Archive for the ‘news’ Category

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

Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P4

March 6, 2015

Part 4: Criminalized for the concept of beauty.

 

This part maybe particularly interesting to those Asians/Chinese who fantasize about marrying into the Whites to gain memberships of the privileged class. Probably the biggest mistake I ever made in my case is that I, from my Chinese cultural perspective, believed that marriage means acceptance and respect of the spouse including her/his ethnic background, so that I trusted a White professor James Cahill of UC Berkeley, who married a Chinese woman and chose him as an “expert” for the academic dispute involved in my human rights case. But the outcome proves that an inter-racially married White person may not be free of racism, and even worse, may harbor even more racial bias and contempt on the Asian/Chinese than the ordinary American Whites, like this White professor Cahill who willfully took a part in the conspiracy to persecute me a Chinese student.

I wish that I had never worked in Royal Ontario Museum, because it was in there I learned about Cahill’s marriage to a Chinese woman when those Whites there made this old man marring a Chinese woman of 27 years’ his junior a laughing stock in my presence. My story is a wake up call to all Chinese/Asians: we have to rely on our own struggle to advance ourselves.

At the time, my term paper for Waterhouse’s course was also in dispute because I claimed that the grade (B) Waterhouse gave to my paper did not fairly reflect the academic merits of my paper, but was caused by Waterhouse’s retaliation and his prejudice that “poor Chinese still want to claim historical inventions.” According to the university’s policy, any such dispute shall be resolved by an “external rereading” by experts in the field, but the university was unable to reach an agreement with me, for I disagreed with the way the university proposed everything, believing the method would enable them to choose candidates not objective to me.

The OHRC then took over the re-evaluation of my paper on the terms of U of T’s policy, and asked me to designate two experts and university professors in Chinese art history to reread my paper.

I chose two professors, one was Professor Sullivan from the UK, and the other was 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. At first, I had little hesitation on Cahill, since Cahill had only recently married his current wife, a student of his from mainland China, 27 years’ his junior, and since once in the class, Waterhouse told us that James Cahill, although famous, “not all his works were done by himself”, implying that his students should take the credit. Nevertheless, I thought even if that meant that his morals might be in issue, but one thing is certain that Cahill would not have some kind of personal connection with Waterhouse. Little did I know…

The Commission sent a clean copy of my term paper to these two experts along with the course evaluation criteria that Waterhouse pre-set for the course. It was made very clear to the experts that the re-reading must be independent, objective and confidential as the U of T’s external re-reading policy requires.

On November 22, 1994, Cahill called the OHRC officer in charge of my case, Alan Strojin, and commented that my paper was “Quit good”, as quoted by Strojin in his telephone message to me. When I called back, Strojin told me that although Cahill gave an oral evaluation of my paper as “Quite good”, 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.

Cahill then inquired about the situation surrounding my paper at the OHRC. Strojin told me that he “briefly informed” Cahill about my human rights complaint against Waterhouse at the OHRC. This was in violation of the U of T’s re-reading confidential rule that for external re-reading of student works, the circumstances surrounding the paper can not be disclosed to the re-reader. Cahill then requested to get a copy of waterhouse’s article in dispute from the OHRC, and said it would be the most interesting thing that he would do at his retirement, (months after, he retired from the UC Berkeley.)

 

The OHRC decided to send Waterhouse’s article to Cahill, despite of my objection for reason of the University policy. I then requested that I make a written submission to be sent out together with Waterhouse’s article to describe my dispute with Waterhouse in the class on the concept of beauty. Although little alarmed about Cahill’s admitted problems with his Chinese students, I still trusted Cahill’s ethics as a scholar and his compassion for me because of his marriage formed bond to the Chinese. I also did not have other choices since Strojin told me that he had never heard back from the other expert Professor Sullivan of UK.

 

In April of 1995, Cahill faxed his written Opinion to Strojin, and then Strojin called me from Hamilton to tell me about it. When Strojin read it to me, I was totally shocked because Cahill’s oral assessment of my paper “Quit good” now became a low B grade, and at the first beginning of his opinion, Cahill himself already openly acknowledged the change and its cause that “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.” This is a confession of the change of his assessment – political consideration upon my human rights Complaint.

 

Cahill further deliberately disclosed in this Opinion that he had acquired even very detailed knowledge and supposedly confidential information on the disputes on my paper, clearly implying that behind my back, in violation of the university’s re-reading rules, he had already made intimate exchange of information with U of Toronto or even Waterhouse himself.

 

For example, Cahill himself clearly indicated in the Opinion his detailed knowledge about Waterhouse’s viewpoints on my paper: “from P’s viewpoint…”, (“P” denoted Waterhouse, “S” for the student, as Cahill made clear in the Opinion); “from the instructor’s point of view…”. Obviously there was an intimate exchange of information between the U of T and Cahill. And, not only was the grade B that he gave to my paper consistent with that of Waterhouse, so were his reasons for giving the grade – mainly for my “poor English”. This violated the University’s grading policy that evaluation of student works should be based on the assessment criteria pre-set for the course, but English fluency level was not required by the criteria pre-set by the course instructor Waterhouse.

 

At the same time, in his opinion Cahill also commented on Waterhouse’s article and my dispute with Waterhouse. In the face of Waterhouse’s own written admission to me at the end of our dispute on the concept of beauty “Here I have to agree with your findings”, Cahill found that I “misunderstood” Waterhouse’s theory because of my poor English, without giving any explanation as to how I actually misunderstood it; and contrary to what I misunderstood, what Waterhouse really meant in English when he described in his article that the concept of beauty is one “we can safely identify as a European concept”.

 

In finding that I misunderstood Waterhouse, Cahill could only give out the reason as that I “quotes P as saying things I can’t imagine he did, since they also don’t make sense”, although in fact, what I quoted is black and white in Waterhouse’s paper.

 

As if a well tailored design, 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 contrary to his conclusion.

 

For instance, for my paper, while blaming my “poor English”, Cahill also says: “in spite of having attained an admirable degree of proficiency for a non-native user”; while blaming my citation problems etc., Cahill says “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.”

 

This was an admission of a deliberate wrong doing by Cahill that he did the wrong thing despite he actually knew it was contrary to the truth, and that he did it for a political/racial purpose. It appears that Cahill had close connections with the Chinese, but that doesn’t mean he treats the Chinese people as his equals. Using his Chinese students’ works to get ahead in the Chinese art history field, marrying a Chinese woman a 27 years’ of his junior, having 2 half Chinese blooded young twin kids…means not only nothing to him, but perhaps even giving him more contempt on the Chinese since he could so easily exploit the Chinese, using the power of his position and as a White man. When it comes to a conflict between the Chinese and the Whites that he identifies himself with, he can do anything to ambush the Chinese, perhaps even including his own Chinese spouse. Yet I made a mistake to assume from my Chinese cultural perspective that a marriage is based on at least the respect to the ethnic background of one’s own spouse.

 

Further, this admission by Cahill was to serve a purpose – to provoke my rage using such flagrant disregard of any decency as a scholar and such blatant racism, in order to set me up for criminal prosecution. As the evidence shows that, Cahill, U of T and the OHRC had already planned the outcome of this re-reading and dismissal of my case together, and particularly prepared for my devastated reaction together, for they already knew I had already been very devastated and might get emotional.

 

16 days before Cahill’s opinion was completed, the lawyer for U of T Margot Blight wrote a letter to OHRC, in expecting the devastating shock that I could feel, asked the Commission to take precaution to give U of T advanced notice before the release of Cahill’s Opinion, for Liao “might react negatively to the release of your report and/or the release of her mark for the course”, and she “urged Alan STROJIN to take steps to have a physician available when the final result is made to her”.

 

Indeed, their plan worked. When I was informed by the OHRC officer Strojin over the phone about Cahill’s opinion and that this Opinion would “stand at the Commission” so that my case would be dismissed, I was overwhelmed with rage and disbelief, so that I began to panic and cry. When Strojin asked me at this point “what are you going to do now?” I burst out: “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them too…”.

 

One hour later after this conversation, I called back Strojin to apologize for my emotional break down, and claimed that I would have to challenge Cahill’s Opinion as it was apparently biased. Strojin encouraged me, suggesting I could use the fact that Cahill had problems with his own Chinese students. Following that I made further move to send Strojin faxed letter, and made phone calls to assert my objection to Cahill’s Opinion on the grounds that it was apparently biased.

 

I received no response from OHRC to my objection. The only thing happened to me next was that I was arrested by the police for Uttering Death Threats against Waterhouse on May 10th, since Strojin behind my back informed the U of T on April 26 that I had made death threats to Waterhouse. Immediately at my arrest, a bail condition was imposed on me that I “can not initiate any contact with any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission”.

 

Since the alleged target of my threats was not any one of the Commission, and since I had made similar angry expressions previously to Strojin but never got even a warning, this bail condition and the criminal prosecution itself clearly had an immediate political purpose: to forbid me to pursue my challenge to Cahill’s Opinion at the OHRC and to insist that the OHRC obtain the other expert’s opinion, so that the conspirators can assure the standing of Cahill’s Opinion at the OHRC.

 

My pursuit of my human rights case at OHRC was successfully cut off by this prosecution, so that the OHRC never needed to respond to the problem that I raised for Cahill’s Opinion, and to obtain the other expert’s opinion as the all parties agreed re-reading condition required. The OHRC then conveniently dismissed my complaint based on Cahill’s Opinion in 1997.

The “Expert Opinion” by James Cahill, Chinese art history professor, University of California

Criminalized after disputing “beauty is a European concept” Part III

January 22, 2015

Until today when I’m posting my story online, I still get some Whites to tell me by email or message: Mind you, beauty is a European concept.

Don’t get fooled by their “free speech” talking. This is not about free speech, it’s about racism, & White supremacy. In the West, you may need to be White to tell a White professor that his theory “beauty is a European concept” is incorrect. Unfortunately me, not White but did so, and got criminalized.

After I was fired by U of T from my cafeteria position, I applied for unemployment insurance, but it was running out and I was unable to locate a job, because of lack of “Canadian experience” as my Canadian experience had only been as a student, and I was not skilled for the job market, I could not find even a cleaning or baby sitting job though I had registered with many domestic employment agencies (keep in mind, this was during the peak of the serious economic recession in Canada with a 17% unemployment rate). At one point, there was only a double digit balance in my back account; at one time there were only $27 dollars. I panicked.

At the same time, the Commission appeared very positive, I was advised that they accepted my filing of a formal complaint even before I had exhausted the University’s internal appeal channels, as an exception to their regular practice. In July of 1994, I was advised that the Commission made a decision that my case be sent to the Commission’s Hamilton/Niagara Office for “expedite handling” since there was no “back logged cases.” It gave me great hope and confidence about my case at the Commission, since I had never requested an “expedite handling,” and had not even contacted the Commission for quite a while.

So I began to view the OHRC as my only hope to survival, and began to pursue my case vigorously.

Initially, when I filed the complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), I was cautious at the OHRC. In its Toronto office, an officer drafted my Complaint for me, and asked me for something about my supervisor professor, I declined to answer. The officer then told me about the Commission’s “confidentiality rule,” and that I had the duty to tell the Commission everything true – “everything you tell the Commission is only between you and the Commission.” When I came out, I took an OHRC’s pamphlet and did find that in it. I later telephone consulted a legal practitioner, and learned that I must answer a legal tribunal’s questioning as a witness by law, and that my testimony could not be used against me in anyway, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights. So I began to answer all the Commission’s questions freely.

In the OHRC’s Hamilton Office, my case was assigned to an investigator, Allan Strojin. In our first conversation over the phone on October 21, 1994, he asked me what I lived on, I told him my situation and said I probably would not be able to survive, and cried. He then asked, “what are you going to do if your case can’t be resolved at the Commission?” I answered: “then I’m going to die.”

Strojin comforted me and advised me that I should be eligible for social assistance, which I never knew about as a foreign student. I immediately investigated and confirmed that, and later after the UI I did receive social assistance. I felt the Commission rescued me during a time of extreme devastation and panic, and was particularly grateful to Strojin for that.

What I said was only an honest answer to the question of the Commission’s officer. It was only out of temporary agitation. I only knew that everything I said to the Commission was “confidential,” which was also confirmed to me by Strojin, so I could not have formed any intent to “threaten” Waterhouse. Such agitated expressions were not uncommon, as Strojin later testified at trial that he had regularly witnessed the human rights complainants before the OHRC saying similar things.

Then Strojin, as if out of sympathy, befriended me by sharing with me his background and family matters, etc. He told me that he, as a mix of being Native Indian and White, resented the racist brutality encountered by his people in history, and in his own family history. He educated me about racism in Canada which I as a foreign student barely had any knowledge of. When I said I was going to write a book entitled “The Concept of Beauty” about my experience to reveal this hypocritical Western democracy, Strojin gave me positive comment and added he would write a “Preface” to my book to tell the immigrant-wannabes not to feel like the grass is always greener on the otherside”. At one point, when the U of T offered to settle with me with $5,000 for compensation and I hesitated, Strojin encouraged me to go on with my case at the OHRC, saying that they thought your life was only worth $5,000. I therefore decided to reject the offer and continue with my case.