August 26^th 2009

Mr. Guy Amyot
General Secretary
Conseil de Presse du Quebec
File: 2009-04-064

Re: Radio-Canada’s Enquête Program Malaise dans le Chinatown

Dear Mr. Amyot,

We are concerned that Radio-Canada’s latest reply to the Press Council again misrepresents key facts contained in the Enquête broadcast. We hope that the Council can appreciate that while we regret the volume of material involved in this case, this is a result of the wealth of misinformation in both the Enquête program and, later, the Radio-Canada responses to our complaint that we are now having to address once again.

In her latest reply Ms. Geneviève Guay has once again manipulated the facts, while also ignoring crucial facts and elements of our complaint that clearly point to a biased program on the part of Enquête. Throughout our reply we address these points thoroughly.

In section one we address the biased remarks about our group that came directly from the Enquête journalists’ mouths, which Radio-Canada has failed to properly address thus far.

In section two of this reply we detail information about the organization issue, the funding issue and the media organizations in order for the Press Council to fully understand the issue. We feel Radio-Canada’s main strategy is to continually strive to paint Falun Gong as mysterious, secretive and suspicious, with the hope that by portraying Falun Gong this way the Council will interpret their attacks on our group as valid “questioning.” In fact, with regards to “organization,” Enquête accepted as fact certain claims about our group made by the Chinese communist regime which persecutes Falun Gong and founded their investigation upon these false assumptions.

Radio-Canada continues to state that we are secretive and evasive, while noting that they do not understand us to this day. This is because they are looking for information that does not exist; they are basing their investigation on accusations that are themselves fabricated by the regime. We met with Enquête journalists for hours at their request and openly shared extensive information, yet still they simply refused to listen to us and continued to label us “secretive.”

Falun Gong is not the opponent to free media inquiry that Enquête has portrayed it to be. Instead, Falun Gong has been the victim of media bias and misinformation—most notably as part of the Chinese regime’s persecution and defamation of our group, but also in the form of this biased and misleading program produced by Radio-Canada.

In section three, we address the issue of Enquête’s treatment of the organ-harvesting issue. We felt it necessary to take a frame-by-frame analysis through this section of the Enquête program to clarify both the substance of our complaint on this topic and how the Enquête program treated the matter. We felt both of these two points have been misrepresented continually by Radio-Canada in its correspondence with us and the Press Council. We believe that this explanation, along with our previous submissions, shows very clearly that Enquête was by no means fair and impartial in its production. In fact, what they produced was plainly propaganda.

In section four we bring your attention our concerns regarding Enquête’s failure to report objectively on the lawsuits and court decisions on cases involving Falun Gong practitioners and instead portrayed our attempt for justice as meddlesome and frivolous. We show how Enquête’s presentation of Falun Gong lawsuits were selective, context-absent, misleading, and unethical.

In section five we clearly show how Radio-Canada’s claim that Lucy Zhou was trying to evade their reporters is a complete fabrication and that Radio-Canada actually relied on provocation and misrepresentation to portray Ms. Zhou and our group as being secretive.

In section six we respond to the submission by Radio-Canada’s ombudsman, Ms. Miville-Dechêne. We explain the real circumstances under which she attempted to prematurely quash our complaint and we point to her recent letter to the Press Council, in which she attempts to influence the Press Council by presenting misleading information on organ harvesting, as further evidence that she lacks the impartiality on this issue required to be regarded as an independent, objective third-party in this matter.

We are also concerned that the Radio-Canada’s continual attempts to make us look mysterious, secretive and suspicious may have clouded the issue of what Falun Gong truly is. We feel it is important to address exactly what Falun Gong is to the Press Council and how practitioners are voluntarily responding to the ongoing persecution. We have done this in a separate attached document. The issues outlined in this document were explained to Ms. Miller in her face-to-face meeting with Ms. Zhou, yet Enquête chose to completely ignore this and instead marginalize Falun Gong in their presentation.

Once again, we have had to re-explain what Radio Canada continues to manipulate and misrepresent, which has resulted in our rather lengthy submissions. We regret this, yet still we have not addressed everything in this document that we could have. We invite the Press Council to contact us with any further questions.

1. The focus of the report and the “uneasiness” in Chinatown

For the first time throughout our correspondence about this program, someone at Radio-Canada has finally attempted to answer for the biased remarks about our group that came directly from the Enquête journalists’ mouths, though again the answer is fleeting, misleading, and distorts our complaint.

Radio-Canada argues that we dispute that it is an “objective fact” that a “fragile peace” has been jostled in Montreal. Of course, whether the tension in the Chinese community is as dramatic as what Enquête strives to portray is a separate question. However, Radio-Canada has skirted the key issue: they alleged that it was our arrival in Montreal that jostled peace. This is a harmful allegation and it is false.

To date, neither Radio-Canada nor its Ombudsman has been able to answer how this is possible given that Falun Gong has been practiced in Montreal since 1996, and given that our group coexisted harmoniously and without incident before the persecution of Falun Gong started in 1999, when defamation by the likes of Mr. Chau began. Yet, despite these objective facts, Radio-Canada has shamelessly and falsely blamed our arrival for creating tensions in Montreal, rather than the real cause, which is the persecution and defamation we have endured.

Enquête further turns history on its head when it introduces Mr. Chau after first alleging that our arrival “jostled a fragile peace.” Enquête then says, “Being in Canada for nearly 30 years, he is the first Chinese in his community to confront publicly Falun Gong.”

In other words, according to Radio-Canada’s version of history, Falun Gong was causing trouble in the Chinese community before a long-time community member had the courage to stand up to them. This is no simple mix-up of chronology. Enquête has transformed the defamer into the hero. That is propaganda. In truth, Enquête has no evidence of tension in the Chinese community related to Falun Gong prior to the beginning of the persecution and Mr. Chau’s attacks, because quite simply, none existed.

On this topic, we would like to draw your attention to a work by David Matas, a respected international human rights lawyer who was earlier this year made an officer of the Order of Canada. Mr. Matas co-authored an independent investigation on Falun Gong organ harvesting with Mr. Kilgour, and wrote the following in an op-ed on the Enquête program that was published in the National Post in March (see article enclosed in the attachment ):

The origins of that broadcast originate with La Presse Chinoise, a Montreal-area Chinese weekly newspaper, which in 2001 published standard Communist Party propaganda against Li Hongzhi and the Falun Gong — material that was, according to the Quebec Court of Appeal, defamatory. The libels eventually led Falun Gong practitioners to protest in front of the offices of the La Presse Chinoise.

Radio Canada reported these protests in a way that would have warmed the heart of the most hardened Chinese Communist Party bureaucrat. Falun Gong was depicted as an organization that is “highly structured” with “no shortage of money,” composed of different organs working in lockstep. This mythical organization was then blamed for tension in Montreal’s Chinatown — because some practitioners had the nerve to protest their being libelled by La Presse Chinoise.

Radio Canada preyed on the ignorance of the Canadian public to propagate the Communist Party line, blaming the victims for protesting their victimization, adding to the propaganda by describing the Falun Gong as “little known and bothersome,” “whose presence creates malaise.”

This bias was not missed by the China Rights Network, either, who wrote to the Radio-Canada Ombudsman in December about the Enquête program (letter enclosed) to say:

Our view is that this report fails to live up to generally accepted standards of journalistic ethics held in Canada. One could call it yellow journalism.

. . .

But even worse, the report implies that the Chinese Canadians who are Falun Dafa believers are unwelcome outsiders, not part of this community, who “join the Chinese community,” “whose presence in OUR cities creates unease,” who “occupy,” “harass,” are “little-known and bothersome” and “whose presence creates malaise.” If the CBC were presented with a program that talked this way about, say Haitians who “join the black community” or “Shi’a heretics who join the Muslim community” there would be an outcry. So there should be over this depiction of Chinese Canadians who happen to be believers in a persecuted religion.

Falun Dafa believers are as much a part of the Chinese community as the newspaper editor Crescent Chau. And here is where the failure to clarify information presented is problematic. Mr. Chau is well known as the editor of a small but intensely pro-Beijing local Chinese paper. This does not mean he is a “spy”, but the documentary fails to note that the views he expresses are simply transmitting Communist Party propaganda from China.

Finally, on this issue, we would like to emphasize two points. First, while we have discussed Radio-Canada’s question of whether it was “objective” to accuse Falun Gong of disrupting a “fragile peace” in Montreal, we note that Radio-Canada replied very selectively when addressing the topic of its journalists comments about our group. The words of the Enquête journalists were not limited to what Ms. Geneviève Guay stated in her reply. They include other comments that cannot be explained or distorted so easily. For example, Calling our group a “little-known, omnipresent, bothersome religious movement,” is not a statement of objective fact. And it is not something a fair-minded journalist should say.

Second, we feel context is not provided for when Enquête reports on a “disrupted” peace. We note that the Montreal Chinese community has been subjected to anti-Falun Gong defamation by the Chinese Embassy, Chinese run media in Canada and the likes of Mr. Chau since 1999. Add to this the fact that there have never been any actual reports of harassment by Falun Gong practitioners in Montreal or elsewhere and that harassment would in fact be in direct conflict with Falun Gong’s teaching of “clarifying the truth” (please see enclosed introduction of Falun Gong). What we are left with are claims made by Radio-Canada about supposed off-camera interviews with nameless people with unknown credibility and no context for why else they might say such things. We consider Enquête’s treatment of this issue to be unfair, biased and misleading.

2. Falun Gong practitioners, the media, and the question of funding

First, we wish to clarify an accusation leveled at our group by the Enquête program. The program claims its investigation found we were dishonest about practitioners being volunteers and Falun Gong not asking for money from its practitioners. The program said:

Falun Gong also claims to have no organization and ask for no financial contributions from its followers. All would be volunteers. However our investigation allowed us to discover that Falun Gong is on the contrary very well organized and that it has significant financial means available.

We would like to ask Radio-Canada to produce any evidence that our association has ever asked for financial contributions from its followers or any organization. If not our association, which mythical “Falun Gong” organization are they referring to?

Propaganda is the number one weapon used in every genocide campaign in our history. When the Chinese communist regime banned Falun Gong they used a massive and very intricate propaganda campaign in their attempt to eliminate Falun Gong. They then continued this massive campaign to hide the crimes they have waged upon Falun Gong practitioners by diverting focus and creating doubt against Falun Gong in society. In order to do so they have called Falun Gong “political,” “cult,” “anti-China,” a “funded organization,” etc. in order to create controversy, which in turn would stop support for the victimized group.

Radio Canada refused to listen to Falun Gong practitioners or to do any substantial research into what Falun Gong truly is. Instead they have repeated propaganda that was fabricated by the Chinese regime and have accepted their view on Falun Gong. In turn they created a program attacking us and in their response to our complaints they state that they still do not understand how this “Falun Gong organization” operates. This is their premise for calling us secretive. They are working on the assumption that we must be an organization even after they admit that they cannot find proof of our “organization.” This is because it does not exist. They are simply investigating allegations by the communist regime that we are an organization.

Further, in Radio-Canada’s latest response to the Press Council, it alleges that our association claims that public Falun Gong activities and events are spontaneous with no prior communication or coordination. This is a ridiculous claim and one that we never made. How can their be an event or activity with no communication or coordination?

The absence of a hierarchical organization or any central Falun Gong command office to issue orders to adherents does not mean that Falun Gong practitioners are incapable or forbidden from working together, communicating, and coordinating to arrange public awareness activities. Clearly, they often have.

Likewise, the fact that the Falun Dafa Association and volunteers have not solicited money from practitioners – a principle which is laid out clearly in Zhuan Falun, the core text of Falun Gong, and which is reiterated in numerous Falun Gong books and articles – does not mean that Falun Gong practitioners who wish to shed light on the persecution of fellow practitioners in China are incapable or forbidden from using their own resources and organizing their own activities to do so. Voluntary initiatives by practitioners are not the same as a central office demanding fees, and issuing orders.

In fact, Enquête producers relied solely on their assumptions and prejudices, not facts, to conclude that we have been dishonest about our organization and funding.

The following is an explanation of funding that deals with the media enterprises founded by Falun Gong practitioners. We would like to state upfront that Ms. Zhou provided a very similar explanation to Ms. Miller in their three-hour face-to-face meeting. Unfortunately, Enquête chose to ignore this information when it suggested Falun Gong was evading the topic.

Estimates of the number of Falun Gong practitioners vary depending on who is asked. However, most would agree they number in the tens of millions globally. Even the Chinese communist regime once put the number at 70-100 million. Among tens of millions of practitioners, there are of course those with a variety of skills and backgrounds as well as financial means. They also frequently share a deep conviction for their beliefs, and amid persecution, a desire to cooperate to expose and end the persecution. Consider what the impact would be if each Falun Gong practitioner put only one dollar into efforts to expose persecution in China.

It is important to explain that our association and similar associations among other Falun Gong communities around the world have not collected donations from Falun Gong practitioners. Falun Gong’s teachings do not permit the collection of money, and moreover, all Falun Gong classes and group sessions are offered free of charge by volunteers. Even the Falun Gong books, video, and audio materials are downloadable free of charge from the Internet. There is also no registration in Falun Gong and no name lists are kept, nor any central organization who would keep them. Practitioners are free to come and go as they please.

That said, Falun Gong practitioners are also regular members of society and are free to conduct whatever business they would like, to form their own companies, etc. Given the situation in China where not only Falun Gong’s voice has been silenced, but other groups’ have also been censored, and with Chinese-language media overseas having been subjected to heavy censorship by the regime, some Falun Gong practitioners with certain skills have founded media companies that report on those censored topics.

It is the same as several patrons of the same church coming together to form a media company. If fellow believers are being persecuted somewhere and news of that persecution is heavily censored, it is understandable that the founders of this media company would want to shed light on the plight of their fellow believers. Yet, that is not the same as the church owning or managing the media company.

In the case of Falun Gong, it has been the case that practitioners in one locale take their own initiative to form a media company. Later, they form connections with Falun Gong practitioners in other areas who have similar interests, skills, and means, and they cooperate together to expand the effort. The practitioners use their own funds and resources to establish these companies, and they are not under the direction of the local Falun Dafa association in their area. Nor do Falun Dafa associations own shares in any of the companies or have access to the details of their business operations. Aside from whatever start-up capital and financial means they have available themselves, those who establish the media companies need to raise their own capital—most often by seeking advertising revenue—to pay their costs. We also note that on occasion some of these media entities have published advertisements soliciting public donations from readers or viewers who enjoy their services and wished to contribute to their work.

It is not a requirement of Falun Gong that practitioners form media enterprises. Some practitioners have taken their own initiatives because they have seen the barriers to people acquiring uncensored news on China. For example, even though The Epoch Times is now distributed in as many as 30 countries, the practice of Falun Gong has spread to more than 100 countries.

Moreover, media companies founded by Falun Gong practitioners do not speak for Falun Gong or for the Falun Dafa associations in various countries. They are independent entities. Just because Falun Gong practitioners who have founded media companies consider the persecution of Falun Gong to be an important, underreported news item does not equate to their being some underhanded or hidden funding arrangement, or foreign governments involvement.

Also, the notion of there being some mastermind Falun Gong organization behind the scenes funding and directing a global media empire is miles from reality. To describe our association, we are writing to you from our own homes, as our association does not even have an office. We are volunteers making time in our schedules, amidst our work and family lives to seek justice for what we feel is a biased attack on our beliefs that we feel could jeopardize efforts to help stop the killing and torture of people like us in China.

The media entities founded by Falun Gong practitioners have not been created solely to serve the interests of Falun Gong practitioners. Instead, they have become leading players in the cause for press freedom in China. The efforts of these media outlets, as well as the persecution and interference its staff members have faced (even in the West), have frequently been acknowledged by the world’s leading press freedom organizations. Consider the following examples:

RSF: Chinese-language NTDTV harassed by Beijing http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=10439

RSF: Chinese government bans two Canadian journalists with Chinese-language TV station http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=12320

RSF: Contract finally signed for NTDTV long-term broadcast on Eutelsat satellite http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=14966

European satellite operator Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing

http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=27818

RSF: Criminals target the daily Epoch Times: http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=16642

• RSF: Epoch Times independent daily to stop publishing for lack of printer
  http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=13769
  

• RSF on Cyber Dissidents Li Jianping, Zhang Jianhong, Yang Tianshui who regularly wrote for the Epoch Times: http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=18898 http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=19435
  http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=17016 http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=34219

CPJ alarmed by attacks on Chinese journalists in U.S.
http://cpj.org/2006/02/cpj-alarmed-by-attacks-on-chinese-journalists-in-u.php

• CPJ on Journalists Imprisoned in China (including several writers imprisoned for publishing articles in the Epoch Times):
  http://www.cpj.org/reports/2008/06/12iii-2.php
  

• CPJ: In China, a jailed Internet writer is mistreated, denied access to family
  http://cpj.org/2007/08/in-china-a-jailed-internet-writer-is-mistreated-de.php

The Epoch Times, for example, has also been honoured with prominent journalism awards in several countries, including national awards in Canada and the U.S., for its coverage of China. In its coverage, the newspaper has not shied away from explaining that it is staffed by Falun Gong practitioners and have faced persecution for efforts to expose the repression of their beliefs in China. Here is one example: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/1064/

Several others can be found in the special section The Epoch Times has set up on its website on this topic:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/component/option,com_ettopic/topicid,8/

The Epoch Times also testified before U.S. Congress on its role in combating and exposing the persecution of Falun Gong and the repression its journalists have faced as a result of these efforts (http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/archives/109/22579.pdf). All of this runs contrary to Enquête’s claim that the media “hides” its relationship with Falun Gong.

In fact, we note that Beyond the Red Wall, the documentary which aired on CBC but was pulled and edited by executives after receiving a call from the Chinese Embassy, also referred to Falun Gong practitioners’ support for and use of The Epoch Times and NTDTV. In fact, Falun Gong practitioners interviewed by producer Mr. Peter Rowe spoke openly about this topic. In this program, as images of the media are shown on the screen, the narrator says of Falun Gong practitioners’ efforts with the media:

“To fight Chinese government propaganda, they have created information videos and supported the Epoch Times newspaper and the satellite broadcaster NTDTV. Both are sophisticated media that advance the cause of Falun Gong and rail against the communist party line…”

In their face-to-face meeting, Ms. Zhou also brought to the attention of Ms. Miller another media effort founded and funded by Falun Gong practitioners that Ms. Miller appeared to not have been aware of. This is the Internet freedom initiative launched by Falun Gong practitioners to break through the extensive firewalls built by the Chinese communist regime and other repressive governments. This project gained prominence recently because the software it includes was widely used by Iranians to evade government censors and post news and images of the recent protests in Tehran following the controversial Iranian election (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/technology/01filter.html). The Internet freedom entity described in this article is applying for funding and grants as other similar non-government organizations would. It is clearly not drawing on some massive, hidden financial resources.

In fact, Ms. Zhou explained the above to Ms. Miller in their three-hour face-to-face meeting. Enquête later dismissed what Ms. Zhou had offered. It appears that Enquête producers had already concluded prior to Enquête’s research and interviews what type of “organization” Falun Gong was, and how he believed it to be “funded.” Anything that did not fit that script was interpreted as our being evasive and uncooperative.

Actually, for those who have made a sincere and unbiased effort to understand Falun Gong, suspicions of unknown funding and behind-the-scenes secret organizations are easily understood as baseless. Mr. Matas has travelled the world and met with Falun Gong practitioners as part of his investigation into organ-harvesting in China. He has found practitioners to be very open about how they organize and fund various efforts, projects, and companies. He has written passionately to dispel the notion raised by Enquête of a massive behind-the-scenes Falun Gong organization.

Radio-Canada notes that Mr. Ownby expressed his view in his book on Falun Gong that the media founded by practitioners should talk about Falun Gong practitioners’ role in the media more prominently and openly. He added that The Epoch Times had declined his request for an interview as part of his Falun Gong research. We understand this to be a good-intentioned suggestion to these media companies. However, in his book on Falun Gong Mr. Ownby never suggested some massive centralized organization behind the scenes funding a global empire, nor any involvement of foreign governments, etc. This is contrary to Enquête’s claim that “all those we have met during our investigation” raised this question.

We would like to add a clarification that while Mr. Ownby was unable to receive an interview from The Epoch Times as part of his research on Falun Gong, our association has never declined any interview or request for information from Mr. Ownby. From the beginning of his research, Mr. Ownby freely sat in on our group meetings and activities and observed how we discuss together to arrive at decisions and arrange things. He has discussed this openness of the Falun Gong group in the past. For example, in “Falungong and Canada’s China policy,” Mr. Ownby wrote:

“Falungong appears to be a rather decentralized movement . . . I have found little in the practices of North American practitioners that causes concern, even if I do not share their beliefs. Practitioners appear to be what they say they are and have been very open to my repeated inquiries.”

With respect to the presentation of the Divine Performing Arts show, we wish to clarify that role of the local Falun Dafa Association and its volunteers in the show was in organizing ticket sales and promotion. Still, on the opening night of the show, our association was featured in a VIP reception as an organizer of the show, though Enquête accused the show of hiding Falun Gong involvement. Our participation in this event was covered prominently that night by The Epoch Times, the newspaper that Enquête also accuses of hiding Falun Gong involvement.

At the same time, the show’s program book includes a full-page advertisement for Falun Gong and an explanation that the Falun Dafa Association is an organizer on the page thanking organizers. All of this is at odds with Enquête’s portrayal.

Also, while Enquête producers were still preparing their program, single-page three-fold flyers were circulating on the streets of Montreal promoting the Divine Performing Arts and explicitly stating our association’s role in organizing the event.

One final point on this topic. Falun Gong practitioners’ founding of media companies grew out of the absence of objective, uncensored reporting about China, particularly in Chinese-language media, rather than out of a fear or distrust of other media. In fact, as you can see we have referenced third-party media reports in our submissions and continue to take interviews with media regularly. However, the concern about media’s ability to report openly, fairly, and accurately on Falun Gong is not without basis. Media within China are heavily censored by the regime, and Chinese language media have also succumbed to this trend (http://media.faluninfo.net/media/doc/2008/06/JamestownFoundation.pdf).

Even Western media have faced censorship or other trouble for reporting on sensitive topics like the regime’s persecution of Falun Gong. We remind the Press Council that CBC itself said the blocking of its website in China last year was related to its airing of Beyond the Red Wall. Also, CBC’s Beijing staff said their reporters were under pressure in China at the time of the Red Wall broadcast (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-11-20/62135.html).

Such pressures on Western journalists have understandably affected their ability to report on Falun Gong. In a study by Leeshai Lemish as part of his Master degree at the London School of Economics, it was found that Western media’s coverage of Falun Gong declined dramatically just as reports emerging from China of torture, abuse, and death in Chinese police custody increased substantially. Perhaps even more worrisome, the study found that Western media reports on Falun Gong took their starting point from Chinese government sources far more frequently than from the Falun Gong group that was being persecuted. (Please see enclosed report for more information.)

Radio-Canada has also cited Falun Gong practitioners’ filing of lawsuits as an example of why there must be a well-funded organization behind the scenes. We would like to point out that no “organization” has been a plaintiff in the lawsuits Radio-Canada has described, nor as any “organization.” The legal cases have been filed by individual practitioners (in some cases single practitioners, in a few others many). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that individuals, or even a class, are incapable of filing lawsuits when they are defamed, or that doing so reveals something untoward. What separates Falun Gong practitioners from any other plaintiffs in lawsuits, and why must their taking legal action be the result of some secret, behind-the-scenes organization and funding? In fact, this is simply an expression of Radio-Canada’s prejudice.

3. Radio-Canada’s coverage of organ-harvesting – a deconstruction

On the issue of its treatment of organ harvesting in Enquête, Radio-Canada begins its response to the Press Council by saying, “We recognize that the evidence of organ harvesting are many,” but continues: “The general answer we got is that it’s better to be prudent. The available proof is not sufficiently solid to confirm, without risk of making a mistake, that the accusations made by Falun Gong are founded, in all their hugeness. It is just as the report states.” Presumably, because no distinction is made, this entire quotation is referring to organ harvesting against Falun Gong practitioners specifically.

This may sound like a reasonable position; however, it is not the position presented in the Enquête program. Had the program actually conveyed to viewers that there is significant evidence supporting organ-harvesting against Falun Gong but that the evidence is not enough to say conclusively that these crimes are taking place, we would have seen no reason to complain. As we have stated previously, we have never argued that this is a topic where debate or inquiry should be forbidden. We encourage a fair and open public discussion about it. However, Enquête by no means presented a fair or accurate summary of the views on these allegations.

Moreover, Radio-Canada’s claim that it merely cannot conclude with absolute certainty that organ harvesting is taking place suggests that our association is arguing that this issue must be presented as an absolute fact, which is not our stand. Radio-Canada further suggests this is our stance when it refers to the reference we made to the UN Committee on Torture’s call for an investigation in our last submission to the Press Council. Radio-Canada provides an excerpt from the “real” UN document, suggesting we had misrepresented it.

The fact remains that it is a strongly worded statement from a UN body, which is a sharp contrast to the one-sided presentation by Enquête. Enquête leads viewers to conclude that the organ harvest of Falun Gong practitioners was “just a lie”.

We hereby quote comments from China Rights Network, which also found this to be the case. This organization wrote to the Ombudsman:

“…we are most disturbed with the attempt of this documentary [Enquête] to minimize or deny the extremity of persecution of Falun Dafa believers in China.  Quoting Mr. Chau to make its conclusion, the program seeks to lead viewers to reject “the fabrication of the organ harvesting scandal”.

“ … the documentary would lead one to conclude that while there is organ harvesting for profit, it doesn’t happen to Falun Dafa believers in China’s gulags.”

Messrs. Kilgour and Matas expressed similar impressions in their letters to the Ombudsman on this matter.

Radio-Canada responds that is within its authority to determine whom it will interview in its programs. We never challenged Radio-Canada journalists and producers’ right to choose their sources. What we stated is that they had failed in doing so to present an accurate and objective picture of the debate on Falun Gong organ harvesting.

Under the section in its response to the Press council devoted to the Kilgour-Matas report on organ harvesting, Radio-Canada argues that its program provided a “diversity of views” because it included quotes from Amnesty International and two academics. However, this seems to be a manipulation of the facts because the quotes they provide are unrelated to the organ-harvesting report and appear in different sections of the program.

Moreover, if Radio-Canada is suggesting that this quote, “the government of China is doing all it can to break this movement and to eradicate it in China,” is an outstanding show of sympathy for Falun Gong in the program, then it becomes largely ineffective given the overall context of the program. If one was to believe Falun Gong was the type of group described in Malaise dans le Chinatown then one may even begin to sympathize with the Chinese regime in their campaign to rid this group from China.

The reality is that Enquête provided no diversity of views on organ harvesting. We would like to remind the Press Council that even Radio-Canada’s ombudsman described the lone quote used in the program from Mr. Kilgour in defense of the organ-harvesting claims, as being incomprehensible to most viewers.

As described in our previous submission, what the other interviewees shared in common was that each had already been on record as either opposing some aspect of the organ-harvesting allegations, or expressing some doubt or inability to confirm the reports. Radio-Canada ignored a wealth of other voices, which would have leant credibility to the report.

Despite what Radio-Canada argues, Enquête’s bias on organ harvesting is extensive, and it goes beyond what is described above. As stated in the beginning of this document, in order to be crystal clear we decided to take a frame-by-frame analysis through a whole section of Malaise dans le Chinatown dealing with organ harvesting, showing how Enquête conducted their “investigation” by misrepresenting and manipulating facts to attack Falun Gong in an unfair way throughout the show.

We believe that this explanation, along with our previous submissions, shows convincingly that Enquête was by no means fair and impartial in its production. It was propagandistic.

Please consider the following breakdown of this segment of the program:

1. Ahead of the commercial before the organ-harvesting segment of its program, Enquête already portrays the organ-harvesting claims as being baseless, saying:
   
   “After the break, allegations of massacres against Falun Gong followers for which we would have found no proof.” Then Harry Wu says in English: “it’s just a lie.”

   Though in this instance Mr. Wu’s remarks are not translated into French, many Radio-Canada viewers would be able to understand them. We ask the Press Council to note that in its latest reply Radio-Canada has admitted that Mr. Wu’s remarks were his views in regards to only the organ-harvesting allegations at Sujiatun hospital. However, no distinction is made here and viewers are left to believe before the segment on organ-harvesting begins that the entire issue is “just a lie.”

2. When the program returns from commercial, the Enquête host again frames the organ-harvesting claims as baseless, asking if it is “a form of propaganda from the movement’s leaders.”

3. Inexplicably, Enquête then jumps to a legal setback in Falun Gong practitioners’ lawsuit against Crescent Chau in early December 2005. Radio-Canada argues that it was not trying to suggest any connection between this legal setback and the organ-harvesting claims; however, Radio-Canada provides absolutely no explanation for why mention of the legal setback is spliced into the discussion of organ harvesting.

   Moreover, the ruling Enquête refers to is an already overruled lower court decision that said Mr. Chau was not wrong to criticize our beliefs. Enquête adds that the judge said our group “doesn’t accept criticism well.”

   What Enquête fails to state here is that the higher court found that what Chau published about Falun Gong was indeed defamatory. The higher court decision already overruled the lower court decision, yet Radio-Canada continues to refer to the lower court decision. Moreover, given that the content has now been found defamatory, who can blame victims for not accepting it as “criticism”? Enquête misled its viewers on this issue.

4. Enquête then says only 18 of the 232 plaintiffs chose to appeal the decision. As a point of clarification, Falun Gong practitioners’ lawyer advised the plaintiffs that a small number of plaintiffs was sufficient to participate in the appeal. The higher court indeed ruled that the articles from Chau were defamatory. However, due to restrictions in libel law the court found that a group cannot succeed in a claim for damages. (We ask the Press Council to note that Enquête emphasizes the small number of plaintiffs who participated in the appeal without mentioning that the appeal succeeded in having the said articles defined as defamatory.)

5. Next, Enquête shows footage of a Falun Gong practitioner at a small public event in Montreal describing Falun Gong practitioners being killed for their organs. The Enquête journalist states: “A few weeks later, Falun Gong counter-attacks with shocking news. In China, 4000 adepts would have been butchered and their organs sold, in some cases while they were still alive.”
   
   There are several problems with this segment. First, Enquête’s claim that it was not trying to present the organ-harvesting allegations as a response to the legal setback appear highly unconvincing, given this presentation. And even if that is not what the Enquête producers had intended, it is likely to be the impression viewers were left with. If not malicious, it was at least negligent.

   Second, the video clip shown is from April 9, 2006. This is after the two witnesses, identified as “Annie” and “Peter,” had come forward and their claims had been reported. In other words, this Falun Gong practitioner was repeating claims made by witnesses who are not Falun Gong practitioners; however, Enquête presents these claims as being manufactured by Falun Gong practitioners, in response to a legal setback from the Chau case.

   It is worth noting that nowhere in the program does Enquête mention that there are non-practitioner witnesses who came forward, nor that they were the original sources of the organ-harvesting reports. While Enquête did not interview Annie or Peter, both Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas did. We note that Radio-Canada says in its response to the Press Council: “We are not putting into question the integrity and good faith of Messrs. Kilgour and Matas, nor the considerable efforts they put into their research.” We ask the Press Council to recall that Mr. Matas is a highly respected international human rights lawyer and that Mr. Kilgour, prior to being a long-serving member of federal parliament and cabinet member with responsibility for Asia, was a criminal prosecutor. They are highly adept at reading witnesses and determining their credibility, and they found both Annie and Peter credible. However, though Enquête producers were aware of this, and though Radio-Canada does not question their working in good faith, Enquête ruled out these witnesses as unreliable and irrelevant leaving out the vital information that they made the initial claims of organ harvesting and are not Falun Gong practitioners.

   Moreover, they made this decision on the viewer’s behalf and without informing the viewer, giving the viewer the impression that there were no third-party witnesses at all and that Falun Gong had manufactured these reports.

6. The Enquête journalist continues: Ever since, across the planet in various public areas, adepts recreate torture, jailing and organ harvesting scenarios.

   As we outlined in our earlier complaints, Enquête is falsely claiming that torture exhibits came in response to organ-harvesting reports, while also calling into question the organ-harvesting reports. In fact, the torture exhibits had been conducted long before the organ-harvesting reports first emerged in order to raise awareness of the torture and persecution in general. It is merely that after these reports emerged, some exhibits depicting these reported atrocities were also developed and added to the other exhibits.

   By connecting the torture displays to organ-harvesting reports that Enquête also suggests are false, the producers are calling into question a well-established and well-documented aspect of the persecution of Falun Gong: torture. We also note that nowhere in the program does Enquête state that Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to torture.

7. The Enquête journalist continues: “In Ottawa, they regularly gather on Parliament Hill to fully deploy their media machine(s) and gather signatures to incite the House of Commons to condemn the Chinese regime.”

   The footage shown here is in fact from a rally held on May 2, 2008 to protest human-rights abuses in China ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, almost two years after the allegations of organ harvesting surfaced. Radio-Canada fails to mention this.

   What Enquête describes as Falun Gong’s “media machine” was a rally attended by respected human-rights groups, parliamentarians, and China watchers.

8. Enquête then accuses our group of evading media in regards to the organ harvesting issue, saying, “Once again, Lucy Zhou, the organizer, refuses to be filmed,” while showing images of Ms. Zhou attempting to shield herself from the Radio-Canada cameraman. Enquête did not include a complete quote of what she said to the cameraman.

   It is important to note that Radio-Canada has presented Ms. Zhou’s reaction at this May 2, 2008 event in its segment on the organ-harvesting claims. The misleading images broadcast by Radio-Canada suggest to viewers that Falun Gong had not only concocted the claims of organ harvesting (as described above), but was then unwilling to face media scrutiny about their claims. This presentation was both false and misleading.

We have obtained a video of the events this day and have enclosed the video with this submission. The video clearly shows the Radio-Canada cameraman, filming the event and all of the speakers uninterrupted, and at very close range, for a prolonged period of time. In fact, for much of the event, the Radio-Canada cameraman was at the front, right next to the speaker. This is contradictory to the latest claim by Radio-Canada that “very quickly, the cameraman of Radio-Canada understood that he was not welcome.”

In fact, the Radio-Canada cameraman, along with a number of other journalists and camerapersons from other media (including CTV, Omni2, A-Channel, NTDTV) filmed the event’s speakers without interruption. The Radio-Canada cameraman was present long enough to learn that other individuals were speaking at the event and at no time did Ms. Zhou have a speaking or presenting role in the event. She also did not give any interview to NTDTV or any other media, contrary to Radio-Canada’s suggestion that NTDTV was given special treatment. The event was organized by Mr. Xun Li, president of the Falun Dafa Association of Canada, who was also the event’s primary speaker, as shown in the video.

At no time did the Radio-Canada cameraman request an interview from Ms. Zhou or any other individual. Instead, without prior request, the Radio-Canada cameraman filmed Ms. Zhou for a prolonged period of time. Despite the appearance of Ms. Zhou’s name on the news release as a telephone contact and general spokesperson, she had no public role in the May 2, 2008 event. Given that, the fact that a cameraman, without first asking for her permission, proceeded to single her out and film her for a prolonged period of time eventually made her uncomfortable and led her to confront the cameraman and ask him to stop filming her. Her response was provoked by Radio-Canada’s cameraman. It was not a result of Falun Gong avoiding media interviews, as clearly the video shows many reporters able to freely record those practitioners and supporters who had public roles in the event.

1. Enquête then proceeds to state, “In Ottawa, Falun Gong even manages to get support from David Kilgour.” The journalist adds: “In the Summer of 2006, he publishes an investigation report that he produced at the request of some of the movement’s friends.”

   Enquête’s attempt to mislead is very clear. The journalist has just finished explaining that in Ottawa Falun Gong holds rallies to incite parliament to condemn the Chinese regime. By claiming that Mr. Kilgour’s support was gained in Ottawa, Enquête is presenting Mr. Kilgour’s views as being a product of Falun Gong lobbying, rather than his own investigation.

Moreover, Enquête also confuses the timing. The public event they show in Ottawa actually happened close to two years after Mr. Kilgour had published his independent report with Mr. Matas.

The suggestion that Mr. Kilgour acted under the influence of Falun Gong is strengthened by how Enquête introduces his report: something he “prepared at the request of some of the movement’s friends.” Enquête does not even mention anywhere in the program that Mr. Kilgour carried out his investigation and prepared his report together with Mr. Matas, a highly respected international human-rights lawyer who happens to have recently been made an official of the Order of Canada, and in 2007 was honoured with the Canadian Bar Association’s prestigious human rights award. This omission further undercuts the credibility of Mr. Kilgour and his report.

In fact, Messrs. Kilgour and Matas carried out their research shortly after the reports of organ harvesting against Falun Gong practitioners first emerged. They made a detailed study that included interviewing the two witnesses who emerged from China, whom they deemed credible. Radio-Canada’s comment in its response to the Press Council that, “We are not putting into question the integrity and good faith of Messrs. Kilgour and Matas, nor the considerable efforts they put into their research,” are in direct conflict with how they presented this issue in the program. Again, the correspondence to Radio-Canada and its ombudsman from Messrs. Kilgour and Matas speak to this.

1. After portraying Mr. Kilgour as having been influenced by media-averse Falun Gong practitioners and their unproven claims, Enquête then provides Mr. Kilgour a very short, single opportunity to explain himself by way of a quote that even Radio-Canada’s ombudsman found was incomprehensible to most viewers.
   “We’ve provided 3 points. Proof. For people who are independent, intelligent and who understand the world as it is, I think there’s no doubt.”

2. Enquête then cuts to Mr. Ownby who repeats the skepticism on organ-harvesting expressed in his book. The number of words in Mr. Ownby’s brief comment already exceed what Mr. Kilgour was allowed in his statement explaining his report. Enquête also makes no mention that Mr. Ownby believes it likely that Falun Gong practitioners suffer organ harvesting on some scale, as outlined in his book.

3. Enquête then follows with a completely baseless claim that Falun Gong practitioners misrepresented the positions of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch toward organ harvesting on a flyer they circulated. Enquête claims to have investigated our claims about these organizations and found them false.

   As we have pointed out in our previous submissions, this simply is a complete manipulation of the facts. The flyer contains separate headings for separate issues. The organ harvesting information does not even begin on the same tab as the quotes from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, and it appears in a separate box, below each of those quotes, making it impossible to confuse the other two sections as belonging to the one on organ harvesting. Also, the quotes from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch state absolutely nothing about organ harvesting. The Amnesty quote is about the regime’s use of hatred which may be encouraging acts of violence against Falun Gong and Amnesty’s call for the end of the unfair trials, torture and death resulting from this campaign. Both quotes are also accurate.

Any reasonable readers would conclude that all three sections were completely separate sections on the flyer.

Enquête is suggesting that merely because various issues are placed on the same flyer, Falun Gong practitioners are misrepresenting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as having affirmed the organ-harvesting reports. This conclusion is completely irrational. Amnesty International has never asked us to edit the flyer in question. Also, Amnesty International’s secretary-general Mr. Alex Neve continues to attend events addressing the human-rights abuses suffered by Falun Gong practitioners alongside other speakers who speak of the reports of organ harvesting against Falun Gong practitioners. Apparently, Amnesty does not believe that merely appearing next to someone discussing organ harvesting claims misrepresents their views.

One example is the May 2, 2008 event attended by the Radio-Canada cameraman. Mr. Alex Neve spoke about the plight of Falun Gong practitioners in China, while at the same event Falun Gong practitioners were reenacting the reported organ-harvesting atrocities. At a recent press conference inside the Parliament Hill Press Gallery Mr. Neve spoke of human rights abuses in China alongside Mr. Kilgour, who was speaking specifically about his organ-harvesting findings (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/19720/).

It is worth noting that Radio-Canada does not mention that the quotes attributed to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in the flyer are accurate.

1. Enquête then quotes a spokesperson for Amnesty International saying that they have been unable to confirm the reports of organ harvesting against Falun Gong. Next, Enquête begins a long introduction of Harry Wu, highlighting his credentials as a courageous and “famous Chinese dissident” with knowledge of the Chinese prison system and prisoner organ harvesting.

   Notably, Enquête uses a clip linking Mr. Wu’s work with findings endorsed by Amnesty International on prisoner executions, after having just suggested that Falun Gong misrepresented Amnesty International and that Amnesty could not confirm claims made by Falun Gong. The intended contrast is clear.

   The introduction to Harry Wu alone already includes roughly three-times the number of words Mr. Kilgour was allowed to explain his report (including the narrator’s script and two narrated video clips).

2. Then, Enquête explains how Mr. Wu looked into the organ-harvesting allegations related to Falun Gong and what he found:
   “Mr. Wu searched for proof that the Chinese government targeted today Falun Gong followers in particular. Five times he sent teams on site and this what they discovered: (Harry Wu speaking:) Nothing . . . nothing. I asked them to go back on location, to meet the direction of the hospital; they talked to the people at the front desk, the cadres, the doctors . . . they never heard about it. It’s just a lie.”
   
   In the program there was no mention that Mr. Wu’s comments here referred only to the Sujiatun hospital, as Radio-Canada now admits. Sujiatun is the location where witnesses Annie and Peter allege organ harvesting targeting Falun Gong took place on large scale, primarily between 2001 and 2003.

   In fact, the word “Sujiatun” is never mentioned in the program, nor is any distinction made between claims made in regards to a single hospital and the phenomena of Falun Gong organ harvesting in general, investigated by Messrs. Kilgour and Matas. Mr. Wu’s words are presented as the results of his research on whether “the Chinese government targeted today Falun Gong followers in particular” with organ harvesting. This is misleading as Mr. Wu has never claimed to have carried out extensive research on Falun Gong organ harvesting in general.

   Aside from misportraying the scope of Mr. Wu’s remarks, Enquête also fails to provide context on his investigation of Sujiatun—for example, on reading the appendix dealing with Sujiatun in the Kilgour-Matas report, one would find that Mr. Wu’s investigator was not sent to the hospital until weeks after the allegations had been made public and roughly three years after the organ harvesting described by Annie and Peter is said to have taken place in large numbers; or that Mr. Wu had already written letters to members of U.S. Congress calling the Sujiatun reports a “lie” when he had completed barely one-third of the investigation he described in Enquête.

   The program also fails to note that Mr. Wu’s comments on organ harvesting were publicized prior to the report prepared by Messrs. Kilgour and Matas, and that the two investigators had considered his arguments and included a detailed rebuttal in their report, highlighting severe shortcomings in his assessment (enclosed for your reference).

   Radio-Canada has pointed out that Mr. Wu has been critical of the Chinese regime’s labour camp system; however, that does not make his means of investigation immune to questioning, nor does it excuse Enquête’s omission of relevant facts and points of view.

   Given Enquête’s glowing presentation of Mr. Wu and the lack of any counter opinion, viewers would likely think that Mr. Wu’s research on organ harvesting targeting Falun Gong practitioners was more thorough and current than Mr. Kilgour’s, when in fact just the opposite is true.
   

3. Next, Enquête returns to Crescent Chau, explaining that he published a special edition of his newspaper “denouncing” the organ-harvesting allegations as “fabrication.”

   Given the set-up Enquête has provided Mr. Chau with the preceding misleading representation, Chau’s stance sounds far more reasonable than it normally would. Radio-Canada fails to mention that Mr. Chau had done no research and interviewed no one for his publication. His sole claim to relevance is that he repeated the Chinese regime’s official stance on organ harvesting—to deny it and attack both Falun Gong and the two investigators.
   
   Enquête also fails to state that Chau’s anti-organ-harvesting publication is full of much of the same slurs and accusations against Falun Gong that the Quebec Court of Appeal found defamatory. In fact, though Radio-Canada has at this point in the program portrayed Chau in glowingly positive light and has utilized him extensively, it has failed to mention that his attacks on Falun Gong were found defamatory.

4. Enquête then suggests Chau’s opposition to the organ-harvesting led to an alleged threat on his life by following up immediately on the description of his anti-organ-harvesting publication with the following: “February 2007, Crescent Chau receives a death threat by mail: “If you continue, you will die! I will burn your money!’”

   First, given that the police found no evidence to pursue this, Enquête should only have said that Chau claims he received a death threat. Radio-Canada and her ombudsman have argued that Chau’s publishing this claim in his newspaper makes it relevant, but that does not make his claim a fact, as Radio-Canada has presented it. It is still only a claim, an extremely serious claim.

   Second, and more importantly, it’s a claim made in a newspaper by a man who the court has found to have defamed our group in his newspaper. This is essential context in determining the credibility of the claim, and Enquête again does not mention this in its report.

   Third, Enquête by repeating this baseless claim immediately after describing Chau’s publication attacking the organ-harvesting report, Radio-Canada has suggested a link between the two. There is zero evidence to suggest any link at all. If someone was indeed enraged enough by Chau’s August 2006 newspaper attacking Falun Gong and Messrs. Kilgour and Matas, it is hard to imagine that they would wait six months before getting around to sending this supposed death threat to him.

1. Enquête then escalates the absurdity even further when the Radio-Canada journalist poses the following question to Mr. Chau about the so-called death threat: “What makes you think it comes from Falun Gong?”

   Aside from being journalistically reprehensible, we note that this question is offensive to the Falun Gong community, given our strict belief in non-violence and peaceful, compassionate appeals.

   As seen in the program transcript, even Mr. Chau does not endeavour to make such a brazen and baseless claim directly. This leading question suggests our group is guilty of a crime that for all intents and purposes may never have even taken place, and for which at a bare minimum there is not a shred of evidence suggesting any involvement by our group.

4. Enquête’s unethical treatment of the legal cases

At this point we feel we must bring up a serious issue on how Enquête did not report objectively on the lawsuits and court decisions on cases involving Falun Gong practitioners. Instead, references to such cases were used selectively to portray a view that the attacks on Falun Gong are just and that Falun Gong practitioners launch frivolous legal cases in a desperate bid to silence critics. References to Crescent Chau, without the proper context about past court rulings, gave undue weight to his anti-Falun Gong stance.

The fact is that courts, tribunals and broadcasting watchdogs in Canada have stated that Falun Gong practitioners in Canada have been subjected to defamation. These lawsuits have been a necessary and principled response from practitioners to defend their rights and reputations and to stop such libelous attacks.

We note that barely a third of the way into its program, Enquête first describes Chau’s attacks on Falun Gong, including that Falun Gong is “bad for health” and that practitioners commit “criminal and perverted acts.”

No mention is made that the court found such claims defamatory until the closing frames of the show, when Enquête has already portrayed Falun Gong in an extremely negative and suspicious light. Instead, when Chau’s attacks are first introduced they are presented after introducing Chau as a longstanding member of the Chinese community. We also note that Enquête unquestioningly states as fact the claim by Chau that the attacks on Falun Gong came from an “ex-follower” of Falun Gong.

Enquête then follows to refer to Chau several times before ever mentioning he defamed the group. He is shown opposing Falun Gong, enduring criticism from Falun Gong, criticizing the organ-harvesting report, and even facing an alleged death threat, which Radio-Canada suggests comes from our group.

Without describing upfront that Mr. Chau was found to have defamed our group, his opposition to Falun Gong is given undeserving credibility, the protests from Falun Gong practitioners appear more like an effort to interfere with press freedom than to stop slander, and his claims about death threats and critique of organ-harvesting reports are given credibility they do not deserve.

As described above in section 3 under points 3, 4, and 16, aside from failing to mention that Chau had libeled our group, Enquête referred to a lower court decision that had been overruled by a higher court.

We also note that Enquête fails to mention that the legal issue in question that prevented Falun Gong practitioners from succeeding in claiming damages was that the defamation targeted a group and the court found individual members within a group could not claim damages in libel law. The court did not affirm that what Chau published was fair; in fact, quite the opposite. They said it was defamation.

Without having explained the legal reason for their loss, Enquête then says it is one of a “series of losses.” Again, Enquête fails to mention that these other losses were as a result of the same legal limitation restricting members of a group from suing for defamation. We know of no court that has said the slanders against Falun Gong are fair or true. Enquête viewers are likely to think that with a “series of losses,” the slander against Falun Gong may be true.

In fact, by referring to a “series of losses,” Enquête is also selectively referring to only those cases where Falun Gong practitioners have not succeeded in gaining a judgment in court. They do not mention any of the other results, where courts, tribunals and others bodies have ruled attacks on Falun Gong defamatory, discriminatory, and a violation of journalistic ethics in Canada. Consider, for example:

• In 2002, Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) Ruled that Talentvision’s broadcast of a “news report” from Chinese state media which attempted to portray a murder as having been caused by Falun Gong belief was “unfair and improper” and “…nothing more or less than a biased attack on Falun Gong by the producer of that news item.”
  

• In February 2004, Pan Xinchun, the Chinese Deputy Consul General stationed in Toronto was found by the Ontario Superior Court to have committed libel in calling a Falun Gong practitioner an “evil cult” member in a local newspaper. He was ordered to pay damages and soon after disappeared back to China.

• In 2005, the Hate Crimes Unit of the Edmonton Police identified anti-Falun Gong materials distributed by staff members of the Chinese Consulate in Calgary as constituting a breach of the Hate Crime Law which bans the “wilful promotion of hatred” against an “identifiable group.”

• In January 2006, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the Ottawa Chinese Senior’s Association discriminated when it terminated the membership of Daiming Huang, a 73-year-old Canadian citizen, because she practises Falun Gong. The tribunal ruled that the practice of Falun Gong constitutes a form of creed, protected within the framework of Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The Tribunal found that the Senior’s Association had repeatedly confronted the Complainant about her beliefs in Falun Gong, publicly revoked her membership (a decision subsequently reconfirmed by the Association’s new Council), participated in organizing petitions against her practices during Association events, and subjected her to demeaning comments about her beliefs. The Tribunal also determined that these discriminatory acts exposed the Complainant to contempt and a loss of standing and isolation within her own cultural community, and were an affront to her dignity.

• In May 2008, the Appeal Court of Quebec ruled that Crescent Chau and La Presse Chinoise defamed Falun Gong. However damage was not awarded to the individuals suing Chau because the defamation was against a group and the court found individuals within the group could not claim damage.

Falun Gong practitioners do not welcome any of these situations where the last resort is to go through a court proceeding, nor do we relish “victories.” We have merely resorted to the courts when there has been no other option left and when our appeals to make corrections have been repeatedly ignored.

We consider Enquête’s presentation of Falun Gong lawsuits as being selective, context-absent, misleading, and unethical.

5. Declining Enquête’s interview request – what really happened between Ms. Zhou and Radio-Canada.

Radio-Canada has made false and misleading statements in order to paint Lucy Zhou and Falun Gong practitioners as uncooperative.

We ask the Press Council again to review point 8 of section 3, which refers to the video of the May 2, 2008 event, clearly showing the false nature of Radio-Canada’s claim that its cameraman “understood that he was not welcome.”

Lucy Zhou has been interviewed by the media many times in the past 10 years and has been very cooperative toward interview requests from many journalists. Ms Zhou has been interviewed and reported on by: The Globe and Mail, National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, Ottawa CBC (English and French), CTV, local CJOH, Canadian Press, A Channel, Rogers Cable Community News and others. She had never declined an interview request.

The Radio-Canada journalists first contacted the Montreal exercise group coordinator Ms. Thanh Nguyen who warmly welcomed them to the exercise practice site. Ms. Nguyen then called Ms. Zhou because Ms. Miller had asked her for more information for a report she was going to do.

Ms. Zhou initiated the call to Ms. Miller on or around January 31, 2008. Ms. Zhou told Ms. Miller that the main volunteer coordinator from Montreal had recently moved away, but Ms. Zhou was willing to talk with Ms. Miller about the practice next time she was in Montreal, as she travelled between the two cities often. Ms. Miller wanted to meet right away, and said she was coming to Ottawa on Friday February 1. We want to make clear to the Press Council that Radio-Canada’s statement that Ms. Miller travelled to Ottawa under Zhou’s request is false.

Ms. Miller met with Ms. Zhou in the afternoon of February 1 and had a three-hour discussion. The discussion focused on the practice of Falun Gong, the Chinese regime’s hate propaganda in China and overseas, the Montreal lawsuit, the funding and founding of media outlets and other topics. Ms. Zhou answered all of Ms. Miller’s questions openly.

Later, Ms. Miller was also put in touch with Joel Chipkar, a Falun Gong spokesperson from Toronto.

The comment from Radio-Canada that after three hours of conversation Ms. Zhou had not decided if she would give an interview is misleading. The conversation on February 1 was completely focused on providing background information and answering any questions that Ms. Miller had. Ms. Zhou also presented a large amount of research material which Ms. Miller asked to take with her and to which Ms. Zhou kindly agreed. Ms. Miller wrote in an email to Zhou later that day:

“I want to thank you for the very good discussion we had on Friday, It was quite helpful indeed. I’ve got all your documents safely stored in my office, lots of information for to read.”

On February 15, 2008, Ms. Miller was still studying the material. It was then that she started to talk more about a possible on-camera interview. Ms. Miller wrote on February 15, 2008:

“Just want to let you know that I’m still going through the trial’s transcript. It’s a long process but very interesting. I hope you will agree to give me an interview regarding the matter”

Ms. Zhou replied that she was out the country at that time.

On March 5, Ms. Miller requested an on-camera via email to Ms. Zhou.

On Friday March 7, Ms. Zhou called Ms. Miller and expressed that she had grown concerned with Radio-Canada/CBC following recent instances with the broadcaster’s treatment of Falun Gong (as noted in our complaint to the ombudsman, CBC omitted any mention of Falun Gong from a major documentary on China that had a sizeable segment devoted to human rights; it then cut out any mention of Falun Gong organ harvesting in an interview it aired of Mr. Kilgour a year before the Olympic Games in Beijing; it then pulled and edited an independent documentary on Falun Gong after receiving a call from the Chinese embassy, removing evidence of organ harvesting).

Ms. Zhou wanted to talk to the producer about her concerns. On Monday March 17 after returning from her March break trip with her son, Ms. Zhou talked to Leon Laflamme in the afternoon.

Radio-Canada’s statement that an interview was fixed at the beginning of March is untrue. It is also a false statement for Radio-Canada to say that Ms. Zhou delayed yet another week.

The conversation with Mr. Laflamme was an unpleasant one. Ms. Zhou felt hostility from Mr. Laflamme and sensed his mind was made up to take a negative approach on the story. During the conversation Mr. Laflamme made it clear that the persecution will not be part of the program. Zhou raised the concern that without the context of the persecution and defamation campaign against Falun Gong or Mr. Chau’s role in supporting it, viewers simply could not receive an objective perspective of what had unfolded in Montreal. Not wishing to lend her name to a program she believed would be misleading, Ms. Zhou then declined to be interviewed on camera.

On March 27, a formal email letter was sent to Ms. Miller and Mr. Laflamme by Joel Chipkar explaining why he and Ms. Zhou decided to turn down the interview. The letter states:

“Dear Solvieg and Leon,

Sorry for the delay in responding but I still feel it necessary to bring up a serious point that both Lucy and I share. We believe that anyone with common sense can see these articles in La Presse Chinoise are extremely slanderous and a vicious attack to anyone’s reputation.

Our feeling that your possible attempt to determine whether or not the accusations from La Presse Chinoise on Falun Gong are true in your program strikes us as misplaced. It seems the equivalent of an investigation to determine whether there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, and whether the Chinese are right to kill and torture the Falun Gong for their beliefs.

Mr. David Matas, author of “Blood Words: Hate and Free Speech,” and 2007 Canadian Bar Association Human Rights award winner had the following comments on a similar subject matter, and I found it addresses this issue that should be worthy of the attention of CBC:

“Bigotry is troubling not just because the answers which are given; but because of the questions which are asked.  Are blacks dirty?  Do Jews control the world?  Are Serbians bloodthirsty?  Are Tutsis genocidal?  Are the Falun Gong a “cult”? The very attempt to answer these questions is demeaning.

The evil of incitement to hatred is not only in the conclusions reached. It is in the questions being asked.  Hate propagandists approach the world with a frame of reference which is skewed to conform to their own world view. Hate propagandists live in a self contained world of delusive paranoia where the vilified group is the enemy and they are the defenders of virtue.

An investigation into whether a particular piece of incitement to hatred is true adopts the frame of reference of the propagandist. The investigation asks the question the propagandist asks, adopts the approach to the world the propagandist has.  Such an investigation may reject the answers of the propagandist.  Yet, it accepts the question of the propagandist as a valid one, and gives credence to it.

The allegation that the Falun Gong is a cult is so far removed from reality and so closely identified to the Chinese decision to persecute the Falun Gong, a decision which came about for other reasons, reasons which are part the public record, that I really wonder whether it makes any sense for you to investigate this allegation. It sounds to me like an investigation whether the Chinese are right to kill and torture the Falun Gong for their beliefs, surely an inappropriate line of inquiry.

Why does the Chinese government denounce so viciously and repress so brutally this one group, more so than any other victim group?  Falun Gong has none of the characteristics of a cult.  It is not an organization.  It has no memberships or offices, no officers or leaders.   Falun Gong has no funds and no bank accounts.

Falun Gong practitioners live at home with their families.  They do not live separately with co-practitioners.  They are not expected to make a financial contribution to the Falun Gong and, as I have noted, no place to which to direct such a hypothetical contribution.

There is no penalty for leaving the Falun Gong, since there is nothing to leave.  Practitioners are free to practice Falun Gong as little or as much as they see fit.  They can start and stop at any time.  They can engage in their exercises in groups or singly.

Practitioners, though predominantly ethnic Chinese, come from a wide variety of cultures and backgrounds.  They lead ordinary daily lives, working in the whole gamut of professions and trades, eating the same foods as everyone else, studying at the same schools and universities as non-practitioners.

Mr. Li Hongzhi, the author of the books which inspired Falun Gong practitioners, is not worshipped by practitioners.  Nor does he receive funds from practitioners.  He is a private person who meets rarely with practitioners. His advice to practitioners is publicly available information – conference lectures and published books.”

Unfortunately, as observed by some people there already seems to be self-censorship on the subject of the Falun Gong human rights issue from CBC in the past years, which is very troubling. While the torture/killing of these people is ongoing your investigation into whether the regime’s accusation for justifying the persecution is true certainly lends credibility to the human rights violators and it does not help to create a positive image of CBC as an objective media that would be worthy of the respect and trust of Canadians.

We apologize if we have not been clear on this concern in the past.

Also, due to the seriousness of the law case our group felt we should consult our lawyer with regards to being interviewed and based on his advice that any show on this case may be viewed as an improper attempt to influence the court, and after much deliberation within our group we decided that due to possible contempt of court it is not the right thing to do.

Thank you for your understanding.”

In the letter it was made very clear that we had concerns over their approach to the story and we had concerns over talking about the legal case on TV when it was not concluded yet. However, our concerns were not heard, nor were they shared with Enquête viewers. Instead Enquête continued to try to find some sort of “dirty laundry” on Falun Gong and started to confront and pester Ms. Zhou in an effort to have her look evasive (as described above in section 3 point 8 in relation to the May 2, 2008 event).

Before this, on April 5, there was a rally titled: “Resisting the [Chinese communist party] CCP’s infiltration in the Montreal Chinese Community, Celebrating 35 million Brave Chinese People’s Quiting the CCP,” where Chinese people who had escaped communism in China were showing support for those who had signed online petitions to quit the communist party in China. It was not a “Falun Gong demonstration” as Radio-Canada claimed, nor was it organized by the Falun Dafa Association. The event was organized by the Montreal Service Centre for Quitting the Chinese Communist Party, though Falun Gong practitioners, who are among the groups persecuted by the Chinese regime, were among those in attendance at the rally and, prior to the rally, a group of Falun Gong practitioners practiced Falun Gong exercises in the same park, as they normally do on Saturdays.

On this day the Chinese Embassy staff were also holding some event in the building next to the park.

Ms. Miller, Mr. Laflamme and a cameraman arrived unexpectedly at the event in the park. The cameraman, rushed toward Ms. Zhou and trained his camera on her at a close distance without identifying himself. Ms. Zhou asked the cameraman to identify himself and asked him to stop filming her.

Once the rally had started, Lucy Zhou was on the sidewalk when Mr. Laflamme approached her and attempted to strike a conversation with her. At this time the Radio-Canada cameraman was shooting from behind without Ms. Zhou’s knowledge.

Later, this footage was used in Malaise dans le Chinatown to portray Ms. Zhou as being evasive and uncooperative. This was a manipulative act by Radio Canada and it was a false portrayal of the facts.

This type of stunt further proves the unprofessional and unethical attempts of Radio Canada to misrepresent the facts and lead viewers to think negatively about Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners, who are working tirelessly in an aboveboard way to help stop the persecution of their fellow practitioners in China.

5. The submission by the Radio-Canada ombudsman

With regard to the letter the Radio-Canada ombudsman sent to the Press Council on this matter, we would like to make a couple of points.

First, Ms. Miville-Dechêne argues that she attempted to throw out our case based on the well-established practice of withdrawing from review when there is threat of legal action. She suggests we misrepresented her actions in our submission to the Press Council. In fact, the policy found on her website states this:

“When there is a complaint with legal impact (formal notice or threat of pursuit), the Ombudsman can try to obtain written clarifications from the “plaintiff” in regards to his true intentions. At this stage, she asks the plaintiff to choose between legal action or to resort to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then can decide if she will relieve herself or not from the case.”

The “threat of legal action” the ombudsman refers to was in fact a reference to a letter sent by a separate Falun Gong association in France to a broadcaster in that country complaining about the broadcaster’s stated intent to air the Enquête program, which was still under ombudsman review in Canada. The end of the letter made a brief reference to preserving rights to legal action; it did not announce any formal legal action or intent to sue.

We have attached our correspondence with the ombudsman where we pointed out that she had made no effort to contact our association for clarification or to offer us an option to continue with our complaint, despite having notice of the French letter in her possession for nine days. We also explained that if given the opportunity to choose a course of action, our answer would have been obvious as we just prepared a substantial complaint on the program and clearly expressed our intent to proceed via the ombudsman’s complaint procedure, while expressing no intent to take legal action. We were not even aware of the content of the letter in France until the ombudsman informed us that she had dismissed our complaint.

Our initial pleas to the ombudsman to continue to pursue the review process did not satisfy the ombudsman. It was not until we pointed out in writing the discrepancy between her stated policy and her conduct that Ms. Miville-Dechêne rescinded and reopened the file. This was the basis for our view that she was eager to avoid reviewing our complaint and our statement that she had attempted, on specious grounds, to dismiss our complaint before reviewing it.

Second, though the ombudsman and Radio-Canada have each attempted to argue their independence from each other, our position continues to be that the ombudsman has not demonstrated independence from Radio-Canada in this matter and should not be treated as a neutral, independent party. Our last submission to the Council demonstrates this. Also, we believe the recent submission from the Radio-Canada ombudsman, in which she lobbies for her position on the Enquête program—a position she shares with Radio-Canada—has again demonstrated her lack of impartiality.

The most outstanding example of this is Ms. Miville-Dechêne’s advice to the Press Council that they review an article written by Glen McGregor on the issue of organ harvesting, published in the Ottawa Citizen. In fact, we had discussed with Ms. Miville-Dechêne in our face-to-face meeting that there had been a significant conflict of interest on the part of the journalist preparing this article. That Ms. Miville-Dechêne has recommended this article, and furthermore has failed to mention this conflict is shocking to us.

We have attached the response to Mr. McGreggor’s article that the Ottawa Citizen published from our association on December 16, 2007, which notes, for example:

• The journalist’s trip was paid for by the Chinese Medical Association

• The Chinese Medial Association is funded by the Chinese government and that its mission is to carry out the directives of the Communist party; its president is most often also the Chinese regime’s minister of health;

• The executives of the Chinese Medical Association include the heads of hospitals specifically named in the report on the investigation into Falun Gong organ harvesting authored by Messrs. Kilgour and Matas;

• The Chinese Medical Association has played an active role in the persecution of Falun Gong; CMA leaders have organized forums, published opinion articles and mobilized medical professionals to “firmly carry out the spirit of the Central Party Committee” and “fight the Falun Gong to the end.” These words are from Zhang Wenkang, written in his capacity as both CMA president and Chinese health minister.

In other words, the journalist’s “investigation” into organ harvesting, which he was invited to carry out by the Chinese embassy, was directly paid for by an organization deeply implicated in the crimes he was said to be investigating.

What is even more troubling than this appalling conflict of interest is that Ms. Miville-Dechêne was made aware of this conflict of interest, and that she had described it as a serious violation of journalistic ethics in our face-to-face meeting. Now, without mentioning any possible conflict of interest, she is attempting to sway the Press Council by advocating that they read this article in deciding this case. She also fails to mention a significant response from Mr. Kilgour to this article, also published by the Ottawa Citizen (ATTACHED). Again, she is showing preference for material that supports the stance of Radio-Canada.

Given Ms. Miville-Dechêne’s handling of our complaint, and given that she is now clearly attempting to defend her review and lobby the Press Council to support her position, she cannot be considered a truly independent, objective, and neutral party in this matter, including in her reviewing and commenting on material that Radio-Canada has refused to provide to any other party. Ms. Miville-Dechêne, like Radio-Canada, is a subject of the complaint in this matter and is thus undeserving of any special treatment or influence as a third-party.

Sincerely,

Xun Li

President of Falun Dafa Association of Canada