——第773次茉莉花行动：关于校园死亡、未成年人生命与被封存的真相
采访 / 整理：胡景 编辑：李聪玲 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏
在中国驻洛杉矶领事馆前，第773次茉莉花行动如期举行。
这一次，行动的焦点并非某一具体个案，而是一个反复出现、却始终无法被完整回答的问题——中国校园与未成年人“非正常死亡”事件，为何信息总是迅速被封锁？同时公权力机关对家属进行全力打压？
由于事发地在中国大陆，我们无法去现场采访受害者家属或相关学校人员。本次采访对象，均为长期关注中国人权问题的海外民运与异见人士。他们虽不掌握现场证据，却坚持发声，持续追问那些被制度性掩盖的疑点。
“这不是孤立事件，而是一种反复出现的处理模式。”中国民主党党员黄娟指出，校园与青少年“非正常死亡”案件，在处理方式上呈现出高度一致的结构性特征。她表示，从公开案例与长期观察来看，多个事件中都出现了相似情形：结论被迅速定性为“自杀”或“意外”，关键证据无法核查，监控缺失，尸检、调查过程不透明，而家属及群众的合理质疑，却往往被迅速地纳入“维稳”框架。
“虽然这并不意味着每一个个案背后都有阴谋，但它清楚地说明，真相发现机制存在严重的结构性缺陷。”在黄娟看来，真正的区别不在于“是否发生意外”，而在于事后是否允许对事件进行独立调查、证据是否可复核、结论是否可以被质疑。而在这些案件中，处理目标往往着眼于“降温”和“风险控制”，而非最大限度地还原事实。
“为什么信息被封锁，而且几乎成了常态？”针对信息封锁与对家属的打压，黄娟直言，这并非个别失误，而是一种制度性结果。
未成年人死亡问题高度敏感，不只是因为未成年人处于生命最健康的时期，更因为未成年人是一个家庭的未来，一个家庭的希望。一旦信息公开，极可能引发舆情扩散乃至公众问责。在权力与程序严重不对等的情况下，证据掌握在校方或官方手中，家属却缺乏最基本的调查渠道。当“控制后果”被置于“查明真相”之前，封锁与压制便成了惯性选择。也正因如此，这类事件不断引发公众对“活摘器官”的持续质疑。
“当遗体处理高度封闭、证据无法核查时，客观上已经无法排除最严重的可能性。”“体制拒绝透明，不但无法自证清白，反而不断强化了最严重的指控。”
“如果我们不说话，这个社会就只剩下恐惧。”站在领事馆前的中国民主党党员朱晓娜，从个人经历与一个母亲的视角给出了另一种回答。她说，自己之所以参加这次茉莉花行动，是因为“真的忍不住了”。“一次、两次、三次……太多生命就这样被‘处理掉’，连一个说清楚的机会都没有。”在她看来，校园本应是最安全的地方，而现实却恰恰相反。当孩子在校园里出事，却一次次在沉默中“结案”，当真相被迅速封存、讨论被迅速压制，那种冷漠本身，就是对社会良知的摧毁。她坦言，站出来并非因为不害怕。但更让人害怕的，是未来有一天，当我们回头看时，明明知道不对，却选择了躲开、装作没看见，那是对一个人良心的摧残。但她拒绝被贴上“激进”的标签，因为“真正激进的，是一个连孩子都保护不了的制度。如果在中国，说一句真话是安全的，那么谁还会站在这里？又有谁愿意跨越千山万水，选择背井离乡？”
“我曾经也是那个‘什么都不知道的人’”，中国民主党党员刘芳的发言，则从“无知”开始。她说，在自己还生活在中国时，自己和绝大多数普通人一样，几乎完全不知道活摘器官的问题。新闻中只会强调“成功移植”、“医学进步”，却从不解释：器官是谁的？它从哪里来？为什么来得这么快？
真正的冲击，发生在她来到美国之后。通过接触法轮功组织、查阅大量公开资料、调查报告、证词与医学数据，她一点一点接近了那个从未被允许知道的现实。“这个过程对我来说是非常可怕的，因为我发现，这些事情不是发生在某个陌生的地方，而是发生在我熟悉的城市、医院，发生在我曾经生活的制度里。”她曾经以为，受害者只是被标签化的“少数人”。但后来意识到一个令人毛骨悚然的事实——中国大陆就是现实版的《一九八四》，在这样的极权体制下，每一个普通人，都可能成为潜在受害者，成为待宰羔羊。
她向我们提出了一连串无法被回避的问题：在中国，一个普通的十字路口都可以布满十几个监控，那么——为什么一个孩子在校园里死亡，真相却可以消失？为什么遗体可以在未经家属同意的情况下被转移？监控去了哪里？记录去了哪里？责任又去了哪里？
刘芳还从医学常识的角度指出：器官离体后的存活时间是以小时计算的，而血液配型、交叉配型、运输与手术准备，并不存在所谓的“科学奇迹”。然而这一切是如何安排的这么“井井有条”的？是谁把这样的链条安排的如此“天衣无缝”？所以“这不是技术问题，而是制度问题。”
面对“海外民运没有一手证据却不断发声”的质疑，黄娟的回答直指要害：在一个证据被系统性控制的环境中，要求“先有铁证再发声”，本身就是不可能完成的任务。
海外民运的意义，不在于替代司法定罪，而在于持续记录被压制的疑点，一起发声要求独立调查，防止沉默成为常态，从而尽最大的可能还原真相。“如果今天不追问，真相就会被永久掩埋，责任也会被消失，而风险则会被不断地复制。”
领事馆前的这场抗议并非为了制造对立，更不意味着对抗，而是一种坚持——在一个连追问都是有罪的社会环境之外，为那些再也无法开口的孩子发声，替那些被迫沉默的家属发声，向世界提出两个我们必须直面的问题：
他们到底是怎么死的？
中共何时会公开相关真相？
Questioning in Front of the Consulate
— The 773rd Jasmine Action: Regarding Campus Deaths, the Lives of Minors, and the Sealed Truth
Abstract: The 773rd Jasmine Action was held in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles, focusing on the long-standing issues of information blockade, lack of transparency in investigations, and the suppression of family members regarding unnatural deaths of minors and incidents on Chinese campuses. Overseas dissidents called for independent investigations and sought the truth that has been sealed away.
Interview / Compilation: Hu Jing Editor: Li Congling Proofreading: Feng Reng Translation: Zhou Min
The 773rd Jasmine Action was held as scheduled in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in Los Angeles.
This time, the focus of the action was not a specific individual case, but a recurring question that has never been fully answered: Why is information regarding “unnatural deaths” on Chinese campuses and involving minors always swiftly blockaded? At the same time, why do public security organs exert full efforts to suppress the families?
Because the events take place in Mainland China, we are unable to interview the victims’ families or relevant school personnel on-site. The interviewees for this report are all overseas pro-democracy and dissident figures who have long monitored Chinese human rights issues. Although they do not possess on-site evidence, they persist in speaking out and continuing to question the doubts that are institutionally covered up.
“This is not an isolated incident, but a recurring pattern of handling,” noted Huang Juan, a member of the China Democracy Party. She pointed out that cases of “unnatural deaths” on campuses and among teenagers exhibit highly consistent structural characteristics in how they are handled. She stated that based on public cases and long-term observation, similar situations have appeared in multiple incidents: conclusions are quickly labeled as “suicide” or “accident,” key evidence cannot be verified, surveillance footage goes missing, and the autopsy and investigation processes are opaque. Meanwhile, the reasonable doubts of family members and the public are often swiftly incorporated into a “stability maintenance” framework.
“While this does not mean every individual case has a conspiracy behind it, it clearly illustrates that the truth-discovery mechanism has serious structural flaws,” in Huang Juan’s view. The real difference does not lie in “whether an accident occurred,” but in whether independent investigations are permitted after the fact, whether evidence is reviewable, and whether conclusions can be questioned. In these cases, the handling objectives are often aimed at “cooling down the situation” and “risk control,” rather than maximizing the restoration of facts.
“Why is information blockaded, and why has it become almost a norm?” Regarding the information blockade and the suppression of families, Huang Juan stated directly that this is not an individual error, but an institutional result.
The issue of the death of minors is highly sensitive, not only because minors are in the healthiest period of their lives, but also because they represent the future and hope of a family. Once information is made public, it is extremely likely to trigger the spread of public opinion and even public accountability. In a situation where power and procedures are severely unequal, evidence is held in the hands of the school or officials, while families lack the most basic channels for investigation. When “controlling consequences” is placed ahead of “finding the truth,” blockade and suppression become the habitual choice. It is precisely because of this that such incidents continuously trigger public suspicion regarding “forced organ harvesting.”
“When the handling of remains is highly closed and evidence cannot be verified, it becomes objectively impossible to rule out the most serious possibilities.” “The system’s refusal to be transparent not only fails to prove its innocence but instead continuously strengthens the most serious accusations.”
“If we do not speak, this society will be left with nothing but fear.” Standing in front of the consulate, Zhu Xiaona, a member of the China Democracy Party, provided another answer from her personal experience and the perspective of a mother. She said she participated in this Jasmine Action because she “really couldn’t bear it anymore.” “One, two, three times… too many lives are ‘disposed of’ just like that, without even a chance to explain clearly.” In her view, a campus should be the safest place, yet reality is exactly the opposite. When something happens to a child on campus and the case is “closed” repeatedly in silence, when the truth is quickly sealed and discussion is quickly suppressed, that coldness itself is the destruction of social conscience. She admitted that she did not stand out because she wasn’t afraid. But what is more frightening is that one day in the future, when we look back, knowing something was wrong but choosing to avoid it or pretend not to see it—that is the destruction of a person’s conscience. However, she refuses to be labeled as “radical,” because “what is truly radical is a system that cannot even protect children. If it were safe to tell the truth in China, who would still be standing here? And who would be willing to cross thousands of miles and choose to leave their homeland?”
“I used to be that person who ‘knew nothing,'” began the speech of Liu Fang, a member of the China Democracy Party. She said that while she still lived in China, she, like the vast majority of ordinary people, knew almost nothing about the issue of organ harvesting. The news would only emphasize “successful transplants” and “medical progress,” but never explained: Whose organs were they? Where did they come from? Why did they come so quickly?
The real shock happened after she arrived in the United States. By coming into contact with Falun Gong organizations and reviewing large amounts of public materials, investigation reports, testimonies, and medical data, she bit by bit approached the reality she was never allowed to know. “This process was very terrifying for me because I discovered that these things were not happening in some strange place, but in the cities and hospitals I was familiar with, and within the system I once lived in.” She once thought victims were just a labeled “minority.” But she later realized a hair-raising fact—Mainland China is a real-life version of 1984. Under such a totalitarian system, every ordinary person could become a potential victim, a lamb to be slaughtered.
She posed a series of unavoidable questions to us: In China, an ordinary intersection can be covered with over a dozen surveillance cameras, so—why can the truth disappear when a child dies on campus? Why can remains be transferred without the family’s consent? Where did the surveillance go? Where did the records go? Where did the accountability go?
Liu Fang also pointed out from the perspective of medical common sense: The survival time of an organ after leaving the body is measured in hours, and blood matching, cross-matching, transportation, and surgical preparation do not involve so-called “scientific miracles.” Yet how is all of this arranged so “orderly”? Who arranged such a chain to be so “seamless”? Therefore, “this is not a technical problem, but an institutional problem.”
Facing the skepticism that “overseas pro-democracy movements lack first-hand evidence yet continue to speak out,” Huang Juan’s answer hit the nail on the head: In an environment where evidence is systematically controlled, demanding “ironclad evidence before speaking” is itself an impossible task.
The significance of the overseas pro-democracy movement does not lie in replacing judicial sentencing, but in continuously recording the doubts that are suppressed, speaking out together to demand independent investigations, and preventing silence from becoming the norm, thereby doing the utmost to restore the truth. “If we do not question today, the truth will be permanently buried, responsibility will disappear, and risks will be continuously replicated.”
This protest in front of the consulate is not intended to create confrontation, nor does it signify opposition; rather, it is a form of persistence—to speak for those children who can no longer speak, and for those families who are forced into silence, outside of a social environment where even questioning is a crime, posing two questions to the world that we must face directly:
How exactly did they die?
When will the CCP make the relevant truth public?
