他（大卫·麦塔斯）这样做目的很明确：越丑化中国政府，他的案子就越有说服力。……法轮功组织知道怎么利用西方社会来控制这些“免费”的媒体。我也不是研究苏家屯事件的专家，但就我所掌握的信息，这方面的报道是很不尊重事实的。可以推断，这件事是被相关的报道极度夸大了。[1]
骇人听闻的器官活摘事件：有多少是真的？
http://english.kaiwind.com/puop/201012/15/t20101215_780806.htm
编者按：Daily China是一名来自欧洲、目前在中国四川大学就读的留学生，他经常在荷兰著名网站“网络日志”（
web-log.nl）的个人博客上发表介绍中国的文章，让欧洲民众更好地了解中国。2010年11月2日 ，他在博客上发文，就法轮功所谓的苏家屯活摘器官事件提出质疑，认为大卫·麦塔斯和大卫·乔高报告的背后隐藏着不为人知的利益因素，事件本身缺乏事实依据，而且极度有失偏颇。
骇人听闻的苏家屯法轮功成员活体器官摘取事件，有多少内容是真实的？
“你认为新闻上说的从被囚禁的法轮功练习者身上摘取器官的传言是真的吗？”
我面带疑惑地看着我的室友。我怎么能知道这是真的假的还是部分是真的？这根本没法知道。如果确有其事，也是在暗地里发生的。传出来的新闻不是有失偏颇的，就是被夸大了的，或者纯粹是谣言而已。
不为人知的利益因素
曾经有一个关于所谓的器官活摘的报道。消息来源于一名加拿大籍的人权律师，名叫大卫·麦塔斯。显然，他这样做目的很明确：越丑化中国政府，他的案子就越有说服力。
与之相关的还有一位加拿大的政客，名叫大卫·乔高。为了拉选票，他很可能，至少在一定程度上，倾向于支持广大民众所支持的观点。因为法轮功组织知道怎么利用西方社会来控制这些“免费”的媒体，而在公众看来，法轮功组织是向善的。
更正一下：我的一个读者通知我说，大卫·乔高实际上已经退休了，因此他根本不需要再拉选票了。
易被忽视的事实
麦塔斯在他的文章里说，法轮功组织因其追随者数量过于庞大（他列出了一个巨大的数字，并将其作为证据，而事实上，这个数字仅是法轮功组织自己的猜测而已），而被中国政府所禁止。事实上，这是不完全正确的。麦塔斯想当然地忽略了一个更重要的事实。
在中国，当法轮功运动从一项单纯的精神运动变为政治运动时，一切情况都开始恶化了。如此一来，再加上那些数目未知但总量庞大的法轮功追随者，就把这项运动变成了对社会安定和谐的一个威胁因素。这在中国是违反宪法的。
更重要的是，法轮功运动在国外拥有自己的总部，同时也吸纳了大量国外的援助资金。因此，这项运动正在试图凭借西方的支持，即国外的干涉，来改变中国现状。这也是违反中国宪法的。
（请不要误解：违法并不意味着就可以引发任何侵犯人权的行为。）
麦塔斯和乔高为他们的案子写了一本书。书中描述了相关的内容，但并没有提到相关的调查者，其中就有一位法轮功问题专家，他说这些例证都是有争议的（维基百科）。
极度的有失偏颇
我不是法轮功问题专家——因此，如果你是，并读到这篇文章，且认为我是错的，请告诉我——同时我也不是研究苏家屯事件的专家。但就我所掌握的信息，这方面的报道是很不尊重事实的。可以推断，这件事是被相关的报道极度夸大了。
刊登这篇文章的网站（suite101.com）以“见解独到的作家和见多识广的读者”为宣传口号。这听起来很公平很正义——但这篇文章中的一些内容却与该口号不相符。我希望其它的各类报纸不要将其报导的内容信以为真。如果这些报纸相信并也对此进行报道，那么我希望感兴趣的读者以及我的室友们在相信并接受其作为事实之前，能够做出明智的判断。
原文网址：http://dailychina.web-log.nl/blog/2010/11/scary-stories-on-falun-gong-organ-harvesting-how-much-of-it-is-true.html
Scary stories on Falun Gong organ harvesting: how much
of it is true?
Adjust font size:
Close Web-log.nl By Daily China 2010-12-15
"Do you think what they say about harvesting
organs from Falun Gong prisoners is true?"
I look at my roommate, puzzled. How would I know if
it’s true, untrue, or partly true? It’s impossible to know. If it’s true, it’s
all happening in the dark. Stories that do come out, are either biased,
strongly exaggerated, or even pure gossip.
Underlying interests
Here is one story about the alleged organ harvesting.
The source is a Canadian human rights lawyer, David Matas, so the source has a
clear interest: the more dirt he can put on the Chinese government, the better,
for this makes his case look stronger.
There is also a Canadian politician involved, David
Kilgour, who is supposed to try to win votes every couple of years, so he is
likely to, at least to some extent, support whatever his country’s public
opinion supports. Because Falun Gong knows how to use the western dominated
“free” press, Falun Gong is among the good guys, as far as public opinion is
concerned.
Update: One of my readers informed me that Kilgour is
actually retired so he does not need any more votes.
Conveniently left out
In the article, Matas says the Falun Gong movement was
banned by the Chinese government because of its huge number of followers (he
mentions a huge figure and presents this figure as a fact, while in truth it is
just a guess, by the Falun Gong movement itself). But this is just a part of
the truth. Matas conveniently leaves out a more important fact.
In China China
On top of that, the political movement has its
headquarters on foreign soil, and receives a great amount of foreign financial
aid. So this political movement is trying to change China
(Don’t get me wrong: if something is a violation of the
law, that obviously does not mean this makes any violation of any human right.)
Matas and Kilgour wrote a book on their case. The
article mentions this, but does not mention that researchers, among whom a
Falun Gong expert, say it was based on questionable evidence (Wikipedia).
Extremely biased
I am not an expert on Falun Gong – if you are and read
this, and think that I am wrong, please let me know – neither am I an expert on
the alleged organ harvesting practices. But as far as I can tell, this story is
at least extremely biased in the issues I mentioned. Extrapolating, I can only
expect the rest of it to be highly exaggerated.
The website on which the article was published,
Suite101.com, carries the slogan “insightful writers, informed readers”. That
sounds very impartial and unbiased – something this article is clearly not. I
just hope the world’s big newspapers don’t fall for that. And if they do, I
hope that interested readers, among whom my roommate, will judge wisely if all
content is to be entirely believed and accepted as truth.
(Daily China.web-log.nl, November 2, 2010)
没有评论:
发表评论