Archive for the ‘news’ Category

A minorities’ delusion – “interracial marriages will end White supremacy”

May 29, 2018

This is the best article I’ve read on the Royal Wedding, from a Black scholar – Opinion: The #RoyalWedding was never going to be a vehicle for racial progress  Contrary to his view is Al Sharpton’s that the White supremacy is now on its last breath. This reminds me of that, not long ago, an Asian woman wrote an article implying the right wing #WHITEsupremacist had accepted Asians as their equals, because some of them are married to Asian women. And now Al Sharpton sees the #RoyalWedding the same way.

The #RoyalWedding was very beautiful, I most sincerely wish Prince Harry and Meghan live happily ever after. It is indeed a great progress against #WhiteSupremacy. However, it’s a delusion that #WhiteSupremacy is now on its last breath, just because of some kind of interracial marriage, or marriage with the royals. Prince Harry must be a very nice and kind man. His choice may reflect the progress of the royals and the society, but I believe mainly because of his own personal reasons.

Will interracial marriages end White supremacy? Eventually yes, I believe  – when the great majority of the whole population in Western societies are mixed blood, and when the minorities are all as rich and successful as the Whites. But that has a long, long way to go. Maybe next century. And I don’t think the Whites would do nothing and sit there watching …

In our times, it will be really delusional to think interracial marriages or marriage with royals would eliminate White supremacy. Any change would mainly take place at an individual level. Whether a person is racist or not has not much to do with interracial marriage.  The main reason for the delusion of the minorities is that they all have the tendency to overestimate the importance of interracial marriages, or even marriage itself, culturally.

Because, for most of the people in the White culture, when it comes to interracial marriage, it would never be of the same importance as the minorities believe. Marriage to a spouse of minority does not make a racist not racist any more. He or she marries you might be just for some kind of special personal needs, and has nothing to do with his values. It’s somehow like “pet love”, they love their spouse and mixed children like loving pets, but will the pets become their equals? No, in most cases, never. Needless to say the kind of ethnic group of people that their spouses belong.

We would make irreversible mistakes to think the otherwise. And this is exact mistake I made that costed me of my whole life. Take a look at my story – racial persecution on an Asian student started by two White professors who are both married to Asian women, and my delusion on interracial marriage played a key role in it, you will know in White culture, blood is thicker than water, this blood means that from the same ethnic ancestry, not necessarily from the same family. Particularly so when there is a conflict between these two kinds of blood.

My story is a text perfect illustration: it all started from a White professor David Waterhouse of University of Toronto teaching us his White supremacist theory on art history studies. Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P1Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P4

This professor Waterhouse taught us “beauty” is an “European concept”, that others like Asians did not have in history, called to establish a “biological approach” to art history study, and to revive a Nazi Germany racist theory called “Style”. And this White supremacist professor’s married to a Japanese woman.

I disagreed. When Waterhouse eventually acknowledged his loss to me for this dispute, he retaliated against me with a series of fraud that failed my Ph.D application. I complained to Ontario Human Rights Commission. Commission asked me to pick 2 experts for anonymous rereading of my paper that challenged Waterhouse’ theory and that I claimed as under graded by him as a retaliation.

I chose two professors, one was Professor Sullivan from the UK, and the other James Cahill, in the Chinese Art History Department at the University of California, Berkeley. They both are renowned professors, and also, both were married to Chinese women, which I believed, would make them not racist. Professor Sullivan got married to a Chinese woman decades ago. Cahill had only recently married his current wife, a student of his from mainland China, 27 years’ his junior.

Cahill called the OHRC (the Commission), commented that my paper was “Quit good”, but he was reluctant to give a written grade as he was supposed to do, and said he would not get involved in an unknown situation, as he himself had problems with some of his Chinese students before as well. I was not surprised by that since Waterhouse already told us in class that Cahill exploited the intellectual products of his Chinese students to get his fame.

The OHRC disclosed my dispute with Waterhouse and sent Waterhouse’ article to him, in violation of the university’s “anonymous rereading” policy.
In April of 1995, Cahill faxed his written Opinion to OHRC, the Commission officer Alan Strojin called me from Hamilton to tell me about it. When Strojin read it to me, I was totally shocked, not merely because Cahill’s oral assessment of my paper “Quit good” now became a low B grade, and he backed up Waterhouse in the dispute on concept of beauty, but because that Cahill himself openly acknowledged his own politically motivated wrong doing –

On basically every issue that he concluded against me in his Opinion, Cahill would at the same time acknowledge that he was in fact fully aware of the truth that was contrary to his conclusion.

Such as, while acknowledging the university policy that rereading must be anonymous without knowledge of any background circumstances involved in the dispute, Cahill deliberately disclosed in this Opinion that he had acquired even very detailed knowledge and supposedly confidential information on the disputes on my paper and my dispute with Waterhouse, clearly implying that behind my back, he had already made intimate exchange of information with U of Toronto or even Waterhouse himself -a knowing violation of the university’s re-reading rules. And based on such knowledge he gave my paper the same – B and for same reason of “poor English”, all consistent with Waterhouse.

When finding that I misunderstood Waterhouse’ article because of my “misunderstanding” because of my “poor English”, Cahill wrote that I “quotes P as saying things I can’t imagine he did, since they also don’t make sense”. This is an acknowledgement of his real opinion on Waterhouse’ article, for what I quoted is not mistaken but black and white in Waterhouse’s paper, no English issue involved.

While giving me a poor grade, Cahill acknowledged “As for S’s paper: it is a very ambitious piece of work, with notable strengths; a good mind is clearly at work here. Good points are made, and valuable insights expressed.” While blaming my “poor English”, Cahill would also comment to the opposite that I had “attained an admirable degree of proficiency for a non-native user”; etc.
And while acknowledging that the rereading must be only based on the merits of the paper in dispute, in the first beginning of his “expert’s opinion” Cahill confessed that political considerations upon my human rights Complaint changed his assessment of my paper – “At the beginning, when I thought it was simply a matter of assessing the paper and saying what I thought a fair grade would be, the matter seemed fairly straight forward. Of course the basic issue is still that. But some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the paper and the grade certainly complicates the matter.”

Why would he do so? Usually people would take serious measures to cover up their own wrong doings. But Cahill made such an open confession that he knew what he was doing –he deliberately did the wrong thing for he actually knew it was contrary to the truth, and that he did it for a political/racial purpose.

The only conclusion can be that he was making a show. He was not only out to save Waterhouse from being punished for his racist reprisal against me, but also he was taking this opportunity to show Waterhouse and all other Whites involved – that as the old English saying: “Maybe he is a son of bitch, but he is our own son of bitch”. No matter how viciously racist Waterhouse was, he would back him up, because he was one of his own kind. Second he wanted to show me – how dare and how stupid you Chinese are, to think that since I’m married to a Chinese woman, I would do justice to you against one of my really own?

This of course, is racism, and is White supremacy, for which he would sacrifice any other kind of people, including those related to him by way of marriage, maybe even including his own spouse and children when needed?

As a result of his expert’s opinion, I was criminalized – for when I was shocked on the phone with the OHRC officer Strojin, I ranted “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too”, and was found guilty for threat to Waterhouse by the court. I am now a true “criminal of thoughts”. For the concept of beauty. And lost everything in my life.

Lesson? Both Cahill’s and Waterhouse’ marriage to Asian woman never ended their racism and White supremacy. Perhaps even enforced that in them,  particularly in Cahill’s case a 27 years’ younger Chinese woman would marry him, in his pass retirement age, that made him feel the supremacy of his Whiteness status, and despise  the Chinese even more.
I hope my lesson can benefit every minority, including those who are celebrating the royal wedding.

Advertisements

When the White Supremacist TAs Go On to Become Professors …

October 20, 2017

On this topic – Should a Racist Grade Your Papers? Students Discover White Supremacists Teaching at Their Universities, I have the highest credentials to complete the discovery for these brilliant students and the author of this article – these White supremacist TAs discovered by the students will go on to become professors at privileged universities, receive fat salaries, possibly even get married to Asian women …while continuing spewing out their White supremacy theories in their classroom teaching…and then when their theory get a substantial challenge from a student of color, in my case a Chinese graduate student like me, they will retaliate such as observed by this article: grading down your papers, even falsifying grades…etc., to defeat you. And then when you start complaining to university – the university and later the government will join the professor to actually make you a criminal of thought. That will finish your whole life. This is what happened to me, a true story.

This is a story that I, a person of color ended up in jail for my free speech challenging White supremacy. A White professor (David Waterhouse of U of Toronto) taught us in class that beauty is a European concept, and Asians did not have such a concept in history, so we need a “biological approach” in art history study, and call for re-establishing a notorious Nazi theory that has been criticized by some Jewish scholars as significantly promoting race feelings in 1930s. But I disagreed with that and proved to him in my paper that we Asians and all humans did have the concept of beauty in history, so it’s not a White privilege. He then wrote on my paper he had to agree with my findings. Then first Waterhouse mocked me saying “China has been far left behind history, yet some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions…”, second he retaliated me with fraud over my grade and student record that failed my Ph.D application behind my back. When I discovered and complained about his racist retaliation, he said he could not be racist since he is married to a Japanese woman. And the University officials defended him at my accusation of his Nazi theory saying “That’s his freedom of speech”, and gave me no response to my claim that I also have free speech to challenge White supremacy.

Then when I complained to The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), another White professor got James Cahill of Art History Dept., U of Berkeley, got involved as an expert for a second opinion for my paper that I claimed being graded down for it challenged Waterhouse’ White supremacy theory. I picked him because he was married to a Chinese woman, (his student, 27 years of his junior, his number X wife?) But I didn’t know marrying to a Chinese wife does not change a White supremacist, and Cahill already had problems with his Chinese students previously. Now he seized the chance to retaliate the Chinese to maintain his White supremacy. He graded my paper in line with Waterhouse, and disclosed his unlawful behind door communication with the U of Toronto to provoke my anger for a malicious prosecution plot. Upon his Opinion, the persecution of me started at the Commission.

First the Commission coerced me into testifying my thoughts to the Commission, assuring me under law nothing in my testimony could be used against me, then Commission officer Alan Strojin solicited my thoughts as to “what are you going to do now?” when telling me over the phone that the Commission would dismiss my case on basis of Cahill’s Opinion. I desperately cried and ranted on phone that “if they are going to kill me, not only me die”, they charged me for this testimony for “threatening Waterhouse”. A judge convicted me in total disregard of the Canadian Charter right against self-incrimination, and on his admitted “guessing” that I “meant” to threaten Waterhouse in my mind despite I never even mentioned his name in my ranting. So I have literally become a real “criminal of thoughts” made by Canadian and US governments. Now I have been expelled from employment, from the society, all because of my “criminal record”.  Meanwhile, all the true criminals who committed crimes against me during my struggle go Scot free, being harbored by the criminal justice systems of Canada and USA, such as Alan Strojin, and James Cahill’s perjuries in courts of US and Canadian, and death threats against me by online US government agents, etc.

I’m glad I did a search on White supremacy this morning and saw this article of Roots on the top of the search result. Thanks to the author and the students. Hope the younger generations of students of color will know more about White supremacy, and be prepared.

 

A free speech irony: CBC censored my free speech story in the comment section of its news story about free speech

February 25, 2017

CBC,  Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada’s national public radio and television broadcaster,  censored my free speech story that I posted in the comment section of their news story about free speech. Nowadays the comments are often closed for commenting. And once it is open, my comments will always go through a process of “being moderated by the site administrator”. Often they disabled the content of my comment when it relates to my story of being victim of racism and persecution. This time through, it is particularly ironic because the news story was reporting right about the free speech issue raised in the  M103 controversy.

So much for free speech and  all those people claiming that they object M103 because of free speech -you are not saying one word?

Well at least this time the Canadian government is doing good for M103 that I would applaud. Because the Muslim people are a politically active and powerful people (with many young leaders like MP Iqra Khalid) so that the government cannot ignore and can hardly do bad to you like to me. I admire you, keep fighting on. Victory belongs to those who stand up for themselves. And MP Iqra Khalid, stay strong as always.

— My free speech story that has been censored by CBC:

The so called free speech is only a White privilege in Canada. A person of color might even end up in jail for his/her free speech. My story is the best example. A White professor had the free speech to tell me in class that beauty is a European concept, and Asians did not have such a concept in history, so we need a “biological approach” in art history study. But I did not have the free speech to answer him that we Asians did have the concept of beauty in history, because when I did so I had to pay the price of my whole life. First the professor (David Waterhouse of U of Toronto) mocked me saying “China has been far left behind history, yet some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions…”, second he retaliated me with fraud over my grade and student record that failed my Ph.D application. Then when I complained to The Ontario human rights commission, first the Commission coerced me into testifying my thoughts to the Commission, assuring me under law nothing in my testimony could be used against me, then Commission officer Alan Strojin solicited my thoughts as to “what are you going to do now?” when telling me over the phone that the Commission would dismiss my case on basis of an Expert’s Opinion by a White professor, James Cahill of U of Berkeley, and then when I desperately cried and ranted on phone that “if they are going to kill me, not only me die”, they charged me for this testimony for “threatening Waterhouse”. Judge Knazan convicted me in total disregard of the Canadian Charter right against self-incrimination, and on his admitted “guessing” that I “meant” to threaten Waterhouse in my mind despite I never even mentioned his name in my ranting. So I have literally become a real “criminal of thoughts” made by Canadian and US governments. Now I have been expelled from employment, from the society, all because of my “criminal record”. This is a real “free speech” story.

The so called free speech is only a White privilege

February 22, 2017

Lately in Canada, free speech has become the most heated topic in news media in relation to a motion, M103, tabled by MP Iqra Khalid. I am in strong support of the motion. Six innocent lives have been lost, a motion to condemn Islamphobia and all kinds of hate speech and systemic racism, that’s really so little for the Muslim community to ask. I strongly support the motion. Nowadays, the racist hate speeches against the racial minorities are going wild. This is a much-needed motion. Thank you MP Iqra Khalid!

The so called free speech is only a White privilege in Canada. A person of color might even end up in jail for his/her free speech. My story is the best example. A White professor had the free speech to tell me in class that beauty is a European concept, and Asians did not have such a concept in history, so we need a “biological approach” in art history study. But I did not have the free speech to answer him that we Asians did have the concept of beauty in history, because when I did so I had to pay the price of my whole life. First the professor (David Waterhouse of U of Toronto) mocked me saying “China has been far left behind history, yet some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions…”, second he retaliated me with fraud over my grade and student record that failed my Ph.D application. Then when I complained to The Ontario human rights commission, first the Commission coerced me into testifying my thoughts to the Commission, assuring me under law nothing in my testimony could be used against me, then Commission officer Alan Strojin solicited my thoughts as to “what are you going to do now?” when telling me over the phone that the Commission would dismiss my case on basis of an Expert’s Opinion by a White professor, James Cahill of U of Berkeley, and then when I desperately cried and ranted on phone that “if they are going to kill me, not only me die”, they charged me for this testimony for “threatening Waterhouse”. Judge Knazan convicted me in total disregard of the Canadian Charter right against self-incrimination, and on his admitted “guessing” that I “meant” to threaten Waterhouse in my mind despite I never even mentioned his name in my ranting. So I have literally become a real “criminal of thoughts” made by Canadian and US governments. Now I have been expelled from employment, from the society, all because of my “criminal record”. This is a real “free speech” story.

My posts on Google+ and Facebook are quietly disappearing!

December 25, 2015

My posts on Google+ and Facebook are quietly disappearing! The ones that I posted on Google+ prior to July of 2015 have already completely gone, while the ones I posted on Facebook only dated back to May 2015. All the older posts that I had been posting for years are gone. Facebook and Google+ are censoring my posts since long time ago, but still completely erasing all my posts is really bold. They teared up their veils of “free speech”, “Internet freedom”, etc. All because I have been posting about my story of being racially persecuted by governments of Canada and US. 

My story: Just because I disputed a White professor’s theory that “beautiful” is a European concept and other peoples learned to appreciate “beautiful” from the Europeans, did I end up a criminal of thoughts – being charged for a crime of “threat” the government forced me to commit, arrested 3 times, imprisoned for 8 days, convicted for threatening the White professor in my mind, lost all jobs, unemployed since, barred from Internet speaking even by the US and Canadian governments. Yes, all these happened in Canada and US. And the UN’s so called “human rights bodies” refuses to hear my complaints. https://wanxialiao.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/criminalized-by-canada-and-usa-for-dispute-of-beauty-is-a-european-concept-part-i/

Criminalized by Canada and USA for dispute of “beauty is a European concept” Part I.

October 15, 2015

I was criminalized and lost everything in life, only because I disagreed with a White professor’s theory that beauty is a European concept, and complained against his retaliation. I was convicted for a crime that the Canadian government forced me to commit by compelling me to testify at Ontario Human Rights Commission and then charged me for my testimony as “threat” to the professor. A judge convicted me on his admitted guessing that I “meant” to threaten the professor in my mind.

I came to Canada in 1989 from China on a student visa. Previously I had university education and was a teacher in China. In 1991, I was registered in a Master program in the East Asia Studies Department of the University of Toronto (U of T), and took a Chinese art history course with an Asian art history professor David Waterhouse.

In February 1991, Waterhouse instructed us to study his recent research paper about his theory on “the concept of beauty”. His theory was based on Asian-European cross-cultural comparative studies. He told us that, Adam and Eve in the Genesis story of The Bible appreciated “Every tree is pleasant to sight”, “it was the first aesthetic response in history “, but Asians did not have the concept of beauty in history, for that “beautiful” this word in Indian and Japanese languages did not originally mean the same as Adam and Eve’s appreciation of “pleasant to sight”, but meant something else such as good taste of food, etc. He then concluded: “We can safely identify ‘beautiful’ this shopworn epithet is a European concept.”

I asked out of curiosity: “So what’s the origin of the English word ‘beautiful’?” Waterhouse could not answer, but continued to read that, if the concept of beauty is applied to Asian art, “we may be extending the meaning of this concept and possibly creating confusions about it.”

Waterhouse’s paper also openly calls to revive a 1930’s German art history theory called Style, a theory of aesthetic analysis based upon the concept of biological or racial characteristics that was criticized by famous American art historian Meyer Schapiro for “played a significant role in promoting national consciousness and race feeling.”

In the following class, Waterhouse said that he had checked out that the English word “beautiful” was borrowed from Latin language originally. I said: “The Chinese word ‘beautiful’ is one of the earliest Chinese characters inscribed on oracle bones, dated from 16-11 B.C., and it originally meant ‘pleasant to sight’.” Waterhouse said he would consider my opinion.

Two months later, Waterhouse read an article in the class which he wrote about a Chinese contemporary artist/art historian C.C. Wong in US. He read:”…Despite the well-known fact that China has been far left behind history, some Chinese people are still very keen to claim historical inventions and achievements… … despite C.C. Wong he himself now lives in Washington D.C….” I felt it was hinting at my dispute with him on the concept of beauty and was very upset.

I later assumed that maybe because I’d only offered the evidences on the concept of beauty from Chinese sources, Waterhouse misunderstood that I was trying to rival with him to claim the concept of beauty as a “Chinese invention”. So when I wrote my middle term essay and had to come across the topic of aesthetics in Chinese art history, I thought it might be a good chance for me to clear up the “misunderstanding”. So while I cited briefly about Chinese people’s appreciation of beauty in history, I cited to a large extent of that from other sources such as Australia Natives, Africans, etc. to prove that the concept of “beautiful” is universal to all human beings in history since it was rooted in human being’s biological instinct.

Waterhouse then wrote in his comments to my paper: “The best part of this paper is in the last section where you have collected early Chinese passages which show appreciation of ‘beautiful’. I have to agree with your findings here.” I was disappointed that Waterhouse would only single out the Chinese sources in my paper to respond. His sensitivity toward the Chinese source later was extended to the university. In a decision to deny my Complaint, the U of T characterized the dispute as: “In considering the concept of ‘beauty’, Prof. Waterhouse was said to conclude that concept was European in origin. Ms. Liao, in her paper, was concerned to demonstrate that ‘beauty’ was a very old Chinese concept.”

After the dispute, Waterhouse retaliated against me in purpose to interfere with my Ph.D application by a series of fraud, in violation of the university’s grading systems and academic regulations: a). Faking a B as final grade of the course for me while I was still taking the course with him and submitted it to the Graduate School and the department admission committee;  b). Lied to the school clerk in reply to the clerk’s inquiry about the course designation error on the grade submission form to get the grade entered; c). Bypassing the department chair for grade approving as required by the university’s grading policy, the Chair was Asian (Korean); d). Providing a reference letter to the Committee for my Ph.D application in that he falsified a capacity for himself as my program supervisor to object my application; etc.

(To be continued).

Waterhouse Comment on my paper: “The best part of this paper is in the last section where you have collected early Chinese passages which show appreciation of ‘beautiful’. I have to agree with your findings here.”

Waterhouse Comment on my paper: “The best part of this paper is in the last section where you have collected early Chinese passages which show appreciation of ‘beautiful’. I have to agree with your findings here.”

Waterhouse's fraudulent Grade for my paper

Waterhouse’s fraudulent Grade for my paper

The cop is the thef – how the UN violates my free speech rights and its own Charter

October 15, 2015

I have been banned again from commenting by UN on its Facebook page, for the second time, after I exposed UN’s new tricks of censorship on my post. As a note to banning me, the UN began to acknowledge that it deleted some comments, for reason of “not related to the content of this post”. This is certainly not the reason for banning me. My posts for most of time are related to the content of the UN posts, and until now, there are still a lot of posts by other IDs that are not “related” to the content of UN posts. Further question to UN: why then, the UN’s rights bodies would go around the world admonishing those developing countries for “political censorship” in violation of free speech rights? Like in China’s case, the social media there only did exactly what the UN is doing, not allowing certain “off topic” etc. posts. Yet what Chinese media did has been labeled by UN’s human rights country report and US Department of State’s human rights report as “political censorship” or media “self censorship/restraint”, etc. Is this “Do as I say, not as I do”? A complete hypocrisy. A total tyranny. The UN has tried hard to silence me, first banning me from commenting, after I registered another ID to come again, programming out my post from other people’s view while still in my view – what a disgraceful trick. I wonder what kind of right you have to call yourself the United Nations? It ought to be called the United Nations of the USA.

Since the UN fears my posts so much as to go out of line to ban me repeatedly and play tricks to hide my posts, my story must be of great significance in revealing the Western powers’ human rights hypocrisy.

“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them”

August 25, 2015
“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them. So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don’t give a damn about what you think.” This is what I received when I was posting on Yahoo message board about my story of being racially persecuted by Canada and US governments. He further goes on to tell me that those Defendants of my human rights case would rather “get rid of you” in stead of “having to face your endless lawsuits”. The poster stated he is an American. He spoke in such a certainty and such an open and blatant way, that I am sure he must be a government insider. The US government never denied my allegation the poster is a US government agent.
All law enforcement agencies in the US refuse to investigate this death threat against me. So, while I became a criminal only for being coerced by the Canadian government to testify my thoughts that “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too”, the agent goes scot free for threatening to kill me and disappear me by the US government, blatantly in public. And while my testimony at the human rights tribunal was guaranteed immunity from prosecution under the Constitution, there is nothing at the US laws that can allow the poster to evade prosecution for his death threats. I sued the US law enforcement authorities. The court ruled the application of criminal laws in US is an absolute free choice/discretion of government agents, so it is LEGAL for the US law enforcement authorities to deny protection of criminal justice to colored persons like me. This is the so called “legal discrimination”.
Yet the UN’s human rights bodies endorses such a discrimination for US and Canada, literally  offering them the “impunity of human rights violations”. Because the UN refuses to even acknowledge the receipt of my human rights complaint against Canada and the US.

“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people”, Sandra Bland?

July 26, 2015

I began to believe it’s real that “neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who hey think actually pose a threat to them.” This is what I received when I was posting on Yahoo message board about my story of being racially persecuted by Canada and US governments. It states so in such a certainty and such an open and blatant way, that I am sure the poster must be a government insider. It further explained why I am still alive – “So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don’t give a damn about what you think.”

I think this explanation is quite convincing, because, although I’ve been fighting against government of Canada and US all these 20 years for their racial persecution on me, as a member of the Asian community that is weak, selfish and divided, my fight has never had impact on anything. It’s been merely my own personal struggle, in court processes, in posting some brief messages to message boards, etc. But Sandra Bland is certainly different from me. She as a Black activist, together with the powerful Black community that is united and courageous in struggle for justice, the impact of her fighting would be enormous. So enormous that it can be viewed as posing an “actual threat”, and so they would make her “suicide”, in stead of “disappeared”.

#Sandra Bland

The UN human rights bodies’ double standard on Canada and China’s rights records

July 8, 2015

Now, the UN human rights committee is reviewing Canada’s human rights record. This is only a show, for both the UN and Canada.

The UN human rights bodies only selectively hear human rights complainants’ voice on political considerations. An example: while vigorously hearing the human rights complaints from the Chinese against China, these UN bodies turn away human rights complaints from the same Chinese against the Western countries like USA, Canada, etc. to cover up for these countries. I know at least 3 Chinese in US and Canada who brought human rights complaints to UN against the US and Canadian governments, but all of their complaints were turned a blank eye on by the UN.

My experience with UN probably is the most dramatic. In 2004, The Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” (HCHR) of UN, then headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s various human rights bodies, and returned them to me, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. I then brought a Complaint against this HCHR and the Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt to the President of UN General Assembly. But my Complaint was transferred back to the HCHR by Secretary of the President’s Office, Tony Gallagher of the USA, without consulting with any officials of the President’s Cabinet.

When I protested to the HCHR on grounds of conflict of interests, “Secretary” of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt called me and told me that he was “assigned” to my case by the HCHR, and “you don’t expect this Office will assist you”. Please see the letters that I wrote to the HCHR for details.

Obviously the UN’s human rights bodies are not accessible to people like me, whose human rights complaints are against the Western powers and who do not belong to a politically powerful and active ethnic groups such as the African Americans. This should change. As anyone has human rights, and is entitled to be heard at international human rights bodies.

‪#‎humanrights‬ ‪#‎unitednations‬ ‪#‎un‬ ‪#‎canada‬