Wikipedia

User:HappyInGeneral/Persecution of Falun Gong sources

< User:HappyInGeneral
(Redirected from Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong/sources)

List sources here.

Note

This list is far for complete just yet.

Format

== Some kind of categorization, like primary, secondary, high reliability==

=== Title of the source ===

  • Link:
  • Author:
  • Source reliability:
  • Quotes:
    1. relevant quotes here, these should be also present in the quote= parameter of the Template:Citation used to describe the article
    2. another quote from this source
    3. etc ...
  • Additional notes: ... an interpretation regarding this source (optional)
Structure
  • == Primary Sources ==
    These are self published sources, these usually should be collaborated with "Secondary Sources" otherwise they should not have place in this encyclopedia, per WP:NOTABILITY. Also see discussion here.
  • == Secondary Sources ==
    WP:RS
  • == Highly Reliable Sources ==
    WP:RS + recognized experts in their field

Primary sources edit

Secondary sources edit

SAKHAROV PRIZE 2001 edit

  • Link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/committees/afet/20011002/444750EN.pdf
  • Author: European Parliament; Committee On Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security And Defence Policy
  • Quotes:
    1. Introduction: "Born in 1951, Changchun of Jilin Province, China, Mr. Li Hongzhi made public Falun Dafa (or Falun Gong) in 1992, an apolitical spiritual practice with ancient roots." ... "
    2. The motives behind the persecution: "In July 1999 the Chinese authority stopped supporting Falun Gong and began a ruthless persecution of this ancient practice because (1) the number of practitioners has reached 70 to 100 million and this outnumbers the party members, and (2) the Chinese authority fears the revival of this traditional culture would undermine the ideology based on which the regime rules the people."
    3. Actions against Mr. Li Hongzhi: "Mr. Li Hongzhi was denounced by the Chinese authority as the Most-Wanted criminal, but Interpol flatly rejected the request to extradite him because he has no criminal record and is wanted for political reasons. Mr. Li's character was venomously attacked in the state-run media, and assassins were sent in search of him. Falun Gong has since then been banned, and people who practice Falun Gong are being persecuted for upholding their beliefs. This is the most violent atrocity against freedom of conscience in modern history."

Falun Gong's Challenge to China edit

  • Link: Falun Gong's Challenge to China, page 65, Chapter 5: Li Hongzhi and the Falun Gong "network"
  • Author: Danny Schechter
  • Quotes:
    1. "By presenting Li and Falun Gong practitioners as criminals, the Chinese goverment deflects attention from the blatantly political character of its campaign against them."

High reliability sources edit

United Nations: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir edit

Long quote edit

the long quote

Communication sent on 29 December 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

21. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had received concerning two female Falun Gong practitioners. According to the information received, on the night of 24 November 2005, one woman aged 51 was abducted by an estimated seven policemen. Her home was ransacked and all Falun Gong materials were seized. She was taken to Dongchengfang Town Police Station in Tunzhou City, Hebei Province, where she was interrogated, beaten with rubber clubs and shocked with stun batons. At approximately 2 p.m. on 25 November 2005, a police officer took her to a room, where he lifted her shirt and touched her breasts. He then shocked her breasts with a stun baton. Another police officer came into the room and raped her. During the rape, he repeatedly slapped her in the face. He then brought another woman aged 42 into the same room and raped her too. The two rapes took place in the presence of another police officer, who made no attempt to intervene or prevent the incidents.

Response from the Government dated 28 June 2006

22. The Government informed that on 24 November 2005, two female Falun Gong practitioners and other residents of Dongchengfang township in Tunzhou city, Hebei province, were taken into the local public security office for questioning on suspicion of involvement in illegal activities. They were released in the afternoon of the same day.

23. On 26 November 2005, the Dashiqiao criminal police team in the Tunzhou city public security bureau received a complaint from one of the two female Falun Gong practitioners claiming that she had been raped by a police officer. On 27 November 2005, the other woman also filed a report with the Tunzhou public security bureau, stating that she too had been raped. The public security authorities promptly summoned the accused police officer. In the ensuing questioning and investigation, it was ascertained that he was a temporary employee in the Dongchengfang township public security office. He admitted that in the afternoon of 25 November 2005, he had taken the two women in turn back to his hostel, where he had indecently assaulted one and raped the other. On 9 December 2005, following approval from the procurator’s authorities, he was taken into custody.

24. On 29 April 2006, the Baoding city people’s procurator in Hebei province instituted criminal proceedings with the Baoding city people’s intermediate level court against the police officer for commission of the offences of rape and indecent assault of a woman. On 19 May 2006, after hearing the case, the Baoding city people’s intermediate level court, applying the principle of aggregation of penalties for multiple offences, passed judgment at first instance, sentencing the defendant to eight years’ fixed term imprisonment. After judgment had been passed at first instance, the defendant did not accept the verdict and lodged an appeal. On 17 June 2006, the Hebei people’s high court handed down its final judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment. The Chinese Constitution and law guarantee the exercise by all citizens of their lawful rights. The Government emphasized that any conduct which harms citizens’ lawful rights and interests will be punished under law.

Observations

25. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response and for providing details of the investigations and conviction of a police officer in that case. She would like to reiterate that women and detainees are in a particularly vulnerable situation and it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the States’ legislative and administrative systems provide adequate protection to victims and effective remedies. The Special Rapporteur would also appreciate further information about the allegation that the two rapes took place in the presence of another police officer, who reportedly made no attempt to intervene or prevent the incidents.

'Urgent appeal sent on 31 August 2006 jointly with the 'Special Rapporteur on the question of torture

26. The Special Rapporteurs received information concerning Bu Dongwei (also known as David Bu), aged 38, and Falun Gong practitioner. According to the allegations received, on 19 May 2006, he was detained by around seven police officers at his home in the Haidian district of Beijing. On 19 June 2006, he was assigned to two and a half years re-education through labour in connection with his activities as a member of the Falun Gong spiritual movement by Beijing’s Re-education through Labour Committee, which has the power to impose periods of arbitrary detention without charge or trial. He was accused of “resisting the implementation of national laws” and “disturbing social order” on the basis of evidence including a verbal confession he made to the police and 80 copies of Falun Gong literature discovered in his home. He is due to be released on 18 November 2008.

27. Despite repeated requests to the authorities, his family has not been told where he is being detained although unconfirmed reports have been received that he may have been transferred to Tuanhe Re-education through Labour facility in Beijing on 21 August 2006. There are concerns that he is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. Bu Dongwei had previously served a term of ten months re-education through labour from August 2000 to May 2001 in Tuanhe for “using a heretical organization to disrupt the implementation of the law” after he petitioned the authorities asking them to review their ban on Falun Gong. During this period, he was reportedly beaten and made to sit all day in a small chair. He was also subjected to sleep deprivation aimed at forcing him to renounce his belief in Falun Gong.

Response from the Government dated 28 November 2006

28. Bu Dongwei, born on 11 March 1968, is an ethnic Han Chinese and university graduate. In July 2000, he was ordered to serve a term of one year’s labour re-education for using a heretical cult to disrupt law and order. On 13 June 2006, Bu Dongwei was ordered by the Beijing city labour re-education committee to serve a further two and a half years’ labour re-education, to run from 19 June 2006 to 18 November 2008, for using a heretical cult to disrupt law and order. Bu Dongwei is currently serving this term in the Tuanhe labour re-education facility in Beijing.

29. Inquiries have established that, while being held in the Tuanhe labour re-education facility, Bu Dongwei has not been subjected to any ill-treatment. The accusations in the letter that we have received that he was beaten by the police in the labour re-education facility and subjected to sleep deprivation are without substance. The Chinese labour re-education facility operates a strict management system, under which the ill-treatment of inmates undergoing labour re-education is categorically prohibited, and any persons disobeying this rule shall be punished in accordance with the law. Within the labour re-education facilities there are procurator representatives, specializing in supervision of the conduct of law-enforcement activities by the police in the labour re-education facility.

30. As to the question whether Bu Dongwei lodged an appeal or whether an appeal was lodged on his behalf by a representative, Chinese laws and regulations stipulate that persons undergoing labour re-education may, within 60 days of receipt of the labour re-education order, submit an application for administrative review to the local government office that issued the order or, within three months of receipt of the labour re-education order, lodge an administrative appeal directly with the local people’s court. This right is explicitly stated in the labour re-education order that was issued to Bu Dongwei. On 5 May, Bu Dongwei presented a power of attorney to the people’s police in the labour re education facility, naming his wife as his legal representative in dealing with all matters relating to his application for administrative review.

31. The Chinese Government wishes to draw the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the fact that “Falun Gong” is not a religion, nor is it a spiritual movement. It is an anti-scientific, anti-human, anti-social cult. “Falun Gong” poses a serious menace to Chinese society, leading great numbers of its duped followers to cause harm to themselves and even to take their own lives. The Chinese Government conducts patient persuasive counselling and educational work among rank-and-file “Falun Gong” practitioners, fully upholds all their rights and helps them return to their normal lives. A small number of “Falun Gong” practitioners receive punishments in accordance with the law, but this is not because of their opinions or belief: it is because their activities have breached the law, harming the interests of the State, society and individuals. In the course of the present case, the relevant departments have strictly observed due process and have guaranteed the exercise by the parties involved of their lawful rights and interests.

Observations

32. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response. With regard to the question of “cults” or “sects”, she would like to refer to the chapter on “Religious minorities and new religious movements” in her report to the fourth session of the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/4/21, paras. 43-47). The Special Rapporteur reiterates her predecessor’s assessment that, apart from the legal courses available against harmful activities, “it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of people’s consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or conviction” (E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99). Similarly, during the elaboration of general comment No. 22, Human Rights Committee member Rosalyn Higgins was “resolutely opposed the idea that States could have complete latitude to decide what was and what was not a genuine religious belief. The contents of a religion should be defined by the worshippers themselves; as for manifestations, article 18, paragraph 3, existed to prevent them from violating the rights of others” (CCPR/C/SR.1166, para. 48). The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed, bearing in mind that manifestations of this freedom may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Special Rapporteur continues to be very concerned by the continued violations of freedom of religion or belief suffered by Falun Gong practitioners (see E/CN.4/2005/61, paras. 37-38; E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, para. 109; A/HRC/4/21/Add.1, para. 88).

Urgent appeal sent on 1 December 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture

33. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government information they had received regarding Mr. Zhang Hongwei, member of the “Falun Gong”, detained in Jilin prison at the time the communication was sent. According to the information received, Mr. Hongwei was arrested in Beijing and sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment in 2001. He was transferred to Tiebei Prison in Changchun city, where he went on a 53-day hunger strike, and subsequently to Jilin Prison in March 2002. He was held in solitary confinement for two years and five months and ill-treated. His conditions of health were severe. By the beginning of 2006, Mr. Zhang was continuously coughing and type III tuberculosis was diagnosed. Body fluid was accumulating in his chest and in March 2006 he also suffered from pleurisy, high blood pressure and heart disease. Thereafter, he was transferred to the prison hospital, however, still ill-treated by prison guards. Several applications by Mr. Zhang’s family for medical parole and access to his X-rays were refused. Further, his family was denied to visit him.

Response from the Government dated 26 February 2007

34. The Government informed that on 20 January 2001 Mr. Hongwei was sentenced to 13 years’ fixed-term imprisonment by the Fangshan district people’s court in Beijing for the offence of using a heretical sect to engage in criminal activities and that he was stripped of his political rights for 3 years. He is currently serving his sentence in Jilin city penitentiary in Jilin province. It is not because he was a member of “Falun Gong” that Zhang was sentenced to a term of fixed-term imprisonment, but he was rather sentenced because he had engaged in criminal activities which were in breach of Chinese law.

35. In December 2005, when undergoing a health check-up in prison, Mr. Hongwei was found to be suffering from tuberculosis, but he maintained his firm conviction that, as a “Falun Gong” practitioner, when he fell ill he should not take any medicine or receive any injections, and that, as he himself was a disciple of the “dafa” - the major law, the master’s “dharma body” would protect and save him, and for these reasons he refused medical treatment. In February 2006, the prison management found that his condition had taken a turn for the worse and only after being repeatedly advised and encouraged he did agree to receive treatment. While in hospital, Mr. Hongwei received meticulous medical treatment and nursing care. His condition has now clearly improved and in clinical terms he has been cured of his illness. He has undergone two medical examinations by Jilin City Central Hospital and showed no symptoms of fever. His breathing was smooth, his heart rate normal and his ECG normal. The results of a frontal chest X-ray show a calcification focus in the right pulmonary field.

36. Mr. Hongwei’s family members enquired as to whether he could be released for medical treatment outside the facility. The prison authorities deemed that his case did not meet the conditions for seeking medical attention outside the facility but special dispensation was granted to his family to be able to visit him outside regular visiting hours, with a view to fostering stronger relations between him and his family. To summarize, Mr. Hongwei has now fully recovered from his illness and has been discharged from hospital and his state of mind is stable. His family members make frequent visits and have expressed their satisfaction with the work of the prison staff. There is no question here of Mr. Hongwei being subjected to ill-treatment or of his family being refused permission to visit him.

Observations

37. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response and she would like to refer to her previous observations (see above para. 26).

Urgent appeal sent on 22 December 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

38. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government information they had received concerning Mr. Cao Dong, a Falun Gong practitioner. According to the information received, on 21 May 2006, Mr. Dong met with the Vice-President of the European Parliament, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, in Beijing. Following this meeting, he was arrested and transferred to the Gansu Province State Security Bureau Detention Centre. On 29 September 2006, Mr. Dong was charged with “producing Falun Gong material”. His current whereabouts are unclear and his family has not been allowed to visit him since the arrest. Gansu local authorities informed Mr. Dong’s family that he will be on trial soon. Mr. Dong has previously been placed in administrative custody for being a Falun Gong practitioner.

Observations

39. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her predecessor’s conclusions and recommendations after his country visit (E/CN.4/1995/91, page 133): “The Special Rapporteur considers that there must be no interference with religious activity falling within the scope of the 1981 Declaration. At all events, there must not be any surveillance of a kind to infringe the right to freedom of belief and to manifest one’s belief. With regard to sects, the Special Rapporteur particularly wishes to point out that the 1981 Declaration protects not only religion, but also theist beliefs and that article 1, paragraph 3, of that Declaration states that freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

Communication sent on 25 January 2007 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture.

40. The Special Rapporteurs sent a letter to the Government of the People’s Republic of China as a follow-up to a communication sent on 11 August 2006 (see A/HRC/4/21/Add.1, paras. 107-111). To this communication China had sent a response on 28 November 2006 (see A/HRC/4/21/Add.1, paras. 112-118), in which however the following issue was not addressed. It was reported that there were many more organ transplants than identifiable sources of organs, even taking into account figures for identifiable sources. Moreover, the reportedly short waiting times that had been advertised for perfectly-matched organs would have suggested the existence of a computerised matching system for transplants and a large bank of live prospective donors. It was alleged that the discrepancy between available organs and numbers from identifiable sources was explained by organs harvested from Falun Gong practitioners, and that the rise in transplants from 2000 coincided and correlated with the beginning of the persecution of these persons. The Special Rapporteurs noted reports that on 15 November 2006, Vice-Minister Huang reiterated at a conference of surgeons in Guangzhou that most organs harvested come from executed prisoners. Notwithstanding the reported stringent criteria in place for donors, including for those sentenced to death, the Government informed in its response of 28 November 2007, that voluntary donations and donations between relatives were the two other legitimate sources of transplant organs. The Special Rapporteurs also noted that between the years 2000 and 2005 there were 60,000 transplantations performed, or approximately 10,000 per year for six years. This period coincides with the alleged rise in the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. In 2005, it was reported that only 0.5% of total transplants were accounted for by donations by relatives; non-relative brain dead donors were around nine in 2006; and estimates—given that the Government does not make public statistics on executions—for 2005 indicate 1770 executions were reportedly carried out, and 3900 persons sentenced to death. It was alleged that the discrepancy between the number of transplants carried out and the number of available sources is made up from the harvesting of organs from Falun Gong practitioners.

41. The Special Rapporteurs asked for a full explanation of the source of organ transplants that would disprove the allegation of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners, particularly if they could be traced to willing donors or executed prisoners. Therefore, they reiterated their request for an explanation for the discrepancy in the number of transplants between the years 2000 to 2005 and the numbers from identifiable sources of organs.

Response from the Government dated 19 March 2007

42. The Chinese Government informed that no Chinese authority has compiled official statistics on organ transplants for the period 2000-2005. The allegations are drawn from erroneous data cited in a report compiled by two Canadians investigating allegations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The report claims that Professor Shi Bingyi, vice-chair of the China Medical Organ Transplant Association, said that in the period between 2000 and 2005, since the persecution of Falun Gong began, there were 60,000 organ transplants. However, in January 2007, Professor Shi Bingyi expressly clarified that he had never made such a statement or given figures of this kind and that these allegations and the related figures are pure fabrication.

43. The Government finds that given the above situation, the so-called “discrepancy” referred to in the communication does not make sense. In addition, from the point of view of medical science, during a person’s lifetime that person may express the wish to donate one or more organs after his or her death, so it is not possible to estimate the number of organ donors on the basis of a one to one correlation with the number of organ transplants.

44. Second, the Government stated that as a State member of the World Health Organization (WHO), in carrying out organ transplants China unswervingly respects the WHO Guiding Principles on Human Organ Transplantation of 1991, strictly prohibits the buying and selling of human organs and insists on the principle that donations of human organs may only be made on a purely voluntary basis, with the prior written agreement of the organ donor.

45. On 1 July 2006, the Chinese Government promulgated its interim provisions on the clinical application and management of human organ transplantation, reaffirming that human organs may not be bought or sold; that medical establishments may only use transplanted human organs with the written agreement of the donors; that donors have the right at any time prior to transplantation to refuse donation of their organs; that medical establishments conducting human organ transplantation must be properly equipped to be able to ensure the quality and safety of medical treatment; and that ethical principles must be respected. The aim of these provisions is to standardize and strengthen the clinical application and management of human organ transplantation, and to ensure the quality and safety of medical treatment.

46. In China, it is categorically prohibited to coerce persons sentenced to death into donating their bodies or organs or for their bodies or organs to be resold for profit. The organs and bodies of people sentenced to death may only be used in strict compliance with the relevant regulations. Primary among these are: (a) they may only be used with the prior written agreement of the prisoners themselves and of their family members; (b) they may only be used with the approval of the health authorities at the provincial level and of the provincial high court; and (c) units using such organs or bodies must secure the approval of the health authorities at the provincial and higher level and must be properly equipped to conduct the applicable medical research or to carry out the relevant transplantation surgery.

47. The Government informs that, notwithstanding strict regulations relating to organ transplants, it is still hard to stop certain unlawful practices. As soon as the administrative bodies discover such practices, the necessary legal action is undertaken to punish any perpetrators. Draft regulations aimed to set in place a more standardized system for the management of organ transplantation have been submitted to the State Council, who is soliciting the views of Chinese and foreign experts and the WHO on the content of the draft.

48. Third, the Government informed that, drawing on current international practice, it is exploring the possibility of creating a human organ transplantation allocation system and applying the same organ allocation principles as WHO, the United States of America, the European Union and other bodies. It must be noted that the allegation that China has “a computerized matching system for transplants” is inaccurate. To date, there is no institution in China responsible for coordinating and allocating organs and no network system in this area, nor does it have a live organ donor base. Currently, the sourcing of organs and surgical operations involving organs are the responsibility of medical institutions.

49. Fourth, the Government maintained that the situation and the figures alleged in the communication are merely the product of agitation by Falun Gong. Furthermore, most of them have already been revealed to be unfounded rumours.

Observations

50. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response.

Selective quotes edit

  1. In a "Communication sent on 29 December 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences", in the observation: "The Special Rapporteur would also appreciate further information about the allegation that the two rapes took place in the presence of another police officer, who reportedly made no attempt to intervene or prevent the incidents."
  2. Reports of torture, quoting the Special Reporter appeal: "During this period, he was reportedly beaten and made to sit all day in a small chair"
  3. Reports of arrests, quoting the PRC response: "serve a term of one year’s labor re-education for using a heretical cult to disrupt law and order."
  4. "With regard to the question of “cults” or “sects”, she would like to refer to the chapter on “Religious minorities and new religious movements” in her report to the fourth session of the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/4/21, paras. 43-47). The Special Rapporteur reiterates her predecessor’s assessment that, apart from the legal courses available against harmful activities, “it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of people’s consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or conviction” (E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99). Similarly, during the elaboration of general comment No. 22, Human Rights Committee member Rosalyn Higgins was “resolutely opposed the idea that States could have complete latitude to decide what was and what was not a genuine religious belief. The contents of a religion should be defined by the worshippers themselves; as for manifestations, article 18, paragraph 3, existed to prevent them from violating the rights of others” (CCPR/C/SR.1166, para. 48). The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed, bearing in mind that manifestations of this freedom may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Special Rapporteur continues to be very concerned by the continued violations of freedom of religion or belief suffered by Falun Gong practitioners (see E/CN.4/2005/61, paras. 37-38; E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, para. 109; A/HRC/4/21/Add.1, para. 88)."
  5. Reports of torture: "He was held in solitary confinement for two years and five months and ill-treated. His conditions of health were severe", " Several applications by Mr. Zhang’s family for medical parole and access to his X-rays were refused. Further, his family was denied to visit him."
  6. Meeting with Edward McMillan-Scott: "Urgent appeal sent on 22 December 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
    38. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government information they had received concerning Mr. Cao Dong, a Falun Gong practitioner. According to the information received, on 21 May 2006, Mr. Dong met with the Vice-President of the European Parliament, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, in Beijing. Following this meeting, he was arrested and transferred to the Gansu Province State Security Bureau Detention Centre. On 29 September 2006, Mr. Dong was charged with “producing Falun Gong material”. His current whereabouts are unclear and his family has not been allowed to visit him since the arrest. Gansu local authorities informed Mr. Dong’s family that he will be on trial soon."
  7. Government should not use surveillance, the government does not have the right to define self declare sects: "39. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her predecessor’s conclusions and recommendations after his country visit (E/CN.4/1995/91, page 133): “The Special Rapporteur considers that there must be no interference with religious activity falling within the scope of the 1981 Declaration. At all events, there must not be any surveillance of a kind to infringe the right to freedom of belief and to manifest one’s belief. With regard to sects, the Special Rapporteur particularly wishes to point out that the 1981 Declaration protects not only religion, but also theist beliefs and that article 1, paragraph 3, of that Declaration states that freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”"
  8. On organ harvesting: "the following issue was not addressed. It was reported that there were many more organ transplants than identifiable sources of organs, even taking into account figures for identifiable sources. Moreover, the reportedly short waiting times that had been advertised for perfectly-matched organs would have suggested the existence of a computerised matching system for transplants and a large bank of live prospective donors."
  9. On organ harvesting: "41. The Special Rapporteurs asked for a full explanation of the source of organ transplants that would disprove the allegation of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners, particularly if they could be traced to willing donors or executed prisoners. Therefore, they reiterated their request for an explanation for the discrepancy in the number of transplants between the years 2000 to 2005 and the numbers from identifiable sources of organs."

UN: Civil and political rights, including the question of religious intolerance edit

  • Link: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/121/25/PDF/G0612125.pdf?OpenElement ; Accessed through: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/sessions/62/listdocs.htm look for Report Number: E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1
  • Author: Economic and Social Council
  • Quotes:
    1. Observation about childern subject to harassment, threats and other negative actions, including re-education through labour: "107. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s responses. She would like to take this opportunity to remind the Government of the concluding observations adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child on 24 November 2005 further to the second periodic report submitted by China (CRC/C/CHN/CO/2). In paragraph 44, the Committee stated that, “[w]hile noting the adoption of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Act in 2001, which guarantees freedom of religion for ethnic minorities in mainland China, [it] is concerned about reports that children, in particular Tibetan Buddhist, Uighur and Hui children, have been restricted in studying and practising their religion, and in some cases have been detained for participating in religious activities. It is also concerned at reports that children of families practising their religion, notably the Falun Gong, are subject to harassment, threats and other negative actions, including re-education through labour. The Committee notes the information provided about the Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, but remains concerned that it has not yet been possible to have this information confirmed by an independent expert.” In relation to this observation the Committee in paragraph 45 recommends that “the State party take all necessary measures to ensure the full implementation of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Act."


UN: Civil and political rights, including the question of freedom of expression edit

  • Link: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/121/12/PDF/G0612112.pdf?OpenElement Accessed through: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/sessions/62/listdocs.htm look for Report Number: E/CN.4/2006/55/Add.1
  • Author: Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ambeyi Ligabo
  • Quotes:
    1. Report of arrest for distributing flyers, house search, kept in seclusion: "166. On 27 April 2005, the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal concerning Liu Yawen. According to the allegations received, on 31 March 2005, she was arrested by the police when she was seen distributing Falun Gong Video-CDs in Beijing, and was being held at the Xuanwu District Detention Centre, at the date this communication was sent. After she was detained, police officers searched her home for other Falun Gong materials. She was denied visits by her family and it was not known whether she had been charged with any offence. In view of her alleged detention incommunicado, concern was expressed that she might have been at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment."


United Nations: (2006) Nowak China Mission edit

  • Link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/62chr/ecn4-2006-6-Add6.doc
  • Author: United Nations Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Torture and Detention; Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; MISSION TO CHINA*
  • Quotes:
    1. "III. THE SITUATION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT
      Analysis of communications of the Special Rapporteur
      40. The Special Rapporteur recalls that over the last several years his predecessors have received a number of serious allegations related to torture and other forms of ill-treatment in China, which have been submitted to the Government for its comments. He cautions that such information does not necessarily illustrate the state of torture and ill-treatment in a given country, but rather reflects the state of information brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur. Nevertheless, over a period of time, the number and consistency of the allegations received may be informative.
      The following table indicates the typology of the victims of alleged torture and ill-treatment. Victims of alleged torture: Falun Gong practitioners 66%; Uighurs 11%; Sex workers 8%; Tibetans 6%; Human rights defenders 5%; Political dissidents 2%"
      "
    2. "IV. DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY FOR POLITICAL CRIMES AND FORCED RE-EDUCATION AS A FORM OF INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT
      "60. The criminal justice system and its strong focus on admission of culpability, confessions and re-education is particularly disturbing in relation to political crimes. Although many such crimes, such as “organizing a counter-revolutionary group” and “counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement” were abolished in 1997, members of the “democracy movement” and political dissidents who were sentenced before 1997 for these crimes are still serving long prison sentences today.67 The Special Rapporteur welcomes the decision of the Government of China to grant prisoners convicted of these crimes the same access to sentence reduction and parole as other prisoners, and notes the relatively large number of sentence reductions and early releases granted to such prisoners. However, prisoners are still serving sentences for counter-revolution, and several hundred more are serving sentences for “hooliganism”. Most systems provide for the release of prisoners serving sentences for a crime that is removed from the criminal law. Article 15, paragraph 1, of ICCPR suggests that, at a minimum, reviews of the prisoners’ sentences should be carried out. Release of all counter-revolutionaries and hooligans imprisoned for non-violent related offences (e.g. leading a counter-revolutionary group, engaging in counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement) would be a milestone in China’s effort to ratify the ICCPR.
      61. After the 1997 changes, political dissidents, journalists, writers, lawyers, human rights defenders, Falun Gong practitioners, and members of the Tibetan and Uighur ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities were often prosecuted as a result of having exercised their human rights to freedom of speech, assembly, association or religion. They are often sentenced to long prison terms for political crimes such as endangering national security through undermining the unity of the country, subversion or unlawfully supplying State secrets to individuals outside the country.68 Although many of these prisoners deny having committed any wrongful act and, therefore, do not confess during trial (often despite undergoing torture), they sometimes change their mind after having been subjected to forced re-education while serving their prison sentences. If politically deviant and dissident behaviour is not subjected to criminal sanctions, the respective target groups, such as Falun Gong practitioners and human rights defenders, are often subjected to years of administrative detention, such as RTL, for having disturbed the social order or similar petty offences.
      "
    3. "III. Beijing Municipal Women’s Re-education Through Labour (RTL) Facility (Visited on 24 November 2005)
      10. The Special Rapporteur observed that the general conditions of the facility seemed satisfactory. However, he is deeply concerned by the prolonged periods for which detainees are held in solitary confinement. During his visit, he inspected the ‘Intensive Training’ section which houses 10 small solitary confinement cells and was informed by the prison authorities that the maximum duration in solitary confinement was seven days. However, on consulting the registry the Special Rapporteur noted that of the six people held in solitary confinement between 1 January 2005 and 24 November 2005, three had been held for 60 days and one for 27 days. Detainees also stated that Falun Gong practitioners who had not renounced their beliefs after six months in detention were placed in the Intensive Training section until they were ‘reformed’. Falun Gong practitioners formerly detained at this facility mentioned that they would refer to this section as the “Intensive Torture Section”.
      "
    4. "Individual cases - Outside detention facilities
      Gao Zhisheng, aged 41, lawyer, Beijing. (Interview in Beijing on 20 and 21 November 2005) Active on cases involving corruption, land seizures, police abuses and religious freedom, he reported that he and his family have been put under constant surveillance since 19 October 2005. This followed the publication of an open letter of 18 October to the President of the NPCs, concerning the persecution of Falun Gong. Gao Zhisheng has to date published three open letters to the Chinese authorities protesting the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China. He has also carried out a number of ‘fact-finding’ trips including to Urumqi in order to investigate the alleged persecution of Christians and other minorities. His law firm was closed down in November 2005 and shortly afterwards his personal permit to practice law was revoked. The Special Rapporteur met with Gao Zhisheng on the evening of 20 November. Gao Zhisheng reported that on his way to the meeting he was followed by three cars that attempted to obstruct him from meeting the Special Rapporteur. Photographs provided by Gao Zhisheng indicate scratches on both sides of his car where the police cars collided with. His wife reported that during the visit of the Special Rapporteur there were five cars outside his house 24 hours a day and that three agents were following his child to school and back every day. During the meeting with the Special Rapporteur, he noted that he and his team were being heavily monitored by intelligence officers with portable listening devices and cameras from an adjacent table. When he approached them the three officers become irate, and the meeting with Mr. Gao was continued elsewhere. The Special Rapporteur protested to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the following day."
    5. "She reported that one prisoner, Ms. Li Limao, who was a Falun Gong practitioner, died one month after the Chinese New Year in 2005 following a punishment for disobedience. She was hung from a window from her hands tied behind her back, and with her toes just touching the floor. Mao Hengfeng reported that a “white powder” was often mixed in the prisoners’ meals which had a sedative effect."
    6. The legal system is a sword of Damocles: "In addition to the requirement to obtain permission, lawyers and defendants face another series of obstacles triggered either by rules and regulations issued by public security departments and prosecutors which impose further restrictions on the access to lawyers, or by individual crime investigators who can independently prevent lawyers from meeting with their clients. Several defense lawyers, as well as leading legal academics interviewed by the Special Rapporteur, claimed that meetings between lawyers and detainees were closely supervised by the authorities and were often subjected to strict time limits, that lawyers could hardly obtain the necessary information from the prosecution, that lawyers who have too vigorously defended their clients can be detained and convicted of various crimes. Indeed, under article 306 of the CL, lawyers can be sentenced to up to seven years’ imprisonment for destroying or fabricating evidence, forcing or inciting a witness to change his or her testimony or committing perjury. Article 38 adds to this provision by making “interfering with the proceedings before judicial organs” an offence. This “sword of Damocles”, as it is known, can be invoked to harass, intimidate and sanction lawyers. Under it, any lawyer who counsels a client to repudiate a forced confession, for example, could risk prosecution. Finally, witnesses rarely appear in ourt, and the prosecution generally reads out their statements, depriving the accused of the opportunity to cross-examine them, as per the 1996 CPL revision.26 Rules of evidence are rudimentary, and illegally obtained evidence is often admitted in practice.27"

United Nations: (2008) Committee Against Torture edit

  • Link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/CD_Concl_Obs_2008/CAT/41st%20session/CAT%20C%20CHN%20CO%204%20(e).doc
  • Author: United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION; Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture
  • Quotes:
    1. " National, ethnic or religious minorities and other vulnerable groups
      22. The Committee is greatly concerned by the allegations of targeted torture, ill-treatment, and disappearances directed against national, ethnic, religious minorities and other vulnerable groups in China, among them Tibetans, Uighurs, and Falun Gong practitioners
      "
    2. "3. Allegations concerning Falun Gong practitioners
      25. While noting the State party’s information about the 2006 Temporary Regulation on Human Organ Transplants and the 2007 Human Organ Transplant Ordinance, the Committee takes cognizance of the allegations presented to the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture who has noted that an increase in organ transplant operations coincides with “the beginning of the persecution of [Falun Gong practitioners]” and who asked for “ a full explanation of the source of organ transplants” which could clarify the discrepancy and disprove the allegation of organ harvesting (A/HRC/7/3/Add.1). The Committee is further concerned with information received that Falun Gong practitioners have been extensively subjected to torture and ill-treatment in prisons and that some of them have been used for organ transplants (arts. 12 and 16).
      The State party should immediately conduct or commission an independent investigation of the claims that some Falun Gong practitioners have been subjected to torture and used for organ transplants and take measures, as appropriate, to ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished.
      "

Amnesty International: People's Republic of China. Briefing for the Committee against Torture ... edit

Lawyers edit

  1. Gao Zhisheng, a defence lawyer and rights activist, was convicted of “inciting subversion” in December 2006, in connection with his activism, including his organization of a hunger-strike protest in Beijing in February 2006 to draw attention to the plight of several other activists who had been subjected to human rights violations. The authorities had already suspended the operations of his law firm and revoked his law licence in late 2005 after he published an open letter calling for religious freedom and an end to the “barbaric” persecution of the Falun Gong practitioners. Unusually, the court ruled that his three-year prison sentence should be suspended for five years, meaning that he would not be imprisoned unless he commits criminal offences during the five year period. Following his “release” on 22 December 2006, Gao Zhisheng was reunited with his family, but they all remained under tight police surveillance. In April 2007, Gao Zhisheng claimed to other activists that he had been ill-treated during his four months in formal police custody, including being handcuffed and forced to sit in an iron chair or cross-legged for extended periods, and having bright lights shone on him. Gao Zhisheng was taken away from his home to an unknown location by at least ten men, believed to be police officers in plain clothes, on 22 September 2007. This appeared to be linked to an open letter he had addressed to the U.S. Congress asking them to expose what he called “China’s ongoing human rights disaster” and criticizing China’s hosting of the Olympics. Eyewitnesses reported that the men beat and kicked him when they took him away. No further information emerged about his situation until he telephoned a fellow activist, Hu Jia, apparently under duress on 28 October 2007, saying that he had been in Shaanxi and Shanxi provinces and telling Hu Jia not to try to visit his family. There are serious concerns that Gao Zhisheng was subjected to torture or other ill-treatment by those who had abducted him. A friend who was able to visit him secretly in mid-December 2007 reported that had been brought back home in early November 2007, adding that he looked thin and tired and appeared to be in poor health. Since then, no further reliable reports have emerged on his condition.
  2. In another case, Beijing-based lawyer Li Heping was abducted and assaulted by a group of unidentified men on 29 September 2007. They beat him with electro-shock batons and told him he should leave Beijing or risk further attack. He was released after about eight hours. The incident occurred shortly after police had told Li Heping to leave Beijing during the 17th Communist Party Congress, held in October 2007. Li Heping had built a reputation for defending sensitive cases, including Christians arrested for unofficial house church activities, Falun Gong practitioners, and victims of forced eviction and independent writers. He had also appealed to the authorities on behalf of lawyer Gao Zhisheng.

Reeducation through Labour edit

  1. The authorities continue to rely on systems of punitive administrative detention to supplement sanctions under the formal CL. These include “Reeducation through Labour” (RTL, laodong jiaoyang) – used to punish alleged “troublemakers” or “minor offenders” with up to four years’ administrative detention without charge, trial or judicial review. A specific target for RTL has been Falun Gong practitioners since the authorities banned the movement as a “heretical organization” in 1999. Reports persist of individuals being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment in RTL facilities, particularly if they are deemed to resist efforts to “re-educate” them. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has noted that “RTL constitutes not only a serious violation of the human rights to personal liberty, but can also be considered as a form of inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, if not mental torture” and has called on the authorities to abolish the practice.5 Police in Beijing used China’s recent staging of the Olympics to extend the scope of RTL to broader categories of “offences” as a tool to “clean-up” the city in the run-up to the Games. Targets included peaceful petitioners and rights activists in Beijing.

Investigation of Tortures and Deaths edit

  1. Amnesty International continues to receive reports of deaths in custody in a variety of state institutions, including prisons, RTL facilities and police detention centres. Many of these deaths are alleged to be the result of torture or other ill-treatment in custody. According to overseas Falun Gong sources, during the course of 2007 over 100 Falun Gong practitioners died in detention or shortly after release as a result of police violence, denial of food or medical treatment and other forms of torture or illtreatment. According to these sources, the rate of deaths in detention, or deaths shortly after release, of FLG practitioners increased in 2008. Occasional reports in the Chinese media suggest that in some instances, perpetrators are punished for such violations, but in many more cases documented by networks of Chinese human rights activists, Amnesty International and other NGOs, official investigations rarely take place and perpetrators escape with impunity. When they are ordered, investigations fail to meet the Convention’s requirements of promptness and impartiality, nor are families compensated.
  2. Yu Zhou, a well-known folk singer, graduate of Beijing University, and reportedly a Falun Gong practitioner, was arrested in Tongzhou District, Beijing, on 26 January 2008, along with his wife, Xu Na, a poet and painter. On 6 February 2008, the authorities notified the family to come to the Qinghe District Emergency Centre, where they learned that Yu Zhou had already died. A family member recounted how his body was covered by a white sheet, and only his eyes were visible. The family was told that Yu had died from either diabetes or from a hunger strike, although he had been perfectly healthy at the time of his arrest. The staff at the Emergency Centre refused the family’s request to view the body and for an autopsy to be performed and the authorities refused to hand over Yu’s body to the family. Xu Na, who was imprisoned from 2001 to 2006 for her adherence to Falun Gong, is reported to remain in custody, at risk of ill-treatment and long-term detention.

Raw links - in need of formatting edit

Each of these links will be added in a good readability format as in the samples above. But for starters it is easier to just include them as this.

Secondary sources on the persecution of Falun Gong edit

  • Refugee Documentation Centre (Ireland) – This is hard to summarise here, as it combines quotes from a number of disparate, but high-quality sources; the Austrian source probably speaks most emphatically of persecution, while a Canadian source only uses the word in quotation marks.
  • UN Special Rapporteur on Torture asking the PRC government to explain the reported rise in organ transplants, which seemed to correlate with the beginning of the "persecution" of Falun Gong practitioners (page 48, with PRC government response).
  • Relation ship between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu


More Articles edit

  • China’s Guerrilla War for the Web about "They have been called the “Fifty Cent Party,” the “red vests” and the “red vanguard.” But China’s growing armies of Web commentators—instigated, trained and financed by party organizations—have just one mission: to safeguard the interests of the Communist Party by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing Chinese Internet. They set out to neutralize undesirable public opinion by pushing pro-Party views through chat rooms and Web forums, reporting dangerous content to authorities."
  • Why is Beijing so Afraid??? A year after mounting the biggest protests in Beijing since Tiananmen Square in 1989, the Falun Gong refuses to fold. More protests filled the square on April 25, 2000. Why Beijing worries that a bunch of elderly people, waving their arms and doing breathing exercises in the park, might really bring down the world's biggest country

Books edit

Sources with quotes prepared edit

I've found a number of related government and UN documents that comment on the matter.

UK Border Agency

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4a2f976e2.pdf

"There is widespread repression of Falun Gong by the Chinese authorities and Falun Gong practitioners/activists may face ill-treatment in China if they come to the attention of the Chinese authorities. Falun Gong practitioners and in particular Falun Gong activists who have come to the attention of the authorities are likely to face ill-treatment that may amount to persecution in China and therefore are likely to qualify for a grant of asylum under the 1951 Convention by reason of imputed political opinion.

However, the Court of Appeal found in L (China) v SSHD [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1441 that anyone can become a member or cease to be a member of Falun Gong at any time and can practise Falun Gong exercises on their own in the privacy of their home without significant risk of being ill-treated. The IAT found in [2005] UKIAT 00122 that there will not normally be any real risk from the Chinese authorities for a person who practices Falun Gong in private and with discretion. Therefore, ordinary Falun Gong practitioners who have not come to the attention of the Chinese authorities are unlikely to qualify for a grant of asylum or Humanitarian Protection." (p. 6 of 24).

Asylum cases following this line of assessment:

This latter one, from the United Nations HCR website, includes an interesting passage from the—

Position paper on Falun Gong (2005) by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees

[37] In a position paper published in 2005, the UNHCR stated that (despite the widespread repression of Falun Gong in China) there was no evidence to suggest that all Falun Gong members were systematically targeted by the authorities and that therefore, membership of Falun Gong alone would not give rise to refugee status, although a prominent role in certain other activities (such as proselytising or organising demonstrations) which brings the member to the attention of the authorities may do so: United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees Position paper on Falun Gong (1 January 2005).

Searches edit

Comments edit

Category:Falun Gong

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HappyInGeneral/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_sources&oldid=1142110220"