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

Source
- Outlet
- 维权信息中心报告
- Original report
- https://wqw2010.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_708.html
- Original publication
- Jun 7, 2026
- Retrieved
- Aug 30, 2026
Related Reporting
Oct 15, 2026
Jiangsu Provincial People's Government Deprives Human Rights Defender Shen Aibin of His Right to Administrative Reconsideration and Right to Remedy Through a “Notice”
A Rights Defense Network Information Center report says Jiangsu’s provincial government notified human rights defender Shen Aibin on October 10, 2026, that his administrative reconsideration application was outside the scope of the Administrative Reconsideration Law because his government-information request concerned petition-related activity. Shen had sought information about the government’s handling of his complaint alleging abuse at Liyang Prison. He says the notice denies him review and a remedy, and plans to bring legal action.
Oct 15, 2026
Beijing’s Fengtai District Government Upholds Decision in Review Case Filed by Wuxi Xishan Petitioner Yin Baimei Over Fengtai Police’s Refusal to Open a Case
Beijing’s Fengtai District Government upheld a police decision not to open an administrative case after Wuxi petitioner Yin Baimei reported being detained and assaulted in Beijing on June 28, 2026. The Fengtai Public Security Sub-Bureau said its decision relied on a statement from Yangjian Police Station that officials had received Yin and persuaded her to return, without beating or injuring her. Yin disputes that account and says she will sue over the reconsideration decision.
Oct 15, 2026
Rights Defense Network: Deeply Mourning Mr. Zhou Yuanzhi — Pen and Ink as a Sword, His Bones Left by the Han River
Zhou Yuanzhi, a former Zhongxiang City tax official and independent writer, died of a heart attack on October 14, 2026, aged 65. He was arrested in 2008 over articles about corruption and human rights, and in 2019 received a combined four-and-a-half-year sentence for charges including organizing an illegal gathering. Released in May 2022, he continued writing and helping people with rights disputes. His novel Murky Wan’er River focused on disadvantaged women workers.
Oct 14, 2026
Case Details and Profile of Li Yuju, a Falun Gong Practitioner from Pingdu City, Shandong Province, Sentenced to 4 Years
A Rights Defense Network Information Center report said it learned on October 15, 2026, of the case of Li Yuju, a Falun Gong practitioner from Pingdu City, Shandong Province. Police arrested Li on January 7, 2026, while she was reading Falun Gong books with another practitioner, and she was held at Pudong Detention Center. On September 17, the Pingdu City Court sentenced her to four years in prison and fined her 20,000 yuan. Her sentence ends January 6, 2030.