-- Elie Wiesel, Noble Peace Prize laureate
[I hope this wordy document will wake you all up.]
I thought that by doing the job for journalists and summarizing the connections to Cecilia Zhang case for them, I could cross off the No. 1 reason on my list for my fast. However, not a word has been mentioned about Cecilia Zhang case in the media. I guess I was totally wrong in my estimate of the widespread hardheadedness of "media indifference" - a term I coined just before I came to Ottawa for the second time in November.
Liberal sewage
The fact that Cecilia Zhang case was not mentioned by the media this time around did not entirely surprise me given the earlier silence media accorded to her case after I first revealed the connections on my blog in August, and later came to Ottawa to protest in October. What did surprise me was the swift and treacherous attack - bullying is a form of attack - national media launched against me.
To wit, on January 6, 2005, the day after I posted the summary of connections to Cecilia Zhang case on my blog, all three national newspapers used exactly the same picture - by the same photographer, of the same agency and with the same negative - on their front pages. Besides the underlying bullying message, they signaled to me that they were united.
(I have to ask: United against what? Against me? Just because I want to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself? Or because I raised so many issues in my report that doesn’t reflect well on your political master? Against Chinese people? Is Cecilia Zhang your enemy too?)
Then, there was the now infamous column by Margaret Wente on that same day, which was showcased on Globe and Mail's front page throw.
For average reader, to showcase her column was probably a bit bizarre because it was so poorly written. However, she, as well as her editor, knew exactly what she was talking about. They were trying to bully me into backing down and giving up. Reading her column, I was utterly disgusted by her spraying such foul Liberal sewage, simultaneously mocking Canadian people, while ostensibly writing about one of our most cherished symbols, the Canadian flag.
I knew criminals and perverts could sink to the level of underground sewer. But for politicians and pundits to stoop that low? I could never have imagined.
A few days later, it also came to light that The Globe had stolen my blog idea by spying on my online activities (or obtaining the information from those who spied on my online activities). For avoid repetition, please read my previous blog entries for details.
Indeed, to say Canadian journalism -- which is essentially liberal journalism -- is a sewer is an insult to sewage.
National media: How did we get to this far?
For pundits and journalists as a privileged group, it's time to ask: "how did we get to this far?"
Asking this question brings us to the No. 2 issue, racism, as well as No. 4 issue, media indifference, on my list. As I alleged in my Cecilia Zhang summary and in my report, racism and hatred had played a role in this innocent girl's abduction and murder. When I look back at my six-month experience with the national media, my inevitable conclusion is that the same racist attitude was behind media's deliberate "indifference" towards my effort to bring my story and that of Cecilia Zhang's to light.
To wit, only two days after I revealed the connections to Cecilia Zhang case in my blog on August 15, 2004, Adam Radwanski, who had long wanted to help out Mr. Warren Kinsella in his "blog competition" with me, openly vented his hatred. Everybody who was watching that "blog competition" knew he directed his hatred at me in particular, and Chinese people in general. Just look for the following key words on both of our blogs: Olympic, spirit, competition, self-importance, etc. (Mr. Radwanski has since been promoted to the interim editorial page editor at the National Post. That said enough of the changes that took place at The Post in recent months.)
Blind hatred was irrational and could only last so long. The national media needed a more subtle form of racism - an angle, so to speak. Be the professionals as they are, it was not difficult for them to find one, which was to portrait - not picture - immigrants as an extension of a foreign entity and to associate them with anything that is negative about that entity.
This was not new to me. In fact, I believe that was exactly what the liberal government saw - not pictured - me through its colored lens.
When I urge people to read my report, I often say that the Devil is in the details. One such detail is the conversation I had with Mr. Ron McKay, a former high-ranking immigration officer and an immigration consultant from a reputable law firm.
Given how much he knew about my file without my telling him, I strongly believe that my file is a well-known one within the immigration department and his view reflected that of the government. -- That's why, in my summary, I raised the possibility of government's involvement in the crime against Cecilia Zhang. -- For example, here were two things Mr. McKay said to me in September 2002 (from my report):
(1) He suggested that I would be treated differently by the government since I came from a “communist country”.
(2) When I told him that I considered privacy my right, Mr. McKay became distinctly agitated and said: “basically, from a Canadian government standpoint, it is not your right to be here.”
Apparently, our national media, in serving their political master, not only adopted similar bigoted attitude on me, they also pursued a strategy based on that attitude to bully me and to cast - not picture - me in a negative view.
To wit again, on October 18, 2004, I announced on my blog that I would come to Ottawa the next day to protest. What happened next day? National Post started a series of commentaries about China, most of which in a negative tone. The Globe and Mail on that day started announcing on its front page throw about the coming Saturday edition of the newspaper devoted exclusively to China. (It would take weeks, if not months, to prepare for such an issue. My guess is that The Globe sent scores of reporters to China after it learned about my story and that of Cecilia Zhang's through my blog and website.)
As I acknowledged in my very first open letters to the government, China is a less developed country than Canada, both economically and democratically. That's exactly why so many people from China, and indeed, from other developing countries too, are motivated to immigrate to Canada. But to depict - not picture - immigrants as backward, either economically or democratically, is absurd. (Some of the bigotry is subtle, but equally harmful. For example, when Jeffery Simpson wrote about immigration recently, he used such expressions as 'importing poverty', 'poor economic performance by recent immigrants', etc.) And we've got to ask ourselves the question: had that blind hatred played a part in Cecilia Zhang's murder?
On the Hill: Indifference is the epitome of evil
From November 24 to December 14. Three weeks. Fifteen days. I went to the Hill to protest everyday.
For me, the worst part of protesting on the Hill was not my constant craving for food, even though I had started fasting on October 20, 2004, one year anniversary of Cecilia Zhang's abduction and lost almost 30 pounds eventually.
It was not the bitterly cold weather, either, although I had endured much. There were snow (not bad), hail (Okay), freezing rain (not good because I don't have boots), and worst of all, gusting wind chill pricking my face like thousands of needles.
For me, the worst part of it was the reactions of the media, both from my person experience on the Hill and from reading newspapers.
Let me tell you my "encounters" with one of the journalists on the Hill first.
This particular reporter I recognized because I often saw him on TV. Each time he passed me by on the Hill, he would look up to the sky. At first, I thought that it was just the way he walked until I saw him lower his head after passing me. I realized that he did so purposefully. Naturally it annoyed me very much. So one day when we crossed path, I imitated his action by looking up to the sky too. Well, I got his attention. And he stopped doing that afterward. (Whether he really realized what he had done to me, that I don't know.)
Then, on my last day on the Hill -- I am not proud to write this -- in a desperate attempt to get on the news, (I had planned to go back to Vancouver later that week and knew I would not be able to come back to Ottawa again due to financial difficulties), I threw my flyers into the parliament. The media, at the urge of Warren Kinsella through his blog, did not make a single noise about it. (Indeed, it was Mr. Kinsella who guided the media every step of the way during my entire fast to make sure nobody reported on my story.)
Then, there is what I call Liberal-Squirrels-cracking-Liberal-Nuts stuff in the print media and on TV.
To give you an example, on November 30, 2004, Terence Corcoran wrote a piece on National Post attacking Stephen Harper's conservatives. The title of his column, Murder on the Hill, however, was rather unusual, at least to the public. But everybody in the national media knew that he was really making a reference about me because I was protesting on the Hill with my "murder cover-up" signs (sorry that I could not post the signage here). Attacking the conservatives was also a nature thing for the media to do because as the enemy of my enemy, the conservatives were seen to have the most to gain if my story got out.
Another example was the Calgary Herald editorial on missile defense on December 5. It started with the sentence: "It's not often that facts and logic intrude into parliamentary debate in this country." Again, everybody -- everybody except the public, that is -- knew that the editorialist made a reference about me. I believe in facts and logic, and I'll go wherever fact and logic lead me in my pursuit of justice. And I said so in my open letters to MPs on October 18, 2004. The media chose to pick the missile defense angel because, when I am seen - not pictured - as an extension of China, a "communist country" in the minds of many, I am simply an enemy, plain and simple.
(If you really have to know, I agree with the editorialist at The Calgary Herald that missile defense is about weaponization of space, despite politicians' claim to the contrary. But it's obvious that Canada should join BMD because Canada is indefensible without US (what a shame!). Besides, the Americans are eager and working hard to sell it to us and they will cut us a good deal.)
I can tell you more of the nuts-cracking stuff in the media. But here is the thing. When the Prime Minister made the promise to Newfoundland and Labrador in the middle of the campaign that he knew he should not make, and when he handed out $41 billion dollars health care money to the province with few conditions attached, everybody knew he was weakening Canada. Yet nobody questioned his motive, which was to gain and cling to power no matter what the cost was to Canadians. But when an immigrant like me had the courage to blow the whistle and seek justice for the innocent, and ideas to improve the system, he would forever be cast - not pictured - into doubt because he is seen as an outsider. That's bigotry. And you all know it.
(By the way, I have my opinions on other issues as well. I will forgo expressing them until people stop looking at me through their colored glasses. Besides, I do want recognition for my ideas. And I think Canada needs strong political leadership, an informed public and open debates on these and many other important issues.)
All of these were in stark contrast with the reactions I got from the general public visiting Parliament Hill.
In total, I estimate that close to one hundred people came up to me to show their concern or support during those 15 days. They wanted to know my story and why I think there is a cover-up in Cecilia Zhang murder investigation. On my first or second day on the Hill, one gentleman walked up to me, looked me in the eye, shook my hand and said: "What you are doing is very good." Besides the memories of Cecilia Zhang, it was this kind of encouragement from the average citizens that helped me carrying on. For that, I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
Racism: When did talking about it become taboo?
"Is Canada a racist society?"
Merely asking that question would irk some people greatly. Indeed, Canadians are generally seen as polite, reasonable, caring, and peaceful people. It's a reputation we are very proud of; it's also one we need to protect with diligence.
However, having that reputation should not stop us from working to rid of the blemishes, shortcomings or even evils of our society. To start with, we should not turn a blind eye to the injustices that exist in our society. In other words, we should not be indifferent.
Racism is a cancer of our society. On this subject, experts know better. So I'll simply quote from the book The Color of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society, which I am still reading after I borrowed it from SFU library in early October.
"Canadians … ignore the harsh reality of a society divided by colour and ethnicity."
"Racist beliefs and practices, although widespread and persistent, are frequently invisible to everyone but those who suffer from them."
In other words, racism on one hand, is "a commanding force in this country". On the other hand, its impact is seldom acknowledged because we do live in a free and democratic society that "espouse equality, tolerance, social harmony" among the most polite group of people on earth. Put it in another way, to discuss racism openly in Canada, to many people, is like belching at the dinner table. That's why the authors of the book say that we live "in a state of collective denial".
I am not a politician therefore have long memories. Yet I don't remember when was the last time we had a serious discussion on racism. Maybe the time to discuss it is now.
Let’s talk about racism, loudly and with dignity.
