Mother of Niu Tengyu: Guangzhou Rights Defense Diary (III)—Guangdong High Court Sets Up a Series of “威威杀棒” to Intimidate Me

In 《Water Margin》, when the authorities imprison criminals, they first administer a round of “威威杀棒” to make them submit out of fear. This time, when I went to the Guangdong High Court to defend the rights of my son, Niu Tengyu, although the court authorities did not dare have their security guards beat me, they arranged a series of measures through the guards to intimidate me, producing the effect of a “威威杀棒.”

Measure One: Shouting Threats of Violence

At 3 p.m. on May 26, I once again went to the entrance of the high court to defend my rights. Police cars were parked outside the court, their warning lights flashing; inside the court were more than 20 security guards. When they saw me arrive through the fence, they immediately assembled in formation, began practicing martial-arts moves, and shouted threats of violence.

Generally speaking, the normal training time for military and police personnel is arranged in the morning, because temperature must be taken into consideration. It was 3 p.m. at the time, with Guangzhou experiencing temperatures of 30 degrees Celsius and blazing sunshine. Practicing martial-arts moves at that time was problematic in itself. Moreover, they had not been practicing before I arrived, but urgently formed up and began training when they saw me arrive. Their intention was obvious: before I entered the high court, they wanted to display the court authorities’ “strong forces” and “flourishing military prestige” to me, thereby undermining my morale.

Measure Two: High-Level Security Checks

Before entering the Guangdong High Court, the court did not let us enter according to normal procedures. Instead, it conducted comprehensive security checks on me and everyone accompanying me, using scanners to scan each of our entire bodies. However, among those who entered the high court before us, some were even pulling wheeled suitcases, yet they did not undergo such stringent security checks.

Why did they subject only our group to such a high-level security check? First, they needed to check whether I was carrying concealed recording equipment, because the Guangdong High Court is full of lies and was afraid that I would record what they said and make it public. Second, conducting security checks is also an excellent “威威杀棒”: no matter how firm your resolve to defend your rights is, at the moment the security check is conducted, you become 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 administering a “威威杀棒.”

Measure Three: Surrounding Us from Front and Back and Recording Our Movements

When I entered after completing the security check, the security guards of the Guangdong High Court surrounded our group from both front and back. Several guards led us, while another large group followed behind us. Even when a leader holds a military parade ceremony in Tiananmen Square, there is not such a large display.

It would have been one thing if they had merely surrounded us from front and back, but some of them even used body-worn cameras to record us. I turned around and questioned the security guards, asking what right they had to record 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 concerning me.

The high court had the guards surround us from front and back in order to intimidate us, attempting to frighten us into submission so that we would be at a psychological disadvantage in subsequent negotiations. Their claim that this was a law-enforcement recording by the public security authorities, and their emphasis that the public security authorities needed to record me, was an attempt to exert pressure on me by borrowing the authority of the public security organs, essentially conveying the message: “All of you had better behave yourselves, or be careful that the Guangdong public security authorities do not arrest you all.”

Facing the Guangdong authorities’ layers of “威威杀棒,” during negotiations with staff members of the Guangdong High Court, I successfully pressed them to reveal the truth—the Guangdong authorities’ so-called promise that “my son will be granted parole, but on the condition that he must first plead guilty” was actually a complete fraud. Although the law allows my son to apply for parole after serving half of his sentence, for a long period the Guangdong High Court had never granted parole to anyone sentenced to more than 10 years. In other words, although the law supports my son’s release through parole, the Guangdong Political and Legal Affairs Commission and the high court can use the excuse that there has been “no precedent of granting parole to anyone 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 gone to Guangdong many times. To intimidate me, the Guangdong authorities once arranged for a large number of armed special police officers to threaten me at the entrance to Sihui City Prison; sent a leader to grab and pull me on the street and threaten to put me in prison; and dispatched large numbers of Guangdong public security officers, state security officers, and national security officers to follow and harass me at the hotels where I stayed and the restaurants where I ate.

After experiencing all this, I have long since lost my fear. The Guangdong Political and Legal Affairs Commission and the Guangdong High Court are nothing more than “paper jackals” that particularly like deceiving and frightening people; these tricks of deception and intimidation have no effect on me.

June 7, 2026