●加拿大政府：大卫报告材料来源主要出自道听途说
2010年12月，加拿大外交和国际贸易部一份内部文件显示，加拿大联邦政府完全不相信乔高-麦塔斯报告。这份为外交和国际贸易部官员们准备的非官方评估否定了乔高-麦塔斯报告的研究方法和结论，称：“调查报告中所援引的作为指控证据的这些资料几乎全部来源于法轮功习练者，且其中许多资料都是二手或者三手信息。无论是乔高或是麦塔斯都被禁止前往中国对他们的报告作调查研究，大部分的材料来源‘主要是出自加拿大的道听途说和间接证据’。”
外媒报道器官移植控诉疑点重重
2010年12月1日，加拿大主流媒体《渥太华公民报》（The Ottawa Citizen）发表了格兰•麦克格雷格的署名文章《器官移植说法疑点重重——加拿大联邦官员怀疑前议员有关中国政府杀害法轮功成员的说法》，指出加拿大前议员大卫•乔高和律师大卫•麦塔斯关于中国活摘法轮功学员器官的报告受到加拿大外交国际贸易部强烈质疑。
前任阿尔伯塔议员大卫•乔高和他的报告合著者——温尼伯律师大卫•麦塔斯，曾经走遍全球四处讲述他们在2006年的一份报告中所揭示的所谓暴行，这一报告后来更新并出版成书，名为《血腥的活摘》。
两个大卫坚称数以千计的中国法轮功信徒被杀害，他们的肾脏、眼角膜和其他器官可能卖给了外国有钱人用于器官移植。中国政府强烈否认了这项指控，但乔高—麦塔斯报告仍然成为国际上的头条新闻，并常常被中国人权纪录批评家所引用。
《渥太华公民报》从加拿大外交国际贸易部所获得的一份内部文件显示，联邦政府完全不相信乔高—麦塔斯报告。为外交国际贸易部官员们准备的非官方的评估否定了乔高—麦塔斯报告的研究方法和结论，称（乔高—麦塔斯报告的）作者似乎认为，“由于证据与活摘的说法是一致的，所以这些手法就一定是真实的”，“这个结论可能与社会科学的研究方法不一致，即同步的两个或更多的现象同时出现并不能证明他们之间存在因果关系”。
文章指出，虽然中国政府已经承认了其曾未经同意采用的死刑犯的器官，但现在他们已经禁止了这种做法。乔高和麦塔斯举出诸如中国“没有一个健全的器官捐献网络”、“器官移植手术以秘密方式进行以掩盖罪行”等类似基本事实作为暴行的证据。但没有一个可信的人权组织能够证实如乔高和麦塔斯所声称的法轮功成员被集体屠杀以获取他们器官的指控。
外交国际贸易部的这份评估认为，“调查报告中所援引的作为指控证据的这些资料几乎全部来源于法轮功习练者”，且其中许多资料都是二手或者三手信息。无论是乔高或是麦塔斯都被禁止前往中国对他们的报告作调查研究，大部分的材料来源‘主要是出自加拿大的道听途说和间接证据’”。
乔高没有对外交国际贸易部的评估作出评论，但麦塔斯则反驳该评估的“所有内容都是错误、不合逻辑或不可靠的”。而美国国会研究服务机构则表示，乔高—麦塔斯报告中很少有新的信息或者独立取证，并且是依赖于逻辑推理。
Doubts cast on organ harvest claims
Federal officials challenge former MP's allegations China killed members of Falun Gong
By Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen December 1, 2010
Federal officials have cast doubt on the credibility of a report by a former MP who claimed Falun Gong practitioners in China were killed to harvest their organs.
Former Alberta MP David Kilgour and his co-author, Winnipeg lawyer David Matas, have travelled the world speaking about the alleged atrocities they claim to have uncovered in their 2006 report, a subsequent update and a book version called Bloody Harvest.
They contend thousands of Falun Gong adherents in China were killed so their kidneys, corneas and other organs could be sold for transplantation into wealthy foreigners.
The Chinese government vehemently denies the allegations but the report continues to make international headlines and is routinely referenced by critics of China's human rights record.
An internal document from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) obtained by the Citizen shows the federal government was far from convinced by the Kilgour-Matas report. The unofficial assessment, prepared to brief DFAIT officials, dismantled the report's methodology and conclusions. It says the authors appear to believe that "since all evidence is consistent with the allegations, the allegations must be true."
"This conclusion may not be consistent with social science research methods in that the simultaneous/concurrent occurrence of two or more phenomena does not prove that a causal relationship exists between them."
Though the Chinese government has admitted that it has used the organs of executed criminals without consent, a practice they have now supposedly outlawed, no credible human rights organization has corroborated the allegations that Falun Gong members were slaughtered en masse for their organs, as Kilgour and Matas claim.
They cite basic facts about China as evidence of the atrocity, such as the absence of an established organ donation network, and "that transplant operations are done in a secretive way suggesting cover up of a crime."
The federal assessment contends, "the sources cited in this investigation as evidence to support the allegations are almost exclusively Falun Gong practitioners," and many of them provided second-or third-hand information. Neither Kilgour nor Matas were allowed to travel to China to research their report and most of the source material comes from "anecdotal and circumstantial evidence available primarily in Canada," the assessment says.
Kilgour could not be reached for comment on the DFAIT assessment but Matas said it was full of errors. "Virtually everything there is wrong or illogical or not credible," he said.
He rejected the suggestion that he and Kilgour believed the allegations were true because they were consistent with some evidence. "They're trying to make us look ridiculous. We didn't take that position." He contends most of the source material for the report comes from the Chinese government websites.
The U.S. Congressional Research Service said the report contained little new information or independently-obtained testimony and relied on logical inference.
没有评论:
发表评论