DAFOH Statement: “China’s announcement of phasing out the harvesting of organs from prisoners is deceptive and insufficient”

en.minghui.org

“This is no time … to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

Rev. Martin L. King Jr.
(“I Have a Dream” Speech, 1963)

September 16, 2013

Recently, China has announced its intention of phasing out the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners by 2015 and the introduction of the China Organ Transplant Response System (COTRS), a computerized organ-allocation system.

Unfortunately, COTRS lacks transparency: the matching process and information about the organ donors are not open to the public or to an independent third party. With regard to the announced 2015 time frame, Chinese officials speak vaguely of ending the reliance on executed prisoners, not of the complete cessation.

Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH) holds that the announcement and the introduced systems are misleading and insufficient.

DAFOH states:

1. The international community considers the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners and from prisoners of conscience unethical. If killing for organs—under the guise of executing prisoners—is unethical, it remains so every day it continues. Seeking an end of this unethical practice conforms to ethical standards defined by medical organizations, such as WMA, TTS, WHO, and others.

Once it is recognized as unethical and as a crime against humanity, the harvesting of organs from prisoners needs to end immediately. It is ethically indefensible to gradually end a crime against humanity. The Chinese government announcement of “phasing out” this crime against humanity is a deceptive statement in itself. When people’s lives are at stake, then “This is no time … to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

2. In 1984, the Chinese regime issued a law to legalize organ extraction from executed prisoners. Chinese officials still called it a lie when Dr. Wang Guoqi testified about this practice before Congress in 2001. China denied the practice until 2005, when international pressure forced Chinese officials to admit the practice. Then they stated that up to 90 percent of organs originated from this source, which contributed to more than 10,000 transplants per year. Since the Chinese regime has a history of lacking in candor, it is mandatory to implement steps for scrutiny and monitoring.

In 2007, one year before the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) pledged to the World Medical Association (WMA) to end the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners, except for relatives. Despite the pledge, China continued to perform more than 10,000 transplantations every year without an effective public organ-donation system.

Now, six years after CMA’s pledge, China does not even speak of ENDING the practice as it did in 2007, but only announces—with an indefinite time frame—to PHASE OUT the practice. We hold that the recent 2013 announcement from China is actually a step back from the pledge in 2007. Based on the above, it is incomprehensible why the international community applauds the recent announcements.

3. The official Chinese terminology is vague and ambiguous as it only announces the beginning of the phaseout without establishing a deadline when the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners will eventually come to a complete end. According to statements from Chinese officials, the time frame could be 2015, but also “indefinite.” When asked when the practice of harvesting organs from executed prisoners will end, Chinese officials describe the time frame as “indefinite.” In other announcements, Chinese officials speak of “phasing out the dependency on organs from executed prisoners,” which does not address the end of this unethical practice but only a shift in the percentage, keeping the option open to continue the practice if needed.

The official statements from China are insufficient and vague. Without international scrutiny and monitoring, the phaseout can last “indefinitely” and euphoric commendation is premature and misplaced. Instead of applauding China for its phase-out announcement, one should rather consider the innocent victims who will lose their lives every day this abusive practice continues.

4. The recent announcements state that China will introduce a computerized organ-allocation system. Yet, the computerized organ-allocation system does not guarantee that the organs entered into the computer system are ethically procured. Instead, without openness to verification, the computerized organ allocation system poses the risk of enabling a more efficient allocation of unethically procured organs. It has to be ensured beyond any doubt that the new computerized organ allocation is not a sophisticated form of “organ laundering,” using prisoners’ organs and erasing all traces of their unethical procurement.

Resolving the unethical organ harvesting from prisoners in China does not require a computerized organ-allocation system. Instead, what is required is an immediate cessation of the unethical organ harvesting and a system that provides traceable documentation of subsequent procurements.

As long as China does not officially acknowledge organ harvesting from prisoners as unethical, it remains uncertain whether this organ source will ever be abolished even after establishing a computerized organ-allocation system and a voluntary organ-donation program.

The mixing of the two pools of organs, one from executions and another from organ donations, through the announced computerized organ-allocation system will only serve to whitewash the unethical practices. It gives them a coat of legitimacy and acceptance. It is simply a way to pretend the initial crime did not occur. The mere establishing of a computerized organ-allocation system without immediate cessation of the organ harvesting from prisoners is ethically meaningless.

5. In a May 20, 2013 ABC TV interview with Huang Jiefu, former vice minister of health in China, when asked about the harvesting of organs from prisoners, he replied, “Why do you object?” This suggests that Chinese officials still do not acknowledge that organ harvesting from executed prisoners is unethical. Ethical organ donation requires free, voluntary, and informed consent, yet China evades this requirement by trivializing it as “written” consent from prisoners.

The announcements from China speak of a phaseout of organ harvesting from executed prisoners, but it is not mentioned whether military hospitals, known to be heavily involved in the unethical organ-harvesting practices, will be included. The announced developments also do not address the from China never-acknowledged organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, in particular from detained Falun Gong practitioners as the largest target group.

In 2012, David Matas said at the annual conference of the International Association of Genocide Scholars in San Francisco:

“On Nov. 30, 1999, the ‘610 Office’ [in China] called more than 3,000 officials to the Great Hall of the People in the capital to discuss the campaign against Falun Gong, which was then not going well. Demonstrations were continuing to occur at Tiananmen Square. The head of the ‘610 Office,’ Li Lanqing, announced the government’s new policy on the movement: ‘Defame their reputations, bankrupt them financially, and destroy them physically.’

A call to destroy Falun Gong physically is a call to genocide. It is not admittedly a call to genocide through sourcing their organs. Nonetheless, when that sourcing occurs, in the context of a call for physical destruction, the two should be linked. Organ sourcing is the means. Physical destruction is the intent.”

There is virtually no dividing line between destroying physically and harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners—the latter is even profitable. Thus, without publicly admitting the use of prisoners of conscience as an organ source, there is no guarantee that this path of organ sourcing will end. A gradual phaseout of this abusive practice with an indefinite end is ethically indefensible. It might be desirable from the side of the perpetrator but it is gruesome and unacceptable from the side of the victim. It is a tragedy for both the victims and the medical profession. The following quote by Rev. Martin L. King Jr. appears as timely as it was in the 1960s:

“ … the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off, or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism … Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.”

6. The announced phaseout of the organ harvesting from executed prisoners was accompanied by an official announcement of a public organ-donation system. Yet, there is a traditional reluctance in the Chinese populace to donate organs, which is also acknowledged by Chinese officials. Furthermore, there is no brain-death legislation in place, which would regulate the organ procurement from the brain-dead. Thus the public organ donation system would be based on cardiac-death donations, which would reduce the effectiveness of some of the donated organs.

In September 2013, the Chinese Guang Ming Daily published an article stating that from 100 potential organ donors in China, only 5 percent of the donors’ organs can eventually be used for transplantation. Overall, the conditions in China are likely to result in a continuation of the use of organs from prisoners beyond the pledged time frame of two years.

It has to be assured beyond any doubt that prisoners of conscience, primarily detained Falun Gong practitioners, are not forcibly enrolled into such public organ-donation program under a fake identity. It has been observed that fake identity documents with a Chinese nationality were issued to foreign transplant tourists in order to bypass the transplant-tourism-prohibition law. Transparency and monitoring is required to prevent an entering of fake identities into the computerized organ-allocation system.

7. In October 2011, The Lancet published the letter “Time for a boycott of Chinese science and medicine pertaining to organ transplantation.” The letter called for a “boycott on accepting papers at meetings, publishing papers in journals, and cooperating on research related to transplantation unless it can be verified that the organ source is not an executed prisoner.”

While we appreciate the strict call for ethical standards in publications from China, we are missing the same strict call when it comes to defending our own ethical standards. As much as the co-authors were courageous to publish the aforementioned letter in The Lancet due to ethical concerns, we should be even more motivated to call openly for an immediate end of the unethical organ harvesting itself.

Refusing to publish papers, which include data from executed prisoners, is a necessary but insufficient response to the abuses in China. We have an absolute imperative to also object vociferously to the harvesting itself. Living in a society that allows freedom of expression, we are not prohibited from openly calling for an immediate end of the unethical organ harvesting in China. In fact, as medical doctors and medical organizations, it is our ethical responsibility and obligation to call for an immediate end of this unethical practice.

In 2006, China Daily reported the number of transplants in China as high as 20,000, with 90 percent of the organs coming from executed prisoners. Attention and pressure by the international community in the past few years have contributed to the recent developments and indicate that we need to continue our efforts to call for an immediate end of the organ-harvesting abuse.

Once the practice is recognized as unethical, there is no excuse to continue it. The unethical organ harvesting from prisoners could be resolved at once if the international community combines its efforts and opposes the practice with one voice. There is no law that prohibits us from calling upon China to refrain from unethical organ harvesting immediately—it only requires the willingness to do so.

Otherwise, we might need to ask ourselves if China were successful in using a computerized organ-allocation system and the announcement of a phaseout like a Trojan horse to undermine and dilute our ethical standards.

We call upon the international community to join us in calling upon China to immediately and unconditionally end the unethical harvesting of organs from executed prisoners and all prisoners of conscience.

Videos from NTDChinaUncensored

China’s Secret Holocaust Part 1

China’s Secret Holocaust Part 2


China’s Secret Holocaust Part 3


Are Plastinated Bodies Murdered Chinese Prisoners of Conscience?

China Apologist Turns TED Talk Into Propaganda Tool

Lambs to Slaughter

Check out this song regarding the forced organ harvesting of innocent people in China. This is happening in hundreds of hospitals in China, offering less than 2wks waiting time for an organ transplant from the time of inquiry. Lambs to slaughter. Made to order.

Published on Jul 24, 2013

The first single off Belle’s upcoming album, “Speck of Dust”, “Lambs to Slaughter” takes on the confronting human rights issue of forced organ removals from living prisoners of conscience in China with hard-hitting lyrics and a stunning synthesized soundscape over an R&B groove.

“Lambs to Slaughter” is co-written with Sterling Campbell (David Bowie and B-52’s) and features guest emcee, Rise Ascend (f/k/a Ankh Amen Ra). Belle’s uplifting music is rich with folk melodies blended with eclectic sounds over driving beats. Within her deep, sweeping vocals you can hear resonances of Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez and Alanis Morissette. “Belle’s soothing voice brings awareness to one of the biggest atrocities of this century” – The Epoch Times

More info: http://www.EverythingBelle.com
Record Label: http://www.IngeniousRecords.com

 

For more information head to stoporganharvesting.org

stop organ harvesting in China

Australia: More than 100,000 Signatures on Petition Calling for End to Organ Harvesting (Photos)

May 22, 2013

(Minghui.org) On May 9, at a council debate, David Shoebridge, John Kay, and Jan Barham, three Greens members of the New South Wales Legislative Council, submitted a petition with more than 100,000 signatures to the council. The petition calls for action to be taken to stop the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners, to make laws to forbid Australian citizens to have illegal organ transplants in other countries, and to stop training surgeons from other countries for illegal organ harvesting.

David Shoebridge (first from right), John Kay (second from right), and Jan Barham (third from right), three Greens members of the New South Wales Legislative Council

Jeremy Chapman, Director of Acute Interventional Medicine (SWAHS) and Renal Services at Westmead Hospital, President of the Transplantation Society, Immediate Past President of the World Marrow Donor Association, and Chair of the Global Alliance for Transplantation, gives a report on illegal organ transplantation to the Legislative Council

At the press conference after the council hearing, David Shoebridge said: “That single petition was 4 times larger than every single other petition that was presented at this chamber in front of us here… I know from my work in politics, just how hard it is to engage with people and get them to sign petitions, to listen to you, and after they listen to you to acknowledge that you have a point, and put their name and their signature to the petition. And in this parliament, a signature of 500 people, or down the other chamber 10,000 people, is considered to be a monumental achievement to show real community support. And you together have got a petition of 100,000 people. I have got to say, I spoke to Caroline and Lucy, you got 100,000 and you stopped. You could have had more, which for me shows the strong passion in the community.”

Mr. Shoebridge continued: “There are some pretty basic rules in politics. One thing is how an issue becomes important. It is pretty much a 3-step process. First, they mock you, then they attack you, then finally they respect and listen to you. We are going through this process. And we will get to the end of it.”

The call for the end of organ harvesting in China is strongly supported by medical experts. On May 8, Jeremy Chapman, Director of Acute Interventional Medicine (SWAHS) and Renal Services at Westmead Hospital, President of the Transplantation Society, Immediate Past President of the World Marrow Donor Association, and Chair of the Global Alliance for Transplantation, gave a briefing at the state Parliament House, titled “The Declaration of Istanbul: The professions’ response to human organ trafficking.” He asked lawmakers to take action to stop this illegal and immoral business.

In reference to the complex dynamics of organ trafficking, Prof. Chapman said: “What is driving all this is raw basic human emotion, two human emotions, greed and survival. We have the devil and the angel, we have greed and we have the survival instinct.”

When asked by a NSW member of parliament for his view on the allegation of forced organ harvesting in China, Prof. Chapman replied: “[It is] appalling. I have clarity that there is use of executed prisoners’ organs. I have clarity that those organs are being sold. I have clarity that it is illegal in China to do that. We need to change that process and that is a combination of changing transplantation programs in China and preventing the continued use of executed prisoners and continuing to hold them to account for their own laws and hold them to account to civil society.”

With regard to Australia’s responsibility to enact legislation addressing illegal and unethical organ transplantation, Prof. Chapman said: “If we want to retain our view of ourselves as a civil society we should remain an exemplar for other societies. We know in 2012, eleven people went overseas and received a transplant and came back. We don’t know how many people went overseas and didn’t come back. So it’s not very big, but that is not the point. We have a leading civil society – are we going to demonstrate it?”

At the press conference on the 9 th , Mr. Shoebridge mentioned the support from Prof. Chapman. He said: “Professor Chapman is not in particular a friend with Falun Gong, he is not in particular a friend with the Greens, he is not a particular friend with anyone in politics, but Professor Jeremy Chapman is the most learned surgeon on transplantation medicine in Australia, probably one of a handful of people who know more about the way international transplantations work, than anyone else on the globe.

“And Professor Chapman in a briefing to the parliamentarians last night, not just from the Greens, from the Liberal Party, from Christian Democratic Party, Professor Chapman said this law needs to come into place. He said not only does this law need to come into place, so as we stop our citizens abusing vulnerable people in other countries, he said we need to also work on lifting our own domestic organ donation rates. I have got to say that needs to be part of our message.”

Mr. Shoebridge said: “We need to ensure two things. First of all, we work on those international human rights issues, we pass laws to stop our citizens going to other countries and exploiting prisoners of conscience in China, people in great poverty in Pakistan, India or Columbia. We need to stop that happening internationally. The bill that I brought before the House is part of that, part of international responses for that. But we also need to work at those principles.

“I think, if every nation joins and does that, it will over time delegitimize what happens in China, or protect the human rights of people in China. Practitioners of Falun Gong, home Christians, minorities, it will protect those human rights, but also allow people who need an organ, and when we have the medical expertise to provide that organ and save someone’s life we’ll allow that to happen here in Australia, where our human rights are protected, where donors are protected, and where we have an ethical system.”

Briefing Held in Australian NSW Parliament to Introduce Legislation Dealing with Organ Tourism (Photos)

en.minghui.org

(Minghui.org) On the evening of March 12, 2013, the New South Wales (NSW) Greens Party and Upper House member David Shoebridge of NSW, Australia, hosted a briefing to support the draft Human Tissue Amendment (Trafficking in Human Organs) Bill 2013.

David Kilgour, former Canadian Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) and Maria Fiatarone Singh, Professor of Medicine at Sydney University, addressed an audience that included several members of the legislature at the NSW Parliament on March 12.

The Chinese Communist Party Directly Participates in Live Organ Harvesting and Trafficking

'澳洲纽省立法会成员、绿党司法事务发言人舒布瑞杰先生'

Mr. David Shoebridge, MLC, Member of the The Greens

Mr. Shoebridge proposed the Human Tissue Amendment (Trafficking in Human Organs), Bill 2013, which revolves around amending an existing bill in New South Wales, the Human Tissue Act of 1983. Once passed, the law would make receiving a trafficked vital organ equivalent to manslaughter, and those who violate the law could face up to twenty-five years in prison.

He indicated that donated organs have become more scarce around the world, but in China, an organ can be obtained for transplant in a few weeks. He pointed out that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) conducts live organ harvesting from detainees, especially Falun Gong practitioners, for organ trafficking.

Compelling Evidence of Organ Harvesting

“We heard some compelling evidence from David Kilgour tonight about the way China in particular is using their prison system,” Mr. Shoebridge stated. “Prisoners who have been held with no criminal charge such as Falun Gong practitioners, who are being held in the criminal system because of their faith, are being effectively used as a large pool of organs to be provided unethically– in fact in a manner which most Australians would consider to be deeply criminal.”

He continued, “My office drafted an initial Bill to look at this issue. We just finished the initial consultation phase to this Bill to see how Australians respond. I have got to say that we have been overwhelmed by the response. We had the better part of 3000 responses to our Bill, hundreds and hundreds of comments, and extraordinarily strong support for us to do something in NSW.”

Fifty-two Kinds of Evidence Prove that Falun Gong Practitioners Are Subjected to Live Organ Harvesting

'加拿大前亚太司司长大卫·乔高'

Mr. David Kilgour

Mr. David Kilgour and Mr. David Matas have been conducting an independent investigation on the CCP’s atrocities of live organ harvesting. In 2009, their co-authored book, Bloody Harvest, exposed that from 2000 to 2005, 67,000 organ transplantations were conducted in China. Among them, the sources of 41,000 organs cannot be explained. In 2012, they published State Organs, which exposes the dangers of going to China for organ transplantation.

Mr. Kilgour said in his speech, “So many people think there are surviving donors in China. There are no surviving donors in China. They don’t just take one kidney. They take both kidneys and everything else and then that person’s body is burnt. Ethan Gutmann’s best estimate is that 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008.”

“Though CCP officials claimed that the organs were from death row inmates, only imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners were subjected to physical examinations every three to four months. Details of the health of their organs were recorded. It can thus be inferred that the organs were from Falun Gong practitioners.”

Mr. Kilgour said, “David Matas and I found 52 kinds of evidence of the nature of this atrocity since 2001. You may say, ‘well, give me one.’ The one example that I often use is from Sujiatun, Liaoning Province, where Bo Xilai was the governor. I met a witness who told me that her husband was a surgeon, and he has removed 2,000 corneas from the eyes of Falun Gong practitioners in Sujiatun over a two year period in 2003.”

Mr. Kilgour hopes that every government would implement legislation on organ trafficking and stop this human rights atrocity.

A Professor at the University of Sydney: “The CCP Systemically Conducts Live Organ Harvesting”

'悉尼大学教授玛丽亚·辛格女士'

Professor Singh of the University of Sydney

At the briefing, Professor Singh from the University of Sydney mentioned that on the same day, the China State Council announced the dismissal of the Vice Minister of Health, doctor Huang Jiefu. She said, “He was trained in NSW from 1984 to 1987, and holds an honorary professorship with the University of Sydney Medical School. In fact doctor Huang Jiefu was given the title of “Honorary Professor of Medicine” in 2008 by the University of Sydney.

“As you may know, doctor Huang Jiefu is a liver transplant surgeon. He is not only Vice-minister for Health, but a world-renowned liver transplant surgeon. He returned to China from his training at the University of Sydney to continue the practice of unethical organ harvesting from detainees for many years afterwards, both before and after his promotion to Vice-minister of Health in 2001. He officially denied this practice up to 2006, which was when investigations of Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas made it impossible to cover up any longer.”

Later, Prof. Singh said during an interview that although organ trafficking occurs in other countries, including India and Pakistan, the CCP uses state machinery to conduct illegal organ trafficking. She said, “That’s why we call it the ‘national plunder of organs.’ The CCP systematically implements the organ plundering. They take advantage of the hospital system, with the cooperation of the police departments nationwide.” She believes that maintaining silence is only helping organ harvesting to continue and expand.

When a Person Goes to China for an Organ Transplant, Innocent People Are Killed

Jonathan Richard O’Dea, a member of the NSW parliament, said that from his perspective, he supported restricting Australians from going abroad for organ transplantation. He said he put forward the bill a few years ago in the NSW parliament, “There were two issues. One is that legislation is required at a Commonwealth level. Secondly, it has been suggested that the extent of the problem in NSW is actually quite small with only one or two people a year taking part in [transplant] tourism.”

Regarding this, Mr. Kilgour said, “Many years ago I was working as a constitutional lawyer for the province of Alberta. I understand that here, health care delivery is a matter for the State government, but most of the funding for health care comes from the Federal government. Therefore, if there is willingness in NSW for legislation, it is feasible from a legal perspective.”

He continued, “The question is whether only a few people are going [to China for transplants]? At the time of Pol Pot, if you had one Australian and one Canadian at that time who went to Cambodia to get an organ from the killing fields of Cambodia’s back in the 70s, I do not think that anyone would have dared get up and say, there were only a few people going. I believe that people would have said, ‘We do not want any people going to the killing fields of Cambodia.’”

He said, “I don’t know how many, but I have been told that people in all the States of Australia are still going to China. We discovered in Canada, from three hospitals, over a two or three year period, that twenty to thirty people had gone [overseas to get organ transplants].”

Professor Singh said, “To say it’s not an issue of huge magnitude to Australians is one thing. But it is of huge magnitude for the number of Chinese people being killed. That’s putting a very different priority on the life of one person over another. It seems entirely unacceptable to me.”

“It’s symbolic as well. Even if only one person goes from NSW, if there is a law against it, at least it makes the statement that NSW has some integrity in this regard and it’s a symbol for the other states and the commonwealth government to follow in their footsteps.”

Mr. Shoebridge said, “I think Jonathan’s idea is what is called in Parliamentary parlance a ‘Dorothy Dixer.’ You hope to get a response which will assist in the argument rather than challenging it. The evidence I got in my discussion with a renal surgeon, is that they see about half a dozen a year going from our health care system, and very little monitoring from the New South Wales government. So the figure I have got is about half a dozen a year, and if you extrapolate that over five years, you are talking about 30 people getting killed to order as a result of people from New South Wales.”

Member of NSW Parliament: We Must Stop this Crime

John Kaye, from the NSW Greens party and member of the NSW parliament, said, “Over 4,300 people in New South Wales are on dialysis at the moment. If it grows five percent each year, we are the most rapidly growing population in the world for dialysis. We have a particular moral responsibility to make sure that this population does not become a demand source for executions in China.”

“Even if it’s a case of only one person going to China from New South Wales each year, I am determined to work on this to save lives, as one life today, in five years time, may be equal to five persons being killed. We have got to stop this crime.”

Dortmund, Germany: Practitioners Hold Two Events to Celebrate World Human Rights Day (Photos)

December 18, 2012 | By a practitioner in Germany

(Minghui.orgOn December 8 and 12, Falun Dafa practitioners held two events in Dortmund, Germany, to celebrate this year’s World Human Rights Day. Their banners and informational brochures drew attention to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) ongoing persecution of Falun Dafa in China and its crime of harvesting organs from living Dafa practitioners.

Although the temperature plunged on December 8, residents of Dortmund came in droves to the City Square to view the world’s largest Christmas tree. Practitioners set up an information table along the route leading to the Square, with several demonstrating the Falun Dafa exercises. Directly behind the practitioners were banners with the words “Falun Dafa” and “Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance” in both Chinese and German.

了解法轮功真相的民众在反迫害征签簿上签字

People who knew about the persecution were eager to sign the petition that the practitioners had made available. Another banner said, “Stop Organ Harvesting Crimes in China’s Labor Camps” in German. Many passersby stopped to read it.

After listening to a practitioner clarify the truth about Falun Dafa, a young German doctor expressed her support and signed every petition form that the practitioners had available. She also left her contact details, asking someone to contact her with more information about the persecution.

Ms. Boris, a store owner, walked up to the practitioner’s table and simply said, “May I have a few more postcards, please? I would like to place them in my store.” She said that she wanted more people know that Falun Dafa is good and to inform them about the persecution going on in China.

A practitioner picked up a few postcards, pointed to one of them, and said, “The lotus flowers on this postcard were painted by Dafa practitioners in labor camps.” Ms. Boris said that she admired practitioners for being able to have such pure hearts, even under such adversity. She left her business card, hoping to get more information sent to her about the practice and the persecution.

霍安克先生和他的朋友在了解法轮功真相
Mr. Hoanke and his friends learn the truth about Falun Dafa

On December 12, Dortmund experienced its first snowfall of the winter season, but that did not dampen the enthusiasm that people had for learning the truth about Falun Dafa.

When Mr. Hoanke and four friends passed by the Falun Dafa information table, a practitioner told them about the CCP’s live organ harvesting in China. The group expressed their horror over the CCP’s crimes and thought that pirating a person’s organs and selling them without their consent was very wrong. They were very happy to sign the petition.

The practitioner went on to tell them that the female practitioner, Ma Ruimei, whose image was on the petition book, was forced to make fishing products for export to Europe. He told the group, “Mr. Guo Jufeng, who is standing over there, was tortured and imprisoned in three different forced labor camps in China. Twelve of his friends were persecuted to death.”

The practitioner continued, “China’s human rights situation has always been terrible, but it seems to have gotten a lot worse recently, especially with regard to the persecution of Falun Dafa practitioners. For example, in July, approximately 40-50 practitioners were seized in Dalian City, Liaoning Province. In September, nearly 20 practitioners were arrested in Fushun City, Qingyuan County.”

Mr. Guo Jufeng added, “I am very worried for these practitioners, because when I was persecuted in China, the police closed the door and the curtains and tortured me without restraint. Ms. Zhao Juan, my high school teacher, was a very nice lady. After practicing Falun Dafa, her 10-year-old stomach problem and serious neurasthenia miraculously disappeared.

“Nevertheless, the police still arrested her eight times and imprisoned in labor camps three times, simply because she wouldn’t give up the principles of Falun Dafa: Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. After being harassed on numerous occasions, she was forced to leave her 20-year teaching profession. She is now imprisoned in a labor camp in Heilongjiang Province.”

The five thanked the practitioners for making this information known to them. Many people learned the facts about Falun Dafa over the course of the two days.

Chinese Regime Power Shift Seen in Apparatus of Repression

By Matthew Robertson On November 18, 2012 @ 8:48 pm In Regime 

Meng Jianzhu in Beijing, 2010. Meng, a new member of the Politburo, took over as head of the Communist Party's security forces. (Ng Han Guan/AFP/Getty Images)

Meng Jianzhu in Beijing, 2010. Meng, a new member of the Politburo, took over as head of the Communist Party’s security forces. (Ng Han Guan/AFP/Getty Images)

Among the outcomes of the recently concluded 18th Party Congress in China was a subtle but important institutional shift: the head of the Chinese Communist Party’s security forces is now no longer in the Politburo Standing Committee, the Party’s seat of power consisting of seven men. But he will instead be a member of the Politburo, a body of 25 cadres that wields less unchecked authority.

For nearly a decade the agency that oversees almost all aspects of law enforcement, called the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee (PLAC), was essentially a personal fiefdom controlled by men loyal to former regime leader Jiang Zemin. This included from 2002 Luo Gan, his trusted lieutenant, and from 2007 Zhou Yongkang, a grim-faced Jiang loyalist with deep ties to the oil industry.

The new leader is Meng Jianzhu, the current secretary of the public security bureau and a recent inductee to the Politburo.

The matter of who controls the PLAC is a crucial one for the CCP. The Party spends $110 billion on domestic security, more than the amount spent on national defense. The coercive apparatus managed by the committee is massive: it includes a system of courts, labor camps of various kinds, jails, detention centers, brainwashing centers, the prosecutor’s office, the police, a number of secret police forces, and the 1.5 million-strong People’s Armed Police—effectively a standing army.

Without oversight, whoever controls the security forces is able to play a decisive role in influencing domestic policy, as well as cultivate an army of client cadres who benefit from the enormous disbursal of funds overseen by the PLAC. Chen Guangcheng, the blind activist that escaped from house arrest earlier this year, reported much cash being handed out to the people who watched over him, many of whom had ties to local officials.

Power Struggle

The fact that the PLAC will now be controlled from the Politburo is a product of the political struggle between Hu Jintao’s leadership and the faction of former leader Jiang Zemin, which controlled the agency for so long, according to analysts of China’s blackbox politics.

Jiang needed to keep the security forces in his hands after initiating the persecution of Falun Gong in 1999, an unprecedented security campaign that has required massive, sustained investment of state resources that many saw as needless and wasteful. Countless yuan have been spent in prosecuting the campaign, including the construction and expansion of labor camp and brainwashing facilities, the development of highly advanced surveillance systems, and mass mobilization of security personnel across the country to enforce the regime’s edict.

When Hu Jintao came to power in 2002, Jiang expanded the Standing Committee by two places, and inserted Luo Gan and Li Changchun, respectively heads of the PLAC and the Propaganda Ministry, to ensure that the campaign would not be disrupted. Zhou Yongkang took over from Luo Gan. But with the events of this year, there was no one else to give the job to.

 

 

Once Bo Xilai was gone there was nobody qualified to be in the Standing Committee with the experience or credit to take over Zhou Yongkang’s position.

 

 

“Bo Xilai was their candidate for heading the PLAC,” said Xia Yiyang, senior director of policy and research at the Human Rights Law Foundation, based in Washington, in a telephone interview. “Once Bo Xilai was gone there was nobody qualified to be in the Standing Committee with the experience or credit to take over Zhou Yongkang’s position.”

The plan to give the job to Bo broke apart in spectacular fashion beginning in February of this year, when Wang Lijun, Bo’s chief of police, defected to the U.S. Consulate in the southwestern city of Chengdu.

 

Previously there had been what analysts called two centers of power within the regime, with Zhou Yongkang controlling the PLAC outside the effective oversight of regime leader Hu Jintao. That was a dynamic engineered by Jiang on his way out, where significant authority over portfolios was devolved to individual members of the Standing Committee.

The recent shift means that the PLAC is no longer a plaything of Jiang Zemin, but is now firmly within the control of the Party proper, and the idea of there being “two cores” within the Party, one being the PLAC, is no more.

“It’s about consolidating one-Party rule, so they can use the PLAC to oppress the people more effectively, and not have it get involved in intra-Party struggle,” said Zhong Weiguang, a scholar of totalitarianism based in Germany.

“But we must be clear: there will be no change in how they use the PLAC to persecute the Chinese people,” he added.

Warzone

The role of the PLAC, and the difficulties inherent in any major reassessment of its role in social control, means that little change is actually possible, despite the lowering of the agency’s profile, according to Xia, the researcher.

A police guard stands in a courtyard inside the No.1 Detention Center in Beijing in October. The regime's budget for domestic security is at least $110 billion, more than is spent on national defense. (Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images)

A police guard stands in a courtyard inside the No.1 Detention Center in Beijing in October. The regime’s budget for domestic security is at least $110 billion, more than is spent on national defense. (Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images)

“The problem is that this notion of ‘maintaining stability’ is the Party’s policy. This is the only way they can maintain their power,” he said. The term “maintaining stability” is a catchall for a range of coercive techniques by the regime to repress dissent, ranging from Internet censorship at the light end, to incarceration and electric-baton torture at the harsh end.

“This is a warzone. It’s fighting. The CCP is fighting against the whole nation. There are so many issues that they cannot handle in a regular way, like other countries,” said Xia. “Other countries can manage social problems, but there’s no management here. They have to use power to crack down.”

The stability maintenance system, at least in its current form, owes in large part to the innovations in how coercion was used against Falun Gong practitioners. The techniques used against Falun Gong were then reapplied to the wider population, according to a paper that Xia presented to the European Parliament in 2011.

But given that the current, sophisticated system of violence has grown over the last 13 or more years, in lockstep with China’s rapid economic development and the social dislocations that unbalanced economic growth has brought, finding a new means for addressing problems will be impossible, Xia believes.

“They need something to take the place of the current system if they no longer want to use it, but that would mean the whole society would have to change. That means political reform. They won’t take that road. So they have to use this system.”

The ubiquity with which the PLAC’s power invades the daily lives of Chinese citizens could not have been on clearer display than in the period leading up to the 18th Party Congress, which concluded last week in Beijing. Kites and pigeons were banned from the skies, vegetable knives were removed from shelves, thousands of dissidents were detained or driven out of Beijing, stifling Internet restrictions were put in place, and taxis were made to lock their rear windows, in case riders planned on tossing out political leaflets.

 

 

“This time for the 18th Party Congress they used about 1.4 million security personnel,” said Xia. “How do you imagine that they would need this massive security force? It means they consider the whole nation their enemy.”

chinareports@epochtimes.com

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.

Editor’s Note: When Chongqing’s former top cop, Wang Lijun, fled for his life to the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu on Feb. 6, he set in motion a political storm that has not subsided. The battle behind the scenes turns on what stance officials take toward the persecution of Falun Gong. The faction with bloody hands—the officials former CCP head Jiang Zemin promoted in order to carry out the persecution—is seeking to avoid accountability for their crimes and to continue the campaign. Other officials are refusing any longer to participate in the persecution. Events present a clear choice to the officials and citizens of China, as well as people around the world: either support or oppose thepersecution of Falun Gong. History will record the choice each person makes.

 

Click www.ept.ms/ccp-crisis to read about the most recent developments in the ongoing crisis within the Chinese communist regime. In this special topic, we provide readers with the necessary context to understand the situation. Get the RSS feed. Who are the Major Players?

Copyright © 2012 Epoch Times. All rights reserved.

Source:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/chinese-regime-power-shift-seen-in-apparatus-of-repression-316108.html

Evidence That Wife of Disgraced Official Traded in Bodies, Group Says

By Lisa Huang & Jack Phillips On November 19, 2012 @ 3:09 pm In Regime

The murder of a British businessman by the wife of an ambitious Chinese Communist regime leader raises many questions. (The Epoch Times)

The murder of a British businessman by the wife of an ambitious Chinese Communist regime leader raises many questions. (The Epoch Times)

There is new evidence that Gu Kailai, the wife of disgraced former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) politician Bo Xilai, was involved in selling the organs of prisoners of conscience, including adherents of the persecuted Falun Gong meditation practice, according to a report from a human rights organization.

The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, or WOIPFG, said in a recent report that Gu, who was convicted of killing British businessman Neil Heywood, was profiting from selling bodies to body plastination factories. Body plastination involves replacing body fluids with certain plastics in order to preserve them.

source previously told The Epoch Times that Gu profited from the plastination of bodies while her husband Bo Xilai was mayor of Dalian. Bo was later made head of the Chongqing mega-city but was sacked earlier this year after his right-hand man Wang Lijun attempted to defect to a U.S. consulate, triggering factional strife in the regime.

Bo advanced through to nearly the top echelon of the Chinese regime by following the charge of former CCP leader Jiang Zemin to persecute Falun Gong adherents, as recalled by journalist Jiang Weiping.

 

“You must show your toughness in handling Falun Gong much like the toughness shown by Hu Jintao in handling the 1989 Tibetan riot; it will be your political capital,” Jiang Zemin told Bo years ago, according to Jiang Weiping, who was later arrested and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Bo was this year stripped of his position and Communist Party membership for corruption and nepotism.

Bo, Gu, and Wang were involved in the selling of bodies and harvesting of organs from Falun Gong practitioners, the WOIPFG report said.

“Falun Gong practitioners were victimized in several ways. One was having their organs forcibly removed, and being killed in the process,” Wang Zhiyuan of the WOIPFG said, according to the New York-based New Tang Dynasty Television.

“Secondly, Wang Lijun had a center to research legal injections where Falun Gong practitioners were experimented on and killed. Also, others were tortured to death, or killed directly so their bodies could be used for plastination.”

Wang cited several pieces of evidence, including taped phone calls that the group says incriminate Gu. An investigator posed as Liaoning Province Communist Party secretary Xia Dereng, calling Dalian police chief Sun Guangtian. Dalian is in Liaoning.

In the recorded phone call exchange, the two said:

Investigator: “A lot of things have happened. No matter what, do not reveal that Bo Xilai’s wife Gu Kailai, was selling bodies of Falun Gong practitioners, in case anyone asks.”

Sun Guangtian, Dalian police chief: “Who are you?”

Investigator: “My surname is Wong.”

Sun Guangtian: “Party Committee Secretary Xia’s secretary is surnamed Wong?”

Investigator: “Yes, I was transferred here recently.”

Sun Guangtian: “Oh.”

Investigator: “Are you able to do this?”

Sun Guangtian: “Oh, go on.”

Investigator: “If other departments ask about this, make sure you don’t reveal anything.”

Sun Guangtian: “Hmm, what else do you want to tell me?”

Investigator: “Also, Secretary Xia wants me to tell you to make sure those from the Dalian Public Security Bureau back then also keep things a secret.”

Sun Guangtian: “Please tell Secretary Xia to trust me; I will make sure this is carried out.”

WOIPFG believes the statements from Sun are a tacit admission to knowledge of the atrocities. Later, the WOIPFG contacted an official with the 610 Office, an organization that was created by Jiang Zemin to enforce the persecution of Falun Gong. The phone call exchange between an investigator and the 610 Office official, who was identified only by the surname of “Zhao,” reads:

Investigator: “Don’t you know you guys are a criminal group? Once the persecution ends, have you thought about what will happen to you? Look at Gu Kailai … on the surface.”

Zhao, the 610 Office official: “Gu Kailai was selling organs of Falun Gong”

Investigator: “What did you say?”

Zhao: “I said, Gu Kailai, she was selling organs of Falun Gong people.”

Zhao: “It wasn’t just Falun Gong either.”

The rights group also contacted Sui Hongjin, the assistant professor with the Dalian Medical University and who set up the Plastination Company of Dalian Medical University, was a former general manager of the Von Hagens Dalian Plastination firm, which specializes in body plastination. He was also part of another plastination company, the Dalian Hongfeng Biological Technology firm.

Sui told the WOIPFG investigator that many of the bodies his companies received are from the Dalian Municipal Public Security Bureau.

The recording reads as follows:

Investigator: “What was the main source of the bodies your company used?”

Sui Hongjin: “We received dozens [of bodies] from the Public Security organs … that was … from the Public Security Bureau.”

Investigator: “From the Public Security Bureau, how many bodies have you received?”

Sui: “I don’t remember. Probably dozens of them.”

Investigator: “What Public Security Bureau?”

Sui: “Dalian City. The Dalian City Public Security Bureau.”

Premier Exhibitions, which receives bodies from Sui’s Plastination Company of Dalian Medical University, issued a warning to visitors of its body exhibitions after the connection was discovered.

Sui Hongjin also did business with more than 100 world-renowned museums and from that, received more than 200 million yuan (US$32 million), reported the Bandao Daily in November 2010.

According to the WOIPFG, Sui Hongjin has exported at least 1,000 plastinized specimens made from Chinese bodies to the United States and Europe for exhibition.

chinareports@epochtimes.com

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.

Editor’s Note: When Chongqing’s former top cop, Wang Lijun, fled for his life to the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu on Feb. 6, he set in motion a political storm that has not subsided. The battle behind the scenes turns on what stance officials take toward the persecution of Falun Gong. The faction with bloody hands—the officials former CCP head Jiang Zemin promoted in order to carry out the persecution—is seeking to avoid accountability for their crimes and to continue the campaign. Other officials are refusing any longer to participate in the persecution. Events present a clear choice to the officials and citizens of China, as well as people around the world: either support or oppose thepersecution of Falun Gong. History will record the choice each person makes.

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.

 

Click www.ept.ms/ccp-crisis to read about the most recent developments in the ongoing crisis within the Chinese communist regime. In this special topic, we provide readers with the necessary context to understand the situation. Get the RSS feed. Who are the Major Players?

Copyright © 2012 Epoch Times. All rights reserved.

 

Source:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/evidence-that-wife-of-disgraced-official-traded-in-bodies-group-says-316524.html