Archive for the ‘racial injustice’ Category

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.

Part II. Criminalized for Disputing the theory that “beauty is a European concept” by Canada and USA

December 29, 2014

Part II

As a result of Waterhouse’s retaliation, my application to the Ph.D program was rejected by the Department. Under the University’s policy, such intentional violation of grading policy and regulations would subject Waterhouse to serious sanctions. But since I was a racial minority student, and Waterhouse a member of the White privileged class, the University of Toronto, later joined by the whole justice system and another White American professor, geared up to cover up for Waterhouse and persecute me for complaining against Waterhouse.

After I lost my Ph.D application, I began to complain against Waterhouse’ racist reprisal to the University and requested the wrongs to be corrected and apology from Waterhouse. In this process I discovered from the Department the basic facts of Waterhouse’s fraud over my grade, etc., as mentioned above . When I questioned Waterhouse in a meeting with him, he admitted: “Yes I did.” But later he asserted it was an “innocent mistake”, and denied that he retaliated against me saying I misunderstood his theory. In covering up for Waterhouse, the university administration denied my right to access to my student file to find out what Waterhouse exactly did to me, which was my right under university policy.

In the department, all Asian professors eventually withdrew from sitting at the departmental appeal committee to hear my appeal, so finally it was the only one White professor who signed the decision to reject my appeal. Then an all White professors’ University’s Appeal Committee heard my appeal. They listened to my story so tentatively, and all of them so vigorously blamed Waterhouse who also attended the meeting. Waterhouse was grossly outraged and argued with them very angrily to defend himself, saying another Asian student also alleged he was racist, and that “we” are too tolerant for “them” to play race card. So it was totally to my astonishment when I received their decision to reject my appeal.

At the time, I was a part time student, since I was also part time working to support myself and pay the tuition fees. I worked on a full time well paid summer job in the East Asian department of the Royal Ontario Museum, which is affiliated with the East Asian Studies Dept. of the U of T. Because of my well appreciated work, I had been notified that I would be the only student to be hired back for next summer. Then during my appeal process, one day Waterhouse as if very casually asked me if I had worked in the Museum. I confirmed that. Soon I received a letter from the Museum that informed me that I would not be hired back. This was obviously a reprisal from Waterhouse. I was very upset, and brought a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in 1993.

In the meantime I had been working for years on a part counter help time job in a university cafeteria on campus. As my complaint continued at the OHRC, I was fired by the university from this job without any explanation or notice. I lost all my income sources all together and could not find another job, since it was in a time of the most serious economic recession in Canada in its recent history. Without income I had to drop out of the school, and faced with question of survival.

I then rushed back to the OHRC to continue my Complaint, which I had already basically stopped pursuing after filing it with the Commission. The Commission then became the only hope of survival to me, and initially it did give me a lot of help and support.

However, in my back the Commission already began to conspire with the U of T to suppress my Complaint.

As I later discovered, the U of T and the Commission were already exchanging drafts of an agreement regarding “the final result” of my case in my back. During the investigation process, the OHRC obtained my academic file at the U of T, but declined to disclose to me the info in my file regarding what had transpired at U of T about the grade etc. Also, although the OHRC had conducted a series of investigative interviews with key witnesses of the fake grade at the university – the then department Chair, Graduate Coordinator, etc., it refused to disclose to me any interview results.

So until now, what Waterhouse did to me in his reprisal is still a secret, only partially known to me based on the materials available to me.

US court legalizes selective law enforcement – No Constitutional right to equal protection to minorities

May 4, 2012

Many of my poor countrymen like Chen Guangcheng, have been brain washed to imagine the US as a human rights defender.  The truth, as testified by my human rights case in US and Canada, is the US and the West will brutalize on any Chinese with Fascist racial persecution, and there is no Constitutional right to equal protection of law to persons of color, as there is another law made by court applying to them that gives the law enforcement agencies the right to selective law enforcement towards different persons – by their choice.

Their choice is on basis of race, just as the Blacks already blame it for their mass incarceration. The US law enforcement agencies the exercise this “lawful” choice, so “lawfully” refused to investigate the felony crimes committed against me by the Whites and their non-White accomplices, yet I was incriminated on a bogus charge. Even the US government is free to threaten me with death and forced disappearance without any liability. All because I challenged a professor’s White supremacy theory.

The right to free speech is also selectively enforceable in US on political basis. My Internet free speech has been censored by the US government, including Department of State, and by all the major private media. When I sued, the court ruled that the private media are not “government actors” so not liable for violating my free speech rights, as for the real “government actors” like the Department of State, the court ruled they are “immune” from lawsuits. NO free speech to challenge racism.


1991, I, Wanxia Liao, a then MA student, challenged a U of Toronto professor David Waterhouse’s theory “beauty is a European concept” and Asians didn’t have it in history, he lost and retaliated against me with a series of fraud in violation of the university’s grading rules, and further racial prejudice that poor Chinese still wanted to claim historical inventions. I complained to the University and then the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) but was retaliated until I was criminalized.

The OHRC conspired with an American government employee, UC professor James Cahill to criminalize me. When at first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty. Then Cahill deliberately disclosed to me his conspiracy with the U of T and the Commission, when I was devastated, the OHRC questioned me as to what I would do now that my case would be dismissed at the Commission.

When I answered this question of the Commission on phone I cried “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them too”. This is my alleged crime of death threat to Waterhouse. Although I never spoke of anyone’s name, the judge convicted me on a “guessing” that I “meant” Waterhouse. It is a deprivation of my Constitutional immunity right against self-incrimination for government compelled testimonies and right to criminal justice for I was convicted on no factual evidence but a guessing.

Meantime, none of the felony crimes committed against me by US and Canadian government officials has been even investigated: perjuries committed by James Cahill, and by OHRC officer Alan Strojin; forgery of court document, perjury, falsifying evidences, etc. committed by US District Court judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Phyllis Hamilton; death threats, threats of government forced disappearance against me made by an US government agent on Internet, etc.

I sued the US Department of Justice and FBI in court for violation of my right to equal protection by law. The court has dismissed my case, stating that I have no right to require the law enforcement agencies like the FBI to investigate my criminal allegations, because it is their choice, discretion, not their mandatory legal duty, to decide whether to investigate a criminal allegation, so they do not owe me a legal duty that I can sue to enforce.

This is legalized selective law enforcement. when the alleged perpetrators are Whites and their non-White accomplices like in my case, the agencies decide not to investigate; and when it is the other way around, the agencies then decide to the opposite. This is not a hidden practice, but a court made law that forms another set of laws that courts apply to nullify the Constitutional rights to equal protection towards the targeted people, those who are not their own. “legalized discrimination”.

The government organized a cover-up on all these persecutions on me. My posts on my human rights case were censored by the US Dept. of State on its Youtube site, the very Dept of State that goes around the world condemning other nations for Internet political censorship, and by the US government media such as Voice of America. The so called non-moderated free publishing sites like Wikipedia, Facebook, Topix, CNN’s iReport, etc. all are in accomplice with the government and censored my posts.

The cover ups have expanded to the United Nations where the then Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. My story is the best illustration of hypocrite and racist nature of the “Western democracy and freedom”. All people: we have to achieve democracy on our own and not to be used by the US.

How UNLAWFUL is the Supreme Court of the United States?

October 29, 2008

Now the highest court of US: Supreme Court of the United States, has shown the true face of “American justice”. After I fought for my right to file petition in the Spreme Court, the court accepted my filing. Then in December of 2007, the Supreme Court issued order, dismissing my petition.


By denying my petition, the US Supreme Court has blatantly violated the law of the US. Because by doing so the court endorsed that:


1) In US, a court is allowed to terminate a litigant’s claims without any adjudication on the merits of the claims and even without ever addressing the merits. This means the denial of a basic human rights – the rights to access to court, to have an issue heard and adjudicated by the court.


2) A judge of the US court has jurisdiction to dismiss an action with prejudice after the action has already been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the complainant and the dismissal has already been filed by court pursuant to rules of the court. this is contrary to the Rules that gives a litigant the right to voluntarily dismiss his own action and retain the right to file it again.


3) A court clerk’s act of forging a court summons, filing it in court and issuing it to a litigant is within the clerk’s jurisdiction so that she is protected by quasi-judicial



People of the world, wake up and see the true face of “justice”, “democracy”, “human rights” of the United States!