得知国内大家可以登陆美国CN*网站,我发现了让国内的人们检验测试美国“民主”最简单直接明了的一个方法:到CN*的网站上去尝试发表我投诉美国加拿大政府侵犯我人权的新闻。在CN*网站上有一个“iReport”(我 报导)的栏目,主页上就可以看到。那里据CN*声称是任何人都可以贴上自己认为是新闻的故事与其他网友分享SHARE,即使故事不被CN*认为是新闻发表以有其他众多的网友看到。今天我去那里(International Addition) 尝试发表我的故事,结果是写完之后摁”发表“键时,网页立即出现如此字句:You are not authorized to view this page,…”。 不管我用什么笔名发表都同样。最后我以一个笔名只写上”TEST“(测试),居然一摁键就发表了!事情很明显,CN*,美国最大的主流媒体之一专门做了一个FILTER(过滤器),只要文章中有我的名字或我的英文网站站址,文章就被自动筛出了。於是我用了笔名,从新写了一个帖子,内容没有我的真名实姓,没有我的英文站址,只是用了天涯我的帖子的网址(http://www14.tianya.cn/publicfor ... look/1/126501.shtml ),一摁键,这次 过滤器没有能发现,居然发表了!也就是说有一些当时正在那个”我报导“点上的读者都读到了我在天涯国际的帖子。大都是中文,不知人家能否看懂。不过我的网址可在上面这里的人能够登陆。这是不是关于美国民主新闻自由的黑色幽默?
这是我第一次上CN*的网站,过去我只给NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST等报纸发过电邮,只到NEW YORK TIMES的HAVE YOUR SAY(你的意见)栏上过帖子,上了后几分钟之内我的帖子就被删了。我就放弃了。那是几年前的事。真是不可思议几年后,我从来没有联系过的CN*会事先做软件机关筛出我的帖子!显然这中间有美国政府的操作,才使所有这些主流媒体都整齐划一统筹一致的围堵我要暴光****的努力。
现在我邀请国内的网友们亲自测试一下,否则你们对美国民主的信仰让你们觉得我是”党派来“搞宣传的。你们自己来亲身体验一下美国民主吧。方法如下:先用我在此题目前端贴的我给美国国会写的英文投诉信,加上我的英文网址(http://www.wliao.150m.com/ and http://www.globility.com/~wxl85/) 随便用个名字贴上去。标题要英文,如”加拿大中国移民向美国国会投诉美国政府侵犯人权“。(请一定再检查是否真被发表了,几分钟或几小时后再回来看还在那里没有)。然后再发表一篇关于中国或其他国家的新闻,不管什么新闻,当然要真实,免得有人告你诽谤。其中没有我的名字和网址。你就会看到区别了,就相信我告诉你们的真实了。
我是居住在加拿大多伦多市的大陆移民。我的人权案始自于1991一场在多伦多大学的学术争论。其时我是多大东亚研究系的硕士研究生,选修了一个白人教授WATERHOUSE的中国艺术史课。Waterhouse在课堂上要求学生学习他的艺术史新理论,并对此讲解。当Waterhouse讲到:“美”是一个欧洲概念,亚洲人等在历史上没有“美”的概念时我变得很好奇,因为他的根据是因为日本语和印度语里的“美”一词最初起源时并没有“悦目”的意思,而欧洲人早在亚当夏娃时就有了“美”的概念,因为亚当夏娃认为树上的果实“悦目”,亚当夏娃的反映就是人类最早的审美意识。於是我就当即问到“那么英文美一词的起源是什么呢?”(So what's the origin of English word 'beautiful'?) WATERHOUSE答不上来,说他要去查一下,然后Waterhouse提出要对艺术史进行以种族生物属性的方法来研究,尽管这个biological approach种族生物属性方法是被一个犹太艺术史学家批评为种族主义在30年代很大的推动了种族情绪。我提出中国历史的证据证明中国在甲骨文时就有了“美”一词,并且从其起源就是“悦目的意思。Waterhouse查询之后发现原来英文的“美”字也是从拉丁文借来的,英文最初本没有”“美”一词。於是非常不悦的表示他要重新研究他的理论。而后他在课堂上宣读他对一个华人艺术史学者C。C。 WANG的评论文章,其中刻意评论到:“虽然中国已经被历史远远的抛在后面了,一些中国人还非常热衷于宣称中国古代的发明创造。。。尽管C。C。 WANG他自己现在都居住在华盛顿。。。”。我感到Waterhouse 是在暗讽我提出有关中国甲骨文"美"字的来源是为了声称“美”的概念是中国的发明创造,非常气愤,其后便在学期论文中在讨论美的概念时提出了其他民族在历史上就有了美的概念的证据。具有强烈种族歧视意义的是,在我的论文中,为了证明我不是要”热衷于声称中国古代的发明创造“我论文中对其他种族历史上具有了美的概念列举的证据篇幅大於有关中国的,可是WATERHOUSE在对我论文的评语里却只提及我论文中有关中国的,对其他种族的证据一字不提,写到:”这篇论文最好的部分在最后一个章节,在这里你引证了有关中国古代美的概念的资料。我不得不同意你关于美的意见"。当时我意识到他是有意不涉及我论文中更大篇幅的关于其他种族的史料,而只提及有关中国的。因为他这种专门强调中国史料的目的是要大作文章,影射讽刺贫穷的中国人还居然不知天高地厚的要跟欧洲人竞争声称”美“是中国古代的发明创造。这点在后来多大对我投诉的结论中证明了,因为那个所谓投诉委员会把我和WATERHOUSE的争论界定为,廖不同意WATERHOUSE‘关于美的概念的起源的论点,认为是中国人发明创造了美的概念。虽然面对证据WATERHOUSE承认放弃了他的白人至上理论,但同时他暗地里进行了报复。这些报复手段严重违反了大学的校规,。。。好了暂时翻译至此,下面引用我网站上对此事的英文陈述。
While admitting to me by writing that he had to agree with my findings on the concept of beauty, Waterhouse took a reprisal harassment against me that was purposed to interfere with my Ph.D application and that consisted of a series of fraud, in violation of the university's grading systems, and academic regulations. The violations so far known to me are: a). Waterhouse frauded a B as final grade of the course for me while the course was still in progress and submitted it to the Graduate School and the department admission committee for its admission and scholarship ranking meeting; b). when submitting this fraudulent grade, Waterhouse bypassed the Chair of the department for grade reviewing as required by the university's grading policy, and the then Chair is Asian in ethnicity (Korean); c). Waterhouse provided a reference letter for my Ph.D application in that he fraudulently identified himself as my program supervisor to magnify his capacity in his objection of my application; d). his objection to my application was based on an erroneous ground since as an art history course instructor, Waterhouse had no academic capacity to make the judgement that my academic preparation for another academic field - Chinese literature studies was inadequate.
In addition, there are evidences surrounding this erroneous grade that contradict what the U of T's claim that it was a innocent "mistake" resulting from some "confusions" on Waterhouse and the University's part. For instance, although when submitting the grade, Waterhouse changed the course designation title, the grade was entered by the grade processing clerk in the Student Records Office of the School of Graduate Studies. Waterhouse and U of T claim that the clerk "assumed" the change of the course designation by Waterhouse was only a clerical error, then changed it back and entered it without verifying it with Waterhouse and the Department as the grading system of the University requires. However, the material evidences known to me in my academic files in the Department and the Student Records Office show that, before this grade was entered, there was a communication between the clerk and the Department about the grade which indicates that the Department (the Graduate Coordinator) had already become aware of this change of the course designation at the Student Records Office. Meanwhile, when changing the designation of the course title and entering the grade, the clerk made a note on the Grade Submission Form: "See attached" which apparently indicates the reason for the change and entry. However, The content of that communication, including the clerk's "Attached" note (e.g. whether that was a verification of the grade with Waterhouse) has been kept as a secret by the U of T, as the U of T refused my inquiry about this communication in the process to investigate my complaint against this grade and Waterhouse. The U of T further denied my right under the university's official policy on access to student academic record to examine my academic files both at the Student Records Office and the Department so that the content of that communication remainsed as a secret.
However, based on evidences, it is clear what happened is that the clerk at the Student Record Office of the Graduate School noticed the incorrect submission of Waterhouse's grade submission form when entering this grade, since it did not match my course designation recorded in her computer. She then contacted the Graduate Coordinator of the Dept. Prof. Ward, who in turn contacted Waterhouse to clarify this matter. Waterhouse then confirmed his fraud to the Dept., and that caused the entry of this fraudulent grade. This is a very serious fraud and by the University's policy, such intentional violation of grading policy would subject Waterhouse to serious sanction. But since I was a racial minority student to the University, the university violated its own official policy to cover up the fraud for Waterhouse, a White member of the privileged class.
This cover up for Waterhouse's fraud is the very reason for all the brutal persecutions on me by the U of T, joined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the civil and criminal justice systems. At the time, since I was not aware of the official policy and so the serious consequence of this fraud to Waterhouse, and since the University and Waterhouse refused to correct the wrongs done to me by Waterhouse, in order to prove Waterhouse's retaliation, I kept pursuing appeal, persistently attempting to access to my academic file at the University under the University's official policy, the Ontario Information and Privacy Act, the discovery process of the civil court. And this motivated the whole Canadian White justice system to oppress my pursuit by persecution.
As a result of this harassment, my Ph.D application was rejected by the departmental admission Committee at U of T. I then lost my best and last chance to study for Ph.D. When my complaint continued to the OHRC after the U of T dismissed it, I was fired by the university from my counter help position at the university's cafeteria without even an explanation. I lost my income and suffered tremendous financial difficulties in that time of serious economic recession in Canada. As a result I could not even complete my MA program and had to drop out of the school, and consequently lost all my opportunities to enter a Ph. D program. I then lost my entire academic career.