Revision as of 16:26, 5 March 2010 view sourceDilip rajeev (talk | contribs)5,244 edits REstoring blanked content. Material in "History of Falun Gong"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:43, 17 December 2024 view source WikiEditor50 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,856 edits clean up, replaced: Congressional → congressional, Director → director, Square → square, Obama Administration → Obama administration, typo(s) fixed: ’s → 'sTag: AWB | ||
(900 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see ] --> | |||
{{pp-semi|small=yes}} | |||
{{pp-move}} | |||
{{POV|date=October 2009}} | |||
{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
{{Refimprove|date=October 2009}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2020}} | |||
''']''' was introduced to the general public by ](李洪志) in ], ], in 1992. For the next few years, Falun Gong was the fastest growing '']'' practice in Chinese history and, by 1999, there were between 70 and 100 million people practicing Falun Gong in China.<ref name=Stats> Source of Statistical Information, , accessed 01/01/08</ref> Following the seven years of wide-spread popularity, on ], ], the government of the ] began a nationwide persecution campaign against Falun Gong practitioners, except in the special administrative regions of ] and ].<ref>Faison, Seth (April 27, 1999) ''New York Times'', retrieved June 10, 2006</ref><ref>Kahn, Joseph (April 27, 1999) ''New York Times'', retrieved June 14, 2006</ref> In late 1999, legislation was created to outlaw "heterodox religions" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong.<ref name="Leung"> Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784</ref>] states that the persecution is politically motivated with "legislation being used retroactively to convict people on politically-driven charges, and new regulations introduced to further restrict fundamental freedoms."<ref name="Leung"> Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784</ref><ref name=Amnesty1>, The Amnesty International</ref> | |||
], who co-sponsored a congressional resolution condemning organ harvesting from Falun Gong adherents, speaks at a rally in Washington, D.C.]] | |||
{{Status of religious freedom|persecution}} | |||
{{Discrimination sidebar|expand-religious=yes}} | |||
The '''persecution of Falun Gong''' is the campaign initiated in 1999 by the ] (CCP) to eliminate the spiritual practice of ] in ], maintaining a doctrine of ].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Dillon |first1=Michael |title=Religious Minorities and China |date=2001 |publisher=Minority Rights Group International |language=en}}{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=July 2023}}</ref> It is characterized by a multifaceted propaganda campaign, a program of enforced ideological conversion and re-education and reportedly a variety of extralegal coercive measures such as arbitrary arrests, ] and physical ], sometimes resulting in ].<ref name="Amnesty1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b83b6e00.html |title=China: The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called 'heretical organizations'|date=23 March 2000|publisher=Amnesty International|access-date=17 March 2010}}</ref> | |||
The nature of Chinese Communist Party rule is considered a central cause of the persecution. According to David Ownby, Falun Gong's popularity,<ref name="Ownbyworld">David Ownby, "The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306</ref> traditional roots,<ref name="Ownbyming">Ownby, David, "A History for Falun Gong: Popular Religion and the Chinese State Since the Ming Dynasty", Nova Religio, Vol. ,pp. 223-243</ref><ref>Barend ter Haar, '''' </ref> and distinction from marxist-atheist ideology were perceived as a challenge by the Chinese government.<ref name=lestz>Michael Lestz, , Religion in the News, Fall 1999, Vol. 2, No. 3, Trinity College, Massachusetts</ref> Reports suggest that certain high-level Communist Party officials had wanted to crackdown on the practice for some years,<ref name=XIX /> but lacked pretext or support--until a number of appeals and petitions to the authorities in 1999, in particular, a 10,000 person silent protest at Zhongnanhai on April 25th.<ref name=XIX>Julia Ching, "The Falun Gong: Religious and Political Implications," ''American Asian Review'', Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12</ref><ref name="Amnesty1">, Amnesty International</ref> Reportedly many high-ranking members of the politburo were opposed to the persecution, and some analysts consider ] personally responsible for the final decision and the ensuing "Mao-style political campaign."<ref name=lamsupp /><ref name=Saich>Tony Saich, ''Governance and Politics in China,'' Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Ed edition (27 Feb 2004)</ref> Suspected motives include personal jealousy of ]'s popularity,<ref name=Peerman>Dean Peerman, , Christian Century, August 10, 2004</ref> and a manufactured ideological struggle to enforce allegiance of both the populace and the party members to himself and the leadership.<ref name=XIX /><ref name=Peerman /> | |||
Falun Gong is a modern '']'' discipline combining slow-moving exercises and meditation with a moral philosophy. It was founded by ], who introduced it to the public in May 1992 in ], ]. Following a period of rapid growth in the 1990s, the CCP launched a campaign to "eradicate" Falun Gong on 20 July 1999.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}} | |||
The persecution is considered a major violation of human rights, and international human rights groups have called on the Chinese government to end the persecution<ref name="HRW1">, Human Rights Watch</ref> and release practitioners sentenced to detention for peaceful activities.<ref name="HRW2">, Human Rights Watch</ref> Reports state that every aspect of society was used by the Party to persecute Falun Gong, including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces.<ref name=wildgrass>Johnson, Ian, ''Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china'', Vintage (March 8, 2005)</ref> An extra-constitutional body, the ] was created to "oversee the terror campaign,"<ref name=morais>Morais, Richard C., ''Forbes'', February 9, 2006, retrieved ] ]</ref> driven by a large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet.<ref name=Leung/> Propaganda urged families and workplaces to actively assist in the campaign, and practitioners were subject to severe torture to have them recant.<ref name=dangerous>Mickey Spiegel, , Human Rights Watch, 2002, accessed Sept 28, 2007</ref> There are acute concerns over reports of torture,<ref name=heretical> (23 March 2000) , Amnesty International</ref> illegal imprisonment, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses.<ref>United Nations (], ]) , retrieved ], ]</ref> Falun Gong practitioners comprise 66% of all reported torture cases in China,<ref name=nowak66>, Manfred Nowak, United Nations, Table 1: Victims of alleged torture, p. 13, 2006, accessed October 12 2007</ref> and at least half of the labour camp population, according to the United Nations and US State Department respectively.<ref name=USstate> , ], Sept 14, 2007, accessed 28th Sept 2007</ref> In July 2006, an investigative report by Canadian ex-Secretary of State ] and Human Rights Lawyer ] concluded that there exists an ongoing practice of systematic ].<ref name=KMRR></ref> This has been met with concern from the United Nations Committee on Torture, who called for China to schedule an independent investigation and prosecute those guilty of such crimes.<ref name=AmnestyFactSheet >Amnesty International,, </ref><ref name=marketwireun2>MARKET WIRE via COMTEX, , May 8, 2008, accessed 16/6/08</ref> | |||
The Chinese government had alleged that Falun Gong was an "evil cult" or "heretical sect" and had used that official rationale to justify to ban and eliminate the movement.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Yoffe |first=Emily |date=2001-08-10 |title=The Gong Show |language=en-US |work=Slate |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/08/the-gong-show.html |access-date=2023-02-22 |issn=1091-2339}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=1999-11-09 |title=China Uses "Rule of Law" to Justify Falun Gong Crackdown |url=https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/11/09/china-uses-rule-law-justify-falun-gong-crackdown |access-date=2023-02-22 |website=Human Rights Watch |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Refugees |first=United Nations High Commissioner for |title=China: Treatment of Falun Gong practitioners by state authorities; whether state authorities treat Falun Gong leaders differently than other Falun Gong practitioners (2013–September 2015) |url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/563c6fb94.html |access-date=2023-02-22 |website=Refworld |language=en}}</ref> An extra-constitutional body called the ] was created to lead the persecution of Falun Gong.<ref name=CECC2008/> The authorities mobilized the state media apparatus, judiciary, police, army, the education system, families and workplaces against the group.<ref name=wildgrass>{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Ian|title=Wild Grass: Three Portraits of Change in Modern China|year=2005|publisher=Vintage|location=New York|isbn=978-0375719196}}</ref> The campaign was driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and the Internet.<ref name=Leung/> There are reports of systematic torture,<ref name=heretical>(23 March 2000) , Amnesty International</ref><ref name=breaking/> illegal imprisonment, forced labor, ]<ref name=orgharv/> and abusive psychiatric measures, with the apparent aim of forcing practitioners to recant their belief in Falun Gong.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}} | |||
Falun Gong practitioners around the world continue to protest against the persecution, and have initiated lawsuits against Chinese officials alleged to be chiefly responsible, in particular Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan.<ref name="HRW1" /> | |||
Foreign observers estimate that hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in "]" camps, prisons and other detention facilities for refusing to renounce the spiritual practice.<ref name=CECC2008/><ref name="Departmentof">{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135989.htm|title=China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)}}</ref> Former prisoners have reported that Falun Gong practitioners consistently received "the longest sentences and worst treatment" in labor camps, and in some facilities Falun Gong practitioners formed the substantial majority of detainees.<ref name=HumanRights>Human Rights Watch of report December 2005</ref><ref>Leeshai Lemish, {{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, National Post 7 October 2008</ref> {{as of|2009}}, at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been reportedly tortured to death in the persecution campaign.<ref>Andrew Jacobs. , New York Times, 27 April 2009.</ref> Some international observers and judicial authorities have described the campaign against Falun Gong as a ].<ref>Samuel Totten and Paul Robert Bartrop ''Dictionary of Genocide''. (Greewood publishing group: 2008), p 69</ref><ref>''The Standard''. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017095220/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=1779&sid=4663428&con_type=1&d_str=20050921 |date=17 October 2015 }}, 21 September 2005.</ref> In 2009, courts in Spain and Argentina indicted senior Chinese officials for genocide and crimes against humanity for their role in orchestrating the suppression of Falun Gong.<ref name="reutersflg">Reuters, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151203212405/https://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/23/us-argentina-china-falungong-idUSTRE5BM02B20091223 |date=3 December 2015 }}, 22 December 2009.</ref><ref>Genocide Prevention Network, .</ref><ref>, 14 November 2009</ref> | |||
==Onset of the persecution == | |||
In 2006, allegations emerged that ].<ref name=orgharv/><ref name=CGOH/> An initial ] found that "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six-year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and concluded that "there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners".<ref name=orgharv/> ] estimates 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008.<ref name=Jay/><ref name=HMH>Ethan Gutmann (10 March 2011) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111220031956/http://eastofethan.com/2011/03/10/how-many-harvested-revisited |date=20 December 2011 }}, eastofethan.com</ref> Following additional analysis, the researchers significantly raised the estimates on the number of Falun Gong practitioners who may have been targeted for organ harvesting.<ref name="independent.co.uk">{{cite web|last1=Samuels|first1=Gabriel|title=China kills millions of innocent meditators for their organs, report finds|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-kills-millions-of-innocent-meditators-for-their-organs-report-finds-a7107091.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220525/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-kills-millions-of-innocent-meditators-for-their-organs-report-finds-a7107091.html |archive-date=25 May 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|website=The Independent|date=29 June 2016}}</ref> In 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their requests for "the Chinese government to fully explain the allegation of taking vital organs from Falun Gong practitioners and the source of organs for the sudden increase in organ transplants that has been going on in China since the year 2000".<ref name=MW>Market Wired (8 May 2008) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002180858/http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/chinas-organ-harvesting-questioned-again-by-un-special-rapporteurs-falunhr-reports-853799.htm |date=2 October 2018 }} Retrieved 26 October 2014</ref> | |||
''See further: ]'' | |||
] | |||
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-size: 95%; background:#ffffgc; color:black; width:45em; max-width: 58%; padding: 1em 1.5em 1.5em"> | |||
===Jiang Zemin's role=== | |||
Julia Ching from the ] suggests that it was the Zhongnanhai incident which led to "fear, animosity and suppression."<ref name=XIX/> Jiang Zemin had allegedly received a letter from the former director of the ], "a doctor with considerable standing among the political elite," endorsing Falun Gong and advising high-level cadres to start practicing it.<ref name=XIX /> Jiang also found out that Li's book, ''Zhuan Falun'', had been published by ] press, and that possibly seven hundred thousand Communist Party members were practitioners. "Jiang accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism. He wishes to purge the government and the military of such beliefs."<ref name=XIX/> | |||
==Background== | |||
], Buddhism scholar at ], said the regime was frightened by Falun Gong and "went nuts, revealing its weakness and self-doubt for all the world to see." Thurman claims that Jiang "became obsessed and drove around Zhongnanhai to observe the protesters through the smoked glass of his limousine. That night, seemingly in the grip of a spiritual crisis, he wrote to the Politburo: 'I believe Marxism can triumph over Falun Gong.' He mutters incessantly to Western envoys about the troublesome movement."<ref name=natreview/> | |||
{{Main|History of Falun Gong}} | |||
]. The banner reads "Falun Dafa Free-Teaching Exercise Site". Falun Gong's popularity worried senior officials of the ].<ref name="freedom house">{{cite web |last1=Cook |first1=Sarah |title=Falun Gong: Religious Freedom in China |url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom |website=] |access-date=15 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Palmer/>]] | |||
Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a form of spiritual ] practice that involves meditation, energy exercises, and a set of moral principles that guide practitioners' daily lives.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Penny |first1=Benjamin |title=The Religion of Falun Gong |date=March 2012 |publisher=The University of Chicago Press |page=170 |isbn=9780226655024 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ueh9MW2Ic9UC}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ownby |first1=David |title=] |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=93}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Penny |first1=Benjamin |title=The Religion of Falun Gong |publisher=The University of Chicago Press |page=124}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gries, Rosen |first1=Peter, Stanley |title=State and Society in 21st Century China: Crisis, Contention and Legitimation |date=2 August 2004 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781134321261 |page=40}}</ref> The principles they espouse—"truthfulness, compassion, forbearance"—have been repeated by Falun Gong members.<ref>. Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. (pp. 1 – 23).</ref> However, according to ], Falun Gong founder ] instructs his followers to not talk about "Falun Gong's inner teachings" when talking to outsiders, contradictory to his teachings about "Truthfulness".<ref name="Lewis 2017">{{cite journal |author=James R. Lewis |author-link=James R. Lewis (scholar) |title='I am the only one propagating true Dharma': Li Hongzhi's Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater |date=2017 |journal=Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities |volume=II |number=2 |publisher=Colombo Arts}}</ref> | |||
The ] reported sources saying that not all of the ] shared Jiang's view that Falun Gong should be eradicated.<ref name="ReidG"/> Through a ]-style purge of Falun Gong, Jiang forced senior cadres "to pledge allegiance to his line," thus boosting his authority to enable him to dictate events at the pivotal ], a Communist Party veteran later told ]'s Willy Lam. "As with campaigns dating from the 1960s, the standard ritual of ideological sessions held in party units, factories, and colleges the past few years is that participants make public declarations of support for the Beijing line—and for the top leader."<ref name=lamsupp /> | |||
The practice of Falun Gong was first taught publicly by Li in Northeast China in the spring of 1992, towards the end of China's "]".<ref name="Ownby">{{cite book|last=Ownby|first=David|title=Falun Gong and the Future of China|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York, NY|isbn=978-0-19-532905-6|url=https://archive.org/details/falungongfutureo2008ownb|url-access=registration|quote=Falun Gong and the Future of China.}}</ref><ref name=Palmer>{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=David|title=]|year=2007|publisher=Columbia University Press|location=New York, NY|isbn=978-0-231-14066-9|quote=Qigong Fever: Body, Science and Utopia in China.}}</ref> Falun Gong initially enjoyed considerable official support during the early years of its development. It was promoted by the state-run Qigong Association and other government agencies. By the mid-1990s, however, Chinese authorities sought to rein in the influence of qigong practices and enacted more stringent requirements on the country's various qigong denominations.<ref name=Ownby/> In 1995 authorities mandated that all qigong groups establish Communist Party branches. The government also sought to formalize ties with Falun Gong and exercise greater control over the practice. Falun Gong resisted co-optation, and instead filed to withdraw altogether from the state-run qigong association.<ref name=Palmer/> | |||
Jiang's campaign has been criticized for its Maoist-style approach. Lam reports a mid-level official saying that "The leadership is obsessed with the Falun Gong and have put its eradication as a top priority this year."<ref name=lamendgame>CNN.com, , August 21, 2001</ref> Tony Saich agrees that the campaign was used by Jiang to serve as a loyalty test to his individual leadership.<ref name="Saich"/> The size and reach of Jiang's anti-Falun Gong campaign surpassed that of many previous mass-movements.<ref name=lamsupp>Willy Wo-Lap Lam, , CNN.com, February 9, 2001</ref> | |||
</div> | |||
Following this severance of ties to the state, the group came under increasing criticism and surveillance from the country's security apparatus and ]. Falun Gong books were banned from further publication in July 1996, and official news outlets began criticizing the group as a form of "feudal superstition", whose "theistic" orientation was at odds with the official ideology and national agenda.<ref name=Ownby/> | |||
On ], ] the Party established an extra-constitutional body charged with overseeing the persecution, referred to as the "]." Agents were sent to every province, city, county, university, government department and state-owned business in China, according to Reid.<ref name="ReidG"/> In the Kilgour-Matas report, a Party official is quoted saying that in 1999, more than 3,000 officials of the 6-10 Office united at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to discuss the campaign,<ref name=bloodyharvest>David Kilgour & David Matas, , accessed 26th of September</ref> where Li Lanqing, then head of the 6-10 Office, is said to have verbally announced the Party's policy on Falun Gong, passed on by Jiang: "defaming their reputations, bankrupting them financially and destroying them physically".<ref name=bloodyharvest/> | |||
Tensions continued to escalate through the late 1990s. By 1999, surveys estimated as many as 70 million people were practicing Falun Gong in China.<ref>{{cite news|author=Seth Faison|title= In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors|url=http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/042799china-protest.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date= 27 April 1999}}</ref> Although some government agencies and senior officials continued expressing support for the practices, others grew increasingly wary of its size and capacity for independent organization.<ref name=Palmer/> | |||
By ], ], the persecution campaign had begun. Under orders from the ], churches, temples, mosques, newspapers, media, courts and police were all mobilized to follow the Party line to "crush" Falun Gong, "no measures too excessive."<ref name=wildgrass/> Falun Gong was “condemned” in the media, with books shredded and videotapes bulldozed for TV cameras.<ref name="Leung"/> Within days a “wave of arrests” swept across China. The arrest of other Falun Gong practitioners across the country also began, with police breaking into the homes of hundreds and taking them to prison in the middle of the night.<ref name="Porter"/> By the end of 1999, practitioners were dying in custody,<ref name=wildgrass> ibid., Ian Johnson, ''Wildgrass'' (2005) p 283</ref> and by February 2000, 5,000 were detained across China.<ref name="Leung"/> | |||
On 22 April 1999, several dozen Falun Gong practitioners were beaten and arrested in the city of Tianjin while staging a peaceful sit-in.{{sfn|Schechter|2001|p=66}}{{sfn|Ownby|2008|p=171}} The practitioners were told that the arrest order came from the Ministry of Public Security, and that those arrested could be released only with the approval of Beijing authorities.{{sfn|Ownby|2008|p=171}}{{sfn|Schechter|2001|p=69}}<ref name=gutmannfuyou>Ethan Gutmann, An Occurrence on Fuyou Street, National Review 13 July 2009.</ref> | |||
On ], ] the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs issued an official statement banning Falun Gong. Charges imposed ranged from "organizing illegal gatherings" to "threatening political stability."<ref name=Amnesty1/> On the same day, Human Rights Watch in New York issued a statement that "strongly condemned the Chinese government's nationwide ban on the practice of Falun Gong" and urged the release of practitioners "arbitrarily detained in a nationwide sweep aimed at suppressing the group." Human Rights Watch called on the international community to protest the ban, and urged Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to intervene with Chinese officials at the highest levels.<ref name="HRW2">, Human Rights Watch, New York</ref> | |||
On 25 April, upwards of 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners assembled peacefully near the ] government compound in Beijing to request the release of the Tianjin practitioners and an end to the escalating harassment against them. It was Falun Gong practitioners' attempt to seek redress from the leadership by going to them and, "albeit very quietly and politely, making it clear that they would not be treated so shabbily."<ref name="pennyharrold">], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080325202921/http://www.nla.gov.au/grants/haroldwhite/papers/bpenny.html |date=25 March 2008 }}, 2001. Retrieved 16 March 2008</ref> It was the first mass demonstration at the ] compound in the PRC's history, and the largest protest in Beijing since 1989. Several Falun Gong representatives met with then-premier Zhu Rongji, who assured them that the government was not against Falun Gong, and promised that the Tianjin practitioners would be released. The crowd outside dispersed peacefully, apparently believing that their demonstration had been a success.<ref name=gutmannfuyou/> | |||
Amnesty International states that despite the persecution, many Falun Gong practitioners continued to hold exercise sessions in public, usually as a form of silent protest against the persecution and imprisonment. Some of these silent protests were held outside important seats of government or in places of political significance, such as Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Amnesty says that they were attended by large numbers of people, including significant numbers of elderly people and women, and that they were entirely peaceful.<ref name=Amnesty1>, The Amnesty International</ref> The Party declared the sessions to be "illegal assemblies" and the practitioners were put under detention or sent to forced labor.<ref name="HRW1"/> Amnesty states that among the thousands detained were ordinary workers, farmers, teachers, academics, university students, publishers, accountants, police officers, engineers, people from a variety of other professions, and government officials.<ref name=Amnesty1/> Ian Johnson cites information stating that over 35,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been arrested in ] alone.<ref>Ian Johnson,, 25 April 2000, ] Page A21</ref>. | |||
The Falun Dafa Information Center has documented details of over 3000 confirmed cases of deaths of Falun Gong practitioners, caused by torture and violence in police custody.<ref>Minghui/Clearwisdom,, Falun Gong, retrieved ] ]</ref> Falun Gong related human rights organizations state that realistic estimates of deaths could be above 30,000.<ref>, The Falun Dafa Information Center </ref> | |||
Security czar and politburo member ] was less conciliatory, and called on ], the ] to find a decisive solution to the Falun Gong problem.<ref name=Tong/> | |||
==Mechanics of the persecution campaign== | |||
]]] | |||
==Statewide persecution== | |||
According to Human Rights reports, a variety of techniques have been employed by the Chinese government in its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. These include physical and psychiatric abuses; "re-education" through forced labor, where detained practitioners are forced to renounce the practice; and a widespread media campaign to turn public opinion against practitioners.<ref name=KMRR/> Every aspect of society was turned against Falun Gong practitioners, according to ], including the media apparatus, police force, army, education system, families, and workplaces.<ref name=wildgrass/> An extra-constitutional body, the ] was created to "oversee the terror campaign,"<ref name=morais/> driven by a large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and internet.<ref name=Leung/> Propaganda urged families and workplaces to actively assist in the campaign, while practitioners themselves were subject to severe torture to have them recant.<ref name=dangerous/> Kilgour and Matas state that the "6-10 office" established itself every province, city, county, university, government department and government-owned business to spearhead the crackdown. Local governments were given unlimited authority to implement Beijing's orders in 1999 and afterwards.<ref name=KMRR /> | |||
On the night of 25 April 1999, then-Communist Party General Secretary ] issued a letter indicating his desire to see Falun Gong defeated. The letter expressed alarm at Falun Gong's popularity, particularly among Communist Party members.<ref>Jiang Zemin, "Letter to Party cadres on the evening of April 25, 1999" republished in Beijing Zhichun (Beijing Spring) no. 97, June 2001.</ref> He reportedly called the Zhongnanhai protest "the most serious political incident since the ] in 1989."<ref>Penny, The Religion of Falun Gong, p 65.</ref> | |||
<div class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-size: 95%; background:#ffffgc; color:black; width:35em; max-width: 35%; padding: 1em 1.5em 1.5em"> | |||
''Immeasurable capital and police resources are being poured into this campaign for no reason, turning society in chaos, all just to suppress Falun Gong practitioners—people who peacefully do their practice in order to cultivate their hearts and minds, and improve their health. What is being done to them is an absolute crime and a violation of basic human rights. There is no excuse for you not to take immediate action to change the situation.'' -- Prominent human rights lawyer ] in an open letter to ] and ].<ref>Gao Zhisheng, A China More Just, Broad Press USA, 2007</ref> | |||
</div> | |||
Human Rights organizations also point to retroactive use of legislation to legitimatize the persecution.<ref name =Amnesty1/>. The campaign's first emphasis on rule by law was a statute legislation outlawing "heterodox religions," which was then retroactively applied to Falun Gong,<ref name=lum/> thus granting the persecution of Falun Gong, and that of other spiritual groups, an air of legitimacy.<ref name=Leung/>Beatrice Leung states that Falun Gong had "obtained legal status as one of China's many qigong groups," since it had been registered with the China Qigong Science Research Society in 1992; its literature had been approved by the Ministry of Culture and its books were printed through a state-license. She suggests that this retroactive application of law, which saw the press which printed Falun Gong's books punished and bookshop-owners arrested for acts which were not illegal at that time, "defies normal concepts of legality." | |||
At a meeting of the ] on 7 June 1999, Jiang described Falun Gong as a grave threat to Communist Party authority—"something unprecedented in the country since its founding 50 years ago"—and ordered the creation of a high-level committee to "get fully prepared for the work of disintegrating ."<ref name=Jamestown/> Rumors of an impending crackdown began circulating throughout China, prompting demonstrations and petitions.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}} The government publicly denied the reports, calling them "completely baseless" and offering assurances that it had never banned qigong activities.<ref>Penny, The Religion of Falun Gong, p 63-66.</ref> | |||
Amnesty states the official directives and legal documents issued for the purge "undermine rights set out in the Chinese constitution as well as international standards."<ref name=Leung/><ref name=heretical/>Kilgour and Matas point out that only "later in 1999 did the National People's Congress pass new laws targeting Falun Gong retroactively and purporting to legalize a long list of illegal acts" against practitioners.<ref name=KMRR/> | |||
Just after midnight on 20 July 1999, public security officers seized hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners from their homes in cities across China.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002|p=21}} Estimates on the number of arrests vary from several hundred to over 5,600. A Hong Kong newspaper reported that 50,000 individuals were detained in the first week of the crackdown.<ref name=Tong/> Four Falun Gong coordinators in Beijing were arrested and quickly tried on charges of "leaking state secrets".<ref name=Amnesty1/><ref name="Porter">Noah Porter (Masters thesis for the University of South Florida), '' Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study'', 2003.</ref> The ] ordered churches, temples, mosques, newspapers, media, courts and police to suppress Falun Gong.<ref name="wildgrass" /> Three days of massive demonstrations by practitioners in some thirty cities followed. In Beijing and other cities, protesters were detained in sports stadiums.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002|p=21}} | |||
Analysts opine that officials grew impatient with the constant flow of protesters into Beijing, and decided that “drastic measures were needed.” Johnson, in his work ''Wild Grass'', described the framework set up by Beijing that led to killings.<ref name=wildgrass/> This was a cascading responsibility system to push the responsibility for meeting central orders down onto those enforcing them: central authorities would hold local officials personally responsible for stemming the flow of protesters. A typical “study session” of police and government officials was held in Weifang; the central government's directive to limit protesters was read aloud, no questions were asked as to how it was to be achieved—“success was all that mattered.”<ref name=wildgrass> ibid., Ian Johnson, ''Wildgrass'' (2005) p 285</ref><!-- Commented out because image was deleted: ] --> | |||
<!-- Deleted image removed: ] --> | |||
Editorials in state-run newspapers urged people to give up Falun Gong practice, and Communist Party members in particular were reminded that they were atheists and must not allow themselves to "become superstitious by continuing to practice Falun Gong." | |||
Li Hongzhi responded with a "''Brief Statement of Mine''" on 22 July: | |||
The Party has also used a variety of extra-legal mechanisms to stamp out public practice and protest, according to Human Rights Watch.<ref name=dangerous/> Work units would summarily fire people identified as practitioners. Job loss often meant lost housing, schooling, pensions, and a report to the police. If brought to the attention of police or Party officials, even doing the Falun Gong exercises at home proved dangerous.<ref name=dangerous/> Local officials would detain active practitioners and those unwilling to recant, and were expected to "make certain" that families and employers keep them isolated.<ref name=dangerous/> | |||
{{blockquote|We are not against the government now, nor will we be in the future. Other people may treat us badly, but we do not treat others badly, nor do we treat people as enemies. | |||
===Propaganda and media control=== | |||
] | |||
We are calling for all governments, international organizations, and people of goodwill worldwide to extend their support and assistance to us in order to resolve the present crisis that is taking place in China.<ref name=briefstate>Li Hongzhi, , 22 July 1999, accessed 31/12/07</ref>}} | |||
Anti-Falun Gong propaganda from state controlled media has played a central role in the persecution, according to scholars and journalists. Kilgour and Matas state that by inciting the population to hate Falun Gong practitioners, it justifies the policy of persecution, recruites participants in the persecution, and forestalls opposition.<ref name=KMRR/> | |||
===Rationale=== | |||
Elizabeth J. Perry describes media reports inundating the evening news at the early stages of the crackdown: "For weeks... each night, pictures were broadcast of huge piles of Falun Gong materials that had been... confiscated in police raids on bookstores and publishing houses," including the People’s Liberation Army Press. "Some were disposed of in gigantic bonfires, others were recycled..." Media reports would focus on the testimonies of relatives of Falun Gong "victims", who would talk about the "terrible tragedies" that had befallen their loved ones; former practitioners would confess being "hoodwinked by Li Hongzhi and... expressing regret at their gullibility"; "happy pictures of those who had kicked the Falun Gong habit" and were now pursuing other pass-times were broadcast; physical education instructors suggested "healthy alternatives" to Falun Gong practice, including badminton, ballroom dancing, bowling. Perry writes that the basic pattern of the offensive was similar to "the anti-rightist campaign of the 1950s the anti-spiritual pollution campaigns of the 1980s."<ref>Elizabeth J. Perry, Critical Asian Studies 33:2 (2001), p. 173</ref> | |||
] | |||
Foreign observers have attempted to explain the Party's rationale for banning Falun Gong as stemming from a variety of factors. These include Falun Gong's popularity, its independence from the state and refusal to toe the Party line, internal power politics within the Communist Party, and Falun Gong's moral and spiritual content, which put it at odds with the Party's ] ideology.{{Citation needed|date=June 2019}} | |||
A ] report suggested that certain high-level Party officials wanted to crack down on the practice for years, but lacked sufficient pretext until the protest at Zhongnanhai, which they claim was partly orchestrated by ], a long-time opponent of Falun Gong.<ref name = "Ching-Gong">Julia Ching, "The Falun Gong: Religious and Political Implications," American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p 2</ref> There were also reportedly rifts in the ] at the time of the incident. ] writes that Jiang's campaign against Falun Gong may have been used to promote allegiance to himself; Lam quotes one party veteran as saying, "By unleashing a Mao-style movement , Jiang is forcing senior cadres to pledge allegiance to his line."<ref>], CNN, 9 February 2001</ref> Jiang is held by Falun Gong to be personally responsible for the final decision,<ref name=peerman>Dean Peerman, , Christian Century, 10 August 2004</ref><ref name=Saich>Tony Saich, ''Governance and Politics in China,'' Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Ed edition (27 February 2004)</ref> and sources cited by '']'' state that, "] alone decided that Falun Gong must be eliminated," and "picked what he thought was an easy target."<ref name=CracksRegime>{{cite news|last=Pomfret|first=John|title=Cracks in China's Crackdown, Falun Gong Campaign Exposes Leadership Woes|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/12/062r-111299-idx.html|access-date=2 November 2012|newspaper=Washington Post|date=12 November 1999}}</ref> Peerman cited reasons such as suspected personal jealousy of ];<ref name=peerman/> Saich postulates that party leaders' anger at Falun Gong's widespread appeal, and ideological struggle.<ref name=Saich/> The '']'' reported that members of the ] did not unanimously support the crackdown, and that "] alone decided that Falun Gong must be eliminated."<ref name=CracksRegime/> The size and reach of Jiang's anti–Falun Gong campaign surpassed that of many previous mass-movements.<ref name=lamsupp>Willy Wo-Lap Lam, , CNN.com, 9 February 2001.</ref> | |||
Falun Gong was branded by state-media as part of an "anti-China international movement," according to CNN's Willy Lam.<ref name=lamsupp /> In a throw-back to the Cultural Revolution, the Party organised rallies in the streets and stop-work meetings in remote western provinces by irrelevant government agencies such as the weather bureau to denounce the practice. Xinhua published editorials on ] officers declaring Falun Gong "an effort by hostile Western forces to subvert China," and vowing to do their utmost to defend the central leadership and "maintain national security and social stability."<ref name=lamsupp /> | |||
] notes that the crackdown on Falun Gong reflects historical efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to eradicate religion, which the government believed was inherently subversive.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002|p=14}} Some journalists believe that Beijing's reaction exposes its authoritarian nature and its intolerance for competing loyalty. '']'' wrote : "...any group that does not come under the control of the Party is a threat"; secondly, the 1989 protests may have heightened the leaders' sense of losing their grip on power, making them live in "mortal fear" of popular demonstrations.<ref name=atimes>Francesco Sisci, {{Webarchive|url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20120210140555/http://atimes.com/china/CA27Ad01.html |date=10 February 2012 }} Asia Times, 27 January 2001</ref><ref>The Globe and Mail, Beijing v. falun gong, Metro A14, 26 January 2001</ref> Craig Smith of ''the Wall Street Journal'' suggests that the government which has by definition no view of spirituality, lacks moral credibility with which to fight an expressly spiritual foe; the party feels increasingly threatened by any belief system that challenges its ideology and has an ability to organize itself.<ref name=nyt20000430>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/30/weekinreview/the-world-rooting-out-falun-gong-china-makes-war-on-mysticism.html?pagewanted=all |title=Rooting Out Falun Gong; China Makes War on Mysticism |first=Craig S. |last=Smith | |||
Circulars were issued to women's and youth organisations encouraging support for the crackdown. Both the Youth League and the All-China Women's Federation trumpeted the "greater use of science education" to combat "feudalistic superstition." Xinhua would report speeches of ] officials: "This reminds us of the importance and urgency of strengthening our political and ideological work among the younger generation, educating them with Marxist materialism and atheism, and making greater efforts to popularize scientific knowledge."<ref name=xinhuamass>People's Daily Online,, July 25, 1999, accessed October 12, 2007</ref> The Women's Federation stated the need to "arm our sisters with scientific knowledge and help improve their capability to recognize and resist feudal superstition."<ref name=xinhuamass /> After having "earnestly studied" Jiang's speeches on Falun Gong, the PLA also recognised that "Only Marxism can save China and only the Chinese Communist Party can lead us to accomplish the great cause of reinvigorating the Chinese nation."<ref>People's Daily Online, , July 25, 1999, accessed October 12, 2007</ref> | |||
|work=] |date=30 April 2000}}</ref> That Falun Gong, whose belief system represented a revival of traditional Chinese religion,<ref name=Slaughter/> was being practiced by many Communist Party members and members of the military was seen as particularly disturbing to ]. "Jiang accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism. He to purge the government and the military of such beliefs".<ref name=XIX>Julia Ching, "The Falun Gong: Religious and Political Implications," ''American Asian Review'', Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12</ref> | |||
==Legal and political mechanisms== | |||
The campaign entered educational institutions, with anti-Falun Gong propaganda incorporated into high-school and primary school textbooks.<ref name=woipfgedu>WOIPFG,, 2004, accessed October 12, 2007</ref> WOIPFG claimed that students who practiced Falun Gong were barred from schools and universities and from sitting exams; a policy of "guilt by association" was adopted, such that direct family members of known practitioners were also denied entry; schoolchildren were taught anti-Falun Gong poems;<ref name=wsjwhatif>Hugo Restall , The Asian Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2001</ref> anti-Falun Gong petitions were organised on a mass scale;<ref name=dangerous /> university professors, lecturers and students who refused to renounce Falun Gong were expelled and faced consequences such as arrest, forced labour, rape, and torture, sometimes resulting in death; students were forced to watch videos or attend seminars attacking Falun Gong;<ref name=dangerous /> defaming banners and posters were placed around schools and universities, reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution;<ref name=dangerous /><ref name=woipfgedulet>WOIPFG,, accessed October 12 2007</ref> viewing Falun Gong websites could result in arrest; examinations contained questions with anti-Falun Gong contents—incorrect answers could result in reportedly violent repercussions.<ref name=woipfgedu /> | |||
===610 Office=== | |||
{{Main|610 Office}} | |||
On 10 June the Party established the ], a Communist Party-led security agency responsible for coordinating the elimination of Falun Gong.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}}<ref name=Jamestown/> The office was not created with any legislation, and there are no provisions describing its precise mandate. Because of this, it is sometimes described as an extralegal organization.<ref name=Jamestown/><ref>Congressional Executive Commission on China </ref> Nonetheless, its tasks were "to deal with central and local, party and state agencies, which were called upon to act in close coordination with that office," according to UCLA professor James Tong.<ref name=Tong/> The leaders of the 610 Office are "able to call on top government and party officials...and draw on their institutional resources", and have personal access to the Communist Party General Secretary and the Premier.<ref name=Tong>James Tong, '']''. ], 2009</ref> | |||
The office is headed by a high-ranking member of the Communist Party's Politburo or ]. It is closely associated with the powerful ].<ref name=Tong/><ref name=Jamestown/> Soon after the creation of the central 610 Office, local branches were established at each administrative level wherever populations of Falun Gong practitioners were present, including the provincial, district, municipal, and sometimes neighborhood levels. In some instances, 610 Offices have been established within large corporations and universities.<ref name=Tong/><ref name=Xia>{{cite web|last=Xia|first=Yiyang|title=The illegality of China's Falun Gong crackdown—and today's rule of law repercussions|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/506_yiyangxia_/506_yiyangxia_en.pdf|publisher=European Parliament|access-date=24 November 2012|date=June 2011}}</ref> | |||
According to ''The Washington Post'', neighborhood officials compelled the elderly, people with disabilities, and the ill to attend the classes denouncing Falun Gong; universities sent staff to find students who had dropped out or been expelled for practicing Falun Gong and brought them back for the brainwashing sessions.<ref name=torturebreak> John Pomfret and Philip P. Pan, “Torture Is Breaking Falun Gong, China Systematically Eradicating Group”, ] Foreign Service, Sunday, August 5, 2001; Page A01</ref> | |||
The main functions of the 610 Offices include coordinating anti–Falun Gong propaganda, surveillance and intelligence collection, and the punishment and "reeducation" of Falun Gong practitioners.<ref name=CECC2008>Congressional-Executive Commission on China (31 October 2008) Retrieved 24 December 2013.</ref><ref name=Jamestown/><ref name=CECC2009/> The office is reportedly involved in the extrajudicial sentencing, coercive reeducation, torture, and sometimes death of Falun Gong practitioners.<ref name=Jamestown>{{cite journal|last=Cook|first=Sarah|author2=Lemish, Leeshai|title=The 610 Office:Policing the Chinese Spirit|journal=China Brief|date=November 2011|volume=11|issue=17|url=http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=38411&cHash=2dff246d80ffd78112de97e280ce9725|access-date=24 November 2012}}</ref><ref name=CECC2009>{{cite news|title=Annual Report 2009|url=http://www.cecc.gov/publications/annual-reports/2009-annual-report|access-date=24 December 2013|author=Congressional-Executive Commission on China|date=10 October 2009}}</ref> | |||
The ''Post'' reported the story of a Beijing university student, Alex Hsu, who was kidnapped on his way to a computer lab. It was reported that they drove him to a hotel near a labour camp, where 20 other practitioners were detained, including students, teachers, university staff and retired professors. At the hotel three former practitioners still detained at the camp tried to persuade him to abandon Falun Gong for 12 hours a day.<ref name=torturebreak/> The ''Post'' reports Hsu saying "It was mental torture... The pressure just kept growing ... And the threat was always there. You could see these people all had suffered, and you knew what would happen to you if you didn't give in too."<ref name=torturebreak/> The ''Post'' reported that practitioners are forced to remain in the classes until they renounce their beliefs, in writing, and then on videotape. They report Hsu saying, "It was very painful. They forced us to lie. We knew Falun Gong is good, but they forced us to say it was evil."<ref name=torturebreak/> Hsu wept after giving in, and later dropped out of school and went into hiding. “Those who refuse to submit in the classes are sent to the labor camps, where members face a more systematic regime of violence than in the past, according to practitioners and government sources. On average, the government adviser said, most people abandon Falun Gong after 10 to 12 days of classes, but some resist for as long as 20,” The ''Post''reported.<ref name=torturebreak/> | |||
Journalist ], whose coverage of the crackdown on Falun Gong earned him a Pulitzer Prize, wrote that the job of the 610 Office was "to mobilize the country's pliant social organizations. Under orders from the Public Security Bureau, churches, temples, mosques, newspapers, media, courts and police all quickly lined up behind the government's simple plan: to crush Falun Gong, no measures too excessive."<ref name=wildgrass2>{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Ian|title=Wild Grass: Three Portraits of Change in Modern China|pages=251–252; 283–287|year=2005|publisher=Vintage|location=New York, NY|isbn=978-0375719196}}</ref> | |||
Anne-Marie Brady of the University of Canterbury gives Falun Gong as an example of the CCP's use of new technologies as propaganda tools. "If you do a web search in China using Chinese Google on Falun Gong, all that you'll get is all the government sites." She says that relevant western companies doing business in China are made to participate in this censoring system.<ref>Antony Funnell,, Radio National Australia, accessed 2/6/08</ref> According to James Mulvenon of the Rand Corporation, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security uses cyber-warfare to attack Falun Gong websites in the United States,<ref>Eric Lichtblau,, ], April 25, 2002</ref> Australia, Canada and England.<ref name=morais/><ref>Associated Press, , accessed September 19, 2007</ref> | |||
===Official documents and circulars=== | |||
In July 2001, as part of House Concurrent Resolution 188, the ] denounced the "notorious" ] which oversees the persecution through "organized brainwashing, torture and murder," and stated that propaganda from state-controlled media "inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination." The Resolution was passed by a 420:0 vote, calling on China to "cease its persecution and harassment of Falun Gong practitioners in the United States; to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners and put an end to the practices of torture and other cruel, inhumane treatment against them and to abide by the ] and the ]."<ref> U.S. Congress (] ]) , ''Library of Congress'', retrieved ] ]</ref> | |||
] | |||
Beginning in July 1999 Chinese authorities issued a number of notices and circulars prescribing measures to crack down on the Falun Gong and placing restrictions on the practice and expression of religious belief:<ref name="heretical"/> | |||
====Intimidation of foreign correspondents==== | |||
* On 22 July 1999, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a circular proclaiming that the Falun Dafa Research Society was an unregistered (and therefore illegal) organization. | |||
Amnesty International has documented intimidation and harassment of foreign correspondents reporting on the crackdown on Falun Gong. Many foreign journalists attending a news conference organized covertly in Beijing on 28 October, 1999, by practitioners, were accused by the Chinese authorities of "illegal reporting." Later on, journalists from a number of news organizations, including ''Reuters'', the ''New York Times'' and the ''Associated Press'', were questioned at length by police, obliged to sign a "confession of wrongdoing," and had their work and residence papers temporarily confiscated. Several of the reporters were put under police surveillance. | |||
* On 22 July 1999 the Ministry of Public Security released a circular forbidding the practice or propagation of Falun Gong, as well as prohibiting any attempts to petition against the ban or oppose the government's decision. | |||
* In July 1999 the Ministry of Personnel issued a circular stating that all government employees were prohibited from practising Falun Gong. Subsequent documents instructed local government departments to "deal with civil servants who have practiced Falun Gong." | |||
* On 26 July 1999 the Ministry of Public Security called for the confiscation and destruction of all publications related to Falun Gong.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002|p=20}} Millions of Falun Gong books were shredded, burned and bulldozed.<ref name="Leung">Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784</ref>{{sfn|Spiegel|2002|p=21}}<ref name=PDO990730>People's Daily Online, , 30 July 1999</ref> | |||
* On 29 July 1999 the Beijing Judicial Bureau issued a notice forbidding lawyers from defending Falun Gong practitioners. The Ministry of Justice also issued instructions that lawyers were not to represent Falun Gong without permission.<ref name=Keith-Lin/> | |||
* On 30 October 1999 the National People's Congress amended a statute (article 300 of the Criminal Code) to suppress "heterodox religions" across China.<ref name=Dominson>Dominson, Ian. "Criminal Law in the People's Republic of China (1997): Real Change or Rhetoric?" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal (2002), Vol 1 No. 11</ref> The legislation was used to retroactively legitimize the persecution of spiritual groups deemed "dangerous to the state".<ref name=Leung/> It prohibited any large-scale public assemblies, and also prohibited religious or qigong organizations from organizing themselves across multiple provinces or coordinating with groups overseas.<ref name=Dominson/> The NPC decision stated "all corners of society shall be mobilized in preventing and fighting heretical organizations activities, and a comprehensive management system shall be put in place."<ref name="heretical"/> The same day, the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation prescribing measures to punish individuals found in defiance of the law.<ref name=Edelman/> | |||
* On 5 November 1999 the Supreme People's Court issued a notice giving instructions to local courts on handling cases of people charged with crimes for "organising or using heretical organisations, particularly Falun Gong." It called for Falun Gong practitioners to be prosecuted for such offenses as "instigating activities of splitting China, endangering national unity or subverting the socialist system."<ref name="heretical"/> | |||
Human rights experts and legal observers have stated that the official directives and legal documents issued for the purge fall short of international legal standards and violate provisions in China's own constitution.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}}<ref name="heretical"/><ref> clearwisdom.net 12 August 2009</ref> | |||
Foreign correspondents also complain that television satellite transmissions were interfered with while being routed through China Central Television.<ref name=Amnesty1/> Amnesty states that "a number of people have received prison sentences or long terms of administrative detention for speaking out about the repression or giving information over the Internet. Others have been punished for communicating with the foreign press or for organising press conferences."<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
===Implications for the rule of law=== | |||
The 2002 ]' report on China states that "Since Falungong was banned in July 1999, Chinese authorities have harassed foreign journalists investigating this issue. Photographers and cameramen working with foreign media are prevented from working on and around Tiananmen Square where hundreds of Falungong followers have demonstrated in recent years. Reporters Without Borders estimates that at least 50 representatives of the international press have been arrested since July 1999, and some of them were beaten by police. Finally, several Falungong followers have been imprisoned for talking with foreign journalists." | |||
The Ministry of Justice required that lawyers seek permission before taking on Falun Gong cases, and called on them to "interpret the law in such a way as to conform to the spirit of the government's decrees."<ref name=Keith-Lin/> Additionally, on 5 November 1999 the Supreme People's Court issued a notice to all lower courts stating that it was their "political duty" to "resolutely impose severe punishment" against groups considered heretical, especially Falun Gong. It also required the courts at all levels to handle Falun Gong cases by following the direction of the CCP committees, thereby ensuring that Falun Gong cases would be judged based on political considerations, rather than evidence.<ref name="heretical"/> Brian Edelman and James Richardson wrote that the SPC notice "does not comport well with a defendant's constitutional right to a defense, and it appears to assume guilt before a trial has taken place."<ref name=Edelman/> | |||
The CCP's campaign against Falun Gong was a turning point in the development of China's legal system, representing a "significant backward step" in the development of rule of law, according to Ian Dominson.<ref name=Keith-Lin/><ref name=Dominson/> In the 1990s the legal system was gradually becoming more professionalized, and a series of reforms in 1996–97 affirmed the principle that all punishments must be based on the rule of law. However, the campaign against Falun Gong would not have been possible if carried out within the narrow confines of China's existing criminal law. In order to persecute the group, in 1999 the judicial system reverted to being used as a political instrument, with laws being applied flexibly to advance the CCP's policy objectives.<ref name=Keith-Lin>Ronald C. Keith and Zhiqiu Lin, "The Falun Gong Problem," China Quarterly (Sept 2003), pp 623–642.</ref> Edelman and Richardson write that "the Party and government's response to the Falun Gong movement violates citizens' right to a legal defense, freedom of religion, speech and assembly enshrined in the Constitution... the Party will do whatever is necessary to crush any perceived threat to its supreme control. This represents a move away from the rule of law and toward this historical Mao policy of 'rule by man.{{'"}}<ref name=Edelman>{{cite journal|first1=Bryan|last1=Edelman|first2=James|last2=Richardson| title=Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China|journal=Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions|volume=6 |issue=2|year=2003|doi=10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312|pages=312–331}}</ref> | |||
Zhang Xueling, whose name was cited in a series of articles by Ian Johnson, Wall Street Journal's correspondent in Beijing, was arrested on 24 April 2001. Johnson had reported Zhang Xueling, a Falun Gong practitioner's account of her mother, who was also a practitioner, being tortured to death by the police. She was sentenced to a few weeks and later to three years in a labour camp. Ian Johnson left Beijing after writing his articles about the persecution, stating that after he received the Pulitzer Prize for his articles "the Chinese police would have made my life in Beijing impossible."<ref>, Reporters Without Borders</ref> | |||
==Propaganda== | |||
On November 10, 1999, the Foreign Correspondents Club (FCC) of China sent a letter of protest to the Chinese Foreign Ministry about official "intimidation and harassment" of foreign correspondents trying to report the persecution of Falun Gong. The letter said that "members have been followed, detained, interrogated and threatened."<ref name=Amnesty1/><ref name=schechter/> Amnesty also noted that "several of the reporters were put under police surveillance."<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
===Onset of the campaign=== | |||
] | |||
One of the key elements of the anti–Falun Gong campaign was a propaganda campaign that sought to discredit and demonize Falun Gong and its teachings.<ref name="Leung" /><ref name=Tong2009>James Tong, ''''. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), {{ISBN|0-19-537728-1}}</ref> | |||
====Use of the cult label as a tool of repression==== | |||
Within the first month of the crackdown, 300–400 articles attacking Falun Gong appeared in the main state-run papers, while primetime television replayed alleged exposés on the group, with no divergent views aired in the media.<ref name=lemish>Leeshai Lemish, A paper presented at The 2009 CESNUR Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 11–13 June 2009</ref> The propaganda campaign focused on allegations that Falun Gong jeopardized social stability, was deceiving and dangerous, was "anti-science" and threatened progress, and argued that Falun Gong's moral philosophy was incompatible with a Marxist social ethic.<ref name=Ownby/> | |||
The 'cult' label was first used against Falun Gong by the Party three months after the onset of the persecution, according to the ]. A November 1999 report by the ''Post'' states, “It was Mr. Jiang who ordered that Falun Gong be branded a ‘cult,’ and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults.”<ref>John Pomfret, Sect Is Dividing China's Leadership, Washington Post Service, Paris, Tuesday, November 9, 1999</ref> | |||
For several months China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti–Falun Gong rhetoric. China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith described it as "a study in all-out demonization", they wrote.<ref>Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156</ref> Falun Gong was compared to "a rat crossing the street that everyone shouts out to squash" by ''Beijing Daily'';<ref>Associated Press, "'Enemies of people' warned", 23 January 2001</ref> other officials said it would be a "long-term, complex and serious" struggle to "eradicate" Falun Gong.<ref>Plafker, Ted. "Falun Gong Stays Locked In Struggle with Beijing", ''The Washington Post'', 26 April 2000</ref> | |||
Human rights groups and scholars have criticized use of the term to justify violence. David Ownby, Director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal, stated in response that Falun Gong is "by no means a cult." <ref>David Kilgour, notes for address At a conference of the International Society for Human Rights, Konigstein (near Frankfurt), Germany, 30 March 2007</ref> Former Canadian Secretary of State ] and human rights lawyer ], authors of investigative reports on organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, profess that the label "is a manufactured tool of repression, but not its cause." They state that the label was used to incite hatred and dehumanize practitioners and served to create a pretext for the government's policy of persecution.<ref name=KMRR/> | |||
State propaganda initially used the appeal of scientific rationalism to argue that Falun Gong's worldview was in "complete opposition to science" and communism.<ref name=Lu2004>Lu, Xing, ''Rhetoric of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: the impact on Chinese thought, culture, and communication,'' University of South Carolina Press (2004).</ref> For example, the ''People's Daily'' newspaper asserted on 27 July 1999 that the fight against Falun Gong "was a struggle between theism and atheism, superstition and science, idealism and materialism." Other editorials declared that Falun Gong's "idealism and theism" are "absolutely contradictory to the fundamental theories and principles of Marxism," and that the "'truth, kindness and forbearance' principle preached by has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve."<ref>Gayle M.B. Hanson, , Insight on the News, 23 August 1999. Retrieved 31 December 2007</ref> Suppressing Falun Gong was presented as a necessary step to maintaining the "vanguard role" of the Communist Party in Chinese society.<ref>Chen, Chiung Hwang. "Framing Falun Gong: Xinhua News Agency's Coverage of the New Religious Movement in China", Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 15 No. 1 (2005), pp. 16–36.</ref> | |||
] of the ], and ] ] for his writing on the plight of Falun Gong practitioners, writes that declaring Falun Gong a cult was the most "brilliant" move, cloaking the crackdown with the "legitimacy of the West's anti-cult movement," forcing practitioners to prove their innocence.<ref name=wildgrass>Johnson, Ian. ''Wild Grass: three stories of change in modern China''. Pantheon books. 2004. pp 23-229</ref> Julia Ching opines that calling Falun Gong a "cult" after the crackdown had already begun attempted to make previous illegal arrests and imprisonments constitutional. She states that "cult" was defined by an atheist government "on political premises, not by any religious authority, without defining what a good cult, or a good religion would be."<ref name=XIX>p. 9</ref> | |||
At the early stages of the crackdown, the evening news also would broadcast images of large piles of Falun Gong materials being crushed or incinerated. By 30 July, ten days into the campaign, Xinhua had reported confiscations of over one million Falun Gong books and other materials, hundreds of thousands burned and destroyed.<ref name="PDO990730"/> | |||
A 2001 Amnesty report states that "the word 'cult' has been frequently used in English to translate the label recently put by the Chinese government on the Falun Gong and other similar groups. However, this translation is misleading. The expression used in China for this purpose, "xiejiao zuzhi", refers to a large variety of groups and has a far broader meaning than "cult." "Xiejiao zuzhi" is the expression used in Chinese legislation, official statements and by the state media to refer to a wide range of sectarian and millenarian groups, or unorthodox religious or spiritual organizations, and other groups which do not meet official approval."<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
The tenor of the official rhetoric against Falun Gong continued to escalate in the months following July 1999, and broadened to include charges that Falun Gong was colluding with foreign "anti-China" forces.<ref name="lamsupp"/> Media reports portrayed Falun Gong as a harm to society, an "abnormal" religious activity, and a dangerous form of "superstition" that led to madness, death, and suicide.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kipnis|first=Andrew B.|title=The Flourishing of Religion in Post-Mao China and the Anthropological Category of Religion|journal=The Australian Journal of Anthropology|volume=12|pages=32–46|url=http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/ccc/AK_flourishing_religion.pdf|date=April 2001|issue=1 |doi=10.1111/j.1835-9310.2001.tb00061.x|access-date=14 July 2014|archive-date=26 November 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111126183154/http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/ccc/AK_flourishing_religion.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Lucas|first=Philip C.|title=New Religious Movements in the Twenty-first Century: Legal, Political, and Social Challenges in Global Perspective|publisher=Psychology Press|page=349|date=26 February 2004}}</ref> These messages were relayed through all state-run—and many non-state-run media channels—as well as through work units and the Communist Party's own structure of cells that penetrate society. | |||
Johnson notes that the purported "victims" were never allowed to be interviewed independently, making the state's claims "almost impossible to verify"; "the group didn't meet many common definitions of a],"<ref name=wildgrass/> since Falun Gong practitioners do not live isolated from society; they marry outside the group; they have non-practitioner friends; they hold normal jobs; they do not believe that "the world's end is imminent"; they do not give over large amounts of money for Falun Gong, they believe that "suicide is not accepted, nor is physical violence."<ref name=wildgrass/>. Johnson further points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg.<ref name=wildgrass/> ] notes that, as Falun Gong's popularity grew, "Li Hongzhi made it clear that his mission was to bring the practice to everybody because it is beneficial, and that he was not in it for the money. After this investigation, I found the group to be very anti-materialist in its orientation--spiritualist not materialist."<ref></ref> | |||
Elizabeth Perry, a Harvard historian, writes that the basic pattern of the offensive was similar to "the anti-rightist campaign of the 1950s the anti-spiritual pollution campaigns of the 1980s."<ref>Elizabeth J. Perry, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140903082616/http://www.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/Perry.pdf |date=3 September 2014 }}</ref> As it did during the ], the ] organised rallies in the streets and stop-work meetings in remote western provinces by government agencies such as the weather bureau to denounce the practice. Local government authorities have carried out "study and education" programmes throughout China, and official cadres have visited villagers and farmers at home to explain "in simple terms the harm of Falun Gong to them".<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
==="Re-education" through forced labor=== | |||
According to the Ministry of Public Security, "]" is an administrative measure imposed on those guilty of committing minor offences, but who are not legally considered criminals.<ref name=dangerous /> In late 2000, the Party began to use this method of punishment widely against Falun Gong practitioners in the hope of permanently "transforming recidivists," who would often be immediately sentenced to re-education for up to three years.<ref name=dangerous /> Terms could also be arbitrarily extended by police. Practitioners may have ambiguous charges levied against them, according to Robert Bejesky, writing in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law, such as "disrupting social order," "endangering national security," or "subverting the socialist system."<ref name=bejesky>Robert Bejesky, “Falun Gong & reeducation through labour”, ''Columbia Journal of Asian Law'', 17:2, Spring 2004, pp. 147-189</ref> Up to 99% of long term Falun Gong detainees are processed administratively through this system, and do not enter the formal criminal justice system.<ref name=bejesky>p. 178</ref> Outside access is not given to the camps, prisoners are forced to do heavy work in mines, brick factories, and agriculture, and physical torture, beatings, interrogations, inadequate food rations, and other human rights abuses take place, according to Human Rights Watch.<ref name=dangerous /> A figure from 2004 sets the number of Falun Gong deaths in these institutions at 700, according to Bejesky.<ref name=bejesky>p. 179</ref> | |||
===Use of the 'cult' label=== | |||
There are estimates of at least 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners having been officially sentenced to reeducation from the beginning of the crackdown,<ref name=dangerous /> and that at least half of the 250,000 total recorded inmates in China's reeducation camps are Falun Gong practitioners, according to the US State Department.<ref name=USstate /> Upon completion of their reeducation sentences, practitioners are sometimes then incarcerated in "legal education centers," another form of punishment set up by provincial authorities to "transform the minds" of practitioners," according to Human Rights Watch, which delivered a comprehensive report on the persecution, including extensive references to state-media and official statements.<ref name=dangerous /><ref name=USstate /> While Beijing officials initially portrayed the process as "benign," a harder line was later adopted; "teams of education assistants and workers, leading cadres, and people from all walks of life" were drafted into the campaign. In early 2001 quotas were given for how many practitioners needed to be "transformed." Official records do not mention the methods employed to achieve this, though Falun Gong and third party accounts indicate that the mental and physical abuses could be "extraordinarily severe."<ref name=dangerous /> | |||
Despite Party efforts, initial charges leveled against Falun Gong failed to elicit widespread popular support for the persecution of the group. In October 1999, three months after the persecution began, the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation classifying Falun Gong as a ''xiejiao''.<ref name=irons2003>Irons, Edward. 2003 "Falun Gong and the Sectarian Religion Paradigm". ''Nova Religio'', Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 243–62, ISSN 1092-6690</ref><ref name=chan2004>Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective. The China Quarterly, 179, pp 665–683</ref> A broad translation of that term is "heretical teaching" or "heterodox teaching", but during the anti–Falun Gong propaganda campaign it was rendered as "]" or "evil cult" in English.<ref name=Amnesty1/> In the context of imperial China, the term "xiejiao" was used to refer to non-Confucian religions, though in the context of Communist China, it has been used to target religious organizations that do not submit to the authority of the Communist Party.<ref>Maria Hsia Chang, "Falun Gong:The End of Days," (Yale University Press, 2004).</ref><ref>Freedom House, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304063227/http://www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/531/religiouslibertyfeb2002.pdf |date=4 March 2016 }}, 11 February 2002.</ref> Julia Ching writes that the "evil cult" label was defined by an atheist government "on political premises, not by any religious authority", and was used by the authorities to make previous arrests and imprisonments constitutional.<ref name=XIX/> | |||
] argued that by applying the 'cult' label, the government put Falun Gong on the defensive, and "cloaked crackdown with the legitimacy of the West's anticult movement."<ref name="wildgrass"/> David Ownby similarly wrote that "the entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong.".<ref name=Ownby/> According to John Powers and Meg Y. M. Lee, because the Falun Gong was categorized in the popular perception as an "apolitical, qigong exercise club", it was not seen as a threat to the government. The most critical strategy in the Falun Gong persecution campaign, therefore, was to convince people to reclassify the Falun Gong into a number of "negatively charged religious labels" like "evil cult", "sect", or "superstition".<ref name=powerslee>Powers, John and Meg Y. M. Lee. "Dueling Media: Symbolic Conflict in China's Falun Gong Suppression Campaign" in Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution, by Guo-Ming Chen and Ringo Ma (2001), Greenwood Publishing Group</ref> In this process of relabelling, the government was attempting to tap into a "deep reservoir of negative feelings related to the historical role of quasi-religious cults as a destabilising force in Chinese political history."<ref name=powerslee/> | |||
===Use of torture=== | |||
{{See|Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China}} | |||
] | |||
David Ownby writes that the Chinese authorities have harassed and detained "tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands" of practitioners in China, and that authorities have extended the harassment to family members and friends of practitioners also.<ref name=Ownby2008>David Ownby, Falun Gong and the Future of China, 2008</ref> Falun Gong sources, accepted as accurate by human rights agencies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch according to Ownby,<ref name=Ownby2008/> have documented over 3000 confirmed cases of deaths from torture in police custody. Reports of torture documented by the sources exceed 50,000. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as other NGOs monitoring the treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government, have also published reports on the torture and mistreatment of practitioners. Since 2000, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations reported 314 cases of torture, representing more than 1,160 individuals, to the authorities. According to the UN Special Rapporteur, Falun Gong comprise 66% of all such reported torture cases, 8% occurring within '']'', which are psychiatric facilities.<ref name=nowak66/> The US State Department cites estimates that practitioners may account for half of the labour camp population,<ref name=USstate/> while Amnesty International notes that practitioners in detention are at a "high risk of torture or ill-treatment."<ref name=Amnesty2006></ref> <ref name=InterviewSurvivors> Both have since died as a result of the persecution.</ref> | |||
Overseas Chinese propaganda using this label has been censured by Western governments. The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission in 2006 took issue with anti–Falun Gong broadcasts from Chinese Central Television (CCTV), noting "they are expressions of extreme ill will against Falun Gong and its founder, Li Hongzhi. The derision, hostility and abuse encouraged by such comments could expose the targeted group or individual to hatred or contempt and... could incite violence and threaten the physical security of Falun Gong practitioners."<ref>Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, , paragraphs 95–107</ref> | |||
In its "''United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong" (2004)'',<ref name="UN2004">{{Citation | title = The United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong (2004)| publisher = The Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group | url = http://flghrwg.net/reports/UN2004/UN2004.pdf |format=PDF| year = 2004}} The document is compiled and published by the Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group (FLGHRWG), who also wrote the introduction and appendix on torture methods. It contains excerpts from the 2004 annual reports of the ]’s Special Rapporteurs referring specifically to acts committed against Falun Gong practitioners.</ref> Falun Gong sources report numerous cases of extreme psychological and physical torture, accompanied by testimonies and details of identities of the victims, resulting in impaired mental, sensory, physiological and speech faculties, mental trauma, paralysis, or death. Over 100 forms of torture are purported to be used, including ], ], ], ], and ], with many variations on each type.<ref>{{cite web | title = Norway: Practitioners hold an Anti-Torture Exhibition and Receive Positive Media Coverage (Photos)| publisher = Falun Dafa Clearwisdom.net | url = http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2004/8/4/51010.html|date=2004-08-04 | accessdate = 2007-02-12}}</ref> The main purpose of the torture is ostensibly to have Falun Gong practitioners renounce or denounce the practice and their teacher, Li Hongzhi. <ref>CBC News (July 6, 2006) , ''CBC News'', retrieved July 6, 2006</ref> The Special Rapporteur refers to the torture scenarios as "harrowing" and writes that "The cruelty and brutality of these alleged acts... defy description."<ref>Asma Jahangir,, Report of the Special Rapporteur, United Nations, 2003, accessed October 15, 2007</ref> | |||
===Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident=== | |||
John Pomfret and Philip P. Pan wrote in the ''Washington Post'' that the Party gained the upper hand in its protracted battle against Falun Gong by expanding its “use of torture and high-pressure indoctrination.”<ref name=torturebreak/> They report that, according to sources, in 2001, after a year and a half of difficulty in suppressing the practice, “the government for the first time this year sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.” They repeat the reports of practitioners being beaten, shocked with electric truncheons, and being “forced to undergo unbearable physical pressure, such as squatting on the floor for days at a time... Many adherents are also sent to intensive classes where the teachings of Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi are picked apart by former believers, sometimes friends who have already been tortured into submission.”<ref name=torturebreak/> | |||
{{Main|Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident}} | |||
A turning point in the government's campaign against Falun Gong occurred on 23 January 2001, when five people set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square. Chinese government sources declared immediately they were Falun Gong practitioners driven to suicide by the practice, and filled the nation's media outlets with graphic images and fresh denunciations of the practice. The self-immolation was held up as evidence of the "dangers" of Falun Gong, and was used to legitimize the government's crackdown against the group. | |||
They cite three main ingredients, according to a party apparatchik: violence, a high-pressure propaganda campaign, and brainwashing classes. "Each aspect of the campaign is critical," the ''Post'' reports their source saying, "Pure violence doesn't work. Just studying doesn't work either. And none of it would be working if the propaganda hadn't started to change the way the general public thinks. You need all three. That's what they've figured out."<ref name=torturebreak/> | |||
Falun Gong sources disputed the accuracy of the government's narrative, noting that their teachings explicitly forbid violence or ].<ref name="FDI_PressRelease">{{Cite web|url=http://www.clearwisdom.net/eng/2001/jan/23/vsf012301_3.html |title=Press Statement |publisher=Clearwisdom |date=23 January 2001 |access-date=9 February 2007}}</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121127041155/http://faluninfo.net/article/1114/?cid=84 |date=27 November 2012 }} Falun Dafa Information Center, 19 January 2011</ref> Several Western journalists and scholars also noted inconsistencies in the official account of events, leading many to believe the self-immolation may have been staged to discredit Falun Gong.<ref name=Pan/>{{sfn|Schechter|2001}}<ref name=Ownby/> The government did not permit independent investigations and denied Western journalists or human rights groups access to the victims. However, two weeks after the self-immolation incident, '']'' published an investigation into the identity of two of the victims, and found that "no one ever saw practice Falun Gong."<ref name=Pan>{{cite news|url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23596-2001Feb3 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200413004155/https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23596-2001Feb3/ |url-status= dead |archive-date= 13 April 2020 |author=Philip P. Pan |title= Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery |newspaper=Washington Post|date=4 February 2001|access-date=13 February 2012|author-link=Philip P. Pan }}</ref> | |||
</ref>]] | |||
The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong. As noted by ''Time'' magazine, many Chinese had previously felt that Falun Gong posed no real threat, and that the state's crackdown against it had gone too far. After the self-immolation, however, the media campaign against the group gained significant traction.<ref name=breakingpoint>Matthew Gornet, , TIME, 25 June 2001</ref> Posters, leaflets and videos were produced detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong practice, and regular anti–Falun Gong classes were scheduled in schools.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}}<ref name=oneway>{{Cite news|first=Philip P. |last=Pan |title=One-Way Trip to the End in Beijing |work=International Herald Tribune |date=5 February 2001}}</ref><ref name=chrandra>{{cite journal|first=Chrandra D. |last=Smith |url=http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf |title=Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong |publisher=Rutgers School of Law |journal=Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion |date=October 2004 |access-date=28 September 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327075424/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf |archive-date=27 March 2009 }}</ref> ] compared the government's propaganda initiative to past political movements such as the ] and the ].<ref name=tense>{{cite web|url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/24/asia.falun.03/ |title=Tiananmen tense after fiery protests |author=Staff and wire reports |publisher=CNN |date=24 January 2001 |access-date=9 February 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070222110517/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/24/asia.falun.03/ |archive-date=22 February 2007 }}</ref> Later, as public opinion turned against the group, the Chinese authorities began sanctioning the "systematic use of violence" to eliminate Falun Gong.<ref name=breaking>{{cite news|author=Philip Pan and John Pomfret|title=Torture is Breaking Falun Gong|newspaper= Washington Post|date= 5 August 2001| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/08/05/torture-is-breaking-falun-gong/ea6c5341-c7a7-47c9-9674-053049b7323d/ | access-date=10 April 2012 }}</ref> In the year following the incident, the imprisonment, torture, and deaths of Falun Gong practitioners in custody increased significantly.<ref name=Freedomhouse>Sarah Cook, Sarah (4 November 2013) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503002409/http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/be-skeptical-official-story-tiananmen-car-crash |date=3 May 2014 }} Freedom House.</ref> | |||
They write that some local governments had tried brainwashing classes before, but only in January 2001 did the “secret 610 office, an interagency task force leading the charge against Falun Gong, order all neighborhood committees, state institutions and companies to start.”<ref name=torturebreak/> Pomfret and Pan write that no practitioner was to be spared, and that according to their source the most active are sent directly to labor camps, “where they are first 'broken' by beatings and other torture.”<ref name=torturebreak/> | |||
==Censorship== | |||
The ''Post'' reported the story of James Ouyang, who was arrested for the second time protesting in Tiananmen Square. After he was arrested, “police methodically reduced him to an 'obedient thing' over 10 days of torture ... Ouyang was stripped and interrogated for five hours. 'If I responded incorrectly, that is if I didn't say, 'Yes,' they shocked me with the electric truncheon,' he said.”<ref name=torturebreak/> After he was put in a labor camp in west Beijing, the ''Post'' reported, “the guards ordered him to stand facing a wall. If he moved, they shocked him. If he fell down from fatigue, they shocked him ... By the sixth day, Ouyang said, he couldn't see straight from staring at plaster three inches from his face. His knees buckled, prompting more shocks and beatings.”<ref name=torturebreak/> Eventually he gave in to the guards demands, and denounced Falun Gong shouting into the wall, “Officers continued to shock him about the body and he soiled himself regularly. Finally, on the 10th day, Ouyang's repudiation of the group was deemed sufficiently sincere. He was taken before a group of Falun Gong inmates and rejected the group one more time as a video camera rolled.”<ref name=torturebreak/> They report that he left jail and then entered brainwashing classes, “Twenty days later after debating Falun Gong for 16 hours a day, he 'graduated.'” | |||
===Interference with foreign correspondents=== | |||
] states that while "it is unknown how many Falun Gong practitioners are being executed by the Chinese authorities, ...various sources indicate China may be executing between 10,000-15,000 people a year."<ref>Amnesty International Fact Sheet on Persecution of Falun Gong, </ref> ] commented that most of the information available to it are from either official Chinese government or Falun Gong sources, stating that "There is no sure way of checking the information from either source, making it impossible to fully assess competing claims about the numbers of judicial sentences, reeducation through labor terms, deaths in custody, and so on. "<ref name=dangerous/> David Ownby, in his 2008 "Falun Gong and the future of China," vouches for the veracity of Falun Gong sources, and says they are well-respected and regarded as accurate by human rights groups. | |||
The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China has complained about their members being "followed, detained, interrogated and threatened" for reporting on the crackdown on Falun Gong. Foreign journalists covering a clandestine Falun Gong news conference in October 1999 were accused by the Chinese authorities of "illegal reporting". Journalists from ''Reuters'', the ''New York Times'', the ''Associated Press'' and a number of other organisations were interrogated by police, forced to sign confessions, and had their work and residence papers temporarily confiscated.<ref name="heretical"/> Correspondents also complained that television satellite transmissions were interfered with while being routed through China Central Television. Amnesty International states that "a number of people have received prison sentences or long terms of administrative detention for speaking out about the repression or giving information over the Internet."<ref name="heretical"/> | |||
The 2002 ]' report on China states that photographers and cameramen working with foreign media were prevented from working in and around Tiananmen Square where hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners had been demonstrating in recent years. It estimates that "at least 50 representatives of the international press have been arrested since July 1999, and some of them were beaten by police; several Falun Gong followers have been imprisoned for talking with foreign journalists." ], '']'' correspondent in Beijing, wrote a series of articles which won him the ]. Johnson left Beijing after writing his articles, stating that "the Chinese police would have made my life in Beijing impossible" after he received the Pulitzer.<ref>Reporters Without Borders. , Retrieved 26 October 2014</ref> | |||
Chinaview, an independent website focused on human rights abuses in China, says that the Gaoyang Forced Labour Camp was the first to begin force-feeding Falun Gong practitioners with human urine and excrement in the summer of 2003, and that “…the Chinese government awarded them for this innovation, and sent labour camp staff from around the country to learn this procedure.”<ref>{{cite web | title = Torture Methods 05 / Force-Feeding| publisher = Chinaview | url = http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/photo-china-modern-torture-methods-5-force-feeding/| accessdate = 2007-03-08}}</ref> | |||
Entire news organizations have not been immune to press restrictions concerning Falun Gong. In March 2001, ''Time Asia'' ran a story about Falun Gong in Hong Kong. The magazine was pulled from the shelves in mainland China, and threatened that it would never again be sold in the country.<ref>Mark Landler. New York Times, 6 May 2001</ref> Partly as a result of the difficult reporting environment, by 2002, Western news coverage of the persecution within China had all but completely ceased, even as the number of Falun Gong deaths in custody was on the rise.<ref name=lemish/> | |||
Amnesty International's ''"Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet"'' lists ] among the forms of torture Falun Gong practitioners are subject to.<ref>{{cite web | title = FALUN GONG PERSECUTION FACTSHEET| publisher = Amnesty International | url = http://web.archive.org/web/20070129054422/http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/83fba691f912206bcc2571d3001824ed!OpenDocument | accessdate = 2007-03-08}}</ref> ], a Beijing-based human rights lawyer, in his third open letter to the Beijing leadership stated his shock of the "unbelievable brutality, ...the immoral acts ...of 6-10 Office staff and the police. Almost every woman's genitals and breasts or every man's genitals have been sexually assaulted during the persecution in a most vulgar fashion. Almost all who have been persecuted, be they male or female, were first stripped naked before any torture."<ref>{{cite web | title = Gao Zhisheng's third open letter to Chinese leaders | publisher = Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China | url = http://cipfg.org/en/index.php?news=290 | accessdate = 2007-03-08}}</ref></blockquote> The Association for Asian Research reports that victims in the Dalian Labor Camp were tied up in a spread-eagle position as torturers repeatedly thrust foreign objects (toilet and shoe brushes, and long rods) into their vaginas.<ref>, Association for Asian Research, March 29, 2005</ref> | |||
===Internet censorship=== | |||
==Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China== | |||
Terms related to Falun Gong are among the most heavily censored topics on the Chinese Internet,<ref>Freedom House, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722111728/http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2012/china |date=22 July 2018 }}</ref> and individuals found downloading or circulating information online about Falun Gong risk imprisonment. | |||
{{main|Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China}} | |||
<!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: ] --> | |||
Chinese authorities began filtering and blocking overseas websites as early as the mid-1990s, and in 1998 the Ministry of Public Security developed plans for the "]" to monitor and control online communications. The campaign against Falun Gong in 1999 provided authorities with added incentive to develop more rigorous censorship and surveillance techniques. The government also moved to criminalize various forms of online speech. China's first integrated regulation on Internet content, passed in 2000, made it illegal to disseminate information that "undermines social stability", harms the "honor and interests of the state", or that "undermines the state's policy for religions" or preaches "feudal" beliefs—a veiled reference to Falun Gong.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cpj.org/reports/2001/01/china-jan01.php#note3|title=The Great FireWall|website=cpj.org}}</ref> | |||
In March 2006 '']'' published a number of articles alleging that the ] and its agencies, including the ], were conducting widespread and systematic organ harvesting of living ] practitioners.<ref name=epoch1>, Epoch Times, March 10, 2006</ref> It was alleged that practitioners detained in ] camps, hospital basements, or prisons, were being blood and urine tested, their information stored on computer databases, and then matched with organ recipients.<ref name=epochgeneral>The Epoch Times, Special Category:'''', accessed 13/6/08</ref> When an organ was required, it alleged, they were injected with drugs to stop the heart, their organs removed and later sold, and their bodies incinerated.<ref name=epochgeneral/> | |||
The same year, the Chinese government sought out Western corporations to develop surveillance and censorship tools that would let them track Falun Gong practitioners and block access to news and information on the subject. North American companies such as ] and ] marketed their services to the Chinese government by touting their efficacy in catching Falun Gong. | |||
In addition to censoring the Internet within its borders, the Chinese government and military use cyber-warfare to attack Falun Gong websites in the United States, Australia, Canada and Europe.<ref name=morais>Morais, Richard C. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160326053922/http://www.naseeb.com/journals/chinas-fight-with-falun-gong-116612 |date=26 March 2016 }}, ''Forbes'', 9 February 2006. Retrieved 3 February 2015</ref><ref>Associated Press, . Retrieved 19 September 2007</ref> According to Chinese Internet researcher Ethan Gutmann, the first sustained ] launched by China were against overseas Falun Gong websites.<ref>Ethan Gutmann, {{usurped|}} World Affairs Journal, May/June 2010</ref> | |||
In 2005, researchers from Harvard and Cambridge found that terms related to Falun Gong were the most intensively censored on the Chinese Internet.<ref>Zittrain and Palfrey (2005)</ref> Other studies of Chinese censorship and monitoring practices produced similar conclusions.<ref>Hartley, Matt. "How a Canadian cracked the great firewall of China". The Globe and Mail (3 Oct 2008)</ref> A 2012 study examining rates of censorship on Chinese social media websites found Falun Gong-related terms were among the most stringently censored. Among the top 20 terms most likely to be deleted on Chinese social media websites, three are variations on the word "Falun Gong" or "Falun Dafa".<ref>David Bamman, Brendan O'Connor, Noah A. Smith firstmonday.org Volume 17, Number 3–5 March 2012</ref> | |||
In response to censorship of the Chinese Internet, Falun Gong practitioners in North America developed a suite of software tools that could be used by bypass online censorship and surveillance.{{citation needed|date=January 2019}} | |||
The first series of allegations were based on apparent eye-witness testimony of two individuals, and directed specifically at the ] in ], ]province.<ref name=epoch2>Ji Da, , Epoch Times, March 17, 2006</ref> The story received some deal of media attention. Within one month, some third party investigators, including representatives of the US Department of State, said that there was insufficient evidence to support this specific allegation.<ref name=lum>Congressional Research Service report, http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf, page CRS-7, paragraph 3</ref> A few months after the Sujiatun incident, in July 2006, former Canadian Secretary of State, ], and Human Rights Lawyer ], published a report of their investigation into the reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Their report titled concluded that large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners are victims of systematic organ harvesting, whilst still alive, throughout China and that the practice is still ongoing.<ref name=bh> Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China, by David Matas, Esq. and Hon. David Kilgour, Esq. 31 January 2007</ref> Kilgour and Matas state that several pieces of evidence contained in their reports are publicly verifiable. <ref name=bh /> | |||
==Torture and extrajudicial killing== | |||
Investigative reports from Sky News and BBC add evidence to the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report.<ref name="Suspicions Raised Over Organ Donors">Sky News,, accessed 1/12/07</ref> The Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive.<ref>The Monitor's View (August 3, 2006), ''The ]'', retrieved August 6, 2006</ref> The Chinese Embassy in Canada dismissed the Kilgour-Matas report soon after its release as "rumors and totally groundless," though their response was met with strong skepticism from Amnesty International.<ref name="Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet">Amnesty International,, </ref> On August 2006, a ] report said that some of the report’s key allegations appeared to be inconsistent with the findings of other investigations, though the report does not provide details.<ref>CRS Report for Congress (August 11, 2006), '']'', retrieved November 12, 2007</ref> The US state department maintains that "ndependent of these specific allegations, the United States remains concerned over China’s repression of Falun Gong practitioners and by reports of organ harvesting."<ref name=usgov1></ref> Kilgour and Matas maintain that the issue has yet to be properly addressed, while commentators speculate that the media silence is related to China's prominent role in the international community, which western governments and media are afraid to compromise. | |||
===Reeducation=== | |||
U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak, in December 2007 said "The chain of evidence they are documenting shows a coherent picture that causes concern."<ref></ref> In November 2008, the United Nations Committee Against Torture made a strong statement on the matter, citing Nowak's note that an increase in organ transplant operations coincides with “the beginning of the persecution of ” and who asked for "a full explanation of the source of organ transplants." The Committee stated that it is concerned with the information 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." They called for the state to immediately conduct or commission an independent investigation of the claims of organ harvesting, and take measures to ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished.<ref name=UNCAT>United Nations Committee Against Torture,, Forty-first session, Geneva, 3-21 November 2008</ref> | |||
A key component of the Communist Party's campaign is the reeducation or "transformation" of Falun Gong practitioners. Transformation is described as "a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."<ref name=CECC2008/> | |||
The transformation process usually occurs in prisons, labor camps, reeducation centers and other detention facilities. In 2001 Chinese authorities ordered that no Falun Gong practitioner was to be spared from the coercive measures used to make them renounce their faith. The most active were sent directly to labor camps, "where they are first 'broken' by beatings and other torture."<ref name=torturebreak/> Former prisoners report being told by the guards that "no measures are too excessive" to elicit renunciation statements, and practitioners who refuse to renounce Falun Gong are sometimes killed in custody.<ref name=DE>], , Wall Street Journal, 20 April 2000</ref> | |||
The transformation is considered successful once the Falun Gong practitioner signs five documents: a "guarantee" to stop practicing Falun Gong; a promise to sever all ties to the practice; two self-criticism documents critiquing their own behaviour and thinking; and criticisms of Falun Gong doctrine.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> In order to demonstrate the sincerity of their renunciations, practitioners are made to vilify Falun Gong in front of an audience or on videotape. These recordings may then be used by state-run media as part of a propaganda effort.<ref name=torturebreak/><ref name=Amnesty2013/> In some camps the newly reeducated must partake in the transformation of other practitioners—including by inflicting physical abuse on others—as proof that they have fully renounced Falun Gong's teachings.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
An account of the transformation process was published by ''The Washington Post'' in 2001: | |||
{{blockquote|At a police station in western Beijing, Ouyang was stripped and interrogated for five hours. "If I responded incorrectly, that is if I didn't say, 'Yes,' they shocked me with the electric truncheon," he said. | |||
Then, he was transferred to a labor camp in Beijing's western suburbs. There, the guards ordered him to stand facing a wall. If he moved, they shocked him. If he fell down from fatigue, they shocked him. | |||
==The Tiananmen Square "self-immolation" incident== | |||
{{main|Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident}} | |||
Each morning, he had five minutes to eat and relieve himself. "If I didn't make it, I went in my pants," he said. "And they shocked me for that, too." | |||
On the eve of the ], January 23, 2001, five people apparently attempted to set themselves on fire in ]. Seven days later, footage was broadcast nationally in the People's Republic by the state controlled ] (CCTV) which claimed the immolators were practitioners.<ref name=schechter/> Initially, western news organizations disseminated the story as given by], without the possibility of verifying it independently, given the tight ]. Falun Gong in New York emphatically denied that these people could have been practitioners, pointing out that the teachings explicitly forbid suicide and killing.<ref name="TheIssueOfKilling"> from ], ]</ref> On the very same day of the incident, Falun Gong in New York issued a press statement stating that the incident was "yet another attempt by the PRC regime to defame the practice of Falun Gong" and called for the "PRC regime to allow the world media and international human rights groups to investigate this case to clarify the facts."<ref name="Press Statement dated January 23, 2001 "> from The Falun Dafa Information Center, New York</ref> Danny Schechter notes that CCP's claims are "unsubstantiated by outside parties" | |||
By the sixth day, Ouyang said, he couldn't see straight from staring at plaster three inches from his face. His knees buckled, prompting more shocks and beatings. He gave in to the guards' demands. | |||
Falun Gong<ref name="falsefire.com"></ref>, Human Rights Activists <ref name="kilgourmatas"> Bloody Harvest: Kilgour Matas Report on Allegation of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong Practitioners in China, 14 August 2001</ref> and third-party commentators have pointed out discrepancies in the government's version of events, and assert that the incident was staged in order to turn public opinion against the practice<ref name="unhchr"> Statement by United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 53rd session, 14 August 2001</ref> and build public support for its persecution.<ref name="Sunderland">Judith Sunderland. From the Household to the Factory: China's campaign against Falungong. Human Rights Watch, 2002. ISBN 1564322696</ref><ref name="Beyond The Red Wall"> - The Persecution of Falun Gong, CBC Documentary</ref> | |||
For the next three days, Ouyang denounced teachings, shouting into the wall. Officers continued to shock him about the body and he soiled himself regularly. Finally, on the 10th day, Ouyang's repudiation of the group was deemed sufficiently sincere. | |||
In August, 2001, Human Rights Organization, IED ( International Educational Department), stated in its report at the United Nations that they discovered the incident "in fact, had been staged" and requested that the international community and the UN Subcommission urgently address the situation. <ref name="unhchr"/> | |||
<!--] image of one of the self-immolators at the scene]]--> | |||
According to analysts, the Government's media war against Falun Gong capitalized on the incident. A six-month campaign that followed attempted to portray Falun Gong as an "evil cult"<ref name=breakingpoint>Matthew Gornet, , ], June 25, 2001</ref> through repeated broadcasts of images of scene.<ref name=pomfret>John Pomfret and Philip Pan, Washington Post, 5 Aug 2001 at A1, , October 2004, retrieved July 8, 2006</ref> The campaign is thought to be the government's first effort to gain public support for the crackdown of Falun Gong, and is "reminiscent of communist political movements -- from the 1950-53 ] to the radical ] in the 1960s."<ref name=tense>{{citeweb|url = http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/24/asia.falun.03/|title = Tiananmen tense after fiery protests|author = Staff and wire reports|publisher=CNN|date=24 January 2001|accessdate = 2007-02-09}}</ref> <ref name="Rutgers03">Smith, Chrandra D. (] ]), ''Rutgers J. of L. & Relig. New Dev.66'', retrieved ] ]</ref><!-- Commented out: the source says nothing of the sort <ref name="Rutgers03">Smith, Chrandra D. (] ]) , ''Rutgers J. of L. & Relig. New Dev.66'', retrieved ] ]</ref> --> | |||
He was taken before a group of Falun Gong inmates and rejected the group one more time as a video camera rolled. Ouyang left jail and entered the brainwashing classes. Twenty days later after debating Falun Gong for 16 hours a day, he "graduated." | |||
Falun Gong related sources pointed out several apparent discrepancies in the Chinese government's version of the incidents in a video titled "False Fire"<ref name="falsefire.com"/>. Western media correspondents were denied access to the purported victims. A CNN official confirms that one of his teams was arrested that day near Tiananmen Square and that police confiscated their videotapes. <ref name=RSF></ref> Danny Schechter notes that CNN videotapes of the incident are confiscated, never aired... China's charges are unsubstantiated by outside parties."<ref name=schechter/> | |||
"The pressure on me was and is incredible," he said. "In the past two years, I have seen the worst of what man can do. We really are the worst animals on Earth."<ref name=torturebreak>John Pomfret and Philip P. Pan, "Torture Is Breaking Falun Gong, China Systematically Eradicating Group", ] Foreign Service, Sunday, 5 August 2001; Page A01</ref>}} | |||
In a CBC documentary Clive Ansley, Chair of CIPFG and China Country Monitor for Lawyers Rights’ Watch Canada states "You've got Falun Gong people this country.. oppressed over and over again, they are not allowed to speak, they are not allowed to assert any of their rights as citizens and the level of frustration must be terribly high... I can understand people doing that.. that does not mean.. the movement is evil. But, ironically, we ultimately found out that it was a fraud anyway. It wasn't real, the people involved weren't Falun Gong members, it was completely staged by the government."<ref name="Beyond The Red Wall"/> | |||
The transformation efforts are driven by incentives and directives issued from central Communist Party authorities via the ]. Local governments and officials in charge of detention facilities are given quotas stipulating how many Falun Gong practitioners must be successfully transformed. Fulfillment of these quotas is tied to promotions and financial compensation, with "generous bonuses" going to officials who meet the targets set by the government, and possible demotions for those who do not.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> The central 610 Office periodically launches new transformation campaigns to revise the quotas and disseminate new methods. In 2010, it initiated a nationwide, three-year campaign to transform large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners. Documents posted on Party and local government websites refer to concrete transformation targets and set limits on acceptable rates of "relapse".<ref>Congressional Executive Commission in China (22 March 2011) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111202130133/http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=154369 |date=2 December 2011 }}</ref> A similar three-year campaign was launched in 2013.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
==Reports of psychiatric torture== | |||
Soon after the onset of the persecution, Falun Gong and human rights observers began reporting widespread psychiatric abuse of mentally-healthy practitioners. Falun Gong says that thousands have been forcefully detained in mental hospitals and subject to psychiatric abuses such as injection of sedatives or anti-psychotic drugs, torture by electrocution, force-feeding, beatings and starvation.<ref>{{Citation | title = Falun Gong Practitioners Tortured in Mental Hospitals Throughout China | publisher = Falun Dafa Information Center | url = http://www.faluninfo.net/hrreports/PsychAbuse.pdf |format=PDF| year = | accessdate = 2007-03-10}}</ref> Schechter states that as the persecution progressed, the "authorities came up with a new tactic, throwing those arrested into mental hospitals."<ref name=schechter/> | |||
Abuse of political dissidents in China is well documented by international Human Rights organizations. Human Rights Watch has documented 3,000 cases of psychiatric punishment of political dissidents since the early 1980s.<ref>Joseph Kahn, , ], ]</ref>In 2002, ] and the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry issued a report which alleged that Chinese dissidents, independent labour organisers, whistle-blowers and individuals who complain about official misconduct have been labelled "political maniacs" and locked up in mental hospitals simply for opposing the government.<ref>John Gittings, , '']'', ], ]</ref> | |||
===Torture and abuse in custody=== | |||
Danny Schechter notes that "use of psychiatric institutions to imprison Falun Gong practitioners is becoming an international issue." The American Psychiatric Association, at its May 2000 meeting in Chicago, discussed this concern. The Committee on Misuse and Abuse in Psychiatry unanimously passed a resolution asking that the American Psychiatric leadership request the World Psychiatric Association to investigate this problem. Schechter notes that the body's intervention had helped prevent a similar practice in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s.<ref name=schechter/> | |||
In order to reach transformation targets, the government sanctioned the systematic use of torture and violence against Falun Gong practitioners, including shocks with electric truncheons and beatings.<ref name=torturebreak/> ] writes that "detainees who do not cooperate with the 're-education' process will be subjected to methods of torture and other ill-treatment ... with increasing severity." The "soft" methods include sleep deprivation, threatening family members, and denial of access to sanitation or bathrooms. The ill-treatment escalates to beatings, 24-hour surveillance, solitary confinement, shocks with electric batons, abusive forced feedings, "rack" torture and the "tiger bench", wherein the person is bound to a board and their legs are made to bend backwards.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
===Political abuse of psychiatry=== | |||
A 2001 report by Amnesty International states that "Several cases have been reported in which Falun Gong practitioners, alone or in groups, were taken by police to mental hospitals where they were detained for periods varying from a few days to several weeks, and often forced to take drugs against their will.<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
Since 2000, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture documented 314 cases of torture in China, representing more than 1,160 individuals. Falun Gong comprised 66% of the reported torture cases.<ref name=nowak66>{{Cite web|url=http://www.refworld.org/docid/45377b160.html|title= Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: MISSION TO CHINA|author=Manfred Nowak|publisher=United Nations|page=13|year=2006|access-date =16 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16777&Cr=rights&Cr1=China |title=Torture, though on decline, remains widespread in China, UN expert reports |publisher=United Nations |access-date=4 February 2010 |date=2 December 2005 }}</ref> The Special Rapporteur referred to the torture allegations as "harrowing" and asked the Chinese government to "take immediate steps to protect the lives and integrity of its detainees in accordance with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners".<ref>Asma Jahangir (22 December 2003), {{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, Report of the Special Rapporteur, United Nations. Retrieved 28 January 2015</ref> | |||
Robin J. Munro was the first clinician to draw worldwide attention to the abuses of ] in China in general, and of Falun Gong practitioners in particular.<ref name=sunnygalli>Sunny Y. Lu, MD, PhD, and Viviana B. Galli, MD, “Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”, ''J Am Acad Psychiatry Law'', 30:126–30, 2002</ref> Munro says that large-scale psychiatric abuses are the most distinctive aspect of the government’s protracted campaign to "crush the Falun Gong." | |||
Numerous forms of torture are purported to be used, including ], suspension by the arms, | |||
Sunny Y. Lu and Viviana B. Galli credit Jiang Zemin with reversing the declining trend of using mental hospitals as places of government-directed torture in China, as part of a comprehensive and brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. They draw comparison with political abuse of psychiatry by the ] aimed at ] and nonconformists, but point out that Falun Gong practitioners were "neither political nor nonconformists."<ref name=sunnygalli/> | |||
shackling in painful positions, sleep and food deprivation, ], and ], with many variations on each type.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
===Extrajudicial killing=== | |||
Lu and Galli assert that the authorities began forcing sane Falun Gong practitioners into psychiatric facilities not long after the crackdown began. In cases where hospitals expressed reluctance to admit mentally healthy persons, the government would apply pressure through police. Without formal legal procedures for commitment, local police officers and members of the 6-10 Office arbitrarily commit Falun Gong practitioners to psychiatric institutions, with lengths of detention ranging from days to years. Lu and Galli state that “the perversion of mental health facilities for the purpose of the torture of Falun Gong practitioners is widespread”; the targets are from all tiers of society, including physicians, nurses, judges, military personnel, police officers and school teachers.<ref name=sunnygalli/>Their crimes were practising Falun Gong, passing out flyers against the persecution, appealing and petitioning to the government, and refusing to renounce the practice. Diagnoses may include ], “mental problems induced by superstition” and also the newly coined the “evil cult-induced mental disorder” (邪教所致精神障碍) --which Munro describes as a “politically opportunistic... hyperdiagnosis", and a throwback to the model found in Soviet forensic psychiatry.”<ref name=munro2002>p .105</ref> | |||
], a Falun Gong practitioner from Liaoning province, was ]d in custody in 2005.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.amnesty.de/umleitung/2006/deu03/031?lang=de%26mimetype%3dtext%2fhtml |title=China | Amnesty International Deutschland |access-date=10 February 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130210152726/http://www.amnesty.de/umleitung/2006/deu03/031?lang=de%26mimetype%3Dtext/html |archive-date=10 February 2013 }}</ref>]] | |||
The Falun Dafa Information Center reports that over 3,700 named Falun Gong practitioners have died as a result of torture and abuse in custody, typically after they refused to recant their beliefs. Amnesty International notes that this figure may be "only a small portion of the actual number of deaths in custody, as many families do not seek legal redress for these deaths or systematically inform overseas sources."<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
Among the first torture deaths reported in the Western press was that of Chen Zixiu, a retired factory worker from Shandong Province. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning article on the persecution of Falun Gong, ] reported that labor camp guards shocked her with cattle prods in an attempt to force her to renounce Falun Gong. When she refused, " ordered Chen to run barefoot in the snow. Two days of torture had left her legs bruised and her short black hair matted with pus and blood... She crawled outside, vomited, and collapsed. She never regained consciousness." Chen died on 21 February 2000.<ref name=DE/> | |||
{{rquote|left|''If the practitioners continue to perform the exercises in the hospital or refuse to renounce their beliefs, medication dosages are increased as much as five to six times the initial dose until the “patient” loses the ability to move or communicate... they are tortured by being tightly bound with ropes in very painful positions, beaten and shocked with electric batons, deprived of food or sleep, force fed through gastric tubing, and shocked with high voltage through acupuncture needles.''|Lu and Galli}} | |||
On 16 June 2005, 37-year-old Gao Rongrong, an accountant from Liaoning Province, was tortured to death in custody.<ref> (2007) 10 minutes youtube.com</ref> Two years before her death, Gao had been imprisoned at the Longshan forced labor camp, where she was badly disfigured with electric shock batons. Gao escaped the labor camp by jumping from a second-floor window, and after pictures of her burned visage were made public, she became a target for recapture by authorities. She was taken back into custody on 6 March 2005 and killed just over three months later.<ref>Amnesty International (22 May 2006) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122060202/https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/001/2006/en/ |date=22 November 2018 }}</ref> | |||
Munro writes that detained practitioners are tortured and subject to ], painful forms of electrical ] treatment, prolonged deprivation of light, food and water, and restricted access to toilet facilities in order to force "confessions" or "renunciations" as a condition of release. Fines of several thousand yuan may follow.<ref name=munro2002>p. 107</ref> Lu and Galli write that dosages of medication up to five or six times the usual level are administered through ]s as a form of torture or punishment, and that physical torture is common, including binding tightly with ropes in very painful positions. Effects of this treatment, including drug or chemical toxicity, are loss of memory, migraines, extreme weakness, protrusion of the tongue, rigidity, loss of consciousness, vomiting, nausea and seizures.<ref name=sunnygalli>p. 128</ref> | |||
On 26 January 2008, security agents in Beijing stopped popular folk musician Yu Zhou and his wife Xu Na while they were on their way home from a concert. The 42-year-old Yu Zhou was taken into custody, where authorities attempted to force him to renounce Falun Gong. He was tortured to death within 11 days.<ref>Michael Sheridan, The Sunday Times, 20 April 2008</ref> | |||
Lu and Galli say that the Chinese government uses extreme measures to prevent investigation of the alleged abuses: threats, bribes, summary cremation of victims' bodies, arbitrary detention of potential whistleblowers, censorship of the internet, restricted access for western media and humanitarian organisations, and detention, harassment, deportation of journalist or revoking their licenses etc.<ref name=sunnygalli>p. 128</ref> | |||
Government authorities deny that Falun Gong practitioners are killed in custody. They attribute deaths to suicide, illness, or other accidents.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
The '']'' also the reported in the issue: "The old Soviet Union pioneered the misuse of psychiatry against political dissidents; China has followed suit..." The Post recounts the story of 32-year-old computer engineer Su Gang as "dramatic". Su had been repeatedly detained by the security department of his workplace for refusing to renounce Falun Gong. Following a protest trip to the capital, on May 23, 2000 his employer, a state-run petrochemical company, authorized the police to "drag him off to a mental hospital." According to his father, doctors injected Mr. Su twice a day with an unknown substance. "When Mr. Su emerged a week later, he could not eat or move his limbs normally. On June 10, the previously healthy young man died of heart failure."<ref>Washington Post Editorial,'''', 6/23/00</ref> | |||
===Organ harvesting=== | |||
Reports state that practitioners are involuntarily admitted because they practice Falun Gong exercises, for passing out flyers, refusing to sign a pledge to renounce Falun Gong, writing petition letters, appealing to the government etc. Others are admitted because detention sentences have expired or the detainees have not been successfully “transformed” in the brainwashing classes. Some have been told that they were admitted because they had a so-called “political problem”—that is, because they appealed to the government to lift the ban of Falun Gong.<ref name=Psychatricabsue1></ref> | |||
{{Further|Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China}} | |||
In 2006, allegations emerged that many Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry.<ref name=orgharv/><ref name=CGOH>Gutmann, Ethan. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115210040/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/824qbcjr.asp |date=15 January 2021 }}, ], 24 November 2008</ref> These allegations prompted an investigation by former Canadian Secretary of State ] and human rights lawyer ]. In July 2006, the ]<ref name=orgharv>], ] (6 July 2006, revised 31 January 2007) (free in 22 languages) organharvestinvestigation.net</ref> found that "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six-year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and concluded that "the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience".<ref name=orgharv/> | |||
The ]<ref name=orgharv/><ref>], AP (8 July 2006) , '']'', (Australia). Retrieved 7 July 2006.</ref><ref name=Ottawa>Endemann, Kirstin (6 July 2006) CanWest News Service, ], {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151017095219/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=290fed94-d0c2-4265-8686-54ce75d08eca&k=34245 |date=17 October 2015 }}, Retrieved 6 July 2006.</ref><ref>] (5 July 2006) {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070313175955/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=c990936c-e208-4601-888f-810ff73bd994 |date=13 March 2007 }}. Retrieved 8 July 2006.</ref> | |||
Amnesty reports of a case where, Yang Yong, a spokesman for a police station in Beijing, confirmed to a foreign journalist that around 50 Falun Gong had been incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital near Beijing. Yang Yong reportedly said that his police force was responsible for Falun Gong practitioners, the majority of them women, held at the Zhoukoudian psychiatric hospital. He told the journalist that the practitioners "are not patients, they are there to be re-educated... most of them are Falun Gong 'extremists' who have been to Beijing to protest at least 10 times".<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
called attention to the extremely short wait times for organs in China—one to two weeks for a liver compared with 32.5 months in Canada—indicating that organs were being procured on demand. A significant increase in the number of annual organ transplants in China beginning in 1999, corresponded with the onset of the persecution of Falun Gong. Despite very low levels of voluntary organ donation, China performs the second-highest number of transplants per year. Kilgour and Matas also presented incriminating material from Chinese transplant center web sites advertising the immediate availability of organs from living donors, as well as transcripts of telephone interviews in which hospitals told prospective transplant recipients that they could obtain Falun Gong organs.<ref name=orgharv/> An updated version of their report was published as a book in 2009.<ref name=BHbook>{{cite news|author=David Kilgour, David Matas |title=Bloody Harvest, The killing of Falun Gong for their organs |url=http://www.seraphimeditions.com/bloody-harvest.html |page=232 |publisher=seraphimeditions.com |date=2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141018063316/http://www.seraphimeditions.com/bloody-harvest.html |archive-date=18 October 2014 }}</ref><ref name="washingtontimes.com">{{cite news|title=Chinese accused of vast trade in organs|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/27/chinese-accused-of-vast-trade-in-organs/print/|newspaper=The Washington Times}}</ref> Kilgour followed up on this investigation in a 680-page 2016 report.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kilgour|first1=David|title=Blood Harvest: The Slaughter|journal=End Organ Pillaging|page=428|url=http://endorganpillaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Bloody_Harvest-The_Slaughter-June-23-V2.pdf}}</ref> | |||
] (left) with ] at a 2009 Foreign Press Association press conference]] | |||
===Response to the reports=== | |||
In 2014, investigative journalist ] published the results of his own investigation.<ref name=EGbook/> Gutmann conducted extensive interviews with former detainees in Chinese labor camps and prisons, as well as former security officers and medical professionals with knowledge of China's transplant practices.<ref name=Jay>] (25 August 2014) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170607203837/http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nordlinger_gutmann08-25-14.html |date=7 June 2017 }}, '']''</ref><ref>Barbara Turnbull (21 October 2014) , '']''</ref> He reported that organ harvesting from political prisoners likely began in ] in the 1990s, and then spread nationwide. Gutmann estimates that some 64,000 Falun Gong prisoners may have been killed for their organs between the years 2000 and 2008.<ref name=Slaughter>{{cite book|last1=Gutmann|first1=Ethan|title=The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem|date=August 2014|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=978-1616149406|page=368}}</ref><ref name=EGbook>{{cite news|last1=Getlen|first1=Larry|title=China's long history of harvesting organs from living political foes|url=https://nypost.com/2014/08/09/chinas-long-history-of-harvesting-organs-from-living-political-prisoners/|access-date=15 August 2014|publisher=]|date=9 August 2014}}</ref> | |||
In 2016, the researchers published a joint update to their findings showing that the number of organ transplants conducted in China is much higher than previously believed, and that the death from illicit organ harvesting could be as high as 1,500,000.<ref name="independent.co.uk"/> The 789-page report is based on an analysis of records from hundreds of Chinese transplant hospitals.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Vanderklippe|first1=Nathan|title=Report alleges China killing thousands to harvest organs|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/report-alleges-china-killing-thousands-of-prisoners-to-harvest-organs/article30559415/|access-date=7 October 2016|publisher=The Globe and Mail|date=22 June 2016}}</ref> | |||
Lu and Galli state that since September 1999, the police have forced mentally healthy Falun Gong practitioners into psychiatric facilities. They point out that such a commitment requires no formal legal procedure. Members of the 6-10 Office — an extraconstitutional body created for the sole purpose of terrorizing Falun Gong—the local police, or even the security forces of local factories can arbitrarily commit Falun Gong practitioners. Human rights groups now estimate that there are 1,000 Falun Gong practitioners being held against their will in mental hospitals. The actual number is very likely many times higher. The lengths of these detentions range from a few days to 1.5 years.<ref name=Psychatricabsue1/> | |||
In December 2005 and November 2006, China's Deputy Health Minister acknowledged that the practice of removing organs from executed prisoners for transplants was widespread.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305100023/http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article2612313.ece |date=5 March 2016 }}, ], 3 December 2005</ref><ref>, Los Angeles Times, 18 November 2006</ref> However, Chinese officials deny that Falun Gong practitioners' organs are being harvested, and insist that China abides by ] principles that prohibit the sale of human organs without written consent from donors.<ref>Chinese Embassy in Canada (6 July 2006) , ca.china-embassy.org</ref><ref>Chinese Embassy in Canada (15 April 2007) , ca.china-embassy.org</ref> | |||
According to Lu and Galli, documented cases include "physicians, nurses, an associate professor, a judge, a computer engineer, military personnel, police officers, teachers, and others. They are known to have functioned at high professional levels in society before incarceration."<ref name=Psychatricabsue1/> | |||
In May 2008, two United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their requests for the Chinese authorities to adequately respond to the allegations, and to provide a source for the organs that would account for the sudden increase in organ transplants in China since 2000.<ref name=MW/> | |||
Lu and Galli state that the Chinese government uses extreme measures to block any investigations by Western media and that many foreign journalists who have attempted to investigate these matters (or, in some cases, merely cover Falun Gong) in the past year have been detained, harassed, and had their licenses revoked and in some cases have even been deported from China. China has also blocked attempts at investigation by international organizations such as Amnesty International and has not responded to the World Psychiatry Association’s request to send international experts to investigate psychiatric abuse in China.<ref name=Psychatricabsue1/> Munro brings attention to the 'coincidence' between the very sizeable increase in Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals, and the onset of the government's persecution campaign. <ref name=munro2002> Robin J. Munro, "Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses", ''Columbia Journal of Asian Law'', ], Volume 14, Number 1, Fall 2000, p 114</ref> | |||
In June 2019, an independent tribunal sitting in London named the China Tribunal, established to inquire into forced organ harvesting from and among prisoners of conscience in China, stated that the members of the Falun Gong spiritual group continued to be murdered by China for their organs.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes|title=China is harvesting organs from detainees, tribunal concludes|date=17 June 2019|work=The Guardian|access-date=16 March 2020|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> The tribunal said it had clear evidence that forced organ harvesting has been taking place in China from over at least 20 years. China has repeatedly denied the accusations, claiming to have stopped using organs from executed prisoners in 2015. However, the lawyers and experts at the China Tribunal are convinced that the practice was still taking place with the imprisoned Falun Gong members "probably the principal source" of organs for forced harvesting.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-falun-gong-members-finds-tribunal|title=China is harvesting organs from Falun Gong members, finds tribunal|publisher=The Straits Times|access-date=17 June 2019}}</ref> | |||
In 2002, the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) scheduled an investigation with the involvement of the Chinese Society of Psychiatrists' (CSP) to examine alleged abuses of Falun Gong practitioners who were sent to Chinese psychiatric hospitals and clinics as punishment. In April, several days before it was to start, the investigation was postponed indefinitely, at the Chinese government's insistence.<ref name=hausman>Ken Hausman, , Psychiatric News, WPA, August 6, 2004</ref> | |||
In June 2021, the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council voiced concerns over having “received credible information that detainees from ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations.” The press release stated that UN's human rights experts “were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged ‘organ harvesting’ targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=14 June 2021 |title=China: UN human rights experts alarmed by 'organ harvesting' allegations |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations?LangID=E&NewsID=27167 |website=]}}</ref> | |||
Dr. ], Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at New York Medical College and former president of The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, states "The allegations of psychiatric abuse in China involve mistreatment, torture, and fraudulent diagnoses in the case of large numbers of political dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners and should not be dismissed as mere `failures in accurate diagnosis.'" Schechter notes Halpern, who is also a former civil rights activist who worked with Martin Luther King Jr, as stating "the government needs to hospitalize, wrongfully, non-mentally ill dissidents because this will help them in their efforts to paint the Falun Gong practitioners as not being against the government policy, but as being mentally ill. So even if they were to hospitalize a small number, word would soon spread that Falun Gong practitioners are crazy."<ref name=schechter/> Halpern has also called on his colleagues worldwide to speak out on the issue.<ref name=schechter/>. Halpern also notes that "Deliberate hospitalization, wrongful hospitalization, is only part of the problem. They then make it very difficult for practitioners to get out of the hospital by demanding that their families pay exorbitant amounts of money for their 'treatment' in the hospital. So there's no question that this type of conduct, government-sanctioned, is a serious violation of human rights. And we'd like to stop it early rather than wait until large number of dissidents are placed in hospitals,as occurred in case of Soviet Union." <ref name=schechter/> | |||
==Arbitrary arrests and imprisonment== | |||
Munro maintains that the few cases of psychiatric torture of Falun Gong practitioners he mentions are typical of the “several hundred such accounts that have so far been compiled and published by the Falun Gong,”<ref name=munrores2002 /> and that "<nowiki></nowiki>ndependent investigations by foreign journalists… have confirmed the Falun Gong’s version of events in the cases that have been examined."<ref name=munrores2002>p. 270</ref> He responds to Lee and Kleinman's doubts by saying that they, in their own published work, relied on the very same documentation, drawn from facts, commentary, and decades of survey material written and compiled by Chinese psychiatrists and law-enforcement officers published in China’s officially authorized professional literature on psychiatry and the law. He opines that since they do not make any substantive rebuttal of his evidence, they must have no answer to it.<ref name=munrores2002>Robin Munro, , ''The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law'', 2002, 30:2, pp. 266–274</ref> | |||
Foreign observers estimate that hundreds of thousands—and perhaps millions—of Falun Gong practitioners have been held extralegally in reeducation-through-labor camps, prisons, and other detention facilities.<ref name=CECC2008/><ref>Leeshai Lemish (7 October 2008) , National Post david-kilgour.com</ref> | |||
Large-scale arrests are conducted periodically and often coincide with important anniversaries or major events. The first wave of arrests occurred on the evening of 20 July, when several thousand practitioners were taken from their homes into police custody.<ref>Tong (2009)</ref> In November 1999—four months after the onset of the campaign—Vice Premier Li Lanqing announced that 35,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been arrested or detained. The Washington Post wrote that "the number of detained people... in the operation against Falun Gong dwarfs every political campaign in recent years in China." By April 2000 over 30,000 people had been arrested for protesting in defense of Falun Gong in Tiananmen Square.<ref name="johnson2000">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6464 |title=Defiant Falun Dafa Members Converge on Tiananmen |first=Ian |last=Johnson |date=25 April 2000 |work=The Wall Street Journal |publisher=Pulitzer.org |page= A21}}</ref> Seven hundred Falun Gong followers were arrested during a demonstration in the square on 1 January 2001.<ref name="Perry">{{Cite book|first=Elizabeth J. |last=Selden |author2=Perry, Mark |title=Chinese Society: Change, Conflict and Resistance |publisher=Routledge |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-415-30170-1}}</ref> | |||
Munro contends that decades-long political abuse of psychiatry by the Party, directly preceding the section on Falun Gong, transfers the burden of proof "squarely back onto the Chinese authorities."<ref name=munrores2002>p. 270</ref> | |||
In advance of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing over 8,000 Falun Gong practitioners were taken from their homes and workplaces in provinces across China.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Congressional Executive Commission on China |title=Annual Report 2008 |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg45233/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg45233.pdf |access-date=28 March 2014}}</ref> Two years later authorities in Shanghai detained over 100 practitioners ahead of the 2010 World Expo. Those who refused to disavow Falun Gong were subjected to torture and sent to reeducation through labor facilities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cecc.gov/publications/annual-reports/2010-annual-report|title=2010 Annual Report – Congressional-Executive Commission on China|website=www.cecc.gov|date=10 October 2010 }}</ref> | |||
===Reeducation through labor=== | |||
From 1999 to 2013, the vast majority of detained Falun Gong practitioners were held in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps—a system of administrative detention where people can be imprisoned without trial for up to four years.<ref>Robert Bejesky, "Falun Gong & reeducation through labour", ''Columbia Journal of Asian Law'', 17:2, Spring 2004, p 178. Quote: "Up to 99% of long term Falun Gong detainees are processed administratively through this system, and do not enter the formal criminal justice system"</ref> | |||
The RTL system was established during the Maoist era to punish and reprogram "reactionaries" and other individuals deemed enemies of the Communist cause. In more recent years, it has been used to incarcerate petty criminals, drug addicts and prostitutes, as well as petitioners and dissidents.<ref name=Amnesty2013>{{cite book|last1=Amnesty International|title=Changing the soup but not the medicine: Abolishing re-education through labor in China|date=Dec 2013|location=London, UK|url=https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/asa17/042/2013/es/|access-date=21 November 2018|archive-date=23 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191123153407/https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/asa17/042/2013/es/|url-status=dead}}</ref> RTL sentences can be arbitrarily extended by police, and outside access is not permitted. Prisoners are forced to do heavy work in mines, brick manufacturing centers, agricultural fields, and many different types of factories. Physical torture, beatings, interrogations, and other human rights abuses take place in the camps, according to former prisoners and human rights organizations.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}} | |||
China's network of RTL centers expanded significantly after 1999 to accommodate an influx of Falun Gong detainees, and authorities used the camps to try to "transform" Falun Gong practitioners. Amnesty International reports that "The RTL system has played a key role in the anti–Falun Gong campaign, absorbing large numbers of practitioners over the years... Evidence suggests that Falun Gong constituted on average from one third to, in some cases, 100 percent of the total population of certain RTL camps." | |||
International observers estimated that Falun Gong practitioners accounted for at least half of the total RTL population, amounting to several hundred thousand people.<ref name="Departmentof" /> A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch found that Falun Gong practitioners made up the majority of the detainee population in the camps studied, and received the "longest sentences and worst treatment." "The government's campaign against the group has been so thorough that even long-time Chinese activists are afraid to say the group's name aloud."<ref name=HumanRights/> | |||
In 2012 and early 2013, a series of news reports and exposés focused attention on human rights abuses at the ], where approximately half of the inmates were Falun Gong practitioners. The exposure helped galvanize calls to end the reeducation-through-labor system.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> In early 2013, CPC General Secretary ] announced that RTL would be abolished, resulting in the closure of the camps. However, human rights groups found that many RTL facilities have simply been renamed as prisons or rehabilitation centers, and that the use of extrajudicial imprisonment of dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners has continued.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
The system is often called Laogai, the abbreviation for láodòng gǎizào ({{lang|zh|勞動改造/劳动改造}}), which means "reform through labor", and is a slogan of the Chinese criminal justice system. | |||
==="Black jails" and re-education centers=== | |||
In addition to prisons and RTL facilities, the 610 Office created a nationwide network of extrajudicial reeducation centers to "transform the minds" of Falun Gong practitioners.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}}<ref name=CECC2008/><ref name=USstate>], , 14 September 2007. Retrieved 28 September 2007</ref> The centers are run extrajudicially, and the government officially denies their existence.<ref name=USstate/> They are known as "black jails",<ref> (2009) 4 minutes Al Jazeera English youtube.com</ref> "brainwashing centers", "transformation through reeducation centers", or "legal education centers".<ref name=Amnesty2013/> Some are temporary programs established in schools, hotels, military compounds or work units. Others are permanent facilities that operate as private jails.<ref name=HRIC>Human Rights in China, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111031004004/http://biweekly.hrichina.org/article/1203 |date=31 October 2011 }}</ref> | |||
If a Falun Gong practitioner refuses to be "transformed" in prison or RTL camps, they can be sent directly to transformation centers upon completion of their sentence.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> The Congressional-Executive Commission on China writes that the facilities "are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release."<ref name=CECC2008/> Practitioners who are involuntarily detained in the transformation centers must pay tuition fees amounting to hundreds of dollars. The fees are extorted from family members as well as from practitioners' work units and employers.<ref name=torturebreak/><ref name=DE/> | |||
<ref name=HRIC/> | |||
The government's use of "brainwashing sessions" began in 1999, but the network of transformation centers expanded nationwide in January 2001 when the central 610 Office mandated that all government bodies, work units, and corporations use them. The Washington Post reported "neighborhood officials have compelled even the elderly, people with disabilities and the ill to attend the classes. Universities have sent staff to find students who had dropped out or been expelled for practicing Falun Gong, and brought them back for the sessions. Other members have been forced to leave sick relatives" to attend the reeducation sessions.<ref name=torturebreak/> After the closure of the RTL system in 2013, authorities leaned more heavily on the transformation centers to detain Falun Gong practitioners. After the Nanchong RTL center in Sichuan province was closed, for example, at least a dozen of the Falun Gong practitioners detained there were sent directly to a local transformation center. Some former RTL camps have simply been renamed and converted into transformation centers.<ref name=Amnesty2013/> | |||
===Psychiatric abuse=== | |||
Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to recant their beliefs are sometimes sent involuntarily to psychiatric hospitals, where they may be subject to beatings, sleep deprivation, torture by electrocution, and injections with sedatives or anti-psychotic drugs. Some are sent to the hospitals (known as ''ankang'' facilities) because their prison or RTL sentences have expired and they had not yet been successfully "transformed" in the brainwashing classes. Others were told that they were admitted because they had a "political problem"—that is, because they appealed to the government to lift the ban of Falun Gong.<ref name=sunnygalli> jaapl.org</ref> | |||
], former director of the Hong Kong Office of Human Rights Watch and now deputy director with ], drew attention to the abuses of ] in China in general, and of Falun Gong practitioners in particular.<ref name=sunnygalli/> In 2001, Munro alleged that forensic psychiatrists in China have been active since the days of Mao Zedong, and have been involved in the systematic misuse of psychiatry for political purposes.<ref name=munrobedlam>{{cite web |last=Munro |first=Robin |year=2001 |title=China's Political Bedlam |url=http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-s-political-bedlam |access-date =24 October 2014}}</ref><ref name=munrodangerous>{{cite web |last=Munro |first=Robin |year=2002 |title=Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and Its Origins in the Mao Era |url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/china02/ |publisher=Human Rights Watch }}</ref> He says that large-scale psychiatric abuses are the most distinctive aspect of the government's protracted campaign to "crush the Falun Gong",<ref>Munro (2002), p. 270</ref> and he found a very sizable increase in Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals since the onset of the government's persecution campaign.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Robin J. |last=Munro |url=http://www.law.washington.edu/clnet/features/articles/judicialpsychiatry2001.pdf |title=Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses |journal=Columbia Journal of Asian Law |publisher=Columbia University |volume= 14| issue = 1 |date=Fall 2000 |page=114 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20011117222115/http://www.law.washington.edu/clnet/features/articles/judicialpsychiatry2001.pdf |archive-date = 17 November 2001}}</ref> | |||
Munro claimed that detained Falun Gong practitioners are tortured and subject to ], painful forms of electrical ] treatment, prolonged deprivation of light, food and water, and restricted access to toilet facilities in order to force "confessions" or "renunciations" as a condition of release. Fines of several thousand yuan may follow.<ref>Munro (2002), p. 107</ref> Lu and Galli write that dosages of medication up to five or six times the usual level are administered through a ] as a form of torture or punishment, and that physical torture is common, including binding tightly with ropes in very painful positions. This treatment may result in chemical toxicity, migraines, extreme weakness, protrusion of the tongue, rigidity, loss of consciousness, vomiting, nausea, seizures and loss of memory.<ref name=sunnygalli/> | |||
Dr. Alan Stone, a professor of law and psychiatry at Harvard, found that a significant number of the Falun Gong practitioners held in psychiatric hospitals had been sent there from labor camps, writing " may well have been tortured and then dumped in psychiatric hospitals as an expedient disposition."<ref name=stone47816>{{cite journal |url=http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/47816?pageNumber=4&verify=0 |date=1 November 2004 |journal=Psychiatric Times |volume=21 |issue=13 |title=The Plight of the Falun Gong |first=Alan A. |last=Stone |access-date=16 October 2009 |archive-date=22 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222004544/http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/47816?pageNumber=4&verify=0 |url-status=dead }}</ref> He agreed that Falun Gong practitioners sent to psychiatric hospitals had been "misdiagnosed and mistreated", but did not find definitive evidence that the use of psychiatric facilities was part of a uniform government policy, noting instead that patterns of institutionalization varied from province to province.<ref name="stone47816"/><ref>Stone, Alan A. (1 May 2005). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714231637/http://www.rheumatologynetwork.com/forensic-psychiatry/china-psychiatry-crisis-following-plight-falun-gong/page/0/2 |date=14 July 2014 }}. Rheumatology Network.</ref> | |||
===Prisons=== | |||
Since 1999, several thousand Falun Gong practitioners have been sentenced to prisons through the criminal justice system. Most of the charges against Falun Gong practitioners are for political offenses such as "disturbing social order", "leaking state secrets", "subverting the socialist system", or "using a heretical organization to undermine the implementation of the law"—a vaguely worded provision used to prosecute, for instance, individuals who used the Internet to disseminate information about Falun Gong.<ref name="heretical"/><ref name=bejesky>Robert Bejesky, "Falun Gong & reeducation through labour", ''Columbia Journal of Asian Law'', 17:2, Spring 2004, pp. 147–189</ref> | |||
According to a report by Amnesty International, trials against Falun Gong practitioners are "Grossly unfair—the judicial process was biased against the defendants at the outset and the trials were a mere formality... None of the accusations against the defendants relate to activities which would legitimately be regarded as crimes under international standards."<ref name=Amnesty1/> | |||
Chinese ] who have attempted to defend Falun Gong clients have faced varying degrees of persecution themselves, including disbarment, detention, and in some cases, torture and disappearance.<ref name=CECC2009/><ref>Amnesty International (7 September 2009) </ref> | |||
==Societal discrimination== | |||
Since July 1999, civil servants and Communist Party members have been forbidden from practicing Falun Gong. Workplaces and schools were enjoined to participate in the struggle against Falun Gong by pressuring recalcitrant Falun Gong believers to renounce their beliefs, sometimes sending them to special reeducation classes to be "transformed". Failure to do so has results in lost wages, pensions, expulsion, or termination from jobs.{{sfn|Spiegel|2002}} | |||
Writing in 2015, Noakes and Ford noted that "Post-secondary institutions across the country—from agricultural universities to law schools to fine arts programmes—require students to prove that they have adopted the 'correct attitude' on Falun Gong as a condition of admission." For example, students at many universities are required to obtain a certificate from the public security ministry certifying that they have no affiliation with Falun Gong.<ref name="noakes">{{cite journal|last1=Noakes|last2=Ford|title=Managing Political Opposition Groups in China: Explaining the Continuing Anti- Falun Gong Campaign|journal=China Quarterly|date=Sep 2015|volume=223|pages=671–672|doi=10.1017/S0305741015000788|s2cid=154701445}}</ref> The same is true in employment, with job postings frequently specifying that prospective candidates must have no record of participation in Falun Gong. In some cases, even changing one's address requires proving the correct political attitude toward Falun Gong.<ref name="noakes"/> | |||
==Outside China== | |||
{{Main|Falun Gong outside mainland China#Attempts at persecution overseas by the Communist Party}} | |||
The Communist Party's campaign against Falun Gong has extended to ] communities, including through the use of media, espionage and monitoring of Falun Gong practitioners, harassment and violence against practitioners, diplomatic pressure applied to foreign governments, and hacking of overseas websites. According to a defector from the Chinese consulate in Sydney, Australia, "The war against Falun Gong is one of the main tasks of the Chinese mission overseas."<ref name=Newman>Alex Newman, , The Diplomat, 19 September 2011.</ref> | |||
In 2004 the ] unanimously passed a resolution condemning the attacks on Falun Gong practitioners in the United States by agents of the Communist Party. The resolution reported that party affiliates have "pressured local elected officials in the United States to refuse or withdraw support for the Falun Gong spiritual group," that Falun Gong spokespeople have had their houses broken into, and individuals engaged in peaceful protest actions outside embassies and consulates have been physically assaulted.<ref name=HR304>United States House of Representatives, House Concurrent Resolution 304, , 16 October 2003.</ref> | |||
The overseas campaign against Falun Gong is described in documents issued by China's ] (OCAO). In a report from a 2007 meeting of OCAO directors at the national, provincial, and municipal level, the office stated that it "coordinates the launching of anti-'Falun Gong' struggles overseas." OCAO exhorts overseas Chinese citizens to participate in "resolutely implementing and executing the Party line, the Party's guiding principles, and the Party's policies," and to "aggressively expand the struggle" against Falun Gong, ethnic separatists, and Taiwanese independence activists abroad.<ref name=CECC2008/> Other party and state organizations believed to be involved in the overseas campaign include the ],<ref name=iceberg>Liu Li-jen, , Taipei Times, 3 October 2011.</ref> the 610 Office<ref name=Spiegel>Röbel, Sven; Stark, Holger (30 June 2010)., ''Spiegel International''. Retrieved 24 November 2012.</ref> and the ]<ref name=Newman/> among others. | |||
Falun Gong has been banned in ] since 2020, after a court in ] deemed it an "extremist organization", and extending the ban to the entire Russian Federation.<ref>AsiaNews, </ref> Earlier that year, several Falun Gong-related organizations were designated as ']' in Russia.<ref>{{cite news|title=One UK, 6 U.S. NGOs designated undesirable in Russia|url=https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/69331|access-date=2023-09-02|work=]|date=2020-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200722152049/https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/69331|archive-date=2020-07-22|location=Moscow|language=en}}</ref> | |||
==International response== | ==International response== | ||
Human rights organizations, |
The persecution of Falun Gong has attracted a large amount of international attention from governments and non-government organizations. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised acute concerns over reports of torture and ill-treatment of practitioners in China and have also urged the UN and international governments to intervene to bring an end to the persecution.<ref name="heretical"/><ref name="HRW1">Human Rights Watch 2002</ref> | ||
The United States Congress has passed multiple resolutions<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200619174025/https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/304/text/.eh |date=19 June 2020 }}</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200619174028/https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-resolution/530/text/.eh |date=19 June 2020 }}</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130722211825/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.188.EH: |date=22 July 2013 }}</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200619174030/https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/218/text/.eh |date=19 June 2020 }}</ref> calling for an immediate end to the campaign against Falun Gong practitioners both in China and abroad. | |||
At a rally on 12 July 2012, U.S. Rep. ] (R-FL), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, called on the Obama administration to confront the Chinese leadership on its human rights record, including its oppression of Falun Gong practitioners.<ref name=usrepstatement>Ros-Lehtinen {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141206040127/http://archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/blog/?2520 |date=6 December 2014 }} House Committee on Foreign Affairs</ref> "It is essential that friends and supporters of democracy and human rights continue to show their solidarity and support, by speaking out against these abuses", she said.<ref name=usrepstatement/> | |||
Con. Resolution 188, passed unanimously (420-0) by the US Congress states: "Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it....this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;... official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes'... several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured." | |||
In 2012, Professor of Bioethics ] stated: | |||
===Response from Falun Gong=== | |||
''See also: ]'' | |||
]]] | |||
Li Hongzhi, in response to accusations made against Falun Gong by the Chinese government, stated on July 22, 1999: | |||
{{cquote|''Falun Gong is simply a popular qigong activity. It does not have any particular organization, let alone any political activities. I am a cultivator myself, and I have never been destined to be involved in political power. I am just teaching people how to practice cultivation. If one wants to practice qigong well, he/she must be a person of high moral standards... | |||
<blockquote>Look, I think you can make the connections that... they are using prisoners, and they need prisoners who are relatively healthy, they need prisoners who are relatively younger. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination that some Falun Gong are going to be among those who are going to be killed for parts. It just follows, because remember you can't take very old people as sources of organs and you can't take people who are very sick. They, Falun Gong, are in part younger, and by lifestyle, healthier. I would be astounded if they weren't using some of those prisoners as sources of organs.<ref>, YouTube video, ''NTDTV'', 15 Mar 2012</ref></blockquote> | |||
''We are not against the government now, nor will we be in the future. Other people may treat us badly, but we do not treat others badly, nor do we treat people as enemies. | |||
In 2008 Israel passed a law banning the sale and brokerage of organs. The law also ended funding, through the health insurance system, of transplants in China for Israeli nationals.<ref>Jotkowitz A National Institutes of Health, December 2008.</ref> | |||
''We are calling for all governments, international organizations, and people of goodwill worldwide to extend their support and assistance to us in order to resolve the present crisis that is taking place in China.''<ref name=briefstate> Li Hongzhi, , July 22 1999, accessed 31/12/07</ref>}} | |||
==Response from Falun Gong practitioners== | |||
Falun Gong practitioners and supporters have set up human rights organizations to report torture and ill-treatment of practitioners in mainland china.<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
{{See also|Falun Gong outside mainland China}} | |||
Falun Gong's response to the persecution in China began in July 1999 with appeals to local, provincial, and central petitioning offices in Beijing.<ref>Elisabeth Rosenthal and Erik Eckholm New York Times, 28 October 1999.</ref> It soon progressed to larger demonstrations, with hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners traveling daily to Tiananmen Square to perform Falun Gong exercises or raise banners in defense of the practice. These demonstrations were invariably broken up by security forces, and the practitioners involved were arrested—sometimes violently—and detained. By 25 April 2000, a total of more than 30,000 practitioners had been arrested on the square;<ref name="johnson2000"/> seven hundred Falun Gong followers were arrested during a demonstration in the square on 1 January 2001.<ref name="Perry"/> Public protests continued well into 2001. Writing for ''The Wall Street Journal'', ] wrote that "Falun Gong faithful have mustered what is arguably the most sustained challenge to authority in 50 years of Communist rule."<ref name=DE/> | |||
After the persecution in 1999, practitioners began holding frequent protests, rallies, and appeals outside mainland China. | |||
By late 2001, demonstrations in Tiananmen Square had become less frequent, and the practice was driven deeper underground. As public protest fell out of favor, practitioners established underground "material sites", which would produce literature and DVDs to counter the portrayal of Falun Gong in the official media. Practitioners then distribute these materials, often door-to-door.<ref>Liao Yiwu. ''The Corpse Walker: Real Life Stories: China from the Bottom Up''. p. 230.</ref> The production, possession, or distribution of these materials is frequently grounds for security agents to incarcerate or sentence Falun Gong adherents.<ref name=CECC2009/> | |||
Some Falun Gong support groups and Human Rights activists outside of China responded to the crackdown by publishing ], and initiating a worldwide ]. Since it began on Dec 3, 2004, over 44 million members of the ] and its subordinate organizations (the ] and the ])have publicly denounced the CCP as of Aug 04, 2008, according to The Epoch Times. | |||
In 2002, Falun Gong activists in China tapped into television broadcasts, replacing regular state-run programming with their own content. One of the more notable instances occurred in March 2002, when Falun Gong practitioners in ] intercepted eight cable television networks in Jilin Province, and for nearly an hour, televised a program titled ''Self-Immolation or a Staged Act?''. All six of the Falun Gong practitioners involved were captured over the next few months. Two were killed immediately, while the other four were all dead by 2010 as a result of injuries sustained while imprisoned.<ref name=mediacontrol>{{cite book|title=The Fog of Censorship: Media Control in China|year=2008|publisher=Human Rights in China|isbn=978-0-9717356-2-0|pages=xii|url=http://hrichina.org/sites/default/files/oldsite/PDFs/Reports/HRIC-Fog-of-Censorship.pdf|author=He Qinglian|author-link=He Qinglian|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120229083633/http://hrichina.org/sites/default/files/oldsite/PDFs/Reports/HRIC-Fog-of-Censorship.pdf|archive-date=29 February 2012}}</ref><ref name=ws-20101206>{{cite news|last=Gutmann|first=Ethan|title=Into Thin Airwaves|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/thin-airwaves_519589.html?nopager=1|newspaper=The Weekly Standard|date=6 December 2010|access-date=20 July 2014|archive-date=5 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120105190542/http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/thin-airwaves_519589.html?nopager=1|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
The video "False Fire: Self-Immolation or Deception?", was successfully broadcast on Chinese television in a hacking incident in the city of Changchun. The video was first posted on the Minghui Net in March 2001 and distributed widely on cassettes; it has been one of the most accessed pieces on the Falun Gong human-rights related websites.<ref name=zhao>Yuezhi Zhao, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China", in Contesting Media Power, 2004</ref><ref name="clearwisdom.net">, ClearWisdom.net, January 20, 2004</ref><ref name="clearwisdom.net"/> Liu Chengjun, named as the instigator of the television hacking incident, was sentenced to 19 years in prison; he was reportedly tortured to death after 21 months in Jilin Prison, and his body cremated without autopsy.<ref>, ], 30 December, 2003</ref> | |||
Outside China, Falun Gong practitioners established international media organizations to gain wider exposure for their cause and challenge narratives of the Chinese state-run media. These include the '']'' newspaper, ], and ] radio station.<ref name=Ownby/> According to Zhao, through the ''Epoch Times'' it can be discerned how Falun Gong is building a "de facto media alliance" with China's democracy movements in exile, as demonstrated by its frequent printing of articles by prominent overseas Chinese critics of the PRC government.<ref name=zhao>Yuezhi Zhao, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China", in ''Contesting Media Power'', 2004</ref> In 2004, the ''Epoch Times'' published "The Nine Commentaries", a collection of nine editorials which presented a critical history of Communist Party rule.<ref name=Ping>Hu Ping, "The Falun Gong Phenomenon", in ''Challenging China: Struggle and Hope in an Era of Change'', Sharon Hom and Stacy Mosher (ed.) (New York: The New Press, 2007).</ref><ref>Steel, Kevin. "Revolution number nine", ''The Western Standard'', 11 July 2005.</ref> This catalyzed the Tuidang movement, which encourages Chinese citizens to renounce their affiliations to the Chinese Communist Party, including ex post facto renunciations of the ] and ]. The ''Epoch Times'' claims that tens of millions have renounced the Communist Party as part of the movement, though these numbers have not been independently verified.<ref>Gutmann, Ethan. ''The Chinese Internet: A dream deferred?''. Testimony given at the National Endowment for Democracy panel discussion "Tiananmen 20 years on", 2 June 2009.</ref> | |||
==== Legal action ==== | |||
Falun Gong practitioners in the United States have filed several civil complaints in U.S. federal courts against PRC leaders for violations of the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act, and other crimes against humanity. Law suits have also been filed for violation of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1999. Chinese officials alleged to have taken part in human rights abuses against practitioners have become targets of legal action, particularly when they step upon foreign soil. Since 2001, there have been more than 70 legal cases launched by Falun Gong practitioners and sympathisers against those considered responsible for the persecution campaign in the Chinese government.<ref>, Justice for Falun Gong, Retrieved 2007-08-16</ref> According to ''International Advocates for Justice'', Falun Gong has filed the largest number of human rights lawsuits in the 21st century and the charges are among the most severe international crimes defined by international criminal laws.<ref name=Ownby2008/><ref> Described by Ownby as an "excellent window" into legal activities initiated by Falun Gong.</ref> | |||
* | |||
In 2007, Falun Gong practitioners in the United States formed ], a dance and music company that tours internationally. Falun Gong software developers in the United States are also responsible for the creation of several popular censorship-circumvention tools employed by internet users in China.<ref>Beiser, Vince. . ''Wired'', 1 November 2010.</ref> | |||
== References == | |||
<!--- This section should only contain items that are referenced in the article. ---> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
<!--- References above this have been verified and placed in order. ---> | |||
<!-- Deleted image removed: ], ], holding banners calling for Jiang Zemin to be "brought to justice."]] --> | |||
== External links == | |||
Falun Gong Practitioners outside China have filed dozens of lawsuits against Jiang Zemin, Luo Gan, Bo Xilai, and other Chinese officials alleging genocide and crimes against humanity.<ref>Human Rights Law Foundation, . Retrieved 26 October 2014</ref> According to International Advocates for Justice, Falun Gong has filed the largest number of human rights lawsuits in the 21st century and the charges are among the most severe international crimes defined by international criminal laws.<ref name=Ownby/> {{as of|2006|lc=y}}, 54 civil and criminal lawsuits were under way in 33 countries.<ref name=Ownby/> In many instances, courts have refused to adjudicate the cases on the grounds of sovereign immunity. In late 2009, however, separate courts in Spain and Argentina indicted ] and ] on charges of "crimes of humanity" and genocide, and asked for their arrest—the ruling is acknowledged to be largely symbolic and unlikely to be carried out.<ref name=elmundo>{{cite web|url=http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/11/14/espana/1258230601.html|title=La Audiencia pide interrogar al ex presidente chino Jiang por genocidio – España – elmundo.es|first=Unidad Editorial|last=Internet|website=www.elmundo.es}}</ref><ref name=ZeminIndicted>NTDTV (7 Dec 2009) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200412183002/http://www.ifjc.org/node/1929 |date=12 April 2020 }}, International Federation for Justice in China</ref><ref>Luis Andres Henao, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151203212405/https://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/23/us-argentina-china-falungong-idUSTRE5BM02B20091223 |date=3 December 2015 }}, ], 22 December 2009</ref> The court in Spain also indicted ], ] and ].<ref name=elmundo/><ref name=ZeminIndicted/> | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* , Pulitzer Prize winner Ian Johnson, 2001, ] | |||
Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters also filed a lawsuit in May 2011 against the technology company ], alleging that the company helped design and implement a surveillance system for the Chinese government to suppress Falun Gong. Cisco denied customizing their technology for this purpose.<ref>Terry Baynes, , Reuters, 20 May 2011.</ref> | |||
==See also== | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
==References== | |||
{{Reflist|30em}} | |||
==Further reading== | |||
{{Library resources box}}{{Commons category|Persecution of Falun Gong}} | |||
<!-- Currently in ascending chronological order. --> | |||
* {{cite book|last1=Amnesty International|title=China: The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called 'heretical organizations'|date=March 2000|publisher=Amnesty International Publications|location=London|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/011/2000/en|access-date=4 December 2016|archive-date=10 November 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091110132555/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/011/2000/en|url-status=dead}} | |||
* {{Cite book |first=Mickey |last=Spiegel |url=https://archive.org/details/fromhouseholdtof00huma |title=Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong |publisher=Human Rights Watch |year=2002 |access-date=28 September 2007 |isbn=978-1-56432-269-2 |url-access=registration }} | |||
* {{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/falungongschalle00sche |url-access=registration |quote=schechter falun. |title=Falun Gong's challenge to China: spiritual practice or 'evil cult'? |first=Danny |last=Schechter |year= 2001|isbn=978-1-888451-27-6 |publisher=Akashic Books}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Johnson|first=Ian|title=Wild Grass: Three Portraits of Change in Modern China|pages=251–252; 283–287|year=2005|publisher=Vintage|location=New York|isbn=978-0375719196}} | |||
* {{Cite book |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RXeuibmD2dsC&q=%22Falun+Gong+challenges+the+CCP%22&pg=PA241 |chapter=9. Falun Gong challenges the CCP |pages=241–295 |title=Qigong fever: body, science, and utopia in China |first= David A. |last=Palmer |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-231-14066-9 |publisher=Columbia University Press }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Tong|first=James|title=Revenge of the Forbidden City: The Suppression of Falungong in China, 1999–2005|year=2009|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0195377286|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QX0kaT2--lAC&q=revenge+of+the+forbidden+city}} | |||
* {{cite book|editor-last=Matas |editor-first=David|title=State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China |date=2012 |publisher=Seraphim Editions |location=Woodstock, Ontario |url=http://www.seraphimeditions.com/state-organs.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150224121713/http://seraphimeditions.com/state-organs.html |archive-date=24 February 2015 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last1=Amnesty International|title=Changing the soup but not the medicine: Abolishing re-education through labor in China|year=2013|publisher=Amnesty International Publications|location=London|url=https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/asa17/042/2013/es/|access-date=21 November 2018|archive-date=23 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191123153407/https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/asa17/042/2013/es/|url-status=dead}} | |||
{{Falun Gong}} | |||
{{China national security}} | |||
{{New Religious Movements}} | |||
{{Religious persecution}}{{Discrimination}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Persecution of Falun Gong}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 09:43, 17 December 2024
Part of a series on |
Discrimination |
---|
Forms |
Attributes |
Social
|
Religious |
Ethnic/national
|
Manifestations
|
Policies
|
Countermeasures
|
Related topics
|
The persecution of Falun Gong is the campaign initiated in 1999 by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to eliminate the spiritual practice of Falun Gong in China, maintaining a doctrine of state atheism. It is characterized by a multifaceted propaganda campaign, a program of enforced ideological conversion and re-education and reportedly a variety of extralegal coercive measures such as arbitrary arrests, forced labor and physical torture, sometimes resulting in death.
Falun Gong is a modern qigong discipline combining slow-moving exercises and meditation with a moral philosophy. It was founded by Li Hongzhi, who introduced it to the public in May 1992 in Changchun, Jilin. Following a period of rapid growth in the 1990s, the CCP launched a campaign to "eradicate" Falun Gong on 20 July 1999.
The Chinese government had alleged that Falun Gong was an "evil cult" or "heretical sect" and had used that official rationale to justify to ban and eliminate the movement. An extra-constitutional body called the 6-10 Office was created to lead the persecution of Falun Gong. The authorities mobilized the state media apparatus, judiciary, police, army, the education system, families and workplaces against the group. The campaign was driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspaper, radio and the Internet. There are reports of systematic torture, illegal imprisonment, forced labor, organ harvesting and abusive psychiatric measures, with the apparent aim of forcing practitioners to recant their belief in Falun Gong.
Foreign observers estimate that hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in "re-education through labor" camps, prisons and other detention facilities for refusing to renounce the spiritual practice. Former prisoners have reported that Falun Gong practitioners consistently received "the longest sentences and worst treatment" in labor camps, and in some facilities Falun Gong practitioners formed the substantial majority of detainees. As of 2009, at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been reportedly tortured to death in the persecution campaign. Some international observers and judicial authorities have described the campaign against Falun Gong as a genocide. In 2009, courts in Spain and Argentina indicted senior Chinese officials for genocide and crimes against humanity for their role in orchestrating the suppression of Falun Gong.
In 2006, allegations emerged that many Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry. An initial investigation found that "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six-year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and concluded that "there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners". Ethan Gutmann estimates 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008. Following additional analysis, the researchers significantly raised the estimates on the number of Falun Gong practitioners who may have been targeted for organ harvesting. In 2008, United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their requests for "the Chinese government to fully explain the allegation of taking vital organs from Falun Gong practitioners and the source of organs for the sudden increase in organ transplants that has been going on in China since the year 2000".
Background
Main article: History of Falun GongFalun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a form of spiritual qigong practice that involves meditation, energy exercises, and a set of moral principles that guide practitioners' daily lives. The principles they espouse—"truthfulness, compassion, forbearance"—have been repeated by Falun Gong members. However, according to James Lewis, Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi instructs his followers to not talk about "Falun Gong's inner teachings" when talking to outsiders, contradictory to his teachings about "Truthfulness".
The practice of Falun Gong was first taught publicly by Li in Northeast China in the spring of 1992, towards the end of China's "qigong boom". Falun Gong initially enjoyed considerable official support during the early years of its development. It was promoted by the state-run Qigong Association and other government agencies. By the mid-1990s, however, Chinese authorities sought to rein in the influence of qigong practices and enacted more stringent requirements on the country's various qigong denominations. In 1995 authorities mandated that all qigong groups establish Communist Party branches. The government also sought to formalize ties with Falun Gong and exercise greater control over the practice. Falun Gong resisted co-optation, and instead filed to withdraw altogether from the state-run qigong association.
Following this severance of ties to the state, the group came under increasing criticism and surveillance from the country's security apparatus and propaganda department. Falun Gong books were banned from further publication in July 1996, and official news outlets began criticizing the group as a form of "feudal superstition", whose "theistic" orientation was at odds with the official ideology and national agenda.
Tensions continued to escalate through the late 1990s. By 1999, surveys estimated as many as 70 million people were practicing Falun Gong in China. Although some government agencies and senior officials continued expressing support for the practices, others grew increasingly wary of its size and capacity for independent organization.
On 22 April 1999, several dozen Falun Gong practitioners were beaten and arrested in the city of Tianjin while staging a peaceful sit-in. The practitioners were told that the arrest order came from the Ministry of Public Security, and that those arrested could be released only with the approval of Beijing authorities.
On 25 April, upwards of 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners assembled peacefully near the Zhongnanhai government compound in Beijing to request the release of the Tianjin practitioners and an end to the escalating harassment against them. It was Falun Gong practitioners' attempt to seek redress from the leadership by going to them and, "albeit very quietly and politely, making it clear that they would not be treated so shabbily." It was the first mass demonstration at the Zhongnanhai compound in the PRC's history, and the largest protest in Beijing since 1989. Several Falun Gong representatives met with then-premier Zhu Rongji, who assured them that the government was not against Falun Gong, and promised that the Tianjin practitioners would be released. The crowd outside dispersed peacefully, apparently believing that their demonstration had been a success.
Security czar and politburo member Luo Gan was less conciliatory, and called on Jiang Zemin, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party to find a decisive solution to the Falun Gong problem.
Statewide persecution
On the night of 25 April 1999, then-Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin issued a letter indicating his desire to see Falun Gong defeated. The letter expressed alarm at Falun Gong's popularity, particularly among Communist Party members. He reportedly called the Zhongnanhai protest "the most serious political incident since the '4 June' political disturbance in 1989."
At a meeting of the Politburo on 7 June 1999, Jiang described Falun Gong as a grave threat to Communist Party authority—"something unprecedented in the country since its founding 50 years ago"—and ordered the creation of a high-level committee to "get fully prepared for the work of disintegrating ." Rumors of an impending crackdown began circulating throughout China, prompting demonstrations and petitions. The government publicly denied the reports, calling them "completely baseless" and offering assurances that it had never banned qigong activities.
Just after midnight on 20 July 1999, public security officers seized hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners from their homes in cities across China. Estimates on the number of arrests vary from several hundred to over 5,600. A Hong Kong newspaper reported that 50,000 individuals were detained in the first week of the crackdown. Four Falun Gong coordinators in Beijing were arrested and quickly tried on charges of "leaking state secrets". The Public Security Bureau ordered churches, temples, mosques, newspapers, media, courts and police to suppress Falun Gong. Three days of massive demonstrations by practitioners in some thirty cities followed. In Beijing and other cities, protesters were detained in sports stadiums. Editorials in state-run newspapers urged people to give up Falun Gong practice, and Communist Party members in particular were reminded that they were atheists and must not allow themselves to "become superstitious by continuing to practice Falun Gong."
Li Hongzhi responded with a "Brief Statement of Mine" on 22 July:
We are not against the government now, nor will we be in the future. Other people may treat us badly, but we do not treat others badly, nor do we treat people as enemies. We are calling for all governments, international organizations, and people of goodwill worldwide to extend their support and assistance to us in order to resolve the present crisis that is taking place in China.
Rationale
Foreign observers have attempted to explain the Party's rationale for banning Falun Gong as stemming from a variety of factors. These include Falun Gong's popularity, its independence from the state and refusal to toe the Party line, internal power politics within the Communist Party, and Falun Gong's moral and spiritual content, which put it at odds with the Party's Marxist–Leninist atheist ideology.
A World Journal report suggested that certain high-level Party officials wanted to crack down on the practice for years, but lacked sufficient pretext until the protest at Zhongnanhai, which they claim was partly orchestrated by Luo Gan, a long-time opponent of Falun Gong. There were also reportedly rifts in the Politburo at the time of the incident. Willy Wo-Lap Lam writes that Jiang's campaign against Falun Gong may have been used to promote allegiance to himself; Lam quotes one party veteran as saying, "By unleashing a Mao-style movement , Jiang is forcing senior cadres to pledge allegiance to his line." Jiang is held by Falun Gong to be personally responsible for the final decision, and sources cited by The Washington Post state that, "Jiang Zemin alone decided that Falun Gong must be eliminated," and "picked what he thought was an easy target." Peerman cited reasons such as suspected personal jealousy of Li Hongzhi; Saich postulates that party leaders' anger at Falun Gong's widespread appeal, and ideological struggle. The Washington Post reported that members of the Politburo Standing Committee did not unanimously support the crackdown, and that "Jiang Zemin alone decided that Falun Gong must be eliminated." The size and reach of Jiang's anti–Falun Gong campaign surpassed that of many previous mass-movements.
Human Rights Watch notes that the crackdown on Falun Gong reflects historical efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to eradicate religion, which the government believed was inherently subversive. Some journalists believe that Beijing's reaction exposes its authoritarian nature and its intolerance for competing loyalty. The Globe and Mail wrote : "...any group that does not come under the control of the Party is a threat"; secondly, the 1989 protests may have heightened the leaders' sense of losing their grip on power, making them live in "mortal fear" of popular demonstrations. Craig Smith of the Wall Street Journal suggests that the government which has by definition no view of spirituality, lacks moral credibility with which to fight an expressly spiritual foe; the party feels increasingly threatened by any belief system that challenges its ideology and has an ability to organize itself. That Falun Gong, whose belief system represented a revival of traditional Chinese religion, was being practiced by many Communist Party members and members of the military was seen as particularly disturbing to Jiang Zemin. "Jiang accepts the threat of Falun Gong as an ideological one: spiritual beliefs against militant atheism and historical materialism. He to purge the government and the military of such beliefs".
Legal and political mechanisms
610 Office
Main article: 610 OfficeOn 10 June the Party established the 610 Office, a Communist Party-led security agency responsible for coordinating the elimination of Falun Gong. The office was not created with any legislation, and there are no provisions describing its precise mandate. Because of this, it is sometimes described as an extralegal organization. Nonetheless, its tasks were "to deal with central and local, party and state agencies, which were called upon to act in close coordination with that office," according to UCLA professor James Tong. The leaders of the 610 Office are "able to call on top government and party officials...and draw on their institutional resources", and have personal access to the Communist Party General Secretary and the Premier.
The office is headed by a high-ranking member of the Communist Party's Politburo or Politburo Standing Committee. It is closely associated with the powerful Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Soon after the creation of the central 610 Office, local branches were established at each administrative level wherever populations of Falun Gong practitioners were present, including the provincial, district, municipal, and sometimes neighborhood levels. In some instances, 610 Offices have been established within large corporations and universities.
The main functions of the 610 Offices include coordinating anti–Falun Gong propaganda, surveillance and intelligence collection, and the punishment and "reeducation" of Falun Gong practitioners. The office is reportedly involved in the extrajudicial sentencing, coercive reeducation, torture, and sometimes death of Falun Gong practitioners.
Journalist Ian Johnson, whose coverage of the crackdown on Falun Gong earned him a Pulitzer Prize, wrote that the job of the 610 Office was "to mobilize the country's pliant social organizations. Under orders from the Public Security Bureau, churches, temples, mosques, newspapers, media, courts and police all quickly lined up behind the government's simple plan: to crush Falun Gong, no measures too excessive."
Official documents and circulars
Beginning in July 1999 Chinese authorities issued a number of notices and circulars prescribing measures to crack down on the Falun Gong and placing restrictions on the practice and expression of religious belief:
- On 22 July 1999, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a circular proclaiming that the Falun Dafa Research Society was an unregistered (and therefore illegal) organization.
- On 22 July 1999 the Ministry of Public Security released a circular forbidding the practice or propagation of Falun Gong, as well as prohibiting any attempts to petition against the ban or oppose the government's decision.
- In July 1999 the Ministry of Personnel issued a circular stating that all government employees were prohibited from practising Falun Gong. Subsequent documents instructed local government departments to "deal with civil servants who have practiced Falun Gong."
- On 26 July 1999 the Ministry of Public Security called for the confiscation and destruction of all publications related to Falun Gong. Millions of Falun Gong books were shredded, burned and bulldozed.
- On 29 July 1999 the Beijing Judicial Bureau issued a notice forbidding lawyers from defending Falun Gong practitioners. The Ministry of Justice also issued instructions that lawyers were not to represent Falun Gong without permission.
- On 30 October 1999 the National People's Congress amended a statute (article 300 of the Criminal Code) to suppress "heterodox religions" across China. The legislation was used to retroactively legitimize the persecution of spiritual groups deemed "dangerous to the state". It prohibited any large-scale public assemblies, and also prohibited religious or qigong organizations from organizing themselves across multiple provinces or coordinating with groups overseas. The NPC decision stated "all corners of society shall be mobilized in preventing and fighting heretical organizations activities, and a comprehensive management system shall be put in place." The same day, the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation prescribing measures to punish individuals found in defiance of the law.
- On 5 November 1999 the Supreme People's Court issued a notice giving instructions to local courts on handling cases of people charged with crimes for "organising or using heretical organisations, particularly Falun Gong." It called for Falun Gong practitioners to be prosecuted for such offenses as "instigating activities of splitting China, endangering national unity or subverting the socialist system."
Human rights experts and legal observers have stated that the official directives and legal documents issued for the purge fall short of international legal standards and violate provisions in China's own constitution.
Implications for the rule of law
The Ministry of Justice required that lawyers seek permission before taking on Falun Gong cases, and called on them to "interpret the law in such a way as to conform to the spirit of the government's decrees." Additionally, on 5 November 1999 the Supreme People's Court issued a notice to all lower courts stating that it was their "political duty" to "resolutely impose severe punishment" against groups considered heretical, especially Falun Gong. It also required the courts at all levels to handle Falun Gong cases by following the direction of the CCP committees, thereby ensuring that Falun Gong cases would be judged based on political considerations, rather than evidence. Brian Edelman and James Richardson wrote that the SPC notice "does not comport well with a defendant's constitutional right to a defense, and it appears to assume guilt before a trial has taken place."
The CCP's campaign against Falun Gong was a turning point in the development of China's legal system, representing a "significant backward step" in the development of rule of law, according to Ian Dominson. In the 1990s the legal system was gradually becoming more professionalized, and a series of reforms in 1996–97 affirmed the principle that all punishments must be based on the rule of law. However, the campaign against Falun Gong would not have been possible if carried out within the narrow confines of China's existing criminal law. In order to persecute the group, in 1999 the judicial system reverted to being used as a political instrument, with laws being applied flexibly to advance the CCP's policy objectives. Edelman and Richardson write that "the Party and government's response to the Falun Gong movement violates citizens' right to a legal defense, freedom of religion, speech and assembly enshrined in the Constitution... the Party will do whatever is necessary to crush any perceived threat to its supreme control. This represents a move away from the rule of law and toward this historical Mao policy of 'rule by man.'"
Propaganda
Onset of the campaign
One of the key elements of the anti–Falun Gong campaign was a propaganda campaign that sought to discredit and demonize Falun Gong and its teachings.
Within the first month of the crackdown, 300–400 articles attacking Falun Gong appeared in the main state-run papers, while primetime television replayed alleged exposés on the group, with no divergent views aired in the media. The propaganda campaign focused on allegations that Falun Gong jeopardized social stability, was deceiving and dangerous, was "anti-science" and threatened progress, and argued that Falun Gong's moral philosophy was incompatible with a Marxist social ethic.
For several months China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti–Falun Gong rhetoric. China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith described it as "a study in all-out demonization", they wrote. Falun Gong was compared to "a rat crossing the street that everyone shouts out to squash" by Beijing Daily; other officials said it would be a "long-term, complex and serious" struggle to "eradicate" Falun Gong.
State propaganda initially used the appeal of scientific rationalism to argue that Falun Gong's worldview was in "complete opposition to science" and communism. For example, the People's Daily newspaper asserted on 27 July 1999 that the fight against Falun Gong "was a struggle between theism and atheism, superstition and science, idealism and materialism." Other editorials declared that Falun Gong's "idealism and theism" are "absolutely contradictory to the fundamental theories and principles of Marxism," and that the "'truth, kindness and forbearance' principle preached by has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve." Suppressing Falun Gong was presented as a necessary step to maintaining the "vanguard role" of the Communist Party in Chinese society.
At the early stages of the crackdown, the evening news also would broadcast images of large piles of Falun Gong materials being crushed or incinerated. By 30 July, ten days into the campaign, Xinhua had reported confiscations of over one million Falun Gong books and other materials, hundreds of thousands burned and destroyed.
The tenor of the official rhetoric against Falun Gong continued to escalate in the months following July 1999, and broadened to include charges that Falun Gong was colluding with foreign "anti-China" forces. Media reports portrayed Falun Gong as a harm to society, an "abnormal" religious activity, and a dangerous form of "superstition" that led to madness, death, and suicide. These messages were relayed through all state-run—and many non-state-run media channels—as well as through work units and the Communist Party's own structure of cells that penetrate society.
Elizabeth Perry, a Harvard historian, writes that the basic pattern of the offensive was similar to "the anti-rightist campaign of the 1950s the anti-spiritual pollution campaigns of the 1980s." As it did during the Cultural Revolution, the Communist Party organised rallies in the streets and stop-work meetings in remote western provinces by government agencies such as the weather bureau to denounce the practice. Local government authorities have carried out "study and education" programmes throughout China, and official cadres have visited villagers and farmers at home to explain "in simple terms the harm of Falun Gong to them".
Use of the 'cult' label
Despite Party efforts, initial charges leveled against Falun Gong failed to elicit widespread popular support for the persecution of the group. In October 1999, three months after the persecution began, the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation classifying Falun Gong as a xiejiao. A broad translation of that term is "heretical teaching" or "heterodox teaching", but during the anti–Falun Gong propaganda campaign it was rendered as "cult" or "evil cult" in English. In the context of imperial China, the term "xiejiao" was used to refer to non-Confucian religions, though in the context of Communist China, it has been used to target religious organizations that do not submit to the authority of the Communist Party. Julia Ching writes that the "evil cult" label was defined by an atheist government "on political premises, not by any religious authority", and was used by the authorities to make previous arrests and imprisonments constitutional.
Ian Johnson argued that by applying the 'cult' label, the government put Falun Gong on the defensive, and "cloaked crackdown with the legitimacy of the West's anticult movement." David Ownby similarly wrote that "the entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong.". According to John Powers and Meg Y. M. Lee, because the Falun Gong was categorized in the popular perception as an "apolitical, qigong exercise club", it was not seen as a threat to the government. The most critical strategy in the Falun Gong persecution campaign, therefore, was to convince people to reclassify the Falun Gong into a number of "negatively charged religious labels" like "evil cult", "sect", or "superstition". In this process of relabelling, the government was attempting to tap into a "deep reservoir of negative feelings related to the historical role of quasi-religious cults as a destabilising force in Chinese political history."
Overseas Chinese propaganda using this label has been censured by Western governments. The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission in 2006 took issue with anti–Falun Gong broadcasts from Chinese Central Television (CCTV), noting "they are expressions of extreme ill will against Falun Gong and its founder, Li Hongzhi. The derision, hostility and abuse encouraged by such comments could expose the targeted group or individual to hatred or contempt and... could incite violence and threaten the physical security of Falun Gong practitioners."
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Main article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incidentA turning point in the government's campaign against Falun Gong occurred on 23 January 2001, when five people set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square. Chinese government sources declared immediately they were Falun Gong practitioners driven to suicide by the practice, and filled the nation's media outlets with graphic images and fresh denunciations of the practice. The self-immolation was held up as evidence of the "dangers" of Falun Gong, and was used to legitimize the government's crackdown against the group.
Falun Gong sources disputed the accuracy of the government's narrative, noting that their teachings explicitly forbid violence or suicide. Several Western journalists and scholars also noted inconsistencies in the official account of events, leading many to believe the self-immolation may have been staged to discredit Falun Gong. The government did not permit independent investigations and denied Western journalists or human rights groups access to the victims. However, two weeks after the self-immolation incident, The Washington Post published an investigation into the identity of two of the victims, and found that "no one ever saw practice Falun Gong."
The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong. As noted by Time magazine, many Chinese had previously felt that Falun Gong posed no real threat, and that the state's crackdown against it had gone too far. After the self-immolation, however, the media campaign against the group gained significant traction. Posters, leaflets and videos were produced detailing the supposed detrimental effects of Falun Gong practice, and regular anti–Falun Gong classes were scheduled in schools. CNN compared the government's propaganda initiative to past political movements such as the Korean War and the Cultural Revolution. Later, as public opinion turned against the group, the Chinese authorities began sanctioning the "systematic use of violence" to eliminate Falun Gong. In the year following the incident, the imprisonment, torture, and deaths of Falun Gong practitioners in custody increased significantly.
Censorship
Interference with foreign correspondents
The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China has complained about their members being "followed, detained, interrogated and threatened" for reporting on the crackdown on Falun Gong. Foreign journalists covering a clandestine Falun Gong news conference in October 1999 were accused by the Chinese authorities of "illegal reporting". Journalists from Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and a number of other organisations were interrogated by police, forced to sign confessions, and had their work and residence papers temporarily confiscated. Correspondents also complained that television satellite transmissions were interfered with while being routed through China Central Television. Amnesty International states that "a number of people have received prison sentences or long terms of administrative detention for speaking out about the repression or giving information over the Internet."
The 2002 Reporters Without Borders' report on China states that photographers and cameramen working with foreign media were prevented from working in and around Tiananmen Square where hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners had been demonstrating in recent years. It estimates that "at least 50 representatives of the international press have been arrested since July 1999, and some of them were beaten by police; several Falun Gong followers have been imprisoned for talking with foreign journalists." Ian Johnson, The Wall Street Journal correspondent in Beijing, wrote a series of articles which won him the 2001 Pulitzer Prize. Johnson left Beijing after writing his articles, stating that "the Chinese police would have made my life in Beijing impossible" after he received the Pulitzer.
Entire news organizations have not been immune to press restrictions concerning Falun Gong. In March 2001, Time Asia ran a story about Falun Gong in Hong Kong. The magazine was pulled from the shelves in mainland China, and threatened that it would never again be sold in the country. Partly as a result of the difficult reporting environment, by 2002, Western news coverage of the persecution within China had all but completely ceased, even as the number of Falun Gong deaths in custody was on the rise.
Internet censorship
Terms related to Falun Gong are among the most heavily censored topics on the Chinese Internet, and individuals found downloading or circulating information online about Falun Gong risk imprisonment.
Chinese authorities began filtering and blocking overseas websites as early as the mid-1990s, and in 1998 the Ministry of Public Security developed plans for the "Golden Shield Project" to monitor and control online communications. The campaign against Falun Gong in 1999 provided authorities with added incentive to develop more rigorous censorship and surveillance techniques. The government also moved to criminalize various forms of online speech. China's first integrated regulation on Internet content, passed in 2000, made it illegal to disseminate information that "undermines social stability", harms the "honor and interests of the state", or that "undermines the state's policy for religions" or preaches "feudal" beliefs—a veiled reference to Falun Gong.
The same year, the Chinese government sought out Western corporations to develop surveillance and censorship tools that would let them track Falun Gong practitioners and block access to news and information on the subject. North American companies such as Cisco and Nortel marketed their services to the Chinese government by touting their efficacy in catching Falun Gong.
In addition to censoring the Internet within its borders, the Chinese government and military use cyber-warfare to attack Falun Gong websites in the United States, Australia, Canada and Europe. According to Chinese Internet researcher Ethan Gutmann, the first sustained denial of service attacks launched by China were against overseas Falun Gong websites.
In 2005, researchers from Harvard and Cambridge found that terms related to Falun Gong were the most intensively censored on the Chinese Internet. Other studies of Chinese censorship and monitoring practices produced similar conclusions. A 2012 study examining rates of censorship on Chinese social media websites found Falun Gong-related terms were among the most stringently censored. Among the top 20 terms most likely to be deleted on Chinese social media websites, three are variations on the word "Falun Gong" or "Falun Dafa".
In response to censorship of the Chinese Internet, Falun Gong practitioners in North America developed a suite of software tools that could be used by bypass online censorship and surveillance.
Torture and extrajudicial killing
Reeducation
A key component of the Communist Party's campaign is the reeducation or "transformation" of Falun Gong practitioners. Transformation is described as "a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."
The transformation process usually occurs in prisons, labor camps, reeducation centers and other detention facilities. In 2001 Chinese authorities ordered that no Falun Gong practitioner was to be spared from the coercive measures used to make them renounce their faith. The most active were sent directly to labor camps, "where they are first 'broken' by beatings and other torture." Former prisoners report being told by the guards that "no measures are too excessive" to elicit renunciation statements, and practitioners who refuse to renounce Falun Gong are sometimes killed in custody.
The transformation is considered successful once the Falun Gong practitioner signs five documents: a "guarantee" to stop practicing Falun Gong; a promise to sever all ties to the practice; two self-criticism documents critiquing their own behaviour and thinking; and criticisms of Falun Gong doctrine. In order to demonstrate the sincerity of their renunciations, practitioners are made to vilify Falun Gong in front of an audience or on videotape. These recordings may then be used by state-run media as part of a propaganda effort. In some camps the newly reeducated must partake in the transformation of other practitioners—including by inflicting physical abuse on others—as proof that they have fully renounced Falun Gong's teachings.
An account of the transformation process was published by The Washington Post in 2001:
At a police station in western Beijing, Ouyang was stripped and interrogated for five hours. "If I responded incorrectly, that is if I didn't say, 'Yes,' they shocked me with the electric truncheon," he said.
Then, he was transferred to a labor camp in Beijing's western suburbs. There, the guards ordered him to stand facing a wall. If he moved, they shocked him. If he fell down from fatigue, they shocked him.
Each morning, he had five minutes to eat and relieve himself. "If I didn't make it, I went in my pants," he said. "And they shocked me for that, too."
By the sixth day, Ouyang said, he couldn't see straight from staring at plaster three inches from his face. His knees buckled, prompting more shocks and beatings. He gave in to the guards' demands.
For the next three days, Ouyang denounced teachings, shouting into the wall. Officers continued to shock him about the body and he soiled himself regularly. Finally, on the 10th day, Ouyang's repudiation of the group was deemed sufficiently sincere.
He was taken before a group of Falun Gong inmates and rejected the group one more time as a video camera rolled. Ouyang left jail and entered the brainwashing classes. Twenty days later after debating Falun Gong for 16 hours a day, he "graduated."
"The pressure on me was and is incredible," he said. "In the past two years, I have seen the worst of what man can do. We really are the worst animals on Earth."
The transformation efforts are driven by incentives and directives issued from central Communist Party authorities via the 610 Office. Local governments and officials in charge of detention facilities are given quotas stipulating how many Falun Gong practitioners must be successfully transformed. Fulfillment of these quotas is tied to promotions and financial compensation, with "generous bonuses" going to officials who meet the targets set by the government, and possible demotions for those who do not. The central 610 Office periodically launches new transformation campaigns to revise the quotas and disseminate new methods. In 2010, it initiated a nationwide, three-year campaign to transform large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners. Documents posted on Party and local government websites refer to concrete transformation targets and set limits on acceptable rates of "relapse". A similar three-year campaign was launched in 2013.
Torture and abuse in custody
In order to reach transformation targets, the government sanctioned the systematic use of torture and violence against Falun Gong practitioners, including shocks with electric truncheons and beatings. Amnesty International writes that "detainees who do not cooperate with the 're-education' process will be subjected to methods of torture and other ill-treatment ... with increasing severity." The "soft" methods include sleep deprivation, threatening family members, and denial of access to sanitation or bathrooms. The ill-treatment escalates to beatings, 24-hour surveillance, solitary confinement, shocks with electric batons, abusive forced feedings, "rack" torture and the "tiger bench", wherein the person is bound to a board and their legs are made to bend backwards.
Since 2000, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture documented 314 cases of torture in China, representing more than 1,160 individuals. Falun Gong comprised 66% of the reported torture cases. The Special Rapporteur referred to the torture allegations as "harrowing" and asked the Chinese government to "take immediate steps to protect the lives and integrity of its detainees in accordance with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners".
Numerous forms of torture are purported to be used, including electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, sleep and food deprivation, force-feeding, and sexual abuse, with many variations on each type.
Extrajudicial killing
The Falun Dafa Information Center reports that over 3,700 named Falun Gong practitioners have died as a result of torture and abuse in custody, typically after they refused to recant their beliefs. Amnesty International notes that this figure may be "only a small portion of the actual number of deaths in custody, as many families do not seek legal redress for these deaths or systematically inform overseas sources."
Among the first torture deaths reported in the Western press was that of Chen Zixiu, a retired factory worker from Shandong Province. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning article on the persecution of Falun Gong, Ian Johnson reported that labor camp guards shocked her with cattle prods in an attempt to force her to renounce Falun Gong. When she refused, " ordered Chen to run barefoot in the snow. Two days of torture had left her legs bruised and her short black hair matted with pus and blood... She crawled outside, vomited, and collapsed. She never regained consciousness." Chen died on 21 February 2000.
On 16 June 2005, 37-year-old Gao Rongrong, an accountant from Liaoning Province, was tortured to death in custody. Two years before her death, Gao had been imprisoned at the Longshan forced labor camp, where she was badly disfigured with electric shock batons. Gao escaped the labor camp by jumping from a second-floor window, and after pictures of her burned visage were made public, she became a target for recapture by authorities. She was taken back into custody on 6 March 2005 and killed just over three months later.
On 26 January 2008, security agents in Beijing stopped popular folk musician Yu Zhou and his wife Xu Na while they were on their way home from a concert. The 42-year-old Yu Zhou was taken into custody, where authorities attempted to force him to renounce Falun Gong. He was tortured to death within 11 days.
Government authorities deny that Falun Gong practitioners are killed in custody. They attribute deaths to suicide, illness, or other accidents.
Organ harvesting
Further information: Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in ChinaIn 2006, allegations emerged that many Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry. These allegations prompted an investigation by former Canadian Secretary of State David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas. In July 2006, the Kilgour-Matas report found that "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six-year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and concluded that "the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience".
The Kilgour-Matas report called attention to the extremely short wait times for organs in China—one to two weeks for a liver compared with 32.5 months in Canada—indicating that organs were being procured on demand. A significant increase in the number of annual organ transplants in China beginning in 1999, corresponded with the onset of the persecution of Falun Gong. Despite very low levels of voluntary organ donation, China performs the second-highest number of transplants per year. Kilgour and Matas also presented incriminating material from Chinese transplant center web sites advertising the immediate availability of organs from living donors, as well as transcripts of telephone interviews in which hospitals told prospective transplant recipients that they could obtain Falun Gong organs. An updated version of their report was published as a book in 2009. Kilgour followed up on this investigation in a 680-page 2016 report.
In 2014, investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann published the results of his own investigation. Gutmann conducted extensive interviews with former detainees in Chinese labor camps and prisons, as well as former security officers and medical professionals with knowledge of China's transplant practices. He reported that organ harvesting from political prisoners likely began in Xinjiang province in the 1990s, and then spread nationwide. Gutmann estimates that some 64,000 Falun Gong prisoners may have been killed for their organs between the years 2000 and 2008.
In 2016, the researchers published a joint update to their findings showing that the number of organ transplants conducted in China is much higher than previously believed, and that the death from illicit organ harvesting could be as high as 1,500,000. The 789-page report is based on an analysis of records from hundreds of Chinese transplant hospitals.
In December 2005 and November 2006, China's Deputy Health Minister acknowledged that the practice of removing organs from executed prisoners for transplants was widespread. However, Chinese officials deny that Falun Gong practitioners' organs are being harvested, and insist that China abides by World Health Organization principles that prohibit the sale of human organs without written consent from donors.
In May 2008, two United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their requests for the Chinese authorities to adequately respond to the allegations, and to provide a source for the organs that would account for the sudden increase in organ transplants in China since 2000.
In June 2019, an independent tribunal sitting in London named the China Tribunal, established to inquire into forced organ harvesting from and among prisoners of conscience in China, stated that the members of the Falun Gong spiritual group continued to be murdered by China for their organs. The tribunal said it had clear evidence that forced organ harvesting has been taking place in China from over at least 20 years. China has repeatedly denied the accusations, claiming to have stopped using organs from executed prisoners in 2015. However, the lawyers and experts at the China Tribunal are convinced that the practice was still taking place with the imprisoned Falun Gong members "probably the principal source" of organs for forced harvesting.
In June 2021, the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council voiced concerns over having “received credible information that detainees from ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations.” The press release stated that UN's human rights experts “were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged ‘organ harvesting’ targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China.”
Arbitrary arrests and imprisonment
Foreign observers estimate that hundreds of thousands—and perhaps millions—of Falun Gong practitioners have been held extralegally in reeducation-through-labor camps, prisons, and other detention facilities.
Large-scale arrests are conducted periodically and often coincide with important anniversaries or major events. The first wave of arrests occurred on the evening of 20 July, when several thousand practitioners were taken from their homes into police custody. In November 1999—four months after the onset of the campaign—Vice Premier Li Lanqing announced that 35,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been arrested or detained. The Washington Post wrote that "the number of detained people... in the operation against Falun Gong dwarfs every political campaign in recent years in China." By April 2000 over 30,000 people had been arrested for protesting in defense of Falun Gong in Tiananmen Square. Seven hundred Falun Gong followers were arrested during a demonstration in the square on 1 January 2001.
In advance of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing over 8,000 Falun Gong practitioners were taken from their homes and workplaces in provinces across China. Two years later authorities in Shanghai detained over 100 practitioners ahead of the 2010 World Expo. Those who refused to disavow Falun Gong were subjected to torture and sent to reeducation through labor facilities.
Reeducation through labor
From 1999 to 2013, the vast majority of detained Falun Gong practitioners were held in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps—a system of administrative detention where people can be imprisoned without trial for up to four years.
The RTL system was established during the Maoist era to punish and reprogram "reactionaries" and other individuals deemed enemies of the Communist cause. In more recent years, it has been used to incarcerate petty criminals, drug addicts and prostitutes, as well as petitioners and dissidents. RTL sentences can be arbitrarily extended by police, and outside access is not permitted. Prisoners are forced to do heavy work in mines, brick manufacturing centers, agricultural fields, and many different types of factories. Physical torture, beatings, interrogations, and other human rights abuses take place in the camps, according to former prisoners and human rights organizations.
China's network of RTL centers expanded significantly after 1999 to accommodate an influx of Falun Gong detainees, and authorities used the camps to try to "transform" Falun Gong practitioners. Amnesty International reports that "The RTL system has played a key role in the anti–Falun Gong campaign, absorbing large numbers of practitioners over the years... Evidence suggests that Falun Gong constituted on average from one third to, in some cases, 100 percent of the total population of certain RTL camps."
International observers estimated that Falun Gong practitioners accounted for at least half of the total RTL population, amounting to several hundred thousand people. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch found that Falun Gong practitioners made up the majority of the detainee population in the camps studied, and received the "longest sentences and worst treatment." "The government's campaign against the group has been so thorough that even long-time Chinese activists are afraid to say the group's name aloud."
In 2012 and early 2013, a series of news reports and exposés focused attention on human rights abuses at the Masanjia Forced Labor Camp, where approximately half of the inmates were Falun Gong practitioners. The exposure helped galvanize calls to end the reeducation-through-labor system. In early 2013, CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping announced that RTL would be abolished, resulting in the closure of the camps. However, human rights groups found that many RTL facilities have simply been renamed as prisons or rehabilitation centers, and that the use of extrajudicial imprisonment of dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners has continued.
The system is often called Laogai, the abbreviation for láodòng gǎizào (勞動改造/劳动改造), which means "reform through labor", and is a slogan of the Chinese criminal justice system.
"Black jails" and re-education centers
In addition to prisons and RTL facilities, the 610 Office created a nationwide network of extrajudicial reeducation centers to "transform the minds" of Falun Gong practitioners. The centers are run extrajudicially, and the government officially denies their existence. They are known as "black jails", "brainwashing centers", "transformation through reeducation centers", or "legal education centers". Some are temporary programs established in schools, hotels, military compounds or work units. Others are permanent facilities that operate as private jails.
If a Falun Gong practitioner refuses to be "transformed" in prison or RTL camps, they can be sent directly to transformation centers upon completion of their sentence. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China writes that the facilities "are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release." Practitioners who are involuntarily detained in the transformation centers must pay tuition fees amounting to hundreds of dollars. The fees are extorted from family members as well as from practitioners' work units and employers.
The government's use of "brainwashing sessions" began in 1999, but the network of transformation centers expanded nationwide in January 2001 when the central 610 Office mandated that all government bodies, work units, and corporations use them. The Washington Post reported "neighborhood officials have compelled even the elderly, people with disabilities and the ill to attend the classes. Universities have sent staff to find students who had dropped out or been expelled for practicing Falun Gong, and brought them back for the sessions. Other members have been forced to leave sick relatives" to attend the reeducation sessions. After the closure of the RTL system in 2013, authorities leaned more heavily on the transformation centers to detain Falun Gong practitioners. After the Nanchong RTL center in Sichuan province was closed, for example, at least a dozen of the Falun Gong practitioners detained there were sent directly to a local transformation center. Some former RTL camps have simply been renamed and converted into transformation centers.
Psychiatric abuse
Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to recant their beliefs are sometimes sent involuntarily to psychiatric hospitals, where they may be subject to beatings, sleep deprivation, torture by electrocution, and injections with sedatives or anti-psychotic drugs. Some are sent to the hospitals (known as ankang facilities) because their prison or RTL sentences have expired and they had not yet been successfully "transformed" in the brainwashing classes. Others were told that they were admitted because they had a "political problem"—that is, because they appealed to the government to lift the ban of Falun Gong.
Robin Munro, former director of the Hong Kong Office of Human Rights Watch and now deputy director with China Labour Bulletin, drew attention to the abuses of forensic psychiatry in China in general, and of Falun Gong practitioners in particular. In 2001, Munro alleged that forensic psychiatrists in China have been active since the days of Mao Zedong, and have been involved in the systematic misuse of psychiatry for political purposes. He says that large-scale psychiatric abuses are the most distinctive aspect of the government's protracted campaign to "crush the Falun Gong", and he found a very sizable increase in Falun Gong admissions to mental hospitals since the onset of the government's persecution campaign.
Munro claimed that detained Falun Gong practitioners are tortured and subject to electroconvulsive therapy, painful forms of electrical acupuncture treatment, prolonged deprivation of light, food and water, and restricted access to toilet facilities in order to force "confessions" or "renunciations" as a condition of release. Fines of several thousand yuan may follow. Lu and Galli write that dosages of medication up to five or six times the usual level are administered through a nasogastric tube as a form of torture or punishment, and that physical torture is common, including binding tightly with ropes in very painful positions. This treatment may result in chemical toxicity, migraines, extreme weakness, protrusion of the tongue, rigidity, loss of consciousness, vomiting, nausea, seizures and loss of memory.
Dr. Alan Stone, a professor of law and psychiatry at Harvard, found that a significant number of the Falun Gong practitioners held in psychiatric hospitals had been sent there from labor camps, writing " may well have been tortured and then dumped in psychiatric hospitals as an expedient disposition." He agreed that Falun Gong practitioners sent to psychiatric hospitals had been "misdiagnosed and mistreated", but did not find definitive evidence that the use of psychiatric facilities was part of a uniform government policy, noting instead that patterns of institutionalization varied from province to province.
Prisons
Since 1999, several thousand Falun Gong practitioners have been sentenced to prisons through the criminal justice system. Most of the charges against Falun Gong practitioners are for political offenses such as "disturbing social order", "leaking state secrets", "subverting the socialist system", or "using a heretical organization to undermine the implementation of the law"—a vaguely worded provision used to prosecute, for instance, individuals who used the Internet to disseminate information about Falun Gong.
According to a report by Amnesty International, trials against Falun Gong practitioners are "Grossly unfair—the judicial process was biased against the defendants at the outset and the trials were a mere formality... None of the accusations against the defendants relate to activities which would legitimately be regarded as crimes under international standards."
Chinese human rights lawyers who have attempted to defend Falun Gong clients have faced varying degrees of persecution themselves, including disbarment, detention, and in some cases, torture and disappearance.
Societal discrimination
Since July 1999, civil servants and Communist Party members have been forbidden from practicing Falun Gong. Workplaces and schools were enjoined to participate in the struggle against Falun Gong by pressuring recalcitrant Falun Gong believers to renounce their beliefs, sometimes sending them to special reeducation classes to be "transformed". Failure to do so has results in lost wages, pensions, expulsion, or termination from jobs.
Writing in 2015, Noakes and Ford noted that "Post-secondary institutions across the country—from agricultural universities to law schools to fine arts programmes—require students to prove that they have adopted the 'correct attitude' on Falun Gong as a condition of admission." For example, students at many universities are required to obtain a certificate from the public security ministry certifying that they have no affiliation with Falun Gong. The same is true in employment, with job postings frequently specifying that prospective candidates must have no record of participation in Falun Gong. In some cases, even changing one's address requires proving the correct political attitude toward Falun Gong.
Outside China
Main article: Falun Gong outside mainland China § Attempts at persecution overseas by the Communist PartyThe Communist Party's campaign against Falun Gong has extended to Chinese diaspora communities, including through the use of media, espionage and monitoring of Falun Gong practitioners, harassment and violence against practitioners, diplomatic pressure applied to foreign governments, and hacking of overseas websites. According to a defector from the Chinese consulate in Sydney, Australia, "The war against Falun Gong is one of the main tasks of the Chinese mission overseas."
In 2004 the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution condemning the attacks on Falun Gong practitioners in the United States by agents of the Communist Party. The resolution reported that party affiliates have "pressured local elected officials in the United States to refuse or withdraw support for the Falun Gong spiritual group," that Falun Gong spokespeople have had their houses broken into, and individuals engaged in peaceful protest actions outside embassies and consulates have been physically assaulted.
The overseas campaign against Falun Gong is described in documents issued by China's Overseas Chinese Affairs Office (OCAO). In a report from a 2007 meeting of OCAO directors at the national, provincial, and municipal level, the office stated that it "coordinates the launching of anti-'Falun Gong' struggles overseas." OCAO exhorts overseas Chinese citizens to participate in "resolutely implementing and executing the Party line, the Party's guiding principles, and the Party's policies," and to "aggressively expand the struggle" against Falun Gong, ethnic separatists, and Taiwanese independence activists abroad. Other party and state organizations believed to be involved in the overseas campaign include the Ministry of State Security, the 610 Office and the People's Liberation Army among others.
Falun Gong has been banned in Russia since 2020, after a court in Khakassia deemed it an "extremist organization", and extending the ban to the entire Russian Federation. Earlier that year, several Falun Gong-related organizations were designated as 'undesirable' in Russia.
International response
The persecution of Falun Gong has attracted a large amount of international attention from governments and non-government organizations. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised acute concerns over reports of torture and ill-treatment of practitioners in China and have also urged the UN and international governments to intervene to bring an end to the persecution.
The United States Congress has passed multiple resolutions calling for an immediate end to the campaign against Falun Gong practitioners both in China and abroad.
At a rally on 12 July 2012, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, called on the Obama administration to confront the Chinese leadership on its human rights record, including its oppression of Falun Gong practitioners. "It is essential that friends and supporters of democracy and human rights continue to show their solidarity and support, by speaking out against these abuses", she said.
In 2012, Professor of Bioethics Arthur Caplan stated:
Look, I think you can make the connections that... they are using prisoners, and they need prisoners who are relatively healthy, they need prisoners who are relatively younger. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination that some Falun Gong are going to be among those who are going to be killed for parts. It just follows, because remember you can't take very old people as sources of organs and you can't take people who are very sick. They, Falun Gong, are in part younger, and by lifestyle, healthier. I would be astounded if they weren't using some of those prisoners as sources of organs.
In 2008 Israel passed a law banning the sale and brokerage of organs. The law also ended funding, through the health insurance system, of transplants in China for Israeli nationals.
Response from Falun Gong practitioners
See also: Falun Gong outside mainland ChinaFalun Gong's response to the persecution in China began in July 1999 with appeals to local, provincial, and central petitioning offices in Beijing. It soon progressed to larger demonstrations, with hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners traveling daily to Tiananmen Square to perform Falun Gong exercises or raise banners in defense of the practice. These demonstrations were invariably broken up by security forces, and the practitioners involved were arrested—sometimes violently—and detained. By 25 April 2000, a total of more than 30,000 practitioners had been arrested on the square; seven hundred Falun Gong followers were arrested during a demonstration in the square on 1 January 2001. Public protests continued well into 2001. Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Ian Johnson wrote that "Falun Gong faithful have mustered what is arguably the most sustained challenge to authority in 50 years of Communist rule."
By late 2001, demonstrations in Tiananmen Square had become less frequent, and the practice was driven deeper underground. As public protest fell out of favor, practitioners established underground "material sites", which would produce literature and DVDs to counter the portrayal of Falun Gong in the official media. Practitioners then distribute these materials, often door-to-door. The production, possession, or distribution of these materials is frequently grounds for security agents to incarcerate or sentence Falun Gong adherents.
In 2002, Falun Gong activists in China tapped into television broadcasts, replacing regular state-run programming with their own content. One of the more notable instances occurred in March 2002, when Falun Gong practitioners in Changchun intercepted eight cable television networks in Jilin Province, and for nearly an hour, televised a program titled Self-Immolation or a Staged Act?. All six of the Falun Gong practitioners involved were captured over the next few months. Two were killed immediately, while the other four were all dead by 2010 as a result of injuries sustained while imprisoned.
Outside China, Falun Gong practitioners established international media organizations to gain wider exposure for their cause and challenge narratives of the Chinese state-run media. These include the Epoch Times newspaper, New Tang Dynasty Television, and Sound of Hope radio station. According to Zhao, through the Epoch Times it can be discerned how Falun Gong is building a "de facto media alliance" with China's democracy movements in exile, as demonstrated by its frequent printing of articles by prominent overseas Chinese critics of the PRC government. In 2004, the Epoch Times published "The Nine Commentaries", a collection of nine editorials which presented a critical history of Communist Party rule. This catalyzed the Tuidang movement, which encourages Chinese citizens to renounce their affiliations to the Chinese Communist Party, including ex post facto renunciations of the Communist Youth League and Young Pioneers. The Epoch Times claims that tens of millions have renounced the Communist Party as part of the movement, though these numbers have not been independently verified.
In 2007, Falun Gong practitioners in the United States formed Shen Yun Performing Arts, a dance and music company that tours internationally. Falun Gong software developers in the United States are also responsible for the creation of several popular censorship-circumvention tools employed by internet users in China.
Falun Gong Practitioners outside China have filed dozens of lawsuits against Jiang Zemin, Luo Gan, Bo Xilai, and other Chinese officials alleging genocide and crimes against humanity. According to International Advocates for Justice, Falun Gong has filed the largest number of human rights lawsuits in the 21st century and the charges are among the most severe international crimes defined by international criminal laws. as of 2006, 54 civil and criminal lawsuits were under way in 33 countries. In many instances, courts have refused to adjudicate the cases on the grounds of sovereign immunity. In late 2009, however, separate courts in Spain and Argentina indicted Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan on charges of "crimes of humanity" and genocide, and asked for their arrest—the ruling is acknowledged to be largely symbolic and unlikely to be carried out. The court in Spain also indicted Bo Xilai, Jia Qinglin and Wu Guanzheng.
Falun Gong practitioners and their supporters also filed a lawsuit in May 2011 against the technology company Cisco Systems, alleging that the company helped design and implement a surveillance system for the Chinese government to suppress Falun Gong. Cisco denied customizing their technology for this purpose.
See also
- Antireligious campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party
- Human rights in China
- Religious freedom in China
- Persecution of Uyghurs in China
- Transnational repression by China
References
- Dillon, Michael (2001). Religious Minorities and China. Minority Rights Group International.
- ^ "China: The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called 'heretical organizations'". Amnesty International. 23 March 2000. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
- ^ Spiegel 2002.
- Yoffe, Emily (10 August 2001). "The Gong Show". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 22 February 2023.
- "China Uses "Rule of Law" to Justify Falun Gong Crackdown". Human Rights Watch. 9 November 1999. Retrieved 22 February 2023.
- Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "China: Treatment of Falun Gong practitioners by state authorities; whether state authorities treat Falun Gong leaders differently than other Falun Gong practitioners (2013–September 2015)". Refworld. Retrieved 22 February 2023.
- ^ Congressional-Executive Commission on China (31 October 2008) ‘Annual Report 2008’ Retrieved 24 December 2013.
- ^ Johnson, Ian (2005). Wild Grass: Three Portraits of Change in Modern China. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0375719196.
- ^ Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784
- ^ (23 March 2000) The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations, Amnesty International
- ^ Philip Pan and John Pomfret (5 August 2001). "Torture is Breaking Falun Gong". Washington Post. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
- ^ David Kilgour, David Matas (6 July 2006, revised 31 January 2007) An Independent Investigation into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China (free in 22 languages) organharvestinvestigation.net
- ^ "China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)".
- ^ Human Rights Watch V. Abuses Against Petitioners in Beijing of report "We Could Disappear at Any Time" December 2005
- Leeshai Lemish, "The Games are Over, the Persecution Continues", National Post 7 October 2008
- Andrew Jacobs. 'China Still Presses Crusade Against Falun Gong', New York Times, 27 April 2009.
- Samuel Totten and Paul Robert Bartrop Dictionary of Genocide. (Greewood publishing group: 2008), p 69
- The Standard. 'Rights lawyers look to UN over plight of Falun Gong' Archived 17 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine, 21 September 2005.
- Reuters, "Argentine judge asks China arrests over Falun Gong" Archived 3 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine, 22 December 2009.
- Genocide Prevention Network, 'Spanish Court Indicts Chinese Leaders for Persecution of Falun Gong'.
- La Audiencia pide interrogar al ex presidente chino Jiang por genocidio, 14 November 2009
- ^ Gutmann, Ethan. "China's Gruesome Organ Harvest" Archived 15 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine, The Weekly Standard, 24 November 2008
- ^ Jay Nordlinger (25 August 2014) "Face The Slaughter: The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem, by Ethan Gutmann" Archived 7 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine, National Review
- Ethan Gutmann (10 March 2011) "How many harvested?" revisited Archived 20 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine, eastofethan.com
- ^ Samuels, Gabriel (29 June 2016). "China kills millions of innocent meditators for their organs, report finds". The Independent. Archived from the original on 25 May 2022.
- ^ Market Wired (8 May 2008) China's Organ Harvesting Questioned Again by UN Special Rapporteurs: FalunHR Reports Archived 2 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 26 October 2014
- Cook, Sarah. "Falun Gong: Religious Freedom in China". Freedom House. Retrieved 15 July 2023.
- ^ Palmer, David (2007). Qigong Fever: Body, Science and Utopia in China. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14066-9.
Qigong Fever: Body, Science and Utopia in China.
- Penny, Benjamin (March 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. The University of Chicago Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780226655024.
- Ownby, David. Falun Gong and the Future of China. Oxford University Press. p. 93.
- Penny, Benjamin. The Religion of Falun Gong. The University of Chicago Press. p. 124.
- Gries, Rosen, Peter, Stanley (2 August 2004). State and Society in 21st Century China: Crisis, Contention and Legitimation. Routledge. p. 40. ISBN 9781134321261.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Kavan, H. (2008). "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?". Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. (pp. 1 – 23).
- James R. Lewis (2017). "'I am the only one propagating true Dharma': Li Hongzhi's Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater". Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. II (2). Colombo Arts.
- ^ Ownby, David (2008). Falun Gong and the Future of China. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532905-6.
Falun Gong and the Future of China.
- Seth Faison (27 April 1999). "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors". The New York Times.
- Schechter 2001, p. 66.
- ^ Ownby 2008, p. 171.
- Schechter 2001, p. 69.
- ^ Ethan Gutmann, An Occurrence on Fuyou Street, National Review 13 July 2009.
- Benjamin Penny, The Past, Present, and Future of Falun Gong Archived 25 March 2008 at the Wayback Machine, 2001. Retrieved 16 March 2008
- ^ James Tong, Revenge of the Forbidden City. Oxford University Press, 2009
- Jiang Zemin, "Letter to Party cadres on the evening of April 25, 1999" republished in Beijing Zhichun (Beijing Spring) no. 97, June 2001.
- Penny, The Religion of Falun Gong, p 65.
- ^ Cook, Sarah; Lemish, Leeshai (November 2011). "The 610 Office:Policing the Chinese Spirit". China Brief. 11 (17). Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- Penny, The Religion of Falun Gong, p 63-66.
- ^ Spiegel 2002, p. 21.
- Noah Porter (Masters thesis for the University of South Florida), Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study, 2003.
- Li Hongzhi, A Brief Statement of Mine, 22 July 1999, accessed 31/12/07
- Julia Ching, "The Falun Gong: Religious and Political Implications," American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p 2
- Willy Wo-Lap Lam, "China's sect suppression carries a high price" CNN, 9 February 2001
- ^ Dean Peerman, China syndrome: the persecution of Falun Gong, Christian Century, 10 August 2004
- ^ Tony Saich, Governance and Politics in China, Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Ed edition (27 February 2004)
- ^ Pomfret, John (12 November 1999). "Cracks in China's Crackdown, Falun Gong Campaign Exposes Leadership Woes". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 November 2012.
- ^ Willy Wo-Lap Lam, China's sect suppression carries a high price, CNN.com, 9 February 2001.
- Spiegel 2002, p. 14.
- Francesco Sisci, FALUNGONG Part 1: From sport to suicide Archived 10 February 2012 at Archive-It Asia Times, 27 January 2001
- The Globe and Mail, Beijing v. falun gong, Metro A14, 26 January 2001
- Smith, Craig S. (30 April 2000). "Rooting Out Falun Gong; China Makes War on Mysticism". The New York Times.
- ^ Gutmann, Ethan (August 2014). The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem. Prometheus Books. p. 368. ISBN 978-1616149406.
- ^ Julia Ching, "The Falun Gong: Religious and Political Implications," American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12
- Congressional Executive Commission on China 2011 Annual Report
- Xia, Yiyang (June 2011). "The illegality of China's Falun Gong crackdown—and today's rule of law repercussions" (PDF). European Parliament. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- ^ Congressional-Executive Commission on China (10 October 2009). "Annual Report 2009". Retrieved 24 December 2013.
- Johnson, Ian (2005). Wild Grass: Three Portraits of Change in Modern China. New York, NY: Vintage. pp. 251–252, 283–287. ISBN 978-0375719196.
- Spiegel 2002, p. 20.
- ^ People's Daily Online, China Bans Falun Gong, 30 July 1999
- ^ Ronald C. Keith and Zhiqiu Lin, "The Falun Gong Problem," China Quarterly (Sept 2003), pp 623–642.
- ^ Dominson, Ian. "Criminal Law in the People's Republic of China (1997): Real Change or Rhetoric?" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal (2002), Vol 1 No. 11
- ^ Edelman, Bryan; Richardson, James (2003). "Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 6 (2): 312–331. doi:10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312.
- "The Persecution of Falun Gong is Illegal by China's Law" clearwisdom.net 12 August 2009
- James Tong, Revenge of the Forbidden City: The suppression of the Falungong in China, 1999–2005. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), ISBN 0-19-537728-1
- ^ Leeshai Lemish, "Media and New Religious Movements: The Case of Falun Gong" A paper presented at The 2009 CESNUR Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 11–13 June 2009
- Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156
- Associated Press, "'Enemies of people' warned", 23 January 2001
- Plafker, Ted. "Falun Gong Stays Locked In Struggle with Beijing", The Washington Post, 26 April 2000
- Lu, Xing, Rhetoric of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: the impact on Chinese thought, culture, and communication, University of South Carolina Press (2004).
- Gayle M.B. Hanson, China Shaken by Mass Meditation – meditation movement Falun Gong, Insight on the News, 23 August 1999. Retrieved 31 December 2007
- Chen, Chiung Hwang. "Framing Falun Gong: Xinhua News Agency's Coverage of the New Religious Movement in China", Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 15 No. 1 (2005), pp. 16–36.
- Kipnis, Andrew B. (April 2001). "The Flourishing of Religion in Post-Mao China and the Anthropological Category of Religion" (PDF). The Australian Journal of Anthropology. 12 (1): 32–46. doi:10.1111/j.1835-9310.2001.tb00061.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 November 2011. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
- Lucas, Philip C. (26 February 2004). New Religious Movements in the Twenty-first Century: Legal, Political, and Social Challenges in Global Perspective. Psychology Press. p. 349.
- Elizabeth J. Perry, Critical Asian Studies 33:2 (2001), p. 173 Archived 3 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine
- Irons, Edward. 2003 "Falun Gong and the Sectarian Religion Paradigm". Nova Religio, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 243–62, ISSN 1092-6690
- Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective. The China Quarterly, 179, pp 665–683
- Maria Hsia Chang, "Falun Gong:The End of Days," (Yale University Press, 2004).
- Freedom House, "Report Analyzing Seven Secret Chinese Government Documents" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, 11 February 2002.
- ^ Powers, John and Meg Y. M. Lee. "Dueling Media: Symbolic Conflict in China's Falun Gong Suppression Campaign" in Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution, by Guo-Ming Chen and Ringo Ma (2001), Greenwood Publishing Group
- Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, "Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-166", paragraphs 95–107
- "Press Statement". Clearwisdom. 23 January 2001. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
- "On Ten Year Anniversary, Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation Continues to Be Deadly Frame-up," Archived 27 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine Falun Dafa Information Center, 19 January 2011
- ^ Philip P. Pan (4 February 2001). "Human Fire Ignites Chinese Mystery". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 13 April 2020. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
- Schechter 2001.
- Matthew Gornet, The Breaking Point, TIME, 25 June 2001
- Pan, Philip P. (5 February 2001). "One-Way Trip to the End in Beijing". International Herald Tribune.
- Smith, Chrandra D. (October 2004). "Chinese Persecution of Falun Gong" (PDF). Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. Rutgers School of Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2009. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
- Staff and wire reports (24 January 2001). "Tiananmen tense after fiery protests". CNN. Archived from the original on 22 February 2007. Retrieved 9 February 2007.
- Sarah Cook, Sarah (4 November 2013) "Be Skeptical of the Official Story on the Tiananmen Car Crash" Archived 3 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine Freedom House.
- Reporters Without Borders. China annual report 2002, Retrieved 26 October 2014
- Mark Landler. "China's Ban Of Magazine Clouds Forum In Hong Kong" New York Times, 6 May 2001
- Freedom House, "Freedom on the Net: China, 2012" Archived 22 July 2018 at the Wayback Machine
- "The Great FireWall". cpj.org.
- Morais, Richard C. "China's Fight With Falun Gong" Archived 26 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Forbes, 9 February 2006. Retrieved 3 February 2015
- Associated Press, China Dissidents Thwarted on Net. Retrieved 19 September 2007
- Ethan Gutmann, "Hacker Nation: China’s Cyber Assault," World Affairs Journal, May/June 2010
- Zittrain and Palfrey (2005)
- Hartley, Matt. "How a Canadian cracked the great firewall of China". The Globe and Mail (3 Oct 2008)
- David Bamman, Brendan O'Connor, Noah A. Smith Censorship and deletion practices in Chinese social media firstmonday.org Volume 17, Number 3–5 March 2012
- ^ John Pomfret and Philip P. Pan, "Torture Is Breaking Falun Gong, China Systematically Eradicating Group", Washington Post Foreign Service, Sunday, 5 August 2001; Page A01
- ^ Ian Johnson, "A Deadly Exercise: Practicing Falun Gong was a right, Chen said, to her last day", Wall Street Journal, 20 April 2000
- ^ Amnesty International (December 2013). Changing the soup but not the medicine: Abolishing re-education through labor in China. London, UK. Archived from the original on 23 November 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Congressional Executive Commission in China (22 March 2011) "Communist Party Calls for Increased Efforts To "Transform" Falun Gong Practitioners as Part of Three-Year Campaign" Archived 2 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine
- Manfred Nowak (2006). "Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: MISSION TO CHINA". United Nations. p. 13. Retrieved 16 January 2015.
- "Torture, though on decline, remains widespread in China, UN expert reports". United Nations. 2 December 2005. Retrieved 4 February 2010.
- Asma Jahangir (22 December 2003), "Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Disappearances and Summary Executions", Report of the Special Rapporteur, United Nations. Retrieved 28 January 2015
- "China | Amnesty International Deutschland". Archived from the original on 10 February 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2013.
- Torture of Gao RongRong in the Longshan forced Labor Camp (2007) 10 minutes youtube.com
- Amnesty International (22 May 2006) 2006 Annual Report Archived 22 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine
- Michael Sheridan, "Yu Zhou dies as China launches pre-Olympic purge of Falun Gong" The Sunday Times, 20 April 2008
- Reuters, AP (8 July 2006) "Falun Gong organ claim supported", The Age, (Australia). Retrieved 7 July 2006.
- Endemann, Kirstin (6 July 2006) CanWest News Service, Ottawa Citizen, "Ottawa urged to stop Canadians travelling to China for transplants" Archived 17 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Retrieved 6 July 2006.
- Calgary Herald (5 July 2006) "Rights concerns bedevil China—Doing trade with regime must be balanced with values" Archived 13 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 8 July 2006.
- David Kilgour, David Matas (2009). "Bloody Harvest, The killing of Falun Gong for their organs". seraphimeditions.com. p. 232. Archived from the original on 18 October 2014.
- "Chinese accused of vast trade in organs". The Washington Times.
- Kilgour, David. "Blood Harvest: The Slaughter" (PDF). End Organ Pillaging: 428.
- ^ Getlen, Larry (9 August 2014). "China's long history of harvesting organs from living political foes". New York Post. Retrieved 15 August 2014.
- Barbara Turnbull (21 October 2014) "Q&A: Author and analyst Ethan Gutmann discusses China's illegal organ trade", The Toronto Star
- Vanderklippe, Nathan (22 June 2016). "Report alleges China killing thousands to harvest organs". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
- "China to ‘tidy up’ trade in executed prisoners’ organs" Archived 5 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Times, 3 December 2005
- "Death Row Is Organ Source, China Admits", Los Angeles Times, 18 November 2006
- Chinese Embassy in Canada (6 July 2006) Response to the so called "China's organ harvesting report", ca.china-embassy.org
- Chinese Embassy in Canada (15 April 2007) Response to the so-called "Revised Report on China's Organ Harvesting", ca.china-embassy.org
- Bowcott, Owen (17 June 2019). "China is harvesting organs from detainees, tribunal concludes". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
- "China is harvesting organs from Falun Gong members, finds tribunal". The Straits Times. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
- "China: UN human rights experts alarmed by 'organ harvesting' allegations". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 14 June 2021.
- Leeshai Lemish (7 October 2008) "How China is Silencing Falun Gong", National Post david-kilgour.com
- Tong (2009)
- ^ Johnson, Ian (25 April 2000). "Defiant Falun Dafa Members Converge on Tiananmen". The Wall Street Journal. Pulitzer.org. p. A21.
- ^ Selden, Elizabeth J.; Perry, Mark (2003). Chinese Society: Change, Conflict and Resistance. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-30170-1.
- "Annual Report 2008" (PDF). Congressional Executive Commission on China. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
- "2010 Annual Report – Congressional-Executive Commission on China". www.cecc.gov. 10 October 2010.
- Robert Bejesky, "Falun Gong & reeducation through labour", Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 17:2, Spring 2004, p 178. Quote: "Up to 99% of long term Falun Gong detainees are processed administratively through this system, and do not enter the formal criminal justice system"
- ^ US Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2007, 14 September 2007. Retrieved 28 September 2007
- Screams for help at China's secret 'black jails' – 27 Apr 09 (2009) 4 minutes Al Jazeera English youtube.com
- ^ Human Rights in China, 旷日持久的恐怖迫害 Archived 31 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China", Sunny Y. Lu, MD, PhD, and Viviana B. Galli, MD, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30:126–30, 2002, p. 128. jaapl.org
- Munro, Robin (2001). "China's Political Bedlam". Retrieved 24 October 2014.
- Munro, Robin (2002). "Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and Its Origins in the Mao Era". Human Rights Watch.
- Munro (2002), p. 270
- Munro, Robin J. (Fall 2000). "Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses" (PDF). Columbia Journal of Asian Law. 14 (1). Columbia University: 114. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 November 2001.
- Munro (2002), p. 107
- ^ Stone, Alan A. (1 November 2004). "The Plight of the Falun Gong". Psychiatric Times. 21 (13). Archived from the original on 22 February 2012. Retrieved 16 October 2009.
- Stone, Alan A. (1 May 2005). "The China Psychiatry Crisis: Following Up on the Plight of the Falun Gong: Page 2 of 3" Archived 14 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Rheumatology Network.
- Robert Bejesky, "Falun Gong & reeducation through labour", Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 17:2, Spring 2004, pp. 147–189
- Amnesty International (7 September 2009) "Breaking the law: Crackdown on human rights lawyers and legal activists in China"
- ^ Noakes; Ford (September 2015). "Managing Political Opposition Groups in China: Explaining the Continuing Anti- Falun Gong Campaign". China Quarterly. 223: 671–672. doi:10.1017/S0305741015000788. S2CID 154701445.
- ^ Alex Newman, ‘China's Growing Spy Threat’, The Diplomat, 19 September 2011.
- United States House of Representatives, House Concurrent Resolution 304, Expressing sense of congress regarding oppression by the government of the People's Republic of China of Falun Gong in the United States and in China, 16 October 2003.
- Liu Li-jen, ‘Falun Gong says spying charge is tip of the iceberg’, Taipei Times, 3 October 2011.
- Röbel, Sven; Stark, Holger (30 June 2010)."A Chapter from the Cold War Reopens: Espionage Probe Casts Shadow on Ties with China", Spiegel International. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
- AsiaNews, Moscow, Falun Gong banned for 'religious extremism'
- "One UK, 6 U.S. NGOs designated undesirable in Russia". Interfax. Moscow. 20 July 2020. Archived from the original on 22 July 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2023.
- Human Rights Watch China's Campaign Against Falungong 2002
- House Concurrent Resolution 304 Archived 19 June 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- House Resolution 530 Archived 19 June 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- House Concurrent Resolution 188 Archived 22 July 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- House Concurrent Resolution 218 Archived 19 June 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Ros-Lehtinen China's abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners Worsening Archived 6 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine House Committee on Foreign Affairs
- "Chinese Regime Indirectly Admits Organ Harvesting: Bioethics Professor", YouTube video, NTDTV, 15 Mar 2012
- Jotkowitz A "Notes on the new Israeli organ donation law-2008" National Institutes of Health, December 2008.
- Elisabeth Rosenthal and Erik Eckholm "Vast Numbers of Sect Members Keep Pressure on Beijing" New York Times, 28 October 1999.
- Liao Yiwu. The Corpse Walker: Real Life Stories: China from the Bottom Up. p. 230.
- He Qinglian (2008). The Fog of Censorship: Media Control in China (PDF). Human Rights in China. pp. xii. ISBN 978-0-9717356-2-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 February 2012.
- Gutmann, Ethan (6 December 2010). "Into Thin Airwaves". The Weekly Standard. Archived from the original on 5 January 2012. Retrieved 20 July 2014.
- Yuezhi Zhao, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China", in Contesting Media Power, 2004
- Hu Ping, "The Falun Gong Phenomenon", in Challenging China: Struggle and Hope in an Era of Change, Sharon Hom and Stacy Mosher (ed.) (New York: The New Press, 2007).
- Steel, Kevin. "Revolution number nine", The Western Standard, 11 July 2005.
- Gutmann, Ethan. The Chinese Internet: A dream deferred?. Testimony given at the National Endowment for Democracy panel discussion "Tiananmen 20 years on", 2 June 2009.
- Beiser, Vince. "Digital Weapons Help Dissidents Punch Holes in China's Great Firewall". Wired, 1 November 2010.
- Human Rights Law Foundation, Direct Litigation. Retrieved 26 October 2014
- ^ Internet, Unidad Editorial. "La Audiencia pide interrogar al ex presidente chino Jiang por genocidio – España – elmundo.es". www.elmundo.es.
- ^ NTDTV (7 Dec 2009) "Jiang Zemin indicted in Spain for genocide and torture of Falun Gong practitioners" Archived 12 April 2020 at the Wayback Machine, International Federation for Justice in China
- Luis Andres Henao, "Argentine judge asks China arrests over Falun Gong" Archived 3 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Reuters, 22 December 2009
- Terry Baynes, "Suit claims Cisco helped China repress religious group", Reuters, 20 May 2011.
Further reading
Library resources aboutPersecution of Falun Gong
- Amnesty International (March 2000). China: The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called 'heretical organizations'. London: Amnesty International Publications. Archived from the original on 10 November 2009. Retrieved 4 December 2016.
- Spiegel, Mickey (2002). Dangerous Meditation: China's Campaign Against Falungong. Human Rights Watch. ISBN 978-1-56432-269-2. Retrieved 28 September 2007.
- Schechter, Danny (2001). Falun Gong's challenge to China: spiritual practice or 'evil cult'?. Akashic Books. ISBN 978-1-888451-27-6.
schechter falun.
- Johnson, Ian (2005). Wild Grass: Three Portraits of Change in Modern China. New York: Vintage. pp. 251–252, 283–287. ISBN 978-0375719196.
- Palmer, David A. (2007). "9. Falun Gong challenges the CCP". Qigong fever: body, science, and utopia in China. Columbia University Press. pp. 241–295. ISBN 978-0-231-14066-9.
- Tong, James (2009). Revenge of the Forbidden City: The Suppression of Falungong in China, 1999–2005. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195377286.
- Matas, David, ed. (2012). State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China. Woodstock, Ontario: Seraphim Editions. Archived from the original on 24 February 2015.
- Amnesty International (2013). Changing the soup but not the medicine: Abolishing re-education through labor in China. London: Amnesty International Publications. Archived from the original on 23 November 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
Falun Gong | |
---|---|
Main articles | |
Media | |
Related topics | |
Books |
National security and law enforcement in China | |
---|---|
National | |
Mainland | |
Hong Kong | |
Macau | |
Operations |
|
Other topics |
|
New religious movements | |
---|---|
Major groups |
|
Notable figures |
|
By region | |
Concepts |
|
Public education | |
Scholarship | |
Opposition | |
Lists |
Religious persecution and discrimination | |
---|---|
By group | |
Methods |
|
Events |
|
Religion |
Discrimination | |
---|---|
Forms | |
Attributes | |
Social |
|
Religious | |
Ethnic/National |
|
Manifestations |
|
Discriminatory policies |
|
Countermeasures |
|
Related topics |
|
- 1999 establishments in China
- Anti-Christian sentiment in China
- Anti-religious sentiment
- Campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party
- Communist repression
- Falun Gong
- Human rights abuses in China
- Organ trade
- Organ transplantation
- Persecution by atheist states
- Political abuses of psychiatry
- Political repression in China
- Religious persecution by communists
- Torture
- Torture in China