That said, if people who haven’t harmed anyone are being imprisoned solely because of their beliefs, regardless of how poorly informed those beliefs are - which this New York Times article discusses - then it’s fair to criticize the state for those actions.
"Haven't harmed anyone" - antivax conspiracy theories have led to the reemergence of all sorts of diseases, so that's already one reason already. But moreover, allowing CIA-backed organizations to operate in a socialist country is a recipe for disaster, and there have been countless cases of leftist projects that were defeated after failing to take the necessary steps to stop the CIA from operating with impunity and installing a fascist. Look at Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran and the CIA coup in the 50's if you want an example of what happens when you go against Western interests and refuse to crack down on foreign subversion because of your principles. Rule number 1 of good policy - you can't do good policy if you're not in power. If a policy results in fascists coming to power, then it's not good policy.
I’m not fully convinced one way or the other, but the arguments were compelling enough for several major governments to speak out against it and pass laws in response.
"Several major governments" will speak out about any random bullshit that makes China look bad. They're the ones who come up with it in the first place!
I’ve also been unable to find rebuttals to the specific evidence. As a contrast, the World Trade Center “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams so it must have been an inside job” conspiracy theories prompted government investigations and a ton of debunking articles that I can easily find via a web search.
Not exactly shocking that there's more articles debunking a claim that makes the US government look bad than there are debunking a claim that makes the Chinese government look bad.
Inference involves making a conclusion by taking evidence and applying logic and reasoning. Not sure why you think that’s “made up.”
Now you're just being a debatebro. Inference is a lower standard of evidence than hard proof. You obviously know this. Given the clear incentives people have to cast China in a bad light and to always assume the worst, and given a track record of made up bullshit in that regard, "inference" from these people is worth less than dogshit.
Let's say I'm at work and my lunch goes missing. If I think that one of my coworkers is the type of person who might steal my lunch, then I might infer that they probably did that. But let's say that any time anything goes wrong, or even when nothing goes wrong, I accuse that coworker of random bullshit that never turns out to be true. At what point do you start saying my so-called "inferences" about this person are just "made up?"
Tribunal:
What Tribunal? What organization was involved, why are they an authority on the topic? Let's see, the full name of that Tribunal was:
"The Independent Tribunal Into Forced Organ Harvesting of Prisoners of Conscience in China," known as the China Tribunal,[66] was initiated in 2018[67] by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China."
I wonder what the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China is going to determine about whether transplant abuse is happening in China? Say, who's on this, anyway?
The China Tribunal was initiated by the charity ETAC, of which "a minority of its committee members are Falun Gong practitioners".[3]
Who would've guessed?
One man, Wang Xiaohua, was imprisoned in a labor camp in Yunnan in 2001 when he and twenty other Falun Gong detainees
Another source that's just "Falun Gong says this."
Israeli authorities arrested several men involved in mediating transplants of Chinese prisoners' organs for Israelis. One of the men had stated in an undercover interview that the organs came from "people who oppose the regime, those sentenced to death and from prisoners of the Falun Gong."
"Haven't harmed anyone" - antivax conspiracy theories have led to the reemergence of all sorts of diseases, so that's already one reason already. But moreover, allowing CIA-backed organizations to operate in a socialist country is a recipe for disaster, and there have been countless cases of leftist projects that were defeated after failing to take the necessary steps to stop the CIA from operating with impunity and installing a fascist. Look at Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran and the CIA coup in the 50's if you want an example of what happens when you go against Western interests and refuse to crack down on foreign subversion because of your principles. Rule number 1 of good policy - you can't do good policy if you're not in power. If a policy results in fascists coming to power, then it's not good policy.
"Several major governments" will speak out about any random bullshit that makes China look bad. They're the ones who come up with it in the first place!
Not exactly shocking that there's more articles debunking a claim that makes the US government look bad than there are debunking a claim that makes the Chinese government look bad.
Now you're just being a debatebro. Inference is a lower standard of evidence than hard proof. You obviously know this. Given the clear incentives people have to cast China in a bad light and to always assume the worst, and given a track record of made up bullshit in that regard, "inference" from these people is worth less than dogshit.
Let's say I'm at work and my lunch goes missing. If I think that one of my coworkers is the type of person who might steal my lunch, then I might infer that they probably did that. But let's say that any time anything goes wrong, or even when nothing goes wrong, I accuse that coworker of random bullshit that never turns out to be true. At what point do you start saying my so-called "inferences" about this person are just "made up?"
What Tribunal? What organization was involved, why are they an authority on the topic? Let's see, the full name of that Tribunal was:
I wonder what the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China is going to determine about whether transplant abuse is happening in China? Say, who's on this, anyway?
Who would've guessed?
Another source that's just "Falun Gong says this."
Source is a book I don't have access to.