The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs: Individual Cases – by David Matas

Revised remarks

William Pitt Union, University of Pittsburgh

28 March 2013

The conclusion that practitioners of the spiritually based set of exercises Falun Gong have been killed in large numbers for their organs relies on the confluence of a number of evidentiary trails. This evidence does not necessarily identify individual victims. Sometimes I am asked to do just that, to name names.

This request may be made out of scepticism. When I say that tens of thousands of practitioners of Falun Gong have been killed for their organs, sometimes I get the retort, name one.

Alternatively, the request to identify individual cases is made because activism around an individual case may be easier than advocacy around a general phenomenon. It is harder for the Government of China to skate round an inquiry when it is pointed, when we tell them of the name of the victim, the date of the victimization and the place where it occurred.

State Organs – Introduction

jpeg-1The purpose of medicine is to provide care for those who suffer. The Hippocratic Oath commits medical doctors to not do harm. Giving a lethal drug to anyone or advising such an action violates that oath. Yet, in China, we can see that this ethical principle is violated by the taking of organs from prisoners, including prisoners of conscience. These prisoners of conscience are mostly practitioners of Falun Gong, but also include Uighurs, Tibetans and others.

While organ transplant abuse exists in many countries, China presents a unique situation, a country where state institutions are heavily implicated in the abuse. How do we stop the killing in China of innocents for their organs?

There appear to be three basic answers to that question. One is to end the persecution against a particular group such as Falun Gong, which was banned in China in 1999 because the then leader of the Communist Party, Jiang Zemin, feared that its popularity would threaten the ideological supremacy of the Party. The second is to end the network of slave labour camps in China, euphemistically called “re-education through labour camps”, where detained Falun Gong are mostly housed and which have become vast forced organ donor banks. The third is to end the killing of prisoners for their organs in general. End the killing of all prisoners for their organs, and then the killing of prisoners of conscience for their organs would inevitably cease.

Chinese Blind Spot – by Ethan Gutmann

BY ETHAN GUTMANN Investigating Chinese surveillance is a rather lonely job. For all the dissidents yammering about dramatic arrests and torture and harvesting of organs, you can’t really guarantee publication or much of an audience unless you can prove that there are links to America: brand name corporations, scary cutting-edge U.S. technology, insidious Washington collusion. That’s…

China’s Gruesome Organ Harvest – The whole world isn’t watching – by Ethan Gutmann

NOV 24, 2008, VOL. 14, NO. 10 • BY ETHAN GUTMANN

Bangkok

The jeepney driver sizes us up the minute we climb in. My research assistant is a healthy, young Israeli dude, so I must be the one with the money. He addresses his broken English to me: “Girl?”

No. No girls. Take us to the …

“Ladyboy? Kickboxer?”

No. No ladyboy, no kickboxer, thanks. I may be a paunchy, sweaty, middle-aged white guy, but I’m here to–well, actually, I am on my way to meet a Chinese woman in a back alley. She is going to tell me intimate stories of humiliation, torture, and abuse. And the truly shameful part is that after 50 or so interviews with refugees from Chinese labor camps, I won’t even be listening that closely.

Testimony of Ethan Gutmann – “Human Rights in China”

House International Relations Committee
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations

Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 10:30 A.M.
2172 Rayburn House Office Building.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to make a contribution to the Committee’s profoundly important work.

Approximately two months ago, your Committee heard representatives of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco Systems defend their companies’ role in constructing China’s Internet. Simultaneously the Committee floated an extremely important draft – the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 – which appeared to place this committee and the aforementioned companies on a collision course. Some commentators, particularly those searching for a middle way, characterized the Online Freedom Act as an “overreaction.” I don’t agree. I believe that it is better characterized as a tragedy.

I would guess that few people in this room actually desire intrusive government intervention and oversight of U.S. companies. I certainly don’t. I’m a former consultant to American corporations operating in China and a former vice-chair of the Government Relations Committee for the American Chamber of Commerce Beijing. I’m also a former believer in the concept that we would change China, not that China would change us.