Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for Their Organs” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for Their Organs

David Matas,

David Kilgour

4.15 · Rating details · 26 ratings · 2 reviews

Falun Gong is a modern day spiritual/exercise movement which began in China in 1991 drawing on and combining ancient Chinese traditions. The Chinese Communist Party, alarmed at the growth of the movement and fearing for its own ideological supremacy banned the movement in 1999. Falun Gong practitioners were arrested in the hundreds of thousands and asked to recant. If they ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 232 pages

Published October 1st 2009 by Seraphim Editions

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Bloody Harvest, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Bloody Harvest

Lists with This Book

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling

The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories by Angela Carter

Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac McCarthy

Books of Blood

771 books — 76 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-2

Average rating 4.15 ·

Rating details

· 26 ratings · 2 reviews

Sort order

Start your review of Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for Their Organs

Dec 11, 2019 Nathan Faries rated it it was ok

I come to this with an open mind, but also with some questions. Why focus on Falungong and not any other groups (because that is the specific case these researchers were asked to study, and because these are new and more horrible allegations than were common before (those of executed prisoners having their organs sold), i.e., that these are innocent political prisoners who are alive and not scheduled for any kind of "legal" execution begin murdered on the operating table)? "Systematic policy" (7 I come to this with an open mind, but also with some questions. Why focus on Falungong and not any other groups (because that is the specific case these researchers were asked to study, and because these are new and more horrible allegations than were common before (those of executed prisoners having their organs sold), i.e., that these are innocent political prisoners who are alive and not scheduled for any kind of "legal" execution begin murdered on the operating table)? "Systematic policy" (7)? "Large numbers"? Hard to countenance. Why write to the embassy to ask permission to travel to China to investigate? You know they are not going to give permission to travel for this purpose. The point, probably, and the best they can do, is to publicize, to let the government know they are being watched from the outside. Yet couldn't they have traveled to China as tourists, done a better job of investigating (which is their primary task, suppposedly), and then still have let China know with the same letter afterward? Also, what is the deal with the letter from the Falungong group making the allegations and requesting investigation? "We understand you will give us your report by such and such a date"? Is this bad English? Is this legal document speech with which I am unfamiliar? Or was the investigation initiated earlier than the letter through personal contacts or by Matas himself? Why not tell us all that?

Here's my take (before I've read their evidence): The allegations are horrific and hard to believe--as they prepare us in their opening. Hard to believe because they are horrific, but also because the claim seems to be complicity by the central government, which is very hard to believe. It is possible someone very high up in the government could know about this and be involved in this. It is not possible that the CCP, or any reasonable-size subset of the party leadership (more than two or three, I would say) is involved in this sort of practice, and it is impossible that there could be a stated secret policy from on high ordering this to which the central government has signed its name.

On the other hand, it is very easy to believe this sort of thing can happen in China somewhere. It is easy to believe this sort of thing can happen in the US somewhere, too. But it is easy to believe that it could happen more often and more easily in China. When you have a lucrative market for organs and you have "non-persons" like condemned prisoners (or the handicapped or indigent or dangerous cult members) and you have a legal system that is not as transparent or free of corruption as the US system, it's hard for to me to believe that this sort of practice would not be done, even in some cases with very good intentions and rationalization going on by non-evil people. "These prisoners are going to be executed anyway. Why waste their organs? Someone can be helped. Why shouldn't I be helped by this as well."

But back on the other hand, it is hard to believe that Falungong prisoners would be a very attractive target for such practices. Even if it became common in some prisons/hospitals/cities/provinces, this would never be a safe, government-protected practice, any more than taking bribes would be (also extremely common, but also commonly prosecuted). You might feel safe to commit these acts because you know your local government or the prison officials or whoever is most immediately in charge is paid off or helping out, yet you also know that your local people have enemies, that there are factions even here nearby, not to mention the fact that your higher-ups have higher-ups, and there are more factions there, and not to mention the fact that you know the central government has powerful factions and that the central government, if your practice were exposed, would be forced to act and crack down to end the practice, and that there are plenty of people, inside and outside the Party, who would find this practice reprehensible and would like to crack down on you if they had the chance if they knew what you were doing, whether or not the rest of the world finds out.

Knowing all this, the Falungong prisoners--some of the most watched and talked about political prisoners in China in recent years, with human rights groups specifically focused on their well-being, some groups created out of the crisis and dedicated solely to watching out for their adherents--would not be the most discrete or safest targets to kill in this way.

If you're doing this horrible thing, you're doing it for money, and you want to keep the money flowing. It's business. Now maybe their supply of other human options was running low so they were willing to take more risks. But still this way of arguing makes me hard to convince that this is "systematic policy" or could possibly involve "large numbers." Of course, if it happened once, that's enough, but still I question then the focus on Falungong. The Falungong have money, and they are able to fund this sort of politically motivated research; all those other petty criminals of China and their families are not so capable of getting their message out.

Am I any more convinced after one chapter. Maybe a little, but not on the big points. What I see immediately (p. 18) is that these authors are willing to simplify the label for the perpetrators. They are willing to lay any and all human rights abuses in China at the feet of the state, the CCP, Communist China, and not deal with the complexity of multiple levels of government and factionalism in each level. I don't think I can possibly be convinced that this practice is a directive from a unified CCP at the national level. That seems impossible. If these writers are able to simplify the facts about how "girl children are killed, abandoned and neglected in massive numbers" and claim that is an example of "Communist China" perpretrating "massive, jaw-dropping cruelty toward its own citizens," then I have real questions about their honesty on the overarching question of who is responsible for this alleged horror. I can definitely lay indirect responsibility at the feet of the government, but not direct (unless they have better proof). I don't like this way of going about the argument; again, it simplifies the CCP-controlled central government until it is some ridiculous dark-room cabal.

Furthermore, I can understand the government's concern about the massive, unexpected protest in April of 1999. That's going to freak out any government, China's more than most. And the scale of the protests that day and in the following months and years makes me question the author's insistence that this is not an "evil cult," but merely "a set of peaceful, healthful exercises with a spiritual foundation" (17) and Li Hongzhi a detached reclusive leader who does not issue directives to his "followers." How about something in between these two labels? If it's true that 830,000 followers have been arrested in Beijing, many of them traveling from around the country to come and protest, this is much more like a religion than an exercise regimen. These people are not risking arrest and death just to do their tai chi in peace.

I still do not doubt that this sort of thing could happen in China, is likely to happen even, more likely than in the US (though there is potential here as well, and something similar probably has happened at one time or another, not just in urban legend movies), but I also see some weaknesses here, and I see the vast amounts of money and political power behind the Falungong as there is behind the Tibet movement, and I question whether this approach--advertising these claims and putting them directly at the feet of party policy--is useful or honest.

How about, "We know we agree that if this action were taking place that it would be reprehensible to your government as it is to us. Yet we are hearing that this might be happening. Can you look into it and stop it if you find evidence?" Naive? Maybe. But less naive than writing to the ambassador asking if two Canadians can receive official permission to go investigate. Less naive than believing the entire upper-level of the Communist Party is calling up prisons and secretly telling them to harvest Falungong organs.

Furthermore, I'm reminded by my e-mails this morning that abortion as sex-selection is not just a Chinese problem. We do this all over the world, and this is a moral evil--possibly worse definitely wider-scale than anything this book discusses--that we were led to gradually and that we can to some extent put at the feet of our government and also take on the burden for ourselves. My point? Again that this is not a "Communist" problem or a "China" problem, narrow, simplistic, and possibly racist views that emerge from this sort of book (evil Fu Manchu overlords, Yellow Peril, those sexist Chinese who just want boys), but it is possibly a problem over which we need to discuss with the Chinese government like human beings. And furthermore, I hope Matas and Kilgour are pro-life. That does matter to me. Their consistency in these human rights issues. If they are legislating in pro-choice ways in Canada--which lead to massive killings of innocent victims, including many because they are female or disabled--while they condemn China over allegations like this, then damn them!

First victims chapter: yes, these stories are horrible, and I don't doubt them for a second, and the numbers of victims surprise me. I'll keep reading. Don't know if I'll be convinced in the end or not. I think my earlier objections will hold. I guess I can't be any more convinced than I already am. I'm sure this could happen, and wouldn't be surprised if it did happen. This chapter doesn't get us there, yet, but it does put that human face on the victims that is really important. My objection is all about not having a human face on the government. Am I being too liberal? Too conservative? Why do I get upset by all this and still tend to blame the victim? Just like with Tian'anmen and with Liu Xiaodong, I just wonder if all this suffering is worth it, and I see leaders in the movements who I feel are foolish and partly to blame for letting this continue. Why are all these people suffering for Falungong and Li Hongzhi? Couldn't Li Hongzhi stop them if he wanted to, or at least advise them to stop? I get angry at this suffering and want it to stop as soon as possible, and, yes, I see the easiest way to achieve this in the hands of the victims. Falun Dafa is not worth the fight.

OK. Chapters 5 and 6 got me. I feel sick. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review