Kirsten Andersen

,

Chen Guangcheng’s brother: government viciously beat my wife, son

Kirsten Andersen
Kirsten Andersen
Image

LINYI, Shangdong, China, December 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The brother of prominent human rights activist Chen Guangcheng has spoken out after his son was sentenced to more than three years in prison for defending himself against government agents who invaded his house in the middle of the night searching for his uncle. The U.S. State Department has called the process that led to his conviction “deeply flawed.” 

Chen Kegui was arrested in May, just after his famous uncle escaped his own 18-month house arrest and sought shelter at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.  The mayor of the Chens’ village, Zhang Jian, who was responsible for Chen Guangcheng’s imprisonment, was reportedly enraged by the escape and sent a nighttime search party to raid the home of Chen’s brother, Chen Guangfu.  When Zhang’s men arrived, they began savagely beating the Chen family and ransacking the home. 

Chen Guangfu says his son, Chen Kegui, thought the family was being robbed and grabbed a kitchen knife, which he used to defend himself against his attackers. His resistance caused minor injuries to some of his assailants.  He ran away, but later turned himself in and was taken into custody, where he has remained since.  At first, he was charged with “intentional homicide,” but the charges were later reduced to “intentional injury.”

Chen Kegui was convicted and sentenced on Nov. 30 by the Yinan County People’s Court in Shandong province.  The Court found him guilty in a hastily-arranged afternoon trial from which his family was barred.  The trial was held without notifying Chen Kegui’s attorneys, who said they found out about it only after they started receiving calls about it from the media, according to Ding Xikui, one of Chen’s lawyers.  Chen Kegui was instead represented by a court-appointed lawyer.

Chen Guangfu issued a three-page statement condemning the government’s handling of the case and disputing its verdict.  He said that many of the witnesses’ statements had been taken out of context or falsified. He also said Chen Kegui’s statements and the police department’s investigation, assessments and physical evidence were fabricated by the government.

In his statement, Chen Guangfu describes in detail what happened the night of the raid at his home:

After they had kidnapped me, about 20 minutes later, Zhang Jian led a bunch of unidentified people and barged into my home without any kind of legal procedure being followed and went around at will, opening doors and going through closets, searching my whole house and seizing cash, cellphones, address book and other items.  They also started to savagely beat Chen Kegui’s mother and smashed the TV, sewing machine, furniture and the locks on many drawers. One thug who entered Kegui’s room had a wooden club and he got into an all-out brawl with him, fighting from the room to the outside, from inside the house out to the yard, hitting him repeatedly in the face, neck, arms and legs and inflicting multiple injuries.  Kegui shouted to his mother for help and she tried to protect him by putting her arms around him, but Kegui said, “Mom, I’m about to be beaten to death and you’re still holding on to me?” Then these totally inhuman thugs grabbed Kegui’s mother’s hair and started to savagely beat her.  At this dangerous juncture in which, if he didn’t defend himself, he would be beaten to death, Kegui grabbed a cleaver.  But he didn’t immediately use it.  Just then, Zhang Jian ordered the many thugs he brought with him to “Grab hold of him!” and the thugs swarmed him.  Kegui was left with no alternative but to brandish the knife in self-defense. But at the trial, they are euphemistically saying that the beating, smashing and seizing was “looking for a cellphone.”

Chen Guangcheng, who now lives in New York, told the Associated Press that he was furious about the court’s decision.

“This is a case that tramples on the rule of law,” he said.  “It is a declaration of war against fairness and justice in the world. I absolutely cannot accept this and am very, very angry.”

“There is no doubt that this is a kind of retaliation against me.”

Chen Guangcheng has long been targeted for retribution by the Communist Party for exposing brutal forced abortions and sterilizations China used to enforce its one-child policy.

The questionable circumstances surrounding Chen Kegui’s arrest and conviction have led to strong criticism from international observers.

Bob Fu, founder and president of China Aid, a human rights watchdog group, said, “The trial of Chen Kegui was nothing but an act of revenge against Chen Guangcheng through political manipulation.  It is lacking in any element of due process.  Instead of punishing Chen Kegui for acting in self defense out of fear for his life, those abusive criminal officials should be brought to justice.”

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the conviction was a violation of Chen Kegui’s human rights.

“We are deeply disturbed about reports that Chen Kegui, the nephew of human rights advocate Chen Guangcheng, was tried and convicted in a legal proceeding in China that lacked basic due process guarantees,” Nuland said.

“He was convicted in a summary trial in which he was not fully represented by legal counsel of his choosing. He didn’t have an opportunity to present his own defense. So this was a deeply flawed legal process.”

Reps. Chris Smith and Sherrod Brown, cochairmen of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, released a joint statement saying, “[W]e are deeply dismayed to learn that authorities have sentenced Chen Kegui, nephew of renowned legal advocate Chen Guangcheng, to more than three years in prison, in a trial marred from beginning to end by glaring procedural violations. Authorities’ treatment of this case raises serious questions about the rule of law in China.”

“We remind the Chinese government that it has not yet fulfilled its promise to investigate the illegal actions taken against Chen Guangcheng, and we reiterate our calls for a thorough investigation and prompt punishment of injustices committed against Chen and his family at the hands of officials,” said the Congressmen.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also condemned the verdict.  She called for Chen Kegui’s release. “The decision by Chinese authorities to sentence Chen Guangcheng’s nephew, Chen Kegui, to prison for simply defending himself and his family is an affront to the rule of law and due process,” Pelosi said in a statement.  “Chen Kegui should be released from prison, immediately and unconditionally.”


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook