Chapter 5

Bush and Martin vs. Me

After I came back to Vancouver from Ottawa in June 2005, I was exhausted both physically and mentally because of all the fasting, protesting, dealing with health problems and living in a shelter. So I took a couple of months off.

Attempts to tie me with nuclear bomb

In mid-August, I felt I was able to go back to the task again. So I assembled some literature about my story. On Saturday, August 20, 2005, I emailed the literature to a bunch of grassroots organizations. I also emailed a couple of US news organizations regarding my story, in which I mentioned, for the first time, that I felt Bush Administration was part of the conspiracy in covering up the truth about Cecilia Zhang’s abduction and murder.

• Relate Link: Why I contacted New York Times? (TBD)

On the next newspaper day, Monday, August 22, 2005, Globe and Mail produced this editorial cartoon to attack me.

How did I know this cartoon was prompted by my email to US newspapers?

First of all, I had been compared to Kim Jong-Il before, although I have never mentioned it. In one Late Show with David Letterman, Letterman bullied me about my mental health by calling Kim Jong-Il “Men-Tally-Ill”.

• Related Link: David Letterman's role in my story from my report

Secondly, the cartoon was drawn by Anthony Jenkins, the same cartoonist who bullied me (and attacked Stephen Harper) on January 15 and 17, 2005. It was also Mr. Jenkins’ first cartoon of the summer or first cartoon on a Monday in the summer. It seemed to me that he came out of his vacation just to be able to take on this special assignment.

The cartoon itself was an attempt to demonize me. Frankly, that’s all they could do. When they could not refute the facts and logic in my claims – claims that I had just passed on to the couple of US news organizations - they resorted to personal attack.

• Related Link: The next day (August 23), Globe further responded with a suggestive front-page picture, which also had a linkage to David Letterman. Margaret Wente, on the same day, responded to my attempt to have my story published on US papers. Her column was written for the people in the loop, especially journalists in the States. For average readers, they may be totally confused by the illogical pointlessness in her column. But for the people in the loop, her point was obvious: “You American journalists would be very dumb if you report his story.” After I posted my comments on her column on August 26, she resorted to sexism as the response the following day.

• Related Link: After I came out of “summer hibernation”, US ambassador David Wilkins and Martin government started a [phony] war of words which included such memorable phrases as “emotional tirades”, “bully”, etc., over softwood lumber dispute. Then Mr. Martin announced he was going to tackle the problem by keeping saying that he was going to call Mr. Bush. He did not call for almost two months. Strangely, it was only after I called New York Times for the first time on October 13 that he finally called Mr. Bush on October 14. Again, I believe it’s a psychological and media campaign directed at me, for the purpose of overwhelming me. (I called NY Times using a public phone.)

Another nuke-related incident is as follows.

I posted my first blog of the summer in the evening of August 24, 2005, Summer hibernation. It was tongue-in-cheek play of words, meant to tell people that I was still alive and taking a rest (I needed it!). The next morning, a piece of news coming out of Washington was that according to just-declassified document, President Kennedy had considered using nuclear bomb on China in the sixties. What timing!

My sense was that, because the truth about Cecilia Zhang murder was so explosive, it was compared to a nuclear bomb. But then to suggest that I, by doing all I can to expose the truth and seek justice for Cecilia Zhang, is somewhat attacking Canada, a country I have lived in for almost 15 years and fallen in love with, is absurd. All I want to accomplish is to right a wrong. In fact, I consider it my responsibility as a Canadian resident to right the wrongs in our not-so-perfect society.

Attempts to tie me with Nazism

On September 3, 2005, I borrowed a DVD from a public library by mistake. The reactions from US and Canadian governments and their minions in the media were quite unbelievable.

The title of the DVD is Triumph of will, a Nazi propaganda piece. I picked it up in a hurry, thinking it is a documentary about the Nazi regime. (I remember the word documentary is in the description on the back cover of the DVD. But apparently it is a documentary made for the Nazi regime.) I though it might tell me how Hitler came to power.

I have written briefly about this incident in this blog. Perhaps I should pause to provide more background information.

During that period of time in the summer, I went to that particular library every Saturday to read. And I normally pick up a few DVDs or videos on my way out because I did not have cable TV subscription at home. (I do not watch TV that much, but I find that watching TV makes having a meal alone less boring.) By the time I was to leave the library, I normally became hungry so I did not spend a lot of time in deciding what DVDs/Videos to borrow.

I knew that my borrowing record would be monitored and spread around with a spin, even if Pat MacAdam had not written his July 24, 2005 column, A freeloader’s heaven. But I was determined not to be bothered by it because I desperately wanted to feel free, if not for anything else but for my health’s sake.

The next day, September 4, 2005, conservative writer Victor Davis Hanson published a column on Washington Post, We must stay in Iraq, in which he (1) made a reference to Hitler; and (2) ended with a quote and the word Amen, similar to my blog of April 7, 2005 in which I quoted Cecilia Zhang and ended my blog with the word Amen.

Three days later, we heard US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld say: “We can handle two wars at the same time”. We also heard Paul Martin say: “We can handle a situation like that.” – They are in lock step with each other. You can almost feel that they are so invigorated just like a drowning man getting hold a straw.

Three days later, Peter Foster of National Post published a column, The plot sickens. He told people in the loop that he was attacking me because (1) When I started a separate blog, The Story behind Gomery inquiry, to deal with the interactions between Adscam and Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up in May 2005, various newspapers and pundits used these two phrases “The plot deepens” or “The plot sickens”; Apparently, he thought that my borrowing Triumph of will was a deliberate act and that I had set my eye on Mr. Bush; (2) He used the phrase “ethically challenged”, the original Warren Buffett line; (3) I also called myself a sickened jobless immigrant without privacy in my mailings to grassroots organizations in the summer; (4) In his column, he attacked the Lefties who watch The Corporation and Fahrenheit 9/11, and espouse conspiracy theory. For him, I am just a Lefty who espouses conspiracy theory, just like what Mr. Bush suggested during his visit to Canada. (I did watch The Corporation while I was in Ottawa. I am not sure if I was been followed.)

Four days later, National Post published an editorial, Hardly a saint, in which the editorial writer said: “… after repeatedly making racist remarks and suggesting that Hitler ‘was good at the beginning, but he just went too far’.” Apparent to people in the loop, the editorialist cast in doubt of my view on Hitler and implied I had bad intentions. Andrew Coyne also joined in to question me. In his column, Badly embracing the status quo, he wrote: “I mean no value judgment by this.”

Then, about two weeks’ later, Federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro – a Martin appointee – was reported saying this curious line: “Whether [Adscam] is a triumph of entrepreneurship or theft depends on how you look at these kinds of things.”

Attempts to tie me with separatism

My first Chinese article

My effort to get grassroots organizations’ attention to my story was not successful at all. The problem, I figure, was that I was in a Catch-22 dilemma. Average folks didn’t believe this kind of story unless it had been printed on newspapers. (However, I found that if I could persuade them to take a serious read of my report, they tend to believe in me.) Newspaper people, as part of the people in the loop, knew my story was true but they refused to print it, bowing the pressure from political establishments.

But I knew that working at the grassroots level was my only viable option, having realized that MSM was firmly on side with the power. In order to get average people to believe me, I figured I needed to build up my credibility. I decided that I should try to first publish the observations I learned on my journey. I could then gradually move on to write my claims about Cecilia Zhang case. So far, I have written one and a half articles.

On September 29, 2005, I submitted a Chinese article for publication via email to various Chinese newspapers and websites. The title of article can be translated as Media Bias in Covering Pacific Gateway. Media bias is a subject I obviously feel pretty heavy about because it is the reason why I am having such a difficult time to get my story out to the people. And media’s bias against Stephen Harper was really unfair, as I mentioned so many times in my blogs.

I should add that my article was written well enough to serve my purpose to show the Chinese community that I am a serious person who relies on facts and logic. Indeed, I’d like to think that Toronto Sun’s front page the next day was a positive response to my article. (Maybe not. But hey, I needed the encouragement!)

Media frenzy

In October, national media worked themselves up into a frenzy over the tenth anniversary of Quebec referendum. It looked like everybody is towing the [Liberal] party line. Really, Liberal Party started their re-election campaign much earlier than the rest of the country.

At the time, I had no idea that this might have something to do with my article. Canadian people were told that, because of the Sponsorship scandal, Quebec separation sentiment is on the rise. Martin Liberals wanted to sell themselves as the only savior of Canada. As of the writing of this Chapter, Canadian people seemed to have the wisdom to reject Martin Liberals’ logic. Still, they did not know that deep in Martin’s mind, a large part of the reason for Liberals to make such a big noise about national unity was that they wanted to portrait me (this time) as a separatist. How else would you defend the murder of an innocent girl?

Some pundits applied this quote to Paul Martin: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” I can’t agree more.

谁是老七？

拙文《从“太平洋门户”之构想看媒体不公》在《枫华园》第523期（10月7号）发表后，同一网络杂志在两星期后第525期（10月21号）的同一版面发表了署名老七的文章──《几篇流水账，一句惊天语－－闲话加拿大历史上的“十月危机”》。这篇文章立刻引起了我的注意。

为什么老七的这篇文章引起了我的注意呢？

首先是作者的名字，因为李鹏之子正是通过一个外号叫老七的人来威胁我的（在我们老家，据说是只有那些很有能耐的人才会叫老七）。看过笔者个人网站的读者可能 知道，我在不久前的九月中旬公开披露了在这个事件中的关键人物黎彦修有李鹏之子这个靠山，但我没有透露李鹏之子具体是如何威胁我的，自然也就没有透露老七这个人。我唯一一次跟别人透露这方面的细节是在10月18日（即老七的文章登出前仅三天），对方是多伦多一家中文媒体的工作人员。我当时也没有说出老七这 个名字，只是说李鹏之子是通过北京某个大单位的一个高官老乡（即＂老七＂）来威胁我的。这个单位其实是《人民日报》社，＂老七＂是里面的一个高级编辑(我不知道他的真名)，他认识我的一个亲戚。

其次是这篇文章的内容。我可以从几个方面来谈谈这篇文章的用意。

第一是这篇文章 即用了流水账这个词作标题，也用了流水账这个形式写作。看过笔者的英文报告和网上其他文章的读者可能知道，我叙事习惯用一二三四五这种方式，因为考虑到我 的事情比较复杂，用这种方式叙述比较有条理，也免得拖泥带水。老七的这篇文章这么突出流水账这种形式，无非是要暗地里攻击我的有关张东岳命案真相的文章和报告只不过是流水账而已，不值得一读。

其实，老七并不是从这方面来攻击我的第一人。因为攻击不了我的内容转而攻我的写作方式的人不止他一个, 只不过在英文里不叫流水账而叫 PowerPoint 罢了。试举一两例：

1. 8月30号即我在跟美国媒体发了很多资料的那段时间里，华盛顿邮报专栏作家 Ruth Marcus 专门写了一篇文章讨论 PowerPoint 的害处；
2. 9月6号，David Frum 在他的国家邮报专栏里提到 PowerPoint 时跟 sales pitches并用，显然是在贬低PowerPoint。(以前也有人抨击我为张东岳案所做的努力是某种推销。)

另外，老七文章的主题是魁獨，跟加拿大主流媒体遥相呼应，其用心就不用说了。一开始引我注目的倒是这篇文章的后半部分，即有关“一句惊天语”(Just watch me)的内容。原因是我在2004年夏天开始为张东岳命案写博客日志时，就模仿了这一句名言，只不过我写的是 Just read me。所以我马上就意识到老七可能是针对我的。现在再联想到后面发生的许多事情，看来我的一点点文字游戏也要成为企图分裂国家的罪证了。真是“欲加之罪， 何患无辞”。(其实，Just watch me在加拿大已经成为一句几乎家喻户晓的名言，不少人在不同场合都在引用。比方说，CTV在给其以Mike Duffy作主持人的“政治秀”作广告时，Mike Duffy说的广告词就是Just watch me。)

将老七文章两部分的内容结合起来看，“几篇流水账，一句惊天语”实际上就是老七对我所写的日志、文章、报告等进行攻击的总的行动纲领。具体地说，他们要将我写的揭露张东岳命案阴谋的材料贬低成是“断章取义借題发揮”的“几篇流水账”再加上跟分裂国家有关的“一句惊天语”。

文章最后，老七将跟魁独风牛马不相及的台独和六四等敏感话题扯进来，其用心是非常险恶的，因为他们设想我在反驳时难免要说说我对这些事情的看法，不管我说的是什么，他们又可以抓我的“政治把柄”了。这是马田自由党及其控制的媒体对付我的一贯手腕。因为我写的揭露张东岳命案阴谋的材料都是建立在事实与逻辑的基础之上，无法反驳，他们就从政治上来打压我。前面一章的有关导弹防御系统的话题就是一例。

最后，我想突出说明的是，这篇文章在我跟别人唯一一次说到“李鹏之子威胁我” 的比较具体的细节后才三天就冒了出来，真是让我心里感到发毛。我记得当时我是在一个离家比较远的公用电话跟多伦多的那位中文媒体人士打电话的，当时在电话中甚至没有提到老七这个名字。因此，这篇文章的刊出，更有一层心理攻势的味道，即对方在告诫我，我没有什么秘密他们是不知道的。

联系到美加政府高官的言行，我只好得出这样的结论：能够对我进行如此紧密监控的只有政府部门，而且应该是情报机关。而根据李鹏之子是因为黎彦修才来威胁我的这一事实出发，黎彦修应该是知道老七这个人名的。一个自然的问题就是：黎彦修跟美加情报机关是否有联系？

的确，从这篇文章的行文还可以看到黎彦修的影子。我虽然跟他直接打交道并不是很多，但我这么多年受到的骚扰大部分都是他在背后操纵，因此我对其手腕及信条可以说是比较熟悉了。比方说，他经常用的一个类比就是，有些人天生就是狮子或老虎，而另外一些人就是山羊甚至蚂蚁，这种社会达尔文主义在老七文章的这段话中也得到了体现：

筆者由此認為，歷史是可以被強勢人物左右的，或者換句更有中國特色的話說，是可以被英雄創造的。至於甚麼正義必將戰勝邪惡，不過是勝利者的驕傲宣言，或許還有必要再加上弄臣的巧妙遮掩。

言外之意，老七在告诫我：即使在张东岳命案这件事上我代表着正义，最终我也不一定会胜利。

Matthew Li (黎彦修) on Channel-M

老七文章发表的第二天，即10月22号，黎彦修给温哥华多元文化电视台“周六对话”节目现场打过两次电话，进一步证明他参与在这一轮攻势中。第一次打进来时他说，他跟“中办”里的很多人都认识，“中办”里的人对当天讨论的题目是任何任何看的。

到节目快要结束时，他又打了电话进来，这次我注意到他用的是假名。他又对节目议题发表看法，主要意思是“经济上给好处，政治上抓把柄” (原话)。

很显然，黎彦修是冲着我来的。据我所知，他住在美国纽约附近。不知道他是不是专门跑到温哥华来干这种事情的。

首先，他知道我在看这个节目。这一点看看我的文章，再了解一下温哥华的情况就不难知道。当然，他既然为布什加马田政府效力，帮助他们掩盖张东岳案的阴谋，人家可能也看他是个人才，自然会重用他，告诉他如何做的。

其次，他打的这两通电话都是有目的的。他知道我写文章是为了建立我在华人当中的可信度和知名度，他的第一通电话的目的就是要向我宣示：他在这方面很轻易地就能将我打下去，他只要搬出他在“中办”里认识哪些哪些人就可以了，因为中国政府在海外华人当中还是很有威望的。

我对他的第二通电话所传递的信息开始还不太理解。后来我将上面谈过的“老七”的文章联系起来以后，才算明白过来。所谓“经济上给好处”，无非还是要给我钱， 跟我私了，让我忘了张东岳案，我也就不再给布什加马田政府“添麻烦”了；而“政治上抓把柄”是指他以及他为之效力的布什加马田政府从我的文章中抓到了所谓的政治把柄──我有分裂国家之嫌。他们以后就要用这顶高帽子来打压我了。这跟老七文章的中心含义是一致的。

Martin’s interview on CKNW

Even before the campaign started, Martin Liberals wanted to put national unity issue front and center. But people could almost feel that they were faking it. Indeed, Mr. Martin talked more about unity issue outside of Quebec than in Quebec. One example was his performance at the first set of leaders’ debates in Vancouver. He was more passionate in English than in French when it came to Quebec separation.

On Monday, December 5, 2005, during an interview with Vancouver radio station CKNW host Peter Warren, Mr. Martin directly linked Pacific Gateway with national unity.

The following is my transcription of Martin’s answer to a follow-up question about Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe’s comment of “wiping out the Liberals in Quebec”. The original audio file can be found on CKNW website. (Ever wonder why a Liberal Minister was so zealous in bringing out the topic of Nazism in an election? – See above about Nazism.)

Peter Warren: Do you agree with the Transport Minister that there was a tone of Nazism about that comment?

Paul Martin: Look, you know, the Transport Minister, uh, obviously reacted very [inaudible to me]. He’s already said that he got a bit too far in that comment. But, I’ll tell you, uh, the emotion that says that Gilles Duceppe isn’t going to take this country away from us, uh, is one that I understand full well. Uh, we’re talking about the future of what I believe to be the greatest country in the world. You know, I have said this in Quebec. I believe that the Pacific Gateway, the fact that the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are closer to Asia than, in fact, uh, Australia, I think these are tremendous national assets, and I think that anybody who would come along and say that let’s split up this phenomenal piece of geography that is Canada, with our sense of values, uh, just absolutely no way.

Note how Mr. Martin voluntarily jumped from Quebec separation issue to Pacific Gateway and suggested that someone might split up this phenomenal piece of geography. And it’s apparent that he brought up the subject of Pacific Gateway in the context of national unity. Puzzled listeners must be wondering: Is there anybody who want to “split up” Pacific Gateway, “a tremendous national asset”, from the rest of Canada?

Total idiocy.

By the way, if this was what Martin Liberals’ campaign was hinged on - something completely phony and fake - no wonder they were in a free fall in the polls.