本文通过一路BBS站telnet客户端发布
http://organharvestinvestigation.net/events/KilgourMatasReply.pdf
Response of David Matas and David Kilgour to the
Chinese Government statements
August 7, 2006
The Government of China Embassy in Canada issued a first response to our Report into
Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China. A full copy of our
report can be obtained at: http://davidkilgour.ca, http://organharvestinvestigation.net or
http://investigation.go.saveinter.net. The first Chinese response was issued the same
day as our report, July 6, 2006. We replied to that Chinese response shortly
afterwards.
The Government of China then issued a second response dated July 26, 2006. The
second Chinese statement repeats a number of criticisms which are found in their first
statement. The following reaction, accordingly, incorporates our answers to the first
Chinese statement.
1. The first statement of the Government of China dismissed our Report out of hand.
We viewed this reaction is unconsidered. It meant that the Government of China
engaged in no investigations to determine whether or not what the report contains is
true.
The second Chinese statement released almost three weeks after the release of our
report gave the Government of China time to delve into our report and produce any
contradictory information. Yet, there is none. The second response has a good deal of
invective, but no factual information which contradicts or undermines our conclusions
or analysis or even casts on them a different light.
2. The sole factual quarrel the Government of China has with the report has nothing to
- 2 -
do with the substance of the report. The Government of China correctly noted that we
placed two cities in the wrong provinces. We had indicated in an appendix that Wu
Han is in Hunan when it is in Hubei and that Qin Huangdao is in Shandong when it is in
Hebei. The Chinese Government blames these mistakes on our interpreter.
Yet, these errors were not interpreter errors, nor could they have been, since names
are phonetically the same in Chinese and English. Moreover, as can be seen in the
Report, the names are not part of the interpreted texts. Indeed, it is apparent that our
interpreter knew that Wu Han is in Hubei and not Hunan because the interpreted text
found in our report refers to Hubei and not Hunan.
Rather the mistakes occur in the captions. The errors are found in the introductory
headings to the texts rather than the texts themselves. The errors can not be ascribed
either to the interpreters or to the investigators who made the calls. The investigators
gave us the cities to which their calls were made, but not the provinces. We mislocated
two of those cities when expanding the captions the investigators gave us. The reason
for this error is that we relied on the memory of native Chinese whom we asked to
identify the provinces in which the cities are found rather than checking out this
information on our own.
We had realized one of these errors on July 18th, the Qin Huangdao error, before the
Chinese Government response, and had corrected our report on our website
accordingly. We have now corrected the other error.
These two errors, and they are the only ones anyone has been able to identify, do not
justify questioning the analysis or conclusions of the report. Indeed, in two respects
they strengthen it.
One can legitimately say, if this is all that anyone, including the Chinese government,
with all its resources and inside knowledge, can produce to question the facts in our
- 3 -
report, that our report sits on a rock solid foundation. Secondly, the practice of organ
harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners is even more widespread than we had originally
reported, since, through our error, we had omitted reference to the existence of the
practice in Hebei province. The mistaken allocation of Qin Huangdao to Shandong
Province instead of Hebei province meant that we had identified two sites of organ
harvesting in Shandong province and none in Hebei province. The other site we had
previously correctly identified as in Shandong province is Qianfoshan. With the
correction, we now have identified one site of organ harvesting in Shandong province
and one in Hebei province.
3. Both Government of China statements attribute initial reports of harvesting of organs
in Sujiatun hospital to Falun Gong practitioners. Yet, the initial reports about Sujiatun
Hospital did not come from Falun Gong practitioners. The initial reports originated from
the ex-wife of a surgeon at Sujiatun Hospital. Neither the ex-wife nor her husband is a
Falun Gong practitioner.
4. Both Chinese responses question our independence from Falun Gong. Yet, there is
no factual basis on which our independence has been questioned. We are not Falun
Gong practitioners. We did our report as volunteers. We were not paid for our report
by Falun Gong or anyone. Our report represents our own judgment. We have not acted
on the instructions of Falun Gong or anyone else in coming to the conclusions we did.
5. Both Chinese statements refer to a shifting Falun Gong narrative in consequence of a
disproof of the original story about Sujiatun Hospital. Yet, the ex-wife of the surgeon
who made the initial statement about Sujiatun Hospital has not changed or shifted her
story at any time. David Kilgour interviewed her. An excerpt of the interview can be
found at Appendix 13 of our report.
6. Moreover, though we did not rely on the testimony of the ex-wife in our report
except insofar as it was corroborated by other evidence, we do not consider it
- 4 -
disproved. It is our own opinion, expressed in our report, that this woman was not
lying. We concluded that she was credible. In our report, this is what we said about
the testimony of this witness:
"The testimony of the wife of the surgeon allegedly complicit in Falun Gong
organ harvesting was credible to us, partly because of its extreme detail.
However, that detail also posed a problem for us, because it provided a good
deal of information which it was impossible to corroborate independently. We
were reluctant to base our findings on sole source information. So, in the end,
we relied on the testimony of this witness only where it was corroborative and
consistent with other evidence, rather than as sole source information."
Our report is not a shift from what this witness says, but rather an expansion, with a
larger focus than just Sujiatun Hospital.
7. The second Chinese Government response refers to the statement of the ex-wife of
the surgeon, which she made to us and which we reproduced in our report, that her
husband removed the corneas of 2,000 Falun Gong prisoners in two years. The
Government of China questions this figure on the basis that "he would have to finish
three cornea transplantations within one day and everyday without rest" and then
argues "this is an absurd lie which no one with common sense would believe".
The Government of China response confuses transplanting and harvesting. The
testimony of the ex-wife was organs harvested from 2,000 people, not two thousand
transplants. She did not claim that her husband was engaged in transplant surgery.
The husband was, according to her testimony, removing the corneas from the eyes of
Falun Gong practitioners, not placing those corneas into the eyes of recipient patients.
Harvesting surgery is, obviously, quicker than the combination of harvesting and
transplanting. Moreover, corneas, unlike other organs, are dead tissue. They do not
need to be transplanted immediately once harvested. They can survive on the shelf for
a considerable period. We are told that a cornea harvest can be completed in ten to
- 5 -
twenty minutes. For an operation that length of time, what the ex-wife said about the
volume of corneas harvested in two years does not does not put her testimony in
doubt.
8. The second Chinese statement refers to the fact that journalists and diplomats
visited Sujiatun Hospital after the initial reports had surfaced and found no evidence
that the site was being used for organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners. We were
aware of these visits when we wrote our reports, but did not mention them because
we did not find them significant. We would not have expected these visitors to find
anything even if the initial reports of organ harvesting from the ex-wife of the surgeon
were true. An operation leaves no trace in an operating room after it is completed.
Operating rooms are cleaned up, sanitized, made antiseptic after each and every
operation.
9. The first Chinese statement then says: "It is obvious that their purpose is to smear
China's image." We reply that we have no wish to smear China's image. Our sole
concerns are respect for the truth and human rights.
10. Both Chinese statements say:
"China has consistently abided by the relevant guiding principles of the World
Health Organization endorsed in 1991, prohibiting the sale of human organs and
stipulating that donors' written consent must be obtained beforehand and donors
are entitled to refuse the donation at last minute."
This statement was belied by the facts. The China International Transplantation
Network Assistance Centre Website until April of this year set out a price list for
transplants. The price list was removed from the website in April, but is still archived.
To see the web site now, go to <http://en.zoukiishoku.com>. To see the archived site,
go to
<http://archive.edoors.com/render.php?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fen.zoukiishoku.com%2Fli
st%2Fcost.htm+&x=16&y=11>. As well, many individuals can attest to paying for
- 6 -
organ transplants in China.
11. The statement in both responses that China has consistently abided by the principle
stipulating that donors' written consent must be obtained beforehand is also belied by
the facts. Human Rights Watch has reported that consent is obtained from executed
prisoners in only a minority of cases. The organization writes that even in this minority
of cases
"the abusive circumstances of detention and incarceration in China, from the
time a person is first accused of a capital offense until the moment of his or her
execution, are such as to render absurd any notion of "free and voluntary
consent."
Organ Procurement and Judicial Execution in China, August 1994.
12. Both Chinese statements say:
"China has issued a regulation on human organ transplants, explicitly banning
the sale of organs and introducing a set of medical standards for organ
transplants in an effort to guarantee medical safety and the health of patients.
The regulation requires medical institution which is qualified for practising
human organ transplant to register at provincial level health department.
Unregistered medical institutions are forbidden to practice human organ
transplant. If the government finds any registered institution violating the
regulation, it will cancel the registration and punish the people responsible."
We acknowledge that this is so, and wrote about it in our report. We also note that this
legislation came into force only a few days before our report was released on July 1st.
It is not an answer to our findings about what happened before that date. Moreover, in
China, there is a huge gap between enacting legislation and enforcing it.
Our first reply, issued long before the second Chinese response, made this point. Yet,
the second Chinese response just repeats word for word what was in their first
response on this point.
- 7 -
It is an error to refer to a law which came into effect after the relevant period to deny
that something happened earlier. When this error is pointed out to the Government of
China and the Government persists in the error nonetheless, we can only conclude that
this error is deliberate.
13. The Government of China wrote in its first response: "It is very clear that Falun
Gong's rumour has ulterior political motives." None of our findings are based on
rumour. Every finding we make is sourced and independently verifiable.
14. As well, what could the politics of the Falun Gong possibly be? They are not a
political party or movement with a political agenda. The Chinese Government describes
their political agenda, in its second response, as being "against everything from China"
a bizarre charge, but all too typical of the hyperbole into which the Government
launches when discussing this group.
15. The Falun Gong, to be sure, oppose human rights violations in China. But China is
more than just human rights violations. As well, human rights are not political. They
are universal. The notion of politics suggests a legitimate debate between opposing
points of view. But there is no legitimate debate between respect for human rights and
violations of human rights. Violations of human rights are always wrong. Respect for
human rights is always right.
16. The two China responses attack us, as not independent, and Falun Gong, as an evil
cult. We say that the Report has to be judged on its merits. Attacking its authors is not
an appropriate response.
17. The second China response is primarily an elaboration on the "evil cult" attack on
Falun Gong. The second response has eight paragraphs. Only three deal with organ
harvesting. One talks about Canada Chinese relations. Four paragraphs, the bulk of
- 8 -
the response, are a venomous attack on Falun Gong replete with false, slanderous
allegations.
It is this sort of slander which, in China, depersonalizes and dehumanizes the Falun
Gong and makes possible the violation of their basic human rights. Indeed, the fact
that the Government of China would make a hate filled attack on Falun Gong the focus
of their response to our report reinforces the analysis of the report.
The propaganda against the Falun Gong in these two responses is a form of incitement
to hatred, unacceptable in Canada. It is an abuse of their diplomatic presence in
Canada for China to engage in this form of incitement.
David Kilgour (613) 747-7854
David Matas (204) 944-1831
※ 修改:．lihlii 于 Apr 6 19:07:26 修改本文．[FROM: 82.210.0.0]
|
发表于 4-6-2009 14:18:13