Complaint to Congress for US persecution for free speech of a Chinese

[lxwen85]

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT TO UNITED STATES CONGRESS


May 5, 2006

To: The Congress of the United States
U.S. Capitol
Washington DC 20515

By fax: [phone]

Dear Congress Men/Women:

My name is Wanxia Liao, a Chinese immigrant residing in Toronto, Canada. I am writing to you, the highest law authority of the United States to bring my complaint against the government of the United States for:

(1) brutal racial/political persecution on me in collusion with government of Canada and its hypocrisy on human rights;
(2) death threat against me on Internet for exposing this human rights abuse;
(3) the American Internet companies, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc. collude with the US government to deny and restrict my right to free speech on Internet to expose this human rights abuse on me;
(4) American government agent colluded with the former Supreme Court of Canada judge, High Commissioner for Human Rights at UN to cover up for US and Canadian governments, block my access to international human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint rules.

I have this standing to bring this complaint, as the Congress of United States has been known as most adamantly committed to human rights cause of the whole world, taking on the individual human rights abuse complaint from over the wold for hearing and public condemnation. Particularly notable is that numerable individual human rights complainants from China have been invited to speak before the Congress, alleging a wide range of human rights abuses in China. I am a Chinese and my human rights complaint involves the same and even more brutal abuses, as compared to those abuses cited for Chinese government in the 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report (Report) issued by the US Department of State recently. And most crucially, my human rights complaint is not against China, but your own US government, and the government of your political ally Canada. I trust it is accepted by every person with common sense that you do not have the right and the standing to demand other nations to do things that you yourself refuse to do. Therefore, I believe that the Congress will treat my complaint not only same as those from China and other nations, but also give it priority for investigative hearing.

I. RACIAL/POLITICAL PERSECUTION BY US GOVERNMENT

This is a complaint against the US government for participating and organizing a brutal racial/political persecution on me in collusion with government of Canada while applying double standards to condemn other nations for human rights abuses. By this persecution, the government of US has violated my most fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Universal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the UN, namely, my rights to security of life and liberty, to freedom of speech, to independent judiciary and equality before the law.

The following is an outline of what happened to me:

I have a human rights complaint going on against Canada and US for near 15 years. In 1991, as a Chinese MA student at the University of Toronto, Canada, I disagreed with a professor, Waterhouse's on his art history theory that "the concept of beauty" is a "European concept" and Asians did not have the concept in history. Faced with the evidence, Waterhouse admitted my findings that the concept of beauty is universal for all human beings. Meanwhile, he plotted a retaliation harassment against me that consisted of a series of fraud, in violations of the University's grading system and academic regulations that directly caused the failure of my application for a Ph.D program. I filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). However, the OHRC colluded with the University to cover up the crucial evidences and investigation results on Waterhouse's fraud. This cover up was also colluded with an American professor James Cahill of the University of California at Berkeley, who acted as “expert” to reread my term paper in dispute in that I challenged Waterhouse’s theory on the concept of beauty. Cahill took his initiative to breach the rereading rules to contact the U of T, provided an “Expert Opinion” saying that my dispute with Waterhouse was unfounded and conformed his evaluation of my paper to that of Waterhouse. The complaint was dismissed. When I continued to pursue my case, the OHRC and the University conspired to set me up by an entrapment for prosecution on a fabricated crime.

The OHRC first gave me an unconditional "confidentiality guaranty", told me that “Everything you tell the Commission will be only between you and the Commission” to deceive me into a complete trust on the OHRC, and told me that I had the duty to answer the Commission’s questioning with “everything true”. Then the OHRC officer handling my case, Alan Strojin, solicited my angry expressions by provoking my rage and asking incriminating questions, and passed my angry expressions to the U of T who charged me with “Uttering death threat” causing Waterhouse to receive threats. However, the facts alleged by the charges never even happened. As my angry expressions were only randomly made, did not specify any person, including Waterhouse. So I never threatened any specific person, including Waterhouse, and Waterhouse never received the alleged threats. Yet I was charged and convicted for threatening Waterhouse. During this prosecution, the OHRC and U of T parties committed perjury, fabricating evidence and deceit, etc. Now the civil courts both in California, USA, and in Canada are actively engaging themselves in the oppression of my litigation against the perpetrators of my human rights case. This engagement in US even involves the California Court of Appeal judges’ conspiracy with the defendants of my civil rights case to deceive me about California laws and on that basis to dismiss my case. California Superior Court supervisor went as far as to commit criminal fraud to forge court document to set me up for the defendant of my case to prosecute me as “vexatious litigant” for purpose to bar me from access to court, etc. And in Canada, I have already been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order, and all my due process rights were literally denied by courts. (For details and exhibitions on my cases, please visit my Web site: http://www.wliao.150m.com/ and http://home.globility.com/~wxl85/)


This is shameful double standard of the US government in respect to human rights violations between other nations and itself as well as its political allies such as Canada. As a result the US government has not only condoned the abuse of my most fundamental human rights by the its state civil servant but also organized the further and continuous gross abuse of my human rights by its judiciary and its political allay Canadian government. This application of double standards is best illustrated by the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005 published by the Department of State in March of this year and the US government’s gross abuses of my most fundamental human rights.

A comparison of the abuses of human rights in the same categories between those in China as alleged in US government human rights report and those committed to me by the US government itself (although your government does not report its own human rights practice by this kind of report) and its political allay Canada shows that the violations of my rights committed by your own government and Canadian government are much more serious than those committed by China as alleged in your human rights report.

This is particularly apparent for the following allegation categories of abuse against China made by the Report:

-“harassment, detention, and imprisonment of those perceived as threatening to party and government authority”;
- “arbitrary arrest and detention”;
- “a politically controlled judiciary and a lack of due process in certain cases, especially those involving dissidents”;
- “house arrest and other nonjudicially approved surveillance and detention of dissidents, monitoring of citizens' mail, telephone and electronic communications”;
-“increased restrictions on freedom of speech and the press”;
- “societal discrimination against women, minorities.”

Here I follow the categories listed by your government’s Country Human Rights Report to outline the comparison, (for all detailed evidences, please refer to my Web page):

For “Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person”, subsection:
“b. Disappearance”:

As regard to China, the Report states: “The government used incommunicado detention. The law requires notification of family members within 24 hours of detention, but individuals were often held without notification for significantly longer periods, especially in politically sensitive cases.” And for Canada, the Report states: “There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.”

Here, for China, even a delayed notification of detention would be blamed as “disappearance”, yet for US and its political allay Canada, even if disappearances of persons by governments are revealed publicly on Internet and used to threaten human rights complainant like me by the US and Canadian government agent (as described later in this complaint), and even if these disappearances are much more serious, as more “politically sensitive” and amounting to truly Fascism – secret jailing and killing, the US government refuses to investigate, let say document it as “disappearance” in a “human rights report” on its own country or Canada.


For subsection “d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention” of Section 1:

In respect to China, the Report states: “Because the government tightly controlled information, it was impossible to determine accurately the total number of persons subjected to new or continued arbitrary arrest or detention.” As to Canada, the Report concludes in one sentence: “The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions.” And “There were no reports of political detainees.”

The Report’s conclusion on Canada is contrary to facts. As I am a “political detainee” of Canada myself, since I was arrested, detained by police for political reasons, and I reported that to the US Department of State that compiled this Report. In my case, the abuse is not less serious than those listed by the Report for China. The Canadian police actively took a role in the racial/political persecution of me by the government. They conducted “house arrest” of me without a warrant, without any probable cause and detained me for 8 days without approval of my eligible bail requests. The police also conducted unlawful search on me in public without any warrant and probable cause. They even assaulted me in another case by stripping my coat in the wintertime and in public until I strongly protested them to stop because I am a woman. They also threatened and insulted me using racially motivated verbal abuses.

Considering these facts in my case and the fact that such information is not recorded by official statistics so not known to the public, it is certain that the governments of Canada and US are practicing the same arbitrary arrest and detention like that in China, and particularly in politically motivated cases like that of mine. Also similarly, because of the government tightly controlled the information, these arbitrary arrests and detentions are not known just like that in China.

For subsection “e. Denial of Fair Public Trial” of Section 1:

For China, the Report states: “The law states that the courts shall exercise judicial power independently, without interference from administrative organs, social organizations, and individuals. However, in practice the judiciary was not independent. It received policy guidance from both the government and the CCP, whose leaders used a variety of means to direct courts on verdicts and sentences, particularly in politically sensitive cases.” As for Canada: “The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice. The law provides for the right to a fair trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.” Then to elaborate this summary, the Report makes its factual reports in two categories, “political prisoner”, and “trial procedure”.

Then for category of “political prisoner” in this section:

The Report states for China that “Western NGOs estimated that approximately 500 persons remained in prison for the repealed crime of "counterrevolution," and thousands of others were serving sentences under the state security law, which Chinese authorities stated covers crimes similar to counterrevolution”. As for Canada the Report says: “There were no reports of political prisoners.”

Again, contrary to the report about Canada, there are political prisoners in Canada, because I myself am one, a political prisoner in fact, for I have been criminalized and jailed by Canadian court for political reasons. And I have reported this to the US government.

The following are evidences of my claims:

< I > Planned entrapment to prosecute me for purpose of my human rights case

The American professor Cahill’s Opinion initiated the criminal prosecution on me in April of 1995. This “Expert Opinion” was given for my term in dispute. Cahill at first called Strojin to express his evaluation of my paper, which was "Quite good”. Then he inquired about the human rights case background of this paper, which Strojin informed him, in violation of the rereading, rules. As a result, Cahill’s opinion turned to the opposite. He submitted a written opinion to Strojin in that he conveyed a self-confessed bias against my human rights case at the OHRC and hinted Cahill’s collusion with U of T to me. The Opinion acknowledged itself that “some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the paper and the grade certainty complicates the matter”. Then it backed up Waterhouse while admitting Cahill’s own violation of the rereading rules set for his rereading, and indicating the valuable academic merits of my paper and problems of Waterhouse's article. It indeed greatly provoked my rage. Strojin, when informing me about this Opinion over the phone, asked me "What are you gonna do now?" Then he passed my angry crying “If they are going to kill me, I'm going to kill them, too!" to U of T party, charging me with a criminal offence of "Uttering Death Threat" to Waterhouse. The OHRC, U of T, the police and the prosecutors in fact all knew that I did not pose any real threat to any one, as even the informant Strojin testified to the police at my first arrest that I "does not pose a real threat to the victim", and I assured the police at the same time that I would not do such a thing, and I was only angry when I answered Strojin's questions.

This political persecution was set up by an entrapment that is unlawful under the Canadian laws. S. 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides the right against self-incrimination: "A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence". My alleged "threats" were made in reply to the OHRC's questioning, then such testimony cannot be used to incriminate me at law, since I was not prosecuted for perjury. Yet the court found me guilty and so endorsed that the Canadian government with one hand actually induced my conduct that it prosecutes as illegal with the other hand. My case has posted a menace to human rights complainants in Canada. As testified by Strojin at trial, he had “regularly” witnessed the OHRC’s complainants making “death threats”. Now my conviction obviously sets a precedent at law and threat to those human rights complainants in Canada that they maybe justifiably set up for criminal prosecution by government if their cases really perceived a threat to the Whites’ privileges.

And this political persecution had a specific political purpose to directly interfere with my then ongoing human rights case at the OHRC - to cut off my then persistent pursuit of my case. This can be best demonstrated by the "bail condition" that was imposed on me by the police on May 10, 1995 at the arbitrary detention of me. It reads that I "Can not initiate any contact with any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission". I appealed to the Ontario Judicial Review Council against this condition on grounds that it deprived my human right guaranteed by Ontario Human Rights Code, since under the Code, every person in Ontario, even a convicted criminal would have human rights and would be afforded with a legal means of redress whenever he believes that his human right was infringed; and the only legal channel for such redress was supposed to be the OHRC. However, my appeal was dismissed without even a hearing. This condition remained standing throughout the whole process of the prosecution on me for a period of 5 years.

Considering that my alleged victim of "Uttering Death Threat" was not at the OHRC, and except Strojin, all other "any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission" were irrelevant to the alleged offence, so that can not be considered as witnesses to the prosecution, there was certainly no need to "ensure the safety and security of any victim or witness to the offence" (intended by the Criminal Code). The purpose of this bail condition was very clear: to halt my then persistent pursuit of the discovery for my human rights case at the OHRC. And it did effectively cut off my pursuit of the discovery for my case at OHRC since then because of the loss of contact with the OHRC, (the OHRC never contacted me for my case). consequently it enabled the OHRC to continue its cover up for Waterhouse, and dismiss my complaint as a result in 1997.

Criminalizing me for a fabricated “crime”

I was criminalized for a fabricated crime – a crime that had not even happened as fact.

After my complaint was transferred to be handled by Strojin, he began to solicit my replies by asking incriminating questions, and in desperation caused by U of T’s retaliation such as being fired by U of T for no reason so lost the only income source, I made angry expressions to him. In April of 1995, Cahill’s Opinion was faxed to Strojin. Strojin telephoned me and used the Opinion’s self-confessed bias against my human rights case at the OHRC to provoke my rage and then solicited my angry expression by asking “What are you going to do now?” I replied in a hysteric crying: “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too!” Same as all my previous angry expressions, it was only randomly made, not targeting any specific person. And it was conditioned on self defense- “if they were going to kill me”. (One hour later I phone Strojin to apologize for my emotional break down). This was not in dispute at trial. Yet Strojin alleged that I had committed “Uttering death threat” to Waterhouse, and called the U of T to inform this “crime”. The U of T called police, the first count of charge was laid by police that stated I “causing Waterhouse to receive Death Threat”.

This is a fabricated “crime”, as my alleged “criminal acts” as stated in the charge never happened. 1) As an undisputed fact at trial, I did not specify any specific person in my alleged “threats”, including Waterhouse. Therefore I threatened no any specific person, including Waterhouse. The act alleged in the charge that I threatened Waterhouse did not exist as fact. 2) Also as undisputed fact at trial is that Waterhouse was not aware of the alleged threats until I was charged for causing him to receive threats. Therefore, the fact alleged in the charge that I caused Waterhouse to receive death threats, also did not exist as fact.

The next day after I was arrested for the first count of charge, I telephoned Strojin to inquire about why the police would allege me “uttering death threats” at the OHRC. Strojin told me a lie that he knew nothing but heard some of my “colleagues at U of T” told the police. Strojin used this deceit to further provoke my anger to instill my angry expression and indeed achieved his purpose. I never had any “colleagues” at U of T, so I believed some people at the U of T had set me up for criminal persecution for my case at the OHRC. In a great rage and desperation, I said: “If I was only angry before, when I got out of jail, it’s real time to kill!” Strojin again called the U of T, I was charged with a second count of “Uttering death threat” causing Waterhouse to receive death threat.

I was found guilty on this second count of charge (while the first count was dismissed). I testified at trial that when I allegedly committed this second count, I was merely venting my rage at those unknown “colleagues” who as I thought (as a result of Strojin’s deceit) had set me up for prosecution to police. I did not have Waterhouse on my mind because the conversation I had with Strojin was to find out that who called the police to get me charged. I only learned it was some unknown “colleagues”, not Waterhouse, and I knew by that time, it was the whole institution of U of T that had already joined the persecution on me. However, even I myself did not know any identifiable target of my “threat” in my mind at that time, the judge knew. Judge Knazan said: “But she is not the best witness as to what was in her mind in May of 1995.” He found it was Waterhouse in my mind merely by an “inference”: “she meant Waterhouse”, and said “a court can find facts based on inferences”. (This was contrary to what really in my mind at the time, so it was not “inference” but fabrication.)

However, even though Judge Knazan were the real “witness” to my mind than myself when I allegedly committed the crime, he only witnessed what in my “mind”, he did not find he witnessed my physical acts of threatening Waterhouse. Clearly the court convicted me merely for what I thought, not for what I actually did. The Canadian law only punishes criminal conducts. Without actual criminal acts (“guilty deeds”), criminal minds (“guilty minds”) are not punishable by law. The alleged crime did not happen, so clearly I was only criminalized on basis of a fabricated crime by the government of Canada. This is unprecedented in Canadian legal history, as no Canadian case laws show such a case that a person has ever been charged and convicted for a crime that had not actually happened.

Moreover, in finding me guilty on the second count of the charge, the court not only did not prove the actual crime – my “guilty act” as charged, had occurred, but also, it did not prove the other basic element of a crime – the “guilty mind” of me as accused. The "subjective fault element" is also mandatory requirement under the Criminal Code for proving the crime of “uttering death threat”, that one must "knowingly" cause others to receive threats. As admitted by the Judge that when I allegedly committed the second count of charge, because of Strojin's lies, I still had not discovered the fact that the OHRC had already breached its unconditional confidentiality guaranty to me. As a result, it was still not foreseeable for me that my words at the OHRC could be passed to the alleged victim to cause "threat". Without perceiving that such a consequence of my words could be possible, it was logically impossible for me to form an intention to achieve this consequence. Therefore, even if some “criminal acts” had been committed, I could not have committed it “knowingly”. There is no basis at law to convict me for that. This prosecution is doubtlessly unlawful, and is a politically motivated racial/political persecution.

This persecution is much more serious than that been alleged for China. As at least those political prisoners in China were convicted on basis of a law – counterrevolution. And however “political” this law was, it was approved by the people’s congress as a law at the time. Yet in my case, I was set up by the Canadian government to be prosecuted under a criminal law provision and made a criminal for political purpose. This is much more brutal and despicable since it is was done hypocritically in name of a none-political crime.

I am in fact a political prisoner of Canada. This is a Fascist white terror of racial persecution. Only because I exerted my fundamental human right to freedom of expression and academic freedom in an academic dispute, have I been made a criminal by Canada together with the US, while both of these countries poses as leaders in world's human rights cause.

Then in the category of “Trial Procedure” of this section

For China, the Report states: “There was no adversary system, no presumption of innocence, and judges and prosecutors typically used an inquisitorial style of questioning the defendant, who was often the only witness.”

Again, the fact is in the opposite as proven by my cases. For both Canada and in US, the “adversary system” of the court will be denied for politically sensitive cases involving racial/political persecutions like that of mine.

In Canada:

The courts took a leading role in the persecution organized by Canadian government that denied my most fundamental human rights. I have been barred from access to court to "commence and continue any court proceedings" by a court order, so been deprived the right to access to justice to redress the persecution. And when my cases were ongoing in the court, the court openly refused virtually all my due process rights provided by Ontario Rules of Civil Procedures. For example, I was not even allowed the most basic legal right - to dismiss the defendants’ defense by default proceedings, since I was forbidden to dismiss the defense of the Canadian government and the prosecutor for their failure to file the mandatory statement of defense, and to dismiss the U of T’s defense for failure to implement the mandatory discovery procedure. And not only was I forbidden to dismiss my opponents’ defense, but also I was even not allowed to oppose their move to dismiss my cases - I was not allowed to make arguments to oppose the Defendants even by filing responding motion materials to argue against the Defendants' motions to dismiss my actions. I was also forbidden to gather and then adduce evidences for my arguments through Affidavit of Documents, cross-examination on Affidavits and examination of witnesses. I was virtually forbidden to oppose the Defendants and all of these forbiddance were by court order. The court even deliberately made fraudulent misrepresentation of my motion in its order dismissing my motion. And the court openly deprived my legal rights at most of the times, without even bothering to provide any reason. With the compelled exclusion of my participation, the court decided on my cases one-sidedly with the Defendants. My actions were dismissed and I am barred from the court altogether by court order.

While prosecuting me on a complete lack of legal and factual basis, the Canadian government refuses to prosecute crimes committed against me despite such crimes are already proven by undisputed facts and law. (a), the prosecution refused to prosecute the crime of perjury and fabricating evidence committed by Strojin against me during the proceeding. The perjuries were committed in forms of written statement to the police and testimonies at my trial (that I had made written death threats). The fact that Strojin perjured evidences was substantiated by direct evidences such as police documentation and was very serious in nature since the crime against me was committed in a criminal proceeding. Under s. 15 of the Charter, I have the right to equal protection of law, and the government failed to provide any reason not to proceed with my complaint. There was no legitimate purpose that this Crown discretion could achieve at law. In fact, it is well documented that the government has prosecuted perjuries that were even only committed in civil matters, including lies in application for legal aid, etc.

My case has proven that the government of Canada can actively take lead in persecuting racial minorities of this multi-racial/cultural society with Fascist means and this persecution is participated by both the civil and criminal justice systems.

In US:

In the proceedings of my civil rights cases in California state court and in US federal court, I am also denied all my due process rights. A court supervisor of the California State Superior Court even committed crime in violation of California criminal statute to forge court document, a Summons, in conspiracy with the defendant of my civil rights case. It was plotted to set me up for “vexatious litigant” prosecution and hence bar me from access of the court. Three California Court of Appeal Judges committed fraud in a conspiracy with the Respondent of my appeal - making same materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements or representations about California state law on civil procedure and then material facts of my case in purpose to deceive me into giving up my civil rights complaint. My civil rights complaint was against California Superior Court judges for denying my due process rights in dismissing my action. As two California Superior Court judges committed unlawful conducts, knowingly acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction to dismiss my civil rights case with prejudice and to bar me from access to court, in violation of my rights to due process, to equal protection, to access to court, to impartial tribunal as guaranteed by fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. My civil rights case in federal court against Cahill is also dismissed and the dismissal was based on defendant’s fraud, despite the fraud was not even disputed by the defendant.

All these facts has been brought to the US government by myself - I reported this kind of abuse of Canadian government on me directly to the US Department of State, the very Division that wrote this “Country Human Rights Practice Report”, that rejected my complaint (as stated in the following paragraphs). Yet the Department of State refused to investigate and report in its annual human rights report about Canada. And meanwhile, the US government sent out its agents, as the Report says, painstakingly went out through all possible channels to collect evidence for Chinese government’s such kind of violation. Very ironically, for Chinese government’s violation under this section, the Report can not find any such example that the Chinese government sets up its political dissidents by cheating for arrest, detention, criminal prosecution and making them criminals. Without doubt, this is a cover up for Canada that shows that this Report as well as US government’s “human rights cause” is a total hypocrisy, and a mere political weapon serving its political purposes.

For subsection “f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence”:

What the Report alleges against China also happened to me in Canada and US that “During the year authorities monitored telephone conversations, facsimile transmissions, e-mail, text messaging, and Internet communications. Authorities also opened and censored domestic and international mail.” In 1995, the OHRC officer Strojin instigated my rage by reading Cahill’s Opinion to me, asked me what I was going to do now, intercepted my telephone conversation with him by audio tape without my awareness, and used it as evidence of my alleged “crime”, (for I was crying on the phone. And this “evidence” was not dismissed by court although the Canadian law forbids such invasion of privacy. And for the last few years, my mails are being monitored and “disappeared” by the Canadian and US authorities. My registered and express mails to UN’s human rights authorities often “vanished”, and the Canada Post so far has had to compensate me quite few times for the loss of these mails after tracing them “in vain”. The last time was that I sent a overnight delivery mail to US law authorities, but it was delayed for days and when I called Canada Post, I was told it was because my mail was “held” by the US authorities at the US boarder. Yet for Canada, the Report praises: “The law prohibits such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice.”

For “Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties”

Subsection “a. Freedom of Speech and Press”:

For China, the Report alleges: “The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, although the government generally did not respect these rights in practice. The government interpreted the CCP's "leading role," as mandated in the constitution, as circumscribing these rights. The government continued to threaten, arrest, and imprison many individuals for exercising rights to free expression. … Media outlets received regular guidance from the Central Propaganda Department listing topics that should not be covered, including politically sensitive topics. All media employees were under explicit orders to follow CCP directives and guide public opinion. These measures greatly restricted the freedom of journalists and Internet writers to report the news and led to a high degree of self-censorship.” For Canada: “The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to ensure freedom of speech and the press. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction.”

The press in Canada is not “independent”, but always cooperate with the government, as testified by my case. Since 1999, I have made publication requests to the mainstream local newspapers in Canada. However, although the local Chinese community newspapers had extensive coverage on my story, these mainstream news papers ignored my requests with the only exception that the Globe and Mail published a short story once in 2000 on my case, and this publication had the basic facts of my case missing. Moreover, when I posted my story to the "Have your say" message board of the Toronto Star's Web site, the link I made to my Web site on my case was cut off immediately. I believe that this was cause by the Canadian government’s banning or restriction order to the media, or at the very least it was “a high degree of self-censorship”, exactly like that in China, the media acted on its own willful and tacit cooperation with the government. Be it forced or voluntary, this is apparently a media censorship motivated by political reasons, just like that criticized in China by the Report.

And same political censorship happened in my case by the US media. My publication requests to the major newspapers such as New York Times and Washington Post, were all ignored without a response. I posted my story on Washington Post’s Web site, but immediately my post was deleted.

The Report further alleged that the Chinese government criminally prosecuted people for their free speech under disguise of other legitimate crimes. For instance: “In July courts rejected an appeal by two editors from Guangdong Province's Southern Metropolitan Daily newspaper, despite receiving a petition from over 2,300 Chinese journalists claiming that conviction of the two editors on corruption charges in 2004 was punishment for the newspaper's muckraking news coverage. Yu Huafeng continued to serve an eight-year sentence on charges of embezzlement, and former editor Li Minying was serving a six-year sentence on bribery charges.”

Here apparently the Report does not allege that the crimes those Chinese individuals been convicted for were fabricated crimes, or not substantiated by facts and Chinese laws. So even if these Chinese individuals were in fact convicted on these crimes for real reason of their free speech, at the very least, their crimes were proven true and so they were convicted legitimately. Yet for my case in Canada, I was convicted for a bogus crime that never even happened, only because I had exercised my right to free speech to challenge an academic theory of White supremacy. This is the real brutal criminal persecution for reason of free speech and expression, and it happened in Canada, joined by the US.

These are violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights much more serious than what the Report cited for China’s human rights abuses.


II. US GOVERNMENT’S FASCIST DEATH THREAT

For the same reason as stated above, I here also bring a complaint to the Congress, the highest law making authority of the US, against the public death threat that I received from the US government on Yahoo’s Message Board.

On December 19, 2005, while I was posting on Yahoo’s Message Board to reveal my case, I received a death threat that told me: “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. Your lawsuit isn't some global conspiracy.” (Exhibition A).

This poster was undoubtedly speaking for the US and Canadian governments and did so as a knowledgeable insider of the governments. To make people “disappear” is most known Fascist means by Fascist governments towards their political dissidents.

I brought a complaint to the Secretary of State and to the US Attorney General. However, it has been proven ineffective. The US Attorney General so far has never responded to my complaint while the Chief of Civil Rights Division of the Department of State, Mr. Gregory Smith has written to me to decline to investigate on grounds that “The U.S. Department of State is a foreign affairs agency responsible for diplomatic affairs with foreign countries, and therefore has no jurisdiction to assist you with this matter.” This is a blatant lie since it is already a common knowledge to the whole world and stated in the official policies about the jurisdictions of the Department of State that “protection” and “supporting” of human rights and individual human rights complainants in a foreign country is within one of the most important jurisdictions for the Department of State. Just recently, the Department published, again, its annual “2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report” on human rights situations of other nations, and again, lodged serious criticism on foreign nations like China. I wrote back to Mr. Smith:

It is why there is a special Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in your Department, and every year your Department would publish human rights report on rights situations in foreign countries. In these reports, your Department publicly admonishes other nation, especially focused on the Third World nations, for alleged human rights abuses, citing many individual human rights abuse cases as evidence. And that is not all. Every Secretary of the State when touring the world for “diplomatic” reasons, would always speak out to directly intervene those other nations’ “human rights abuses” on their own citizens, even take economic sanctions to press those nations for your desired result of those individual cases. For instance, this has been always happening to China. Your Department apparently has had JURISDICTION over EACH individual human rights complainant against Chinese government, and taken cared of individual Chinese rights complainant’s plight and pressed the Chinese government to do what you intended.

I am also a Chinese individual, a citizen of a foreign country, and have a human rights complaint against the government of the country, like those human rights complainants in China. Why, then, the U.S. Department of State would have no “jurisdiction” over my human rights complaint? And you do not “Hold governments accountable” and promote freedom of expression any more? But you got a “jurisdictional issue”? Obviously the real reason for your Department’s refusal to investigate is not a jurisdictional one, but because your government would not hold itself accountable for human rights abuse and promote racial minority people’s freedom of expression.

I have never received a response to this letter so far. I also contacted the FBI but so far received no response. I believe that all of these are an admission that this threat was a US government operation. As only so would the government of US not investigate to clarify this matter, as it knows that it cannot vindicate itself on this public death threat. Now I would like to bring this complaint to you, the Congress of US. I request for investigation and hearing to clarify this matter under the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political rights.

This death threat is a much more serious violation of my right to freedom of expression than what these private American Internet companies are doing to me, as this is already a crime. And this crime is a governmental action by the US government purposed to silence my Internet voice, therefore is a crime to suppress human rights of a racial minority. This threat further proves that what the United States government truly concerned in fact is not Chinese people’s (and other peoples’) rights to freedom of expression and human rights. For it would even use the most extreme Fascist terrorist means to suffocate the Chinese people’s free speech, so long as this free speech is not against China, but against itself, in its own jurisdiction, revealing its own Fascist violation of human rights. This is certainly more despicable than what the US government is accusing Chinese government and admonishing those American private Internet companies for. As the US government committed all these most vicious violations of free speech rights while it poses as the leader of the world’s human rights cause and pointing finger to admonish other nations like China and even having wars on other nations.

If the Congress of US still wish to have little credibility on its “human rights” clause, it must take measures to redress this threat.


III. US INTERNET COMPANIES RESTRICTING MY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

I was very excited to learn that recently you, the Congress, the highest law making authority of the US, has launched a campaign to intervene those major US based Internet private companies’ conducts to restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet communications in China. A hearing has been held to investigate and Congress men Mr. Smith and Santos etc. publicly condemned the conducts of those companies, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc., who have helped the Chinese government restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet. Further, the Congress is in a process to make laws to regulate these companies’ conducts in China to comply with US’s values on human rights, particularly, freedom of expression.

I am so excited and encouraged about your campaign as I am in the exact same situation like the people in China – these exactly same American Internet companies, Yahoo, Google, and other American based message boards, etc. are restricting my freedom of expression on the Internet. For they have shut down my Web Site, censored and filtered my posts from publishing on Internet news groups, etc., so imposed same kind of restriction of freedom of expression on me as that been done to Chinese people in China by them. I am therefore here making this urgent request to you that you act on my complaint against these companies in the same way as you are acting on their same kinds of conducts in China, to include my complaint into your campaign for investigation and public condemnation.

From 2001, I made efforts to have my story published by main stream media all in vain – I sent my story to some major newspapers in US and Canada, for example, the New York Times, Washington Post in US, the Toronto Star, etc. All my publication requests were ignored except the Global and Mail of Canada that published a short story, which was strictly censored for the basic facts on my case, were missing. I realized that a cover up had been imposed on my case for the both US and Canadian governments by the media. I understood that the both US and Canadian governments are committing such brutal abuses of my human rights so boldly only because they have organized such an effective cover up. Then the only way for me to make my story public would be the Internet. I set up my own Web site at Yahoo’s free Internet Web space hosting, Georcities.com, at URL: www.georcities.com/wliao.geo/ and started posting my story onto the Internet news groups and message boards.

In about early 2003, after I had joined the discussion and posted to Yahoo’s Message Boards about my story for few days, Yahoo started deleting my posts. Within few minutes or few hours my posts were all disappeared. But all other people’s posts were still intact despite they contained abundant racial slurs, course languages, off topic discussions, inciting hatred towards other ethnic groups or individuals, etc. When I still continued my posting to other news groups, Yahoo shut down my Web site, in or about November, 2004, shut down my Web site and cancelled my Yahoo account without even a prior warning. I did not even have the chance to retrieve my mails. I wrote inquiry and protest letters to Yahoo’s administration, but so far have never received any response. After that, I created my Web page on few other free Web page hosts, soon my pages on www.wanxialiao.0catch.com, and www.wanxialiao.4t.com were all shut down without a notice.

I encountered the same restriction at Google. In January of 2006, I posted my story to Google’s Usenet groups. I only posted to 5 groups that were US, Canada and China based before the Google found my posts and imposed filter on my posting. I tried to post by different user names but all in vain. My posts would never appear on any of the news groups like before. These Use Net newsgroups are all identified as “un-moderated”, but I was the exception. This is blatant political censorship and violation of my right to free speech. This time I did not bother to write to Google to complain as I did to Yahoo. As I knew all my complaint would receive no response.

And most of the America based message boards and forums on MSN and on Internet are doing the same to me. For groups on MSN, the most ironic is that the “Free Speech America” MSN group was the first one to ban my post and bar me from access to the group. Following that, Canadian Politics and Issues, Canadian Politics 2000, News (UK based), World Wide Unity, Conspiracy Theory, etc. … all did the same thing. I registered different user names to return to these groups. The largest news group News, barred me again and shut down my account. When I try to re-register now, this group has already gone in hidden, cannot be found on MSN groups Directory, although it is still operating and active.

On other independent message boards, the same thing happened to me. My posts were deleted or locked so they sunk soon and disappeared from the forum since no discussion on going. Some forums even deleted my post right at the spot where the heated discussion was going on with enthusiastic participants. On Off Topic, my post was locked without providing any reason, and the site administrator when locking my post, even told me: “Use this as more evidence of the fascist white supremicist plot against you”. On another forum, my post was deleted for reason that it was a “troll”. I complained by another post, it was again deleted for public complaint about administrator. Some other boards removed my posts just for I allegedly did “copy and paste” from other sites, as if I was only allowed to publish the same story on one site.

In any of the above situations, what I had done was merely as same as what other people did in the same circumstances. Yet those people did not have their Web sites shut down and Yahoo accounts closed or been banned from posting by these companies. Apparently these companies did so to me for political reasons – they perceived the posting of my human rights case as a real threat to the US and Canadian governments as my case is too powerfully revealing about the brutal human rights abuse on racial minorities by these governments, and so as to their shameful hypocrisy. This is then a censorship based on political consideration, just like what these companies do in China, albeit this time they do so for the US and Canadian governments, not the Chinese government.

I believe that this political censorship by these American Internet companies is to comply with the US governments’ banning order on publication of my case. Because this cover up only serves the interests of the US and Canadian governments. From what has happened to me so far in US courts, it is clear that the US government is very determined to continue abusing my human rights, so it obviously has the motive to impose the cover up on Internet against me. It is part of the cover up organized by the US and Canadian governments that is demonstrated previously. In the alternative, even these American Internet companies committed the cover up on their own willful cooperation with the US government for its abuse of racial minorities’ human rights, it is as same as what they are doing in China – to willfully comply with the Chinese government’s Internet political censorship needs. Either being forced under candid requirement of a government for censorship or being voluntary under their own willful and tacit cooperation with a government for the censorship, what these American Internet companies are doing to me and to people in China is the same in result – political censorship restricting Internet free communications. This result, by the US Congress’ definition, is a violation of the most fundamental human rights - freedom of expression, contrary to the provisions of the Universal Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of the UN. Therefore, there are exactly same grounds as for you, the American Congress, to intervene the political censorship that these companies imposed on me just as you have done to these companies for imposing the political censorship on internet communications in China.

Now I bring this complaint to you and how you act on it will be a key test on whether the US’s attack on China’s restriction of Chinese people’s right to free speech is motivated by real concern of human rights or by political purpose. For like those people in China, I am also a Chinese. If you have no interest to support and protect me, this Chinese, for my right to freedom of expression, what is your purpose to protect and support those Chinese’ rights to freedom of expression? Does that mean what your are truly concerned is not whether a Chinese enjoys the right to “freedom of expression” or not, but whether a Chinese enjoys his/her “freedom of expression” against his/her own Chinese government. Once a Chinese exercises this same right but against your own or your political allies’ government, you prosecute this Chinese much more brutally than the Chinese government does to its people. It will be clear that your propaganda about “freedom of expression” to other nations is only to use it as a political weapon to incite people of those nations against their own governments. By sowing dissension you can weaken these nations that you view as potential competitors to maintain your hegemony.


IV. COVER UP FOR US AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS AT UN

The agent of the US government to UN, joined the Canadian government to cover up for the both governments, seized all my human rights complaints to UN’s human rights bodies so effectively blocked my access to international community’s human rights channels. I understand that UN reform is one of the concerns to the US Congress. As such, you must be very interested in knowing how Canada and your own government through your agents at UN in fact have usurped the power of the international organization, the UN, making it your own political tool. If this is not what you intended, please investigate my complaint and take measures to correct all of these. Here I just cite passages of my complaint letter to the UN’s “High Commissioner for Human Rights, for more information on this matter please refer to (Exhibition B).

To: Ms. Louise Arbour
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Office of High Commissioner for Human rights
United Nations Office
CH-1211 GENEVE 10

By fax: [phone]


Dear Ms. Louise Arbour:

Re: My human rights complaints against government of Canada to UN

My name is Wanxia Liao, a Chinese immigrant in Ontario, Canada, where you were a judge sitting at the Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Appeal before you became the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I am writing to you again to protest your Office's continuing cover up of my complaint against government of Canada for brutal Fascist racial/political persecution on me to the UN's human rights bodies, since it has seized all the complaints that I sent to the UN's various human rights complaint channels. This is an intentional denial of my access to the international human rights bodies at the UN. I am here questioning your impartiality and integrity in your position as the highest human rights official of the UN. I am also request that you recuse your self and your office from handling my case on grounds of conflict of interests, since my complaint is against the government and its courts that each of them you served as a judge.

My complaint is against the Canadian government (in collusion with the U.S.A.) in that they organized a brutal Fascist persecution against me. I was incriminated by a conspiracy led by Canadian government’s “human rights committee” for criminal prosecution, was subjected to arbitrary detention, have been literally (by court order of the Ontario Superior Court) barred to access to courts to seek redress, etc. All of these only resulted in from an academic dispute that I had with a professor when I was a MA graduate student at the University of Toronto, in that the professor lost his White race supremacy art history theory to my challenge, and I filed a human rights complaint against this professor for racist reprisal. (See my Web site for more info: www.wliao.150m.com and http://home.globility.com/~wxl85


Since 1999, I have been sending my complaint to the UN's human rights bodies but never reached them. In April of 2004, I faxed my complaint to the Human Rights Committee again, because the revised policy of the committee provides that whether an individual complaint should be registered with the Committee will be decided by a "Special Rapporteur" of the Committee, not by a staff of your Office. However, my complaint was returned promptly by “Secretary” of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt. (It is your Office to be responsible for Mr. Scmidt's conduct since this morning he called me and told me that he is "assigned" to my case in your Office, and "you don't expect this Office will assist you"). The reason for returning is (1), I have not “exhausted domestic remedies”, (2), the Committee is not generally in a position to review a sentence imposed by national courts, nor can it review the question of innocence or guilt", (3), I did not provide "sufficient facts" of my case or how my "rights under the relevant treaty have been violated".

It is a serious violation of the procedural rules of the Human Rights Committee. By Rules of the Procedure of the Human Rights Committee and by the guidelines for individual complaints provided by UN's Fact Sheet No. 7, Mr. Markus Schmidt and your Office have NO such authority to refuse my complaint. First, it should have been the Special Rapporteur, not your staff such as Mr. Schmidt to decide whether to register my case. Second, the UN's procedure on individual complaints that provides: "If your complaint contains the essential elements outlined above, your case is registered, that is to say formally listed as a case for consideration by the relevant committee." A review of my enclosed Complaint will show that my Complaint clearly contains EVERY element as listed on this procedure. Canada is a party that signed the treaty and recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee. My Complaint contains all detailed identity information about me, and was signed. There was no reason for your Office not to transmit my complaint to the Special Rapporteur for consideration of registration, and by doing so, you have violated the Committee's rules.

…

In October of 2004, I filed a complaint against your Office and Mr. Schmidt with the President of General Assembly. However, my complaint was transferred to your Office by Secretary of the President's Office, Tony Gallagher of the US, without consulting with any officials of the President's Cabinet, for reason that "the President's Office does not have the function to handle this kind of complaint". I wrote a letter to your Office on October 6, 2004, requesting your office to forward my complaint back to the President's Office or the Secretary-General, Mr. Annan, on grounds that my complaint against your Office to be handled by your Office is a conflict of interests. Further, it is a serious abuse of Tony Gallagher's administrative duty for her to transmit my complaint to you without consulting any official of the Cabinet. However, so far it has been more than half year, I have never received any response from your Office.

By this refusal, your Office has in fact taken over the power of the President of the General Assembly and his Cabinet. As one of the functions of the General Assembly is: "To discuss, with the same exception, and make recommendations on any questions within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations". And the human rights bodies, including your Office, are one of the most important organs of the UN, whose practice shall be monitored by the General Assembly for any dysfunction that affects the UN's impartial power. Since the UN has the function to serve individual human rights complainants through its human rights bodies, an individual then is entitled to complain to the higher authorities at UN when the individual is refused to be served or is improperly served by these human rights bodies. I therefore have this right to complain to the high UN officials, like the President of the General Assembly or the Secretary General. Your Office's interference with this right of mine is a gross abuse of the UN system and an intentional cover up of Canada and US's brutal abuse of racial minority's human rights.

I am here also to inquire the handling of the complaints that I sent since March 2004 to the Commission on Human Rights under its 1503 procedure and the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Mr. Duoduo Diene at your Office, since I understand that all these complaints would have to go through your Office first, since their mailing addresses and fax numbers are all same and within your office. So far I have never received even an acknowledgement of receipt of these complaints.

I am entitled to know how you disposed of my complaints at your Office. If you never transmitted my complaints to their designated recipients, the Commission on Human Rights and Mr. Diene, what was the reason for you to do so? And why would you not inform me the disposition and the reason? If you do not transmit my complaints to their recipients and do not give me an acknowledgement of receipt of my complaints, does that mean that your Office in fact has seized all my complaints, (except the one to Human Rights Committee, that has been repeatedly sent back to me by Mr. Schmidt)? Which rule of the UN authorizes you to do so?

Further, this cover up for the Canadian government by you is continuing. As I sent you a letter of protest for your cover up for Canada, and resent my complaint to the Human Rights Committee at UN on April 5 and 6, 2005, Mr. Schmidt called me this morning, April 7, 2005, and told me that "you don't expect this Office will assist you", and that he was "assigned" to my case at your Office. As I advised him that I did not expect your office would assist me. I only can reveal this cover up to the world public and that is what I will do.

Dear Ms. Louise Arbour, while you, as the highest human rights official at UN, are touring the world and censoring other countries' human rights abuses, don't you think it is so ironic that you covered up the human rights violation complaint to UN that is against your country Canada, and the government and the courts that you personally served for? Would it be more appropriate for you to censor your own country as well or first for human rights abuses? As a judge, you must know well the principle of an adjudicator's self-recusal when there is conflict of interests in the matter before you. I request you to recuse yourself and your Office from handling my complaints to UN's human rights bodies from now on. Otherwise, all of your "leadership" in world's human rights cause is only a vicious hypocrisy and by that you greatly disrepute the UN.


Dear US Congress Men/women, I here strongly request that you hold a hearing for all my above complaints and allow me to testify before the US Congress, just like those Chinese individuals who have been invited to testify before the Congress against the Chinese government’s abuse of their human rights. I trust you would deem this action as your priority. Because what these brutal human rights abuses on me is not by other governments, but by the very your own government of the United States, and your political allay - Canada. As such, if you decline to act on my complaint, you will lose your credibility on human rights, and lose your grounds to criticize other nations for human rights abuses, since what you refuse to do to yourself, you have no right to demand other people to do to themselves. It will be an ultimate disgrace for the United States that while its government is condemning other nations for abuse of human rights, it is itself doing the same thing, and in an underground way. I sincerely hope that you are truly committed to protection of human rights for all, including people in your own jurisdiction. I demand that the US abide itself by the Covenant of UN before it admonishes governments of other nations for violation of the Covenant.


Sincerely

Wanxia Liao

[ckramer]

1. I suggest Wanxia Liao check himself into a mental hospital first

Waht a waste of everybody's time.

[lxwen85]

3. I know you wish to put me into a mental hospital

But that's a way the Fascist governments do to their political opponents.

[newyawker99]

2. Hi lxwen85!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: