Did RCMP/CSIS Kill Cecilia…and Dr. Jiang? (2)

Dear Mr. Harper:

I believe that you knew about RCMP's role in the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang, even before you became the prime minister. This belief of mine, of course, came about only after my own realization about RCMP's role in the crime, a realization that changed my perspective on many fronts.

Jim Travers' column on May 4 helped me with that new understanding of RCMP, politics and media.

When Mr. Travers' column was published, I thought it was prompted by my blog posted the day before, in which I revealed that the news of RCMP's income trust probe in the middle of the election played a significant part in my assessment of the polls and in my decision of "limited participation" in the campaign. Initially, I thought Mr. Travers was criticizing RCMP for playing politics, as a few other pundits and political operatives had done. Studying his column again, however, I learned that RCMP is a "revered", "untouchable" organization with "star power" and an "iconic" image in Canada. It's almost taboo for politicians to criticize the Horsemen. But, like most other organizations, RCMP is not without its failings and Mr. Travers cited sponsorship scandal and Maher Arar affair as examples. On second reading, I also got the feeling that Mr. Travers hinted about RCMP's role in the crime against Cecilia Zhang.

With this fresh knowledge, I looked back and gained a better understanding of your words and actions after the election.

Just a week after you won the election, you paid a high-profile visit to RCMP headquarters and toured their child exploitation investigative unit. It was reported that you were particularly concerned about child exploitation cases. At the time, your visit and the photo-op stirred fresh criticism of RCMP's alleged meddling in the election and your attempt to take advantage of RCMP's iconic image. I interpreted it as a positive sign because I do think (and said so in my Report) that the underage girl(s) in my story were exploited or manipulated. Re-examining your visit, I figured that you risked those criticisms to send me (and others) a clear signal that you, like every politician else, would support RCMP unwaveringly, and thus questioning RCMP's role in Cecilia case would be off-limit.

I also remembered you said that Canada is a great country and RCMP helps making it so. (I believe you said those lines but could not be sure of the setting. Because of my illness, it's not easy for me to do thorough research now.) You repeated the same message on May 25 when you spoke to reporters at RCMP's Vancouver headquarters, just three days after I hastily visited Ottawa and contacted your office for the first time.

So I understood that blowing whistle on RCMP would jeopardize Canada's image and no politician would likely support me in that scenario. (That probably explains why the front-page throw of National Post on May 17 was OPRAH VS CANADA.) In addition, I remembered that during your very first press conference after winning the election, you, unprompted, praised the contribution Chinese Canadians made to this country and re-affirmed your party's commitment to a formal apology for the racist head tax legislation. Although head tax redress was in itself a right thing to do, I sensed, by following the development of this file, that you made a "trade-off" between these two issues. In other words, it appeared to me that you offered the head tax apology in exchange for a protection of RCMP. Of course, you did not know that I did not know RCMP's role until around May 18. (This probably explains why the age of consent legislation was introduced on the same day of the head tax apology.)

Personally, I had a mixed feeling about your proposed compromise, if that was what you intended to do. However, I also thought Canada's image on the international stage was one of its most important assets and I would loath to see it take a beating. At the time, I still had confidence in you and your judgment, having fought the issue for so long with you and other opposition politicians on my side – even though the battle was never made known to the public. Indeed, I was ready to hand my file over to you and let you and Canadian people decide where you and they wanted to take my story.

What puzzled me, though, was that you appeared to be sending me conflicting messages at the same time.

About a week after Min Chen pleaded guilty, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay "cracked nut" on CBC Radio's 8:00AM news. I don't have a recording of the newscast, but Mr. MacKay said something like "melting snow" or "melting ice".

[I should add that this was not the only time when Peter MacKay cracked this nut. For those people who do not already know, this nut has a long history. It probably started in Paul Martin's bizarre – that's why I remembered it - campaign rhetoric in the final week of the campaign, although I did not recognize at the time it was a nut-cracking in response to my last Report. U.S. ambassador David Wilkins also cracked this nut around the time of your Cancun meeting, using "spring thaw" to describe Canada-U.S. relations.]

The message you, through your Foreign Affairs deputy Peter MacKay, were trying to convey seemed to be: If I questioned the role RCMP played in the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang, you would not collaborate with my interpretation of the blog Summer Hibernation. In short, you issued a threat against me.

I have provided a full interpretation of that blog already. I knew it was an important and serious matter. That's why I went all the way and wrote a long blog (Canadian Election 2006: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8) about the last election to back up my explanation. In doing so, I hoped that others – that would include you, sir – would fill in the rest of story. I do not know what your real intent was in issuing the threat, but for you to deny that my file was at the center of last election would be a mockery of democracy.

Besides, you should know the problem with my blog was in the over-reaction by the Bush administration, which was beyond my control. To paraphrase a legal jargon, it was an act of a Buddha. (And a merciful one, too, because my previous "technical analysis" of Sino-America nuclear imbalance could be wrong.)

Looking elsewhere, I saw mainstream media attacking my credibility as a result of the show trial. For example, see Washington Post's editorial pages on May 12. Of all the political and intellectual elites, Warren Kinsella was the most vicious one. On the very day when Min Chen pleaded guilt, he started threatening me with lawsuit, attacking my credibility and generally spinning the story on his blog.

Obviously, RCMP and some people in the political establishments worked hand in hand on my file, and provided cover to each other. Given how professionally the trial was turned into a show, I am wondering if political interference extended into the courtroom.

In short, to say that I was dealt with a severe blow by the "trial" and related events is an understatement. During the days following the "trial", lots of shocking information I had to absorb, lots of emotions went through mind. I could sense there were powerful, dark forces at work behind the scene. I wanted to do something but was practically at a loss.

On Saturday, May 20, Norman Spector appeared to be giving me a hint to go to Ottawa on his daily press review, with words such as "Vancouverites would die to be back east today" and "vote with their feet". Since I had to report daily to my Bail Officer, I made a hasty decision to fly to Ottawa on Sunday evening to take advantage of the long weekend. I was quite hopeful to be able to meet someone in your office the next day. And I was ready to hand over my file to you and release myself of any active role in the subsequent development. Unfortunately, nobody in your office ever returned my call.

On June 1, I felt I could not keep my silence any more, having been under attack for weeks. So I posted my first blog about the case since the "trial", in which I re-affirmed my earlier allegations, with a strong conviction. Incredibly, the next day, another big news was in the making: RCMP/CSIS arrested 17 suspected terrorists in Toronto.

According to media report, RCMP/CSIS controlled the sale and delivery of three tonnes of ammonium nitrate to this group of suspected terrorists. Once the deal was done, the RCMP moved in for the arrests. This raised the question of whether the arrests were prompted by my blog the day before, as the RCMP/CSIS feared that my next blog entry might expose their wrongdoings in Cecilia Zhang case and they wanted to create a big news to divert the attention.

I did not follow the terrorism case very closely at the time as I put energy into writing my next blog, which was on Min Chen's motive. It backed up my even stronger conviction on my allegation. After I posted this blog, Warren Kinsella stopped his malicious attacks on me and instead, kept saying "I am not afraid" on his blog. But on the other part of the political establishments, the Mulroneyites launched their coordinated attack on our perceived compromising approach. On June 6, Greg Weston of Ottawa Sun attacked you for the perceived working with me. On June 7, Geoff Matthews, also of Ottawa Sun, went a step further and cracked the nut about my blog Summer Hibernation. On June 8, both Greg Weston and Simon Jenkins of The Guardian cracked the nut about some "fall guy". I guess they meant Matthew Li.

I am not sure if the Mulroneyites had any direct influence on you. My sense is that they took their orders directly from Washington. No wonder the first column Pat MacAdam wrote after the "trial" was titled and about some "Amber room". He knew I read his column every week and he wanted to give me the hint – which I didn't get at the time - about the Amber Alert in Cecilia Zhang case so as to set us onto a confrontational course. Apparently, a confrontational course was what Washington wanted to see.

As I said before, as an immigrant, I wish for good international relations among all countries, especially Canada, United States and China. "The last thing I want is to be seen as someone who either causes worsening of Canada-US relations, or challenges US interest on its turf, especially with the perception that Chinese government was backing me." That's why I did not initiate any contact with your government until I sensed there was a problem.

Still, I find your conflicting massages puzzling and your continued silence on my file unsettling. You appear to be different from when you were at the opposition or on the campaign trail. For example, when you were at the opposition, you said you weren't blinded by ideology. But now you look like Bush's ideological sole mate. We live in a diverse world. If you constantly look for differences, rather than similarities, between you and other people, you will just be a leader for fewer and fewer people.

These criticisms may be hard for you to swallow. And you may question my bias. If you feel you are in a difficult position, you can always tell Canadian people the whole story and seek wise guidance from them.

Sincerely,

Jim Yu

Did RCMP/CSIS Kill Cecilia…and Dr. Jiang?

An open letter to Prime Minister Harper


Dear Mr. Harper:

It is with great pain from my sick bed that I write you this open letter. The lives of Chinese Canadians are in danger. The death of Dr. Guobing Jiang in Toronto last Friday worries me greatly. It happened despite I repeated Cecilia parents’ wish that “every family will live in peace” in The Meaning of Justice.

The news has not been reported by the mainstream media. For most people who don’t know, Dr. Jiang, a post-doctorate fellow at Ryerson University, was pronounced by Toronto Police to have committed a suicide by jumping off Don Mills Rd bridge onto Hwy 401 in Toronto in the early morning hours of Friday, July 21.

Another tragedy among recent immigrants, I thought initially, like everybody else. As more reports came online, however, I can’t help but be struck by the following facts: Dr. Jiang is from the same province in China as I am. His family and educational background are quite similar to mine. His first Ph.D. is in nuclear physics, whilst there have been some attention over nuclear weapon issues in my blog. He allegedly jumped off a bridge, whilst I climed a bridge to protest the cover-up of Cecilia Zhang murder. Even the alleged location of his suicide is so very close to Cecilia Zhang’s residence where she was abducted.

Then it hit me this Wednesday that it was on the same day of his death that a RCMP officer came to my residence and threatened to arrest me, among other things. These two events were just like what happened on that fateful day of October 20, 2003: A disaster fell upon an innocent Chinese in Toronto (Cecilia Zhang was abducted) and a RCMP officer dealt with me in a deliberately confrontational style here in Burnaby. (Besides, Norman Spector seemed to be sending me some kind of ill-fated messages since Wednesday.)

The RCMP visit to my residence itself was quite sudden and strange. Arranged by my Bail Officer, Jodi Webber of Burnaby Community Corrections, it was the only such visit since I was on bail at the beginning of November 2005. -- To be fair to her, I offered her an opportunity to explain her decision this morning so that I could incorporated it in this letter. She did not appear to have a good one.

I am fairly confident about my previous conclusions that CIC was involved in the crime against Cecilia Zhang and that the Min Chen trial was more or less a show. And I knew, through my long journey to seek justice for Cecilia, that political and intellectual elites in Canada - and to some extent, in the United States – knew my story and lately, that they in fact knew more than I did and in particular, they knew who killed Cecilia Zhang. In particular, I got a lot of hints from reading Norman Spector’s daily press review.

I understand how flimsy this may seem to average citizens. It is in fact one of the reasons that I did not write about it for more than two months. I especially would have resented the “conspiracy theorist” label as I am a facts-and-logic guy. My preferred route would be to break the story first and let people ask questions. Still, circumstantial evidences implicating RCMP/CSIS are many. Since this is an open letter, it would help the average citizens to know these evidences available to me.

I urge people read my Report first because the crime perpetrated against Cecilia Zhang was related to my experience in Vancouver area. In my Report, people can see that I had been harassed and my privacy had been invaded for a long time. For example:

1. Unreasonable search at the airport;
2. Numerous police incidents;
3. I was followed by the three daughters of one of the Defendants in my private lawsuit;
4. My second cell phone, which I bought anonymously for the exclusive purpose to communicate with Mr. Warren Buffett, was tracked;
5. Numerous incidents of telephone and Internet intrusions.
   
   

Despite these many incidents, I had always thought that the Defendants named in my lawsuit were the culprits of these harassment activities. They definitely had the money and resources to carry out these activities. Of course, RCMP/CSIS could be involved, but I thought they could only be in a minor role at most. Maybe just a few bad apples in these organizations did the Defendants’ bidding. After all, why would RCMP or CSIS spend taxpayer’s money on these kinds of shenanigan anyways?

As for the Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder case, it never crossed my mind that RCMP/CSIS played a role in it. For one thing, the crime happened in another city. For another, while I could understand local police’s hatred toward me because of the Defendants’ one-sided spin about our private dispute, what reason could RCMP/CSIS possibly have to kill an innocent 9-year-old girl? (Even with that hatred toward me, I would say the harassment the local police inflicted on me is totally different from a murder.)

Until May 18.

On May 18, an Armstrong, BC police spokesman defended the force’s decision on CBC Radio of not issuing an Amber Alert in the Carmen Kados abduction case. (This girl was later found alive, fortunately.) He said that there are strict conditions for issuing Amber Alert, including description of suspect or suspect’s vehicle.

That’s definitely not the case when Toronto police issued an Amber Alert just four and a half hours after Cecilia Zhang was reported missing. Now, I believe the objective of Cecilia’s abduction was, sickeningly, to create massive media coverage in case I went public with my story on that day. There appeared to be no better tool than an Amber Alert to magnify the intensity of the coverage.

A natural question was: Since there was definitely no condition for issuing the Amber Alert, why would Toronto police force do that? This question, together with the following doubts about the case in my mind, led me to realize that Toronto Police Service might have played a major role in the crime against Cecilia Zhang.

1. Min Chen only became a suspect after Peel Regional Police get involved in the investigation. Moreover, Toronto Star reported on July 25, 2004 that Peel police found out some evidence had been overlooked by Toronto police.
2. Paragraph 69 of the ASOF says: “The Defendant did not expect that the police would become involved.” Even when the investigation later targeted on him, he was still very calm. Why was he so confident?
3. The woman, through whom Min Chen got to know the Zhang family, was reportedly close to be charged with obstruction of justice one time. However, her name was not even disclosed in the ASOF, in stark contrast with so many other individuals whose names were disclosed in the ASOF.
4. In Paragraph 46 of the ASOF, it was disclosed that only after Peel police got involved, did the investigation contact the woman in question. And it was then that the police found out that Min Chen had visited the house before.
5. Regarding the early morning phone calls to Cecilia’s mother – which Min Chen denies making -- Paragraph 22 of the ASOF says: “There is a sign visible from the pay telephone, which indicates that the area is subject to video surveillance. Police later discovered that there was no video surveillance in effect that day.” Isn’t that odd?
6. According to the ASOF, when Min Chen entered the Zhang house, only Cecilia woke up. But it’s common sense that young kids sleep deeper than seniors, such as her grandfather who, by the way, did not wake up. – What really happed might be that Cecilia did not wake up at all. Indeed, earlier reports said that police had uncovered evidence from Cecilia’s room. What happened to those evidence?
7. Paragraph 80 of the ASOF says that the shovel Min Chen used to bury Cecilia’s body was “found nearby”. How convenient. Wasn’t it dark in the woods?
8. How could Min Chen carry an 80-pound child out of the house all by himself without making some noise? Besides, investigator had said on American’s Most Wanted that there was evidence to suggest that more than one suspect were involved in the crime.
   

This realization came as a shock to me. However, it was confirmed by reading the political and intellectual elites.


…TBD

An update on myself

Confined to bed for more than a week. Human body can only take so many beatings.

If someone points a gun at me, obviously there is not much I can do now.

Sympathies accepted. But please, don't let my Mom know.

Merci.

What happened at the Min Chen “trial”?

My recent analysis of the Cecilia Zhang case, which confirmed my earlier allegation that the CIC was involved in the crime against Cecilia, was based on collaborated or easily verifiable facts from three different sources: (1) the Agreed Statement of Facts; (2) media reports based on interviews with Min Chen's one-time housemate Ms. Coco Zhao; and (3) media reports based on interviews with former Chen family spokesperson Ms. Lin Yang. These facts were mostly related to Min Chen's immigration moves.

Even if the prosecution or the defendant's lawyers did not know my allegations before (I wrote to John Rosen last August), Min Chen's immigration moves AFTER he kidnapped Cecilia Zhang were so bizarre that they should have escaped nobody's attention. So the natural questions were: Did the prosecution or the defendant's lawyers knew about Chen's immigration moves, particularly those after he kidnapped Cecilia Zhang? If Chen family spokesperson Ms. Lin Yang knew that Chen's family paid most of his sham marriage fees in Shanghai, how could Chen's lawyers did not know it, too? And how could the prosecution not know these activities, having found out that Chen's ultimate motive was immigration? And if they did know, how did they reconcile with their agreed statement that Chen's motive was kidnapping for ransom to pay for his sham marriage? And why were those facts not even mentioned in the ASOF?

These were the nagging doubts in my mind about a trial that ended abruptly before it even started. Reading the latest media interview given by one of Chen's lawyers, Mr. John Lee, however, I felt I have to raise these concerns.

With the latest one, Mr. John Lee has given at least three Chinese media interviews - which were listed at the end of this blog - since Chen's guilty plea on May 9, mostly to counter the doubts and concerns coming from the Chinese community. His comments might sound reasonable, especially to those who are relatively new to Canadian judicial system, but some are in fact quite at odds with his role as a defence lawyer.

Let's take a look at some of his more peculiar ones.

• Having said, cynically, that his only regret was the missed opportunity to get some practice in court, Mr. John Lee spells out the reasons why he is quite satisfied with the outcome of the trial, i.e., the ASOF.

从节省纳税人金钱的角度看，陈敏案件尚未正式开庭便认罪当然好，…

To reduce cost of a trial, isn't that the prosecution's consideration? When did it become a concern for the defence lawyer?

• In urging people to accept the ASOF, he said:

…案发后网上出现很多号称认识陈敏或者陈敏室友发的帖子，都是不负责任的，对破案调查工作有负面作用。

Now he is speaking for the investigation! Isn't the job of defence lawyer to try his best to poke holes in the investigation, and to criticize the investigation for failing to pursue every tip, if that's the case? And why was he, as a defence lawyer, so concerned about "Internet postings" that might have a "negative impact" on the investigation?

This latest interview of Lee's was made after I posted my analysis of Min Chen's motive on June 3. I am not sure if Lee is responding to my analysis. It's hard to debate with someone who does not even acknowledge your letter.

• Lee then admitted an error had been made by the defence, but was quite ambiguous as to what exactly the error was.

案件审理过程中，栗钧也觉得有些机会被辩方错过了，如陈敏母亲去年 9月来多探望儿子，法官特别批准陈母与陈敏先后交谈近7 个小时，如果能够把握机会，对案件审理可能会有帮助。

I am not sure if it was a response to my analysis posted on June 3.

• As to how the deal was reached between the prosecution and the defense, Mr. John Lee was all over the map. There are so many questions remain to be answers and so many contradictions in these interviews, including how Chen and his parents came on board the process, that any attempt to draw a conclusion is fruitless. In one instance, Lee even jokingly compared the process for the negotiated ASOF to that of the Sino-American Joint Communiqués.
  
• In speaking out for the victim's family, John Lee used the privacy argument, except that he appeared to have exchanged the two interpretations of the concept privacy in the same paragraph.

在回答"为甚么强调尊重张家家庭隐私"问题时，栗钧表示，他曾在多个场合对采访他的记者表示，在报导时"请朋友们要嘴上留情、手下留情，理解、尊重人家的隐私。"他说，其实每个家庭都有自己的隐私。夫妇之间的谈话有必要在媒体上公开吗 ? 人们应该关注的是小女孩为甚么失踪和死亡，而不是与此无关的事情。"失去女儿张东岳的父母已经受到极大打击，再讲甚么不负责任的话伤害他们，就是在做伤天害理的事。"

While it is true that we all ought to respect Zhangs' privacy (private space), and it is also true the public does not have the privacy (right to know) the private conversations between couples - I do not know what's the relevance of this later argument except that I wrote in fall 2005 an Internet posting on the role of privacy (right to know) in the cause of Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder - Lee was clearly trying to confuse people to advance his argument.

In these interviews, Mr. John Lee sounded like a spokesman for the whole group involved in the trial, i.e., the prosecution, the defence and the victim, rather than a defence lawyer. It is odd.

Indeed, the most notable thing in the whole trial was how everyone directly involved in it was so consistent in speaking out for the Zhangs' need for closure. The prosecution said it in the ASOF, over and over again. Ontario AG emphasised it in his media interview. John Rosen said it after the guilty plea, coincidentally using some of the key words in my blog. John Lee mentioned it many many times to the Chinese community.

I feel for Cecilia's parents. And I know that it is important for them to have closure. But when everyone spoke with the same voice in a normally adversary relationship, someone had to be in a conflict-of-interest position. What's more, my strong feeling is that people involved in the case knew my allegations beforehand, their non-acknowledgement to my letter notwithstanding.

What really worries me is that victim's need for closure had been used as a convenient and powerful excuse to get the trial over with as fast as possible and thus conceal as much information as possible from the public.

Could that be the case? Could it?


Interviews with John Lee

1. 陈敏律师披露部分控辩双方妥协内情, 星星生活- 星网讯, May 13, 2006
2. 陈敏辩护律师栗钧直陈张东岳案专业观点, 世界日报, May 26, 2006
3. 陈敏案已过30日,控辩双方均未上诉, 星岛日报, June 29, 2006

"Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

Peter F. Drucker

"Steve" Harper, impressive leadership?

That's the praise Mr. Bush heaped on his new friend.

A friend in need is a friend indeed, indeed.

But apparently, neither of the two leaders has a clue what true leadership is.

Sigh.

An update on my mom

Since she checked out of hospital in early June, my mom had been slowly recovering. (Really, her recovery was so slow that it might as well be called stabilizing.) Until yesterday.

She was so weak yesterday that she could not finish her routine walk.

I did not relay any bad news from my side, not even a hint of it. Apparently, the smelting heat was to blame.

Moving day

Wish me luck.

The meaning of justice

As I mentioned many times before, the primary goal of my long struggle is to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang, as indicated by the name of this blog. Lately, I have been thinking quite a lot about the meaning of justice, and in particular, when justice can be considered done for Cecilia.

One

What prompted me to this contemplation exercise was, of course, events related to Min Chen's trial on May 9. To say I was dealt with a severe blow on that day is an understatement.

My initial reaction was shock and disbelief. Although I only expressed a 40% confidence with my original, and more vague, allegation that the federal government was involved in the crime against this innocent girl, I had been conservative in my estimate. My conservativeness was reflected in the following consideration: If my allegation was not reasonable, were "people in the loop", including those political and intellectual elites, in a collective, prolonged, hallucination of some kind?

If there were a massive hallucination, I know I was not part of it because I rely on facts and logic, on which my conclusion was drawn.

But I also recognize, as I did before, that there is a chance my conclusion could turn out to be wrong because I have only incomplete information directly related to the case. (What particularly frustrated and saddened me was that it would have been fairly easy to piece all the information together had the media started to do their job and ask questions.) Besides, despite the many difficulties I personally experienced in the justice system, I still trusted rule of law. So, when I learned that Min Chen had admitted in court that he caused the death of Cecilia Zhang and he did it along, I was ready to accept the Agreed Statement of Facts initially.

But I soon came back to my original conclusion, with an even stronger conviction, again on logic and additional facts from the ASOF. Honestly, if you seek truth from facts and rational analysis like I do, I believe you would reach the same conclusion.

Two

What had the greatest impact on getting me to contemplate the meaning of justice, though, were the statements by Cecilia's parents that day.

I had felt for Cecilia's parents for a long time, not only because Cecilia's death was, I believe, connected to my experience here in Canada, but also because my mother, too, lost a teenage son in an accident when I was about Cecilia's age. I knew how the loss of my brother changed my mother forever.

Still, reading the statements by Cecilia's parents, I could not help but overwhelmed by their anguish, despair and grief, even two and a half years after Cecilia was taken away from them. So when they pleaded for closure, my natural inclination was to respect their wish and do nothing.

My inaction did not help my depression. And my mother sensed my unhappiness in our daily phone calls and got worried. (She did not know that I had developed depression.) Already frail, she fell ill and became hospitalized.

While in hospital, she asked me repeatedly when I could go back to see her. What could I say, except for a vague promise in the future?

Then on May 30, she broke down in the middle of the conversation and pleaded that all she wanted was to see me one last time.

Seeing me one last time. That was a wish my father did NOT get from me when he passed away in early 1994.

I do not even want to mention the guilt I felt over the years for "running away" from my filial piety.

Three

It is obviously a tragedy for all the people connected to the case. Even the Chen family essentially said in their released statement that they had lost their only son.

The tragedy becomes even more pathetic if people could observe that it was a jealousy-motivated reference letter that started it all in 1993.

The greatest tragedy of all was, of course, Cecilia's death. Yet, the court had failed to reveal that racism is the real cause of her death. How could justice be considered done?

Nobody should use victims' need for closure as an excuse to obstruct justice. Our criminal justice system exists not only to bring closure to victim, but also to protect the general public. This time the innocent victim was Cecilia Zhang. If we fail to deliver justice now, next time it would be Cecilia Wang.

Cecilia's parents wish that "every family will live in peace". If their wish is to have any meaning, we need to expose the true nature of this hideous crime and draw lessons from it. I strongly believe Cecilia Zhang herself would have required no less from me.

Four

It is indeed a long journey for me. I just hope my persistence and unrelenting efforts in seeking justice will not be seen as excessive.

I am a naturally moderate person. Still, I had to constantly remind myself not to lose my moderation in my struggle against opponents that can be very cruel.

Indeed, moderation is a valued temperament in this polarized world. It is especially helpful in achieving reconciliation, which is, I believe, the ultimate purpose of justice.

I will bring that attitude with me in seeking to right the wrongs inflicted on me by the government. While no amount of financial compensation can bring back my 13 years of youth, I recognize nevertheless it will be a major component of the justice for me. As the amount will necessarily reflect how wrong the government was, it will likely exceed my ability to spend. Therefore, I will donate most of it to worthy causes - Darfur and new immigrants are two areas in my mind right now – just like what I proposed to do six years ago when I attempted reconciliation with those professors.

My moderation also comes from the prospective that Canada has made great progress in promoting diversity and protecting minority rights. The Chinese community in Canada especially has come a long way. I read some of the stories recounted by head-tax payers recently. The bullying and harassment I suffered at school, although extremely damaging, paled in comparison to those suffered by the early Chinese immigrant children.

With that perspective in mind, while putting more much-needed efforts into eradicating racism in every facet of our society, we can rest assured that the best of Canada is still yet to come.

Analysis of Min Chen’s motive

Sources and their respective credibility

This analysis of Min Chen's real motive in committing the crime is largely based on information from three different sources: the AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, a series of news reports filed by 星星生活 reporter 木然 , and various news articles based on interviews with Ms. Lin Yang ( 杨琳), a former family spokesperson for the Chen family. Individual documents, together with their hyperlinks, are listed in the Reference section at the end of this blog.

The ASOF, by definition, cannot be taken as 100% truth. Even the prosecution hedged by proclaiming, in Paragraph 84, that it "does not completely accept the version of events surrounding the death of Cecilia Zhang as admitted to or asserted by the Defendant". Nevertheless, the ASOF does contain many useful information about the investigation that otherwise would not have been available to the public. For example, we now know that Min Chen tried at least three different ways to gain entry into the Zhang house, an indication of a strong determination on his part to kidnap Cecilia on that particular early morning.

My second source of information is the series of reports filed by 星星生活 reporter 木然 in September 2004. I had read those reports before but did not pay much attention to them because (1) the reporter used pseudo names in his reports; (2) the many detailed events about Min Chen could not be found reported elsewhere. After Chen's guilty plea, however, the reporter was able to reveal the identity of his/her source. It was in fact Ms. Fei (Coco) Zhao, from whose apartment Chen and his associate Mr. Li Bin (Robin) Xu rented a room just before he kidnapped Cecilia, as identified in Paragraph 59 of the ASOF [6]. In addition, many details revealed in the reports back in September 2004 are now confirmed by the ASOF.

For example, when asked about the time period when Min Chen lived at her apartment, Ms. Zhao answered: "He moved into my apartment in late July or early August [2003], and moved out on September 30, [2003]." This is consistent with Paragraph 58 of the ASOF. Ms. Zhao also told the reporter about the police incident regarding alleged illegal fishing by Mr. Chen and his associates, which is consistent with Paragraph 60 of the ASOF.

My third source of information is various media interviews with Ms. Lin Yang, a former spokesman for the Chen family. Ms. Yang was involved in the case soon after Min Chen was arrested. Therefore, she was in a unique position to know. Indeed, her account of Chen's sham marriage was too detailed to be dismissed as hearsay. Besides, many of the information she provided to the media can be easily verified although I myself do not have the resource to do so. Also, Ms. Yang and Ms. Zhao both pointed to a "Hamilton woman" as Chen's willing partner in the immigration-through-sham-marriage scheme.

Analysis

First of all, there should be no dispute over the fact that Min Chen wanted very much to stay in Canada permanently. He admitted so in the ASOF, using the unusual word "desperate". He also admitted his plan of achieving this objective through a sham marriage. This is reasonable because a sham marriage appears to be Chen's only viable vehicle to obtain an immigrant status, given that (1) he only had a high school education and poor English skills; (2) he was only 20 years old without much working or business experience; and (3) he did not appear to have any close relatives in Canada.

When Min Chen's mother visited him at Toronto in summer 2003, she also revealed her interest in staying in Canada, presumably after he succeeded. [5] They must have discussed their immigration plan around that time.

Virtually all reporters covering the trial were led by the ASOF to believe that Min Chen's motive in committing the crime was to obtain a ransom of $25,000 to pay for the sham marriage. This is highly doubtful on itself considering that his mother knew his immigration intention and plan. Indeed, many people in the Chinese community expressed their doubt after the media so reported.

In Chinese cultural, it is customary for friends and relatives to come together to help out during times of major life events such as marriage, going to college, etc. So, even if the Chen family does not have $25,000 themselves, they could easily raise that amount among their friends and family in Shanghai for the purpose of immigrating to Canada.

In the report on Sing Tao Daily on May 11, 2006 [6], former Chen family spokesperson Ms. Lin Yang provided many details regarding the sham marriage. According to her, the total fee for arranging the sham marriage with the "Hamilton woman" was $26,000, of which the "Hamilton woman" got $4,000. Min Chen paid about one-sixth of the total fee in Toronto. The rest was paid by his parents in Shanghai. This payment schedule appears to be credible as it is a common practice in immigration consulting field that fees can be paid either in Canada or in China.

Moreover, Chen asked his friends to recommend some "good immigration lawyers" for him AFTER the disappearance of Cecilia Zhang as he was preparing to apply for immigration [3]. And he did file his immigration application later and was eventually rejected [6].

These events have not been proven but could be easily verified. I think they are highly credible. A serious question is thus raised: If Min Chen was so desperate to get money to fund his sham marriage, where did he get his money after he failed to obtain the ransom from Zhang family? And, do not forget he had to pay his immigration lawyer/consultant, too.

The logical answer seems to be that, when it came to his immigration – which was essentially a family matter - Chen should not and did not have a money problem because he had the backing of his family. I should note that, when asked by reporters to comment on these facts, Chen's lawyer declined.

Ms. Yang's version of events is infinitely more plausible than what most people were led to believe by the ASOF, i.e., kidnapping for a ransom of $25,000 to pay for an already illegal scheme of immigration-through-sham-marriage.

So, if his motive was not money, what is it? I believe the answer lies in his immigration scheme.

In the same Sing Tao report, Ms. Lin Yang provided more details about Min Chen's sham marriage. According to her, Chen met only three times with the "Hamilton woman" before they got married in Toronto City Hall in February 2004, some four months after he kidnapped Cecilia Zhang. The first meeting was an introduction, the following two for the purpose of opening joint bank account(s).

Ms. Yang's version of the events is consistent with what Ms. Zhao told the reporter in September 2004. According to Ms. Zhao, Chen visited his "girlfriend" in Hamilton during a weekend while he was staying in her apartment. Chen went out in the morning and came back in the evening on the same day. Chen told her that his "girlfriend" was a Canadian resident.

Putting all those facts together, we get a picture of Chen's immigration moves.

1. Chen had the intention to become a Canadian immigrant as early as in summer 2003, if not earlier.
2. His mother knew his sham marriage scheme in summer 2003. A sham marriage appears to be his only viable vehicle to immigrate.
3. Money was not a problem in his scheme. Rather, the problem was the potential detection of the sham marriage by CIC, unless, of course, Chen struck a deal with CIC directly or indirectly.
4. Chen's sham marriage scheme was well underway during his stay in Ms. Zhao's apartment in August and September 2003. He met his willing partner, the "Hamilton woman", at least once during this time.
5. After he kidnapped Cecilia in the early morning hours of October 20, 2003, Chen continued his scheme as if nothing happened. He met the "Hamilton woman" a couple of times more to open joint bank account(s). They eventually got married in February 2004 in Toronto City Hall, before the discovery of Cecilia Zhang's remains.
6. After the marriage, the Hamilton woman sponsored an immigration application on his behalf, probably with the assistance of an immigration lawyer or consultant hired by Chen.

Given my earlier allegation, with 40% confidence, that CIC had prior knowledge of and very likely was involved in the crime, my new claim, with 60% confidence, is thus that Chen did have a deal with CIC, directly or indirectly. Chen's part of the deal was to kidnap Cecilia Zhang on that particular day. In return, he would be granted a pass of his immigration application through the sham marriage.

Reference

1. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 9, 2006
2. "我不敢相信陈敏是冷血杀手"（上) , 星星生活记者木然 , September 17, 2004
3. "我不敢相信陈敏是冷血杀手"（中 ), 星星生活记者木然, September 19, 2004
4. "我不敢相信陈敏是冷血杀手"（ 下), 星星生活记者木然, September 20, 2004
5. 陈敏犯罪背后不为人知的事情, 多伦多都市报记者木然, May 12, 2006
6. 杨琳揭陈敏筹款假结婚之谜, 星岛日报, May 11, 2006

60 percent

On May 9, in a surprising turn of event, the sole suspect in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder, Min Chen, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the death of the nine-year-old girl. A much-anticipated trial was over before it started. As a result, the only information coming out of the final trial was a 19-page AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, jointly produced by the prosecution and Chen's legal team, with the desperate endorsement of Cecilia Zhang's parents.

Because of the information contained in the ASOF and available media reports, I became even more convinced of my earlier claim that Canadian government "had prior knowledge of and very likely was involved in the crime." Consequently, I now raise that probability from 40% to 60%.

Specifically, I believe that Min Chen's real motive in committing the crime was not to obtain a $25,000 ransom to pay for his sham marriage, as virtually all reporters (and thus the public) were led to believe by this carefully written ASOF. Yes, Chen wanted very much to stay in Canada. But I believe that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) took advantage of his strong desire and instructed him, directly or indirectly, to abduct Cecilia Zhang on that particular day in return for a promise of approving his immigrant application through a sham marriage.

Before I present the facts and analysis of Chen's real motive, a personal disclosure first. I wrote to both Chen's lawyers and Cecilia Zhang's parents in August 2005 (when my confidence level was at 40%). Although I did not hear back from either party, it's reasonable to assume that both parties have been aware of my allegation since last summer.

I will focus on the two biggest puzzles of the case later:

1. Was it plausible for Min Chen to kidnap an innocent child for the purpose of obtaining a ransom of mere $25,000?
2. Why didn't Chen flee after the abduction and alleged murder? Moreover, why did he continue to pursue the sham marriage and immigration application afterwards?

Update:

• Trial Analysis I: Min Chen's motive
• Trial Analysis II: Min Chen "trial" is fixed
• Trial Analysis III: Who killed Cecilia?

Rumsfeld’s speech in Singapore

I found it on the Internet on Wednesday.

 

First I googled "why the investment" (together with Rumsfeld, of course), it did not work.

 

Malicious.

 

And nasty, too.

 

The U.S. Congress requires that the U.S. Department of Defense report annually on China's perceived military strategy and its military modernization.   The Department's 2005 report is scheduled to be released soon.

 

Among other things, the report concludes that China's defense expenditures are much higher than Chinese officials have published.   It is estimated that China's is the third largest military budget in the world, and clearly the largest in Asia.

 

China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities within this region.   China also is improving its ability to project power, and developing advanced systems of military technology.

 

Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder:

 

• Why this growing investment?
• Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?
• Why these continuing robust deployments?

 

Call it like I see it?

During the election campaign, Paul Martin advised me on how to join in the fray: "Call it like I see it."

How I wish I had the luxury to "call it like I see it"! Naturally, it's easy for Martin to do so because he is the one that calls the shot, or second in command.

To appreciate my situation, take, for example, of what happened to me almost a week ago.

Last Saturday afternoon, just when I was getting ready to call my friends and relatives in China to wish them a happy New Year, I received a call from a telemarketer who wanted to interview me on funeral homes, cemeteries or cremations.

I still have not got out of my foul mood to call my friends and relatives.

Was it a genuine marketing call, or was somebody trying to irritate me? That's an indeterminate call. -- In the tradition of quantitative assessment, I would say that the chance is 80% that it was a harassing call. [Why do I think so? - I don't want to get into the details because it's too boring to do so.]

Wow, I slept 11 hours last night/this morning

It must be because Martin's "Paper Tiger" Liberals have finally got the boot.

 

Ha!

 

 

My 2nd report

http://jyu5.blogspot.com

My Christmas

Christmas dinner at the Salvation Army: $0.00

A good night sleep in a long, long time: $1000.00 *

Merry Christmas from Mom: priceless


* Not an actual pay-out, obviously

7 voice mails from yesterday were delayed until this morning

All of them were from reporters. Coincidence or conspiracy?

Oh, an email from a reporter was also delayed last Thursday.

Note 12/13/2005: I had tried to hold a news conference on that day.

Debate is fine with me

Here is my responseto the letter above. Hope Metro will print it soon.

To Brett O'Reilly, regarding "Yu not credible" (Metro, Nov. 9).

Although I appreciate your interest in my story, I am disappointed that, apparently, you haven't read the facts presented on my websites starting at www.jyu1.blogspot.com.

Because if you had, you would have known that I have been struggling for over a year to try to expose the federal cover-up; that I had fasted most of the time during an 8 months period starting October 20, 2004, one year anniversary of Cecilia Zhang's abduction; that I had protested in up to minus 20 temperature on Parliament Hill; that I had lost more than 30 pounds and likely contacted tuberculosis in the process; and that all the while, the national media knew about my story, convinced the veracity of my claims, and deliberately turn to the other way. My action last Monday, in short, was not an isolated one.

And if you had, you would have known that this murder cover-up is not just another scandal of the federal Liberal government, it is one that rivals in magnitude and stench with Adscam; and that former Chretien assistant Warren Kinsella had attempted to use this story to derail the Gomery Inquiry earlier this year; and that former Mulroney assistant Pat MacAdam had done a complete about-face with me. (Curious why?) Then you will probably appreciate the importance of getting the truth out to the people.

The space allowed for this letter is limited. I can only urge you again to take a moment and read through the facts and logic laid out on my websites.

Jim Yu, Burnaby

My letter is published by Metro today

Don't rush to call me lunatic is on page 4 of today's Metro.

Update 11/11/2005: For the record, here is my original letter:

Dear Editor,

As the subject of your report, I would like to present my side of the story.

Since summer 2004, I have written extensively on my various websites about Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder cover-up. The goal of my protest on Monday was, ideally through the media, to bring public's attention to my websites, whose addresses I put on both my T-shirt and placard while atop the bridge. I am thus disappointed at your report, mostly because of the lack of information about my cause.

I understand that you probably obtained your information from the police. My Internet record shows that New Westminster police themselves visited my websites extensively on Monday. Reading your report, together with some other ones, I come to the conclusion that the police were deliberately suppressing information about my cause while emphasizing or exaggerating my mental state to discredit me. The police also intentionally delayed the resolve of the situation so as to cause a negative reaction towards me from the public.

Because of the extraordinary nature of my allegation against the government, it's natural that people would have doubt. The best way to find out if I am indeed a lunatic as police suggested to a Province reporter, or, alternatively, if the federal government, as I claimed, at least knew and possibly involved in the crime that resulted in Cecilia Zhang's death, is to publish the addresses of my websites and let your readers be the judge. A good starting point is to go to my main blog www.jyu1.blogspot.com and click on Summary of Connections to Cecilia Zhang case.

Last but not least, I would like to offer a sincere apology to all affected motorists.

Jim Yu, Burnaby

Letter to the Editor of The Province

From: Jim Yu

Mailed-By: gmail.com

To: provletters@png.canwest.com

Cc: jkeating@png.canwest.com

Date: Nov 3, 2005 6:38 PM

Subject: Pattullo Bridge shut for 6 hours, page A18, Tuesday, November 1, 2005

Dear Editor,

As the subject of your report, I would like to present my side of the story and correct some of the misinformation about me.

Since summer 2004, I have written extensively on my various websites about Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder cover-up. The goal of my protest on Monday was, ideally through the media, to bring public's attention to my websites, whose addresses I put on both my T-shirt and placard while atop the bridge.

I am thus disappointed at your report, not only because of the lack of information about my cause, but also because of the misinformation about my mental state. Specifically, I am not at all schizophrenic, although I did feel depressed from time to time, a fact that I disclosed on my websites.

I understand that you probably obtained your information from the police. My Internet record shows that New Westminster police themselves visited my websites extensively on Monday. Reading your report, together with some other ones, I come to the conclusion that the police were deliberately suppressing information about my cause while emphasizing or exaggerating my mental state to discredit me. The police also intentionally delayed the resolve of the situation so as to cause a negative reaction towards me from the public.

Because of the extraordinary nature of my allegation against the government, it's natural that people would have doubt. The best way to find out if I am indeed a lunatic, or, alternatively, if the federal government, as I claimed, at least knew and possibly involved in the crime that resulted in Cecilia Zhang's death, is to publish the addresses of my websites and let your readers be the judge. A good starting point is to go to my main blog www.jyu1.blogspot.com and click on Summary of Connections to Cecilia Zhang case.

Last but not least, I would like to offer a sincere apology to those motorists affected.

Jim Yu, Burnaby

The importance of privacy (II)

Remember George Radwanski, former Privacy Commissioner of Canada?

No, I am not asking you if you recall how he was disgraced by, wait, the Liberals who appointed him. I am not asking you either to recall how much he spent on his lunches, although I am pretty sure they're in the ranges of those spent by, say, Joe Volpe.

I would like to bring your attention instead to what he said on privacy when he was the Privacy Commissioner.

If we have to go through our lives thinking twice about everywhere we go, everything we do, every contact and every purchase because we have to ask ourselves how it might look when it's monitored, recorded, noted, analyzed, interpreted, perhaps misinterpreted, and used against us by agents of the state, we are not truly free.

I am sure you are all free, not like me living in a virtual solitary confinement. Therefore, it is pretty damn hard for you to understand what it is like to be watched every moment of the day (and night).

Remember, though, I have been living more or less like this for quite some time now. Coming back from Ottawa in June, I felt I was at a breaking point both physically and mentally. I not only desperately wanted to FEEL free, but also needed to do so, even though I knew I was not free.

Specifically, I knew that my borrowing records from various libraries were not private. Not wanting to be bothered, I chose to ignore the nuts-cracking by some of you until I realized that a mistake was made on September 3.

Ordinarily it would not be a big deal when someone borrows a wrong video/DVD. Writing about this mistake thus makes me feel wired, like I am confessing a crime. And it is still possible that I could be criticized of being paranoid. In fact, I have been hesitating and debating (thus stuck) for an agonizing while about whether I should blog about it.

I indeed wrote a draft about it a few weeks ago:

Apropos of nothing…

Have you ever picked up a video/DVD from the library (or Blockbuster's) and found out that it was not exactly what you were expecting ONLY after you (or someone else) popped it into the video/DVD machine?

…..

Now that we are on this subject, perhaps I should ask you some questions:

1. If you were to draw some kind of conclusions, or any kind of conclusions for that matter, shouldn't you ask yourself whether it is possible to do so just by analyzing borrowing records?
2. If it was possible, shouldn't you then make sure you have my complete records? And shouldn't you want to know which items I reviewed perhaps several times and which items I simply did not finish watching?
   
3. Now let's suppose you do have my complete borrowing records (although I very much doubt it because it is to the data provider's advantage to spin my information), shouldn't you want to know why I chose each item? (Mind you, don't think too hard because I pick up a lot of them fairly randomly.)

I could go on with all those possibilities. The point is that there is no "intelligent design" in my borrowing records. There is no hidden message either, except for the only time that I sent you a message through my borrowing record on September 10 when I tried to tell you what I had intended to borrow the previous week. And I soon realized that was a real mistake and I stopped borrowing videos/DVDs altogether.

Why am I writing this? Why am I writing this? – I feel like a fool.

The point is, if you want to know what my view is on anything, simply interview me. Given how desperate I am to get my story out, the chance is very good that you will have your questions answered.

The importance of privacy (I)

As you may have noticed – or, have you? – that I had translated the Summary of connections to Cecilia Zhang case and put it up here.

During the translation, the question naturally came to my mind again: Why did Cecilia die?

Hatred. Yes, we all know that by now. But how could anyone be so hateful as to take a 9-year-old's life as innocent and beautiful as Cecilia's?

I believe that the loss of my privacy played an important part in the generation of that hatred. As I wrote in my summary:

Since the defendant has the ears of the government and some politicians, they could spin my case easily. Mostly, I think they spread rumors that connected one of the defendant's (Weldon's) daughters with me. These kinds of rumors had the effect of masking their malicious intention (i.e., destroying my career out of jealousy and/or hatred). Besides, they further exposed me to hatred and contempt.

Of course, I do not think they would tell anybody about the reference letter of 1993 - the origin of my grievances - and the subsequent bullying and harassment.

In this situation, I could be described as bad, as nonsensical, or as extreme as possible because I did not have a chance to present my side of the facts.

My current situation is pretty much the same as before except that the people who are the target of spin are now the journalists, because only through them can my story see the light of the day. And the party that does all the spin is the all powerful governments and politicians.

The point is: I wanted to convince you journalists, provided that you have the conscience to care about what is right and what is wrong. However, I could not possibly win an argument – even if I can be sure what the argument is -- without privacy.

I have been stuck, seriously stuck

And it's primarily because of privacy, or more precisely, the lack of it.

The China connection

Chinese President Hu Jintao is in town today. I just came back from my protest because of the previously unpublicized China connection to my story.

The China connection 

One of the defendants named in my lawsuit, Mr. Matthew Li, is a Chinese working on Wall Street. Many agents named in my report seemed to have come to me by his order, directly or indirectly. Mr. Li, through his agent Han-Xin Lin, suggested in January 2001 that he knew the family of Li Peng, the then Premier of China, in an apparent attempt to muzzle/threaten me. In early 2002 while I was visiting my hometown in China, the son of Li Peng, through one of my relatives, delivered a threatening message to me. I have not come back to China since then for fear of my safety.

 

I am a little tired. But I think I will continue the protest tomorrow morning.

 

That's too much privacy!

Even the President should have privacy rights.

I thought No. 7 on my list is kinda obvious. Maybe not?


Update 10/27/2005: See a picture here via this alternative link to the broken one above.

Letter of the day

From Globe and Mail: (H/T Norman's Spectator)

This just in?

I was greatly relieved to unfold The Globe and Mail and see Diana, Princess of Wales on the front page (Conspiracy Theory Deflated In Death Of Faded Idol Diana -- Aug. 26). Clearly, all important problems of world violence, poverty and hunger must have been solved if a report about a 1997 car accident is a leading story in Canada's national newspaper.

I can only hope that in future you will find some way to mention both Diana and Karla Homolka in a news story, thereby combining the ultimate in pointless celebrity obsession and horror.

RICHARD AKERMAN, Ottawa

Why not the Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up? You have been holding it down for too long, I guess.

The (il)logic of Margaret Wente

Cross-posted on Norman's Spectator

Re: Tuesday's THE COLUMN I WISH I'D WRITTEN: The Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente is onto smart Canadians and dumb Americans

I normally enjoy the selection of columns very much. But this one's logic is so twisted that it qualifies neatly as what Professor Harry G. Frankfurt called bullshit.

I'll give you two examples.

At the beginning of the review, Norman quoted her as saying:

Are Canadians more intellectually sophisticated than Americans? We like to think so. And now there's scientific proof. It's called "intelligent design."

In other words, she was either saying that

"Intelligent design" is scientific proof that Canadians are more intellectually sophisticated than Americans.

Or,

"Intelligent design" is scientific proof that [we] Canadians like to think that we are more intellectually sophisticated than Americans.

Neither statement, however, makes much sense scientifically, to say nothing of her illogical attempt to equate part (Canadian or American) with whole.

The real twist came at the end of her column. She concluded:

To me, that [Canadians belief that "U.S. foreign policy" poses the same risk to Canada as "terrorism."] is as weird as believing in intelligent design.

So, the implied conclusion is that Canadians are no more intellectually sophisticated than Americans, according to her previous logic.

The point is that there is no point at all in her column. I guess she does not really care about making any point. And that just qualifies her as a bullshitter.

Summer hibernation

Oops, that's oxymoronic.

Big deal.

Today's bread

HealthWay Sprouted Grain Flax loaf. A little dry.

Home sweet home

Got back home from Ottawa last Wednesday. Can't believe I had lived with alcoholics, drug addicts, and people in and out of jails for more than six months.

Still, I have to marvel that Canada is a great country. While billions of people on this planet living on a dollar a day or less, some of the "clients" of the shelter seemed to have lived there forever, at a cost of approximately C$30 a day, without having to do anything. ( I worked as a private tutor at nearby University of Ottawa in the midest of fasting and blogging, in order to pay my rent in Vancouver.)

That Canada is a great country is further confirmed by the people and land I saw aboard Air Canada flight 189. Besides me sat two older ladies who were very talkative. Looking out the window, one of them correctly pointed out that we were flying over Winnepeg. How did she know? Canada is such a vast country yet the land and people never failed to amaze me. I wish I had not fallen asleep and talked to them a little more.

Finally, I was home. Indeed, there is no other place feels like home.

While I am writing this blog and reflecting on my Ottawa trips, I realize that my homy feeling will forever be discounted if I failed to bring justice to Cecilia Zhang, whose feeling of comfort and security of her home as a 9 year old girl must have been completely shattered when she was grabbed from her bed and taken away from her parents in the middle of the night October 19-20, 2003. I also know that for myself, if I do not find out who brazenly intruded my privacy by putting survellience device in my apartment, I will not feel secure again, even in my current home, even in this great country called Canada.

Cecilia Zhang and I are targeted because we are immigrants, second-class citizens from a "communist country", in the eyes of the establishment, and possibly the government. Therefore, I  will, and must, continue my fight to bring "equality everywhere" so that Canada will be an even greater country for all people.

Cecilia Zhang in the news ... or not

Apparently, there was a court proceeding going on this week for Cecilia Zhang murder case.

What's also apparent was that there's a total media blackout this time.

Based on my crude research, if there is a media competition to cover this case this week, Toronto Star would easily win with a total of about 1,100 words written. That is, for the whole week's development, plus the case history, the descriptions of both the victim and the accused.

As for the CanWest chain of newspapers and The Globe and Mail? Apparently, nobody was assigned to cover this story this week from either of these two newspapers. We thus do not even know how the publication ban came about.

And for CBC? I heard CBC Radio run a brief item at its 5:00AM broadcast this morning. Then it was dropped. -- Actually, it did so at least on two days of this week.

Is this story not news worthy any more?

Remember the intensity of media coverage when she was first found missing?

Remember the intensity of media coverage when her body was found later?

Remember the intensity of media coverage when a suspect was charged last summer?

Oh well, I guess somebody, or somebodies, does not want the public to remember her any more.

Why?

Because she had served her purpose, which was, tragically ironically, to generate news headlines on October 20, 2003. Or, to borrow a professional parlance, "to change the channel".

Is there anything more sickening than this?????

My mantra

My mantra these days is: Don't lose your capability to feel angry, don't lose your capability to feel angry, don't lose your capability to feel angry ...

Today's bread

I had a few bad days.

While having my first slice of bagel this morning, I thought about her.

I thought about the night she was grabbed from her bed and cruelly taken away from her parents.

What went through her mind? Was she scared? Was she helpless? Did she fight back? Did she suffer? How long did she live? And how did she die?

I don't know any of the answers.

But one thing I do know is this: She must have gone through a hell lot more than what I am going through now.

With that realization, back to work!

Today's bread

Country Harvest Flax begals.

I bought it last Friday for 99 c. It's still fresh.

Martin vs. me

Congrats, you won!

"Prime Minister Paul Martin has bought himself what he hopes will be a $4.6-billion political lifeline. (MARTIN O’HANLON, CP, 04/26/2005)

But hey, everyone knows you've got unfair advantage. -- While I am staying at a homeless shelter and ranting about my bread, you are enjoying good sleep and diet. To say nothing of all the free infomecials you run on our nation's airwaves during the past a few days.

Today's bread

Country Harvest Flax bagels. On sale at Loblaws for 99c.

Change of name (II)

Effective immediately, the name of this blog has been changed for the second time.

+++

The original name was "A JOBLESS IMMIGRANT WITHOUT PRIVACY", with the following description:

"On May 21, 2004, I stumbled on this blogosphere and immediately grabbed a spot. Intuitively, blogging seemed to be a helpful tool for what I was about to do.

However, I was still "in a daze" from years of being stalked, harassed, intruded and threatened. And Internet has been a huge part of that dreadful experience. That's why I haven't blogged a single word so far.

Anyway, I used to call myself Internet-challenged. Now, I want to change that, and everything in between, come hell or high water.

Just read me. 07/25/2004"

+++

The second name was "Feeding our comatose pundits", adopted on January 5, with one-line description:

"Indifference is the epitome of evil."

+++

The new name is "Justice for Cecilia Zhang", with one-line description:

"Fasting since October 20, 2004."

Tomorrow's bread

Country Harvest Twelve Grain loaf. On sale at Loblaws again for the same price.

This Monday's bread

Country Harvest Twelve Grain loaf. On sale at Loblaws.

"Equality everywhere", everyone

A nurse gave me the idea of fasting one day a week. I think I am gonna do that starting next Monday. (Why fasting on Mondays? -- Go 'n figure it out yourself, Okay?)

Oh, why was it so hard for me to stop fasting? Here was the answer, folks.

"My other wish is that there are no more wars in the world and equality is everywhere, " wrote she.

Amen.


Update 09/15/2005: Broken-link: I found that Cecilia Zhang's website (www.ceciliazhang.org) was not available a few days ago. Updated link here.