Posts Tagged ‘racial justice’

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

Advertisements

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 Supreme Court Joined The Cover Up Of The Racist Injustice By Unlawful And Fraudulent Means

December 18, 2007

Now finally it is the turn of the highest court of the US, the Supreme Court of the United States, to show the true face of “American justice”. It used the same kind of unlawful and fraudulent means like that employed by the lower courts to deny my access to court:              

On September 17, 2007, I sent a Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari and motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the US Supreme Court (SCT). The court refused to file my petition and returned it to me with a Letter on Sept. 25, 2007 , for reason “The petition is out-of-time.” The letter from the Clerk faked a “fact” that my petition was received by the Clerk’s Office on September 25, 2007, and reasoned that “the petition was due on or before September 23, 2007”.      

On October 12, 2007, I sent a letter to SCT clerk to clarify the facts: 

My petition was received by your office on September 24, 2007, not as you said on September 25, 2007. This is confirmed by Xpresspost USA of Canada Post that delivered the package for me (Attachments – the delivery confirmation certificate, the tracking records and the customer receipt). By Rules of the Supreme Court, the last day of the 90 calendar days for me to file the petition was September 23, however, that was a Sunday. Then the deadline was the next Monday, which was September 24, 2007. This is because the Rules of the Supreme Court stipulates:  Rule 30. Computation and Extension of Time  1. In the computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, by order of the Court, or by an appli- cable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period begins to run is not included. The last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a Satur- day, Sunday, federal legal holiday listed in 5 U. S. C. § 6103, or day on which the Court building is closed by order of the Court or the Chief Justice, in which event the period shall extend until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, federal legal holiday, or day on which the Court building is closed. (Emphasis added)  So the last day of this 90 day period shall be September 24, not September 23.   And Rule 29 provides that  “A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk within the time specified for filing”.  Therefore when your office received my petition on September 24, 2007, it was filed, and was timely.              My petition was timely filed also because it was deposited in express mail, postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, showing that the document was mailed on September 18, 2007, (see the attachment) which was before the last day of filing  – September 24, 2007. Rule 29 provides: 

Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special          Notifications; Corporate Listing    2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerkwithin the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerkthrough the United States Postal Service by first-class mail(including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, andbears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meterlabel, showing that the document was mailed on or beforethe last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before thelast day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier fordelivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days. If submittedby an inmate confined in an institution, a document is timelyfiled if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail systemon or before the last day for filing and is accompanied by anotarized statement or declaration in compliance with 28U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the date of deposit and stating thatfirst-class postage has been prepaid. If the postmark ismissing or not legible, or if the third-party commercial carrierdoes not provide the date the document was received bythe carrier, the Clerk will require the person who sent the document to submit a notarized statement or declaration incompliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the details ofthe filing and stating that the filing took place on a particulardate within the permitted time. (Emphasis added) 

  I sent the same letter again on October 19, 2007. Since there was no response to my letters, I called the clerk, Gail Johnson twice but all my messages were never returned. I re-sent my petition with a declaration on mailing date for my Petition to the SCT, but on Nov. 27, 2007, it was returned to me again “for the reasons stated in prior correspondence from this office”.  Apparently, the issues that I presented in my petition are so significant in revealing the racist nature of the “justice” in US towards racial minorities, the Supreme Court of US prefers to hid its endorsement of all the injustice in this case, even by such shameful ways. This American justice system and this American government, from the very top to bottom, have no sense of decency in oppressing racial minorities by any means possible.   Here, by denying my petition, the highest court of US endorsed all the unlawful acts by the federal District Court, which have been outlined in my petition.