degrees and blazing sunshine。Practicing punches and kicks at that time was problematic in itself,and they did not practice before I arrived,but after seeing me arrive they urgently assembled in formation and began training。Their intention was obvious: before I entered the High Court,they wanted to demonstrate the court’s “strong forces and powerful troops” and “flourishing military prestige” to me,thereby sapping my resolve。
Measure Two、 High-Specification Security Checks
Before entering the Guangdong High Court,the court did not let us enter according to normal procedures,but instead subjected me and everyone accompanying me to comprehensive security checks,using scanners to scan each of us from head to toe。However,among those who entered the High Court ahead of us were quite a few people pulling wheeled suitcases,and they did not undergo such stringent security checks。
Why were such high-specification security checks conducted only on our group?First,they needed to check whether I was carrying concealed recording equipment,because the Guangdong High Court is full of lies and feared that I would record what they said and make it public;second,conducting a security check was also an excellent “intimidation cudgel”,because no matter how firmly determined you are to defend your rights,at the moment you undergo the security check,you will be like a puppet,at the mercy of others。
If this were a place such as an airport or railway station,where everyone had to undergo such strict security checks,that would not be unacceptable。But if such strict checks are conducted only on our group,then that is wielding an “intimidation cudgel”。
Measure Three、 Surrounding Us from Front and Rear and Filming Us as We Were Followed
When I entered through the gate after completing the security check,the Guangdong High Court security guards surrounded our group from the front and rear。Several security guards led us along,while another large group of guards followed behind us。Even when a leader holds a military parade in Tiananmen Square,there is not such a large display of force。
It would have been one thing if they had merely surrounded us from front and rear,but some of them even used body-worn law-enforcement cameras to film us。I turned around and demanded to know from the security guards what gave them the right to film us。One female security guard said that the body-worn camera had been given to her by the Guangzhou public security authorities,and that the public security authorities needed to record video about me。
The High Court had the security guards surround us from front and rear in order to intimidate us,trying to frighten us out of our wits so that they would have the psychological upper hand in subsequent negotiations。Their claim that this was a public-security law-enforcement recording,and their emphasis that the public security authorities needed to film me,was an attempt to use the authority of the public security authorities to pressure me,carrying a strong implication of: “All of you better behave yourselves,or be careful that the Guangdong public security authorities arrest every one of you.”
Facing the Guangdong authorities’ layers of “intimidation cudgels”,during my negotiations with staff members of the Guangdong High Court,I successfully forced the truth out of them——the Guangdong authorities’ so-called promise that “my son would be approved for parole,but on the condition that he must first plead guilty” was in fact a complete and utter fraud。Although the law allows my son to apply for parole after serving half of his sentence,the Guangdong High Court had not processed parole for anyone sentenced to more than 10 years for a very long time。In other words,although the law supports my son’s release through parole,the Guangdong Political-Legal Affairs Commission and High Court can use the excuse that “there has never been a case of granting parole to someone sentenced to more than 10 years” to block all procedures for granting my son parole after he pleads guilty。
Although the Guangdong High Court went to great lengths to intimidate me,I was not frightened by them。The reason is simple: since I began defending my son’s rights,I have been to Guangdong many times,and in order to intimidate me the Guangdong authorities once arranged large numbers of heavily armed special police officers to threaten me at the entrance to the Sihui City Prison;sent a leader to grab and pull at me on the street and threaten to put me in prison;and dispatched large numbers of Guangdong public security officers,domestic-security police and state-security agents to follow and harass me at the hotel where I stayed and the restaurants where I ate。
After experiencing all this,I had long since lost my fear。The Guangdong Political-Legal Affairs Commission and the Guangdong High Court are nothing more than “paper jackals” that particularly enjoy deceiving and frightening people,and such tricks of deception and intimidation have no effect on me。
June 7,2026

Related Reporting
Aug 30, 2026
China Rights Defense Network: Monthly Report on Political Prisoners and Prisoners of Conscience in Mainland China (August 31, 2026), Issue 131 (1,638 people in total)
The Rights Defense Network Information Center released its 131st monthly report on August 31, 2026, stating that 40 people on the previous roster had completed their sentences and been released, 30 had new developments while in prison, six had been newly criminally detained or forcibly disappeared, 28 had been newly sentenced, and one had died in prison; the report lists a total of 1,638 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in custody.
Aug 30, 2026
Case Details and Biography of Sun Chao, Christian Church Preacher in Qujing, Yunnan, Criminally Detained
Sun Chao, a Christian preacher at Philadelphia Church in Qujing, Yunnan, was transferred to criminal detention on August 7, 2026, after completing a 12-day administrative detention for preaching the Gospel. Authorities reportedly cited suspected “illegal organization of gatherings.” Sun, who has epilepsy and requires regular medication, is detained at Xuanwei City Detention Center. His wife, Zhao Ying, has appealed for attention to his health and rights.
Aug 29, 2026
Li Qiaochu: Update on Xu Zhiyong’s Situation in Prison (August 29, 2026)
The writer received a letter from Xu Zhiyong dated August 21, 2026, saying his outdoor time had improved to 10 a.m. daily for 30 minutes. Correspondence had also become smoother than during the previous two months. The writer considers the matter closed for now but plans to continue asking about Xu’s basic living conditions. Xu reportedly liked hand-drawn pictures sent with a letter in late July.
Aug 29, 2026
Chow Hang-tung: Statement of Plea
The author rejects a 206-page judgment that, they argue, treats belief in ending one-party dictatorship as unconstitutional and criminal. They say law cannot control thoughts, condemn obedience to authoritarian power, and describe ending one-party dictatorship as a responsibility of Hong Kong and Chinese people. The author refuses to apologize for these beliefs, accepts possible imprisonment, and vows to continue pursuing democracy, accountability for the 1989 massacre and a democratic Hong Kong and China.