August 2 Record
Last night, I took the sleep medication prescribed by my doctor. I did not fall asleep until 1:00 a.m., but I slept straight through until after 7:00 – one of the few uninterrupted nights of sleep I have had in recent days.
After getting up, I still felt somewhat heavy. The dull sensation of not being fully awake stayed with me until breakfast and then gradually faded. After breakfast, I went through my tai chi routine three times, becoming steadier with each repetition. At noon, I met a friend for a round of golf. We did not discuss this matter on the golf course, and my friend did not ask about it. I was very grateful. As of today, there has still been no response from the Mayor or any city councillor. Nor has there been any further news from Member of Parliament Chak Au. On July 29, I sent complete English translations of both articles to every city councillor and the Mayor, asking them to identify the specific passages supporting their public statements or to correct the public record. Today is the fifth day. Silence is also a response, and I will record it. In the afternoon, I searched for online discussions about this matter. What I saw left me deeply uneasy – not with anger, but with something colder. I sat down and wrote the article below. Both the Chinese and English versions are included here.
Two Statements, Two Responses
In the last week of July, two things happened in Richmond.
The First
On July 21 I published an article on my personal WeChat account about voter turnout in the municipal election. It carried an AI-generated cover image containing a flag and a turban. I did not ask for either; the tool produced them, and I reviewed the image too quickly before posting. Once I looked at it properly, I removed it, replaced it with a data chart, and apologized publicly. All of that happened before any English-language outlet reported on it, and two days before council met.
On the evening of July 27, Richmond council passed a motion unanimously: that I apologize publicly, that council state a public position, and that the matter be referred to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. A councillor held up a printed copy of the image in chambers – the image I had removed, and apologized for, two days earlier. I was given no notice and no opportunity to be heard.
The Second
Around the same time, on a public Facebook page, a user posted this: “Richmond is full of communist Chinese, that’s been obvious for decades.”
That statement does not name an image or a turn of phrase. It names more than half the residents of this city and identifies them, by ancestry, as members of a foreign political party.
It was posted publicly. It received likes. It is still online. No motion. No condemnation. No referral. Not one word from any member of council.
This Is the Point
I do not know what any councillor believes, and I am not going to guess. Alleging motive is not something I will do. But institutions can be examined, and the test is not intent. The test is outcome. That is what systemic discrimination means in Canadian law: a practice that produces unequal outcomes for different groups, whether or not anyone intended it. A policy applied in good faith can still hold one community to a standard it does not apply to another. When it does, the problem is real regardless of what anyone meant. So compare the outcomes. [My Accompanying Image] Content: An AI-generated image containing elements of a flag and a turban Author’s response: Voluntarily removed; public apology issued Platform: Chinese-language WeChat Official Account City Council’s response: Unanimous condemnation motion, demand for an apology, and referral to the Human Rights Tribunal Prior notice to the person concerned: None [That Comment] Content: Identified an ethnic group as members of a foreign political party Author’s response: Not removed Platform: Public Facebook page City Council’s response: None Prior notice to the person concerned: None I do not think the author of that comment should be condemned by council. I do not think he should be referred to a tribunal. I do not think he should lose his job. What I think is this: when a city moves that fast and that hard on one, and says nothing about the other, it is not applying one standard. It is applying two. This is not a complaint about how I have been treated. It is a question about the standard.
That Comment Was Not an Isolated One
I am not writing this because of a single comment. On July 27, the investigative journalist Sam Cooper posted about my article. His post referred to Vancouver “networks,” cited the Hogue Commission’s inquiry into election interference, and tagged Canada’s security intelligence service directly. I do not know what he intended, and I am not going to speculate. I can only describe what I felt when I read it, which was fear.
The first reply under that post read: “FOREIGN INTERFERENCE!” Elsewhere in the discussion of this story, readers wrote: “Same old story, Richmond Chinese community being its true self away from public English speaking eyes.” “Just look at how welcoming they are of their own homeless or mentally ill, they just want them OUT or DEAD.” These were posted publicly. They received upvotes. They remain online.
I am not arguing that anyone should be condemned for them, referred to a tribunal, or lose their job. I am not even arguing they should be taken down. I am making one observation. In the same week, on the same subject, an AI-generated image that its author removed and apologized for produced a unanimous condemnation motion, a demand for apology, and a human rights referral. The statements above produced silence. That gap is what I am asking readers to see.
Why I Am Still Writing
Some people have asked why, at this point, I do not simply remain silent. My article, from beginning to end, argued that more Chinese Canadians should vote. Turnout in Richmond’s 2022 municipal election was 24.5 per cent. That number means the outcome in this city is decided by a small and reliably mobilized share of those eligible. Chinese Canadians are 54 per cent of the population. At the ballot box, that proportion does not hold. My conclusion has not changed: turnout decides who represents Richmond. Not ethnicity. If a resident who publicly urges his own community to register and vote can face a condemnation motion and a tribunal referral without ever being told it was coming – the next ordinary person with something to say will think twice before saying it. That is what actually keeps people away from the polls. I will be voting on October 17. I hope you will too, for whichever candidate you choose. I have sent complete English translations of both articles to every councillor and to the mayor, asking them to identify the passages supporting what they said in chambers, or to correct the public record. That request stands. I will publish their answers, and I will publish their silence.
By the time I finished writing, it was nearly dusk. During the third repetition of my tai chi routine, something my teacher once said came back to me: “Only when your feet are firmly rooted can your hands dare to remain empty.” I have often thought of those words over the past several days. Tomorrow, I have two calls to make: one to the Human Rights Tribunal to ask whether a case has been formally opened, and one to a lawyer to arrange an appointment for this week.
Luxmore Realty | Jason Liu | Author of AI Economics
Infrastructure determines the ceiling; data determines the moat.