On July 6, 2006, two Canadians, Mr. David Kilgour and Mr. David Matas, issued the Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China. Again on January 31, 2007 came out its revised edition. They "announced" a breaking piece of news that big enough to strike the world: the Chinese Government, in a large quantity, was harvesting the living organs from Falun Gong practitioners.
What on earth is the truth then? Did their accusation really reveal a huge plot? Was it an exaggeration based on certain facts? Or was it a sheer fabrication out of nothing and a malicious defamation? Here, China Association for Cultic Studies(aka. CACS) puts forward some of the examples and their logical reasoning mentioned in the report together with the information we obtained so that the readers can have your own judgment.
I. The expert of China Medical Organ Transplant Association expressed his indignation at the report's trumping up the words in his name.
In the "report", Professor Shi Bingyi, vice-chair of the China Medical Organ Transplant Association, was the only professional person as the witness identified by Mr. David Kilgour and Mr. David Matas.
The report says: "Shi Bingyi, vice-chair of the China Medical Organ Transplant Association, says there were about 90,000 transplants in total up until 2005, leaving about 60,000 transplants in the six year period from 2000 to 2005 since the persecution of Falun Gong began."
In early January 2007, when interviewed by BBC regarding this topic, Professor Shi Bingyi read a statement:
"I have never spoken such words on any occasion. These statistics are utterly baseless. I have no idea for what purpose these two authors fabricated these words. Nor do I know what interests drove them to make rumors."
Obviously, Professor Shi was very angry about the purely fictitious quotation by Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas and raised queries about their intention to fabricate his words.
What was funny was that Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas continued to spread this rumor in the name of Professor Shi in their "revised edition" of the report issued at the end of January, 2007 and made the rumor even bigger and more astonishing.
II. Basing the accusation on exposed lies
After the "report", its "revised edition" continued to use an important accusation:"A woman using the pseudonym Annie told us that her surgeon husband told her that he personally removed the corneas from approximately 2,000 anaesthetized Falun Gong prisoners in Sujiatun Hospital in Shenyang City in northeast China during the two-year-period before October, 2003, at which time he refused to continued. None of the cornea 'donors' survived... All of their bodies were then burned... We accept that what Annie says her husband told her was not only told to her but also is credible."
To many people, such accusation is nothing new. In March, 2006, Falun Gong media such as "The Epoch Times", taking this pseudonym Annie as the witness, accused:"In Sujiatun district of Shenyang City, Liaoning Province of China, there exists a concentration camp with over 6,000 Falun Gong prisoner. Among them, more than 4,000 were put into the cremator after being removed organs by the Chinese Government. Some of the organs have even been sold to Thailand."
They also listed the so-called "witnesses" and "evidences", such as the pictures of the hospital used as the concentration camp and its cremator, the picture of the dead bodies from which the organs had been removed as well as the testimony of the doctors and nurses from the hospital. Among them, the most famous witness was this woman using the pseudonym Annie, who could not be identified.
However, after the interviews by a large number of media in and out of China and the press conference held by the hospital, which was accused to be the concentration camp, the so-called "Sujiatun concentration camp" was proven to be a big lie. The "cremator" was actually the boiler house of the hospital. And the photos were taken from elsewhere or deliberate montages. After two on-the-spot investigations by the US Embassy in China and its Consulate-General in Shenyang, a spokeswoman of US Embassy was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that "according to all the information we have been able to obtain thus far, the site is functioning only as a hospital."
For the same time, Falun Gong sect itself realized that this lie could not fool the people around the world anymore. In late April 2006, it started to send out two "instructions": One was to stop the propaganda about "Sujiatun concentration camp". The other was to provide materials about hospital's removing organs from Falun Gong practitioners nationwide. These instructions can be found at Falun Gong's Minghui website.
Surprisingly, Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas still used this lie in their "report" and its "revised edition" which were issued after this lie had been fully exposed. In fact, this lie ran through the whole "report" and its "revised edition" as an important basis for their accusation.
Compared with the "report", its "revised edition" added some "persuasive" examples. Nevertheless, these "evidences" were obviously faked by Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas.
In the "revised report", Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas described:"Dr. Lu of the Minzu hospital in Nanning city admitted that he earlier went to select healthy Falun Gong persons in their 30s to provide their organs."
The fact is that in the year of 2003, the Minzu Hospital in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region did only one kidney transplant operation supervised by doctor from other hospitals. After that, it has never done any transplant operation. Dr. Lu, one day in May or June 2006, he received a phone call from a strange woman, saying that her relative urgently needed a kidney transplant and hoping that the operation could be done at the Minzu Hospital. She also asked about the source of the kidney. Dr. Lu told her that there had been only one case of kidney transplant operation in the hospital and as a young graduate from the medical college; he was at that time in another department of the hospital. He therefore knew nothing about the operation, not to mention the source of the kidney.
But in the "report", two Davids gave such descriptions:
M: Then they use organs from Falun Gong practitioners?
M: ...What you used before (organs from Falun Gong practitioners), was it from detention centre(s) or the prison(s)?
Lu: From prisons.
M: ... and it was from healthy Falun Gong practitioners...?
Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas, at the beginning of the "report", has made clear their neutral and objective stand and utmost rigorous attitude. But they made such deliberate misleading towards the witness and distorting of his words. They even went further to put the conversation that had never happened upon their selected witness. Did these two Davids comply with the "independent, objective and rigorous" principles in this way?
The investigations of Mr. Wu Hongda
As we all know, Mr. Wu Hongda, who lives in the US, is a "dissident" and a "guard for human rights" widely acclaimed by European and American media. After Falun Gong's breaking "news" of "Sujiatun Concentration Camp", the important content of the "report" and its "revised edition", he expressed his queries openly.
In his two statement, My Opinion about Falun Gong and Sujiatun Issue and My Understanding about Falun Gong media`s Report on Sujiatun Concentration Camp, Mr. Wu analyzed one by one the witnesses and their testimonies of Sujiatun issue accused by Falun Gong. He also made investigation. And his conclusion was that such propaganda was not true.
What was interesting was that Mr. Wu Hongda mentioned in one of his statements that later, Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas visited him, wishing him to agree with Falun Gong's accusation. Mr. Wu refused. The above-mentioned facts can be found in Wu's statement, My Understanding about Falun Gong media's Report on Sujiatun Concentration Camp, at the website www.observechina.net.
Using the "evidence" that could not be proven or did not exist as its evidence
The "evidence" in the "report" did not meet the basic requirement of its application and could not prove the so-called "allegations" at all. For example, the evidence in the report could be mainly divided into two categories:
One was the deponent's testimony or recording. But the "report" did not provide the name, identification, address and contact details of any deponent or the time, venue, procedure, witness and etc. of the testimony. None of the deponent's testimonies could be verified.
The other category was the materials downloaded by the authors from the website or other channels which even Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas could not tell. It was obvious that, from the law's angle, the so-called accusation could not be justified if it was deduced directly or indirectly from the information collected from the website.
Since none of the so-called evidences could be proven, the authors could only be ambiguous and indefinite words such as "probably", "it is said" and "if " were widely used in the whole report, which has betrayed the minimum norms of a law worker.
From other examples of the report, we can see that the strong emotions of Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas overwhelmed their due reason as law workers or independent investigators, which led them to use false premises and false deduction and try to make the readers draw the conclusion as they expected. For instance, the report says, "China, according to its constitution, is ruled by the Communist Party. It is not ruled dy law." In fact, when opening the Chinese Constitution, one can read, "The People's Republic of China practices ruling the country in accordance with the law and building a socialist country of law."
It is the problem of sincerity and morality.
According to the description of the "report" and its "revised edition", Mr. Kilgour used to be a congressman, a public procurator and Mr. Matas is a human rights lawyer "actively promoting the society's respect for the human rights".
However, after the analysis of the evidence and the appeal of the witness, will people have queries about the sincerity and morality of Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas, who have respected experiences and identifications in the "report" and its "revised edition"? Do Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas need to describe the fact with facts instead of fabrications and prove their sincerity and morality to the people in the world?
People may have different views with and even criticize others because of their political or cultural differences. But, it has become the problem of sincerity and morality if to spread rumors and even participate in the rumor making against others just because of these differences.
(Complied by China Association for Cultic Studies)