Written evidence submitted by the Society
for the Protection of Unborn Children (SUPC)
1. The Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (SPUC) is a lobbying and educational grassroots membership
organisation, founded in London in 1967 to defend human life from
conception to natural death. SPUC has been invited by parliamentary
committees to submit evidence on a range of topics.
2. SPUC has been concerned about the human
rights abuses which have occurred as a result of China's population
control programme (the "one-child policy") since the
policy's inception. These violations include forced abortions
and sterilisations, infanticide, arbitrary detention, destruction
of property and torture by so-called family planning officials.
3. These concerns and in particular our
concerns about the role of Her Majesty's Government in relation
to China's population control programme were well detailed in
our submissions to the FAC's inquiries into the 2002[7]
and 2003[8]
report. We ask that the FAC re-read these previous submissions
as essential background to this current submission.
4. Our main criticism of the 2004 FCO HR
report is that FCO concern about forced abortion and coercive
family planning is given only two fleeting references, and only
one of these is a direct reference to China's one-child policy:
UK dialogue team visit Xinjiang
As part of the 10th round of the dialogue, part
of the UK delegation spent three days in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous
Region (XUAR), following the theme of economic developments and
human rights, and raising specific concerns about the treatment
of the Muslim Uyghur ethnic group . . . The delegation spent one
night in Kashgar—the first time a western human rights delegation
had visited the city. They raised concerns about religious freedom,
the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, and coercive family
planning with officials from the local government, the police,
the ethnic and religious affairs bureau and the family planning
bureau.
The FCO is at the forefront of UK efforts to
stamp out forced marriage . . . Operating under intense pressure
our consular staff have freed victims from situations of extreme
emotional and physical trauma. They have rescued victims who have
been held captive, raped or forced into having an abortion.
5. This totally inadequate passing reference
to the one-child policy's internationally-documented violations
is a scandal.
6. The fact that the box[9]
on the one-child policy which featured in the 2003 HR Report has
disappeared from the 2004 Report represents an almost total regression
to the 2002 Report's scandalous absence of even a single mention
of the one-child policy.
7. This scandalous lack of any reference
to the one-child policy's internationally-documented violations
is in stark contrast to the annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices submitted by the US State Department to the Committee
on International Relations (US House of Representatives) and the
Committee on Foreign Relations (US Senate). Every year since 1983,
these reports have detailed evidence of these violations.
8. SPUC wishes in particular to bring to
the FAC's attention the case of Mao Hengfeng, which has recently
been reported by Amnesty International and Human Rights in China.
[10]
9. Amnesty International reported on 6 October
this year[11]
that:
Mao Hengfeng was forced to have an abortion,
and dismissed from her job, when she became pregnant in violation
of China's family planning policies 15 years ago. She has been
protesting through official channels ever since, and has reportedly
now been imprisoned and tortured because of her persistence.
According to information received from the New
York based NGO Human Rights in China, Mao Hengfeng was dismissed
from her job in a soap factory in Shanghai in 1988 when she became
pregnant, because she already had a young daughter. She refused
to have an abortion, and was detained in a psychiatric hospital
where she was injected with unknown medication. However, she managed
to continue her pregnancy and give birth to a daughter.
Mao then appealed against her dismissal under
China's Labour Law, and was ordered to be reinstated in her job.
However, the factory where she worked disputed the ruling, and
appealed to a higher court. Mao was seven months pregnant with
her third child at the time of the appeal hearing, when the judge
reportedly told her that if she terminated her pregnancy, he would
rule in her favour.
Mao terminated her pregnancy against her wishes,
but still the court ruled against her, apparently because of her
original violation of family planning policies.
Since then, Mao has repeatedly followed official
procedures to petition the authorities about her dismissal and
against the treatment she suffered at the hands of the police.
She has been detained several times on account of these activities,
and forcibly confined in psychiatric units where she has been
forced to undergo shock therapy. Her daughters, both under the
age of 18, have also reportedly been detained repeatedly by police
and questioned about who is assisting her with her petitions.
Mao was sent to a labour camp by police in Shanghai
in April 2004, to undergo 18 months' "re-education through
labour" (a punishment imposed without charge or trial) because
of her persistence in petitioning the authorities. At the labour
camp she has reportedly been tied up, suspended from the ceiling
and severely beaten. She is facing the possibility of further
abuse.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Amnesty International receives numerous reports
of torture and ill-treatment taking place in a wide variety of
state institutions across China, including police stations, prisons
and "re-education through labour" camps. Common methods
of torture include kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension
by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and deprivation of
sleep and food.
Torture and ill-treatment have also been reported
as a result of China's family planning policies, including forced
abortions and sterilizations. Local birth quotas play a prominent
part in the policy, upheld by stiff penalties as well as rewards.
Women who become pregnant without permission may be punished with
heavy fines, and dismissed from their jobs. With pressure to perform,
some officials have resorted to violence.
In September 2002, a new Population and Family
Planning Law was introduced in a stated attempt to standardize
policies and practice across the country and safeguard citizens'
rights. However, reports of coerced abortions and sterilizations
have continued and few officials are believed to have been brought
to justice or punished for such abuses.
10. What is the FCO doing to prevent such
cases?
11. In light of the 11 January evidence
session with the Minister of State, SPUC requests that the FAC
put the following questions to the Minister of State:
(a) In the course of the drafting of the
2004 Report, was evidence of the one-child policy's human rights
violations considered for inclusion, and if not, why not?
(b) Why has the Report omitted mention of
evidence of the one-child policy's human rights violations?
(c) Was mention of evidence of the one-child
policy's human rights' violations omitted from the Report on the
advice of the Department for International Development and/or
DfID-funded organisations active in China?
(d) Why has the FCO in its Report ignored
evidence published by the US State Department in its annual Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices of the one-child policy's human
rights violations?
(e) Will the Minister give an assurance to
the Committee that the 2005 Report will detail evidence of the
one-child policy's human rights violations?
Anthony Ozimic
Political Secretary
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
14 December 2004
7 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmfaff/589/589ap16.htm Back
8
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/257/257ap04.htm Back
9
p 230, 2003 HR Report Back
10
4 http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=18913&item%5fid=18912 Back
11
http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGASA170512004 Back
|
