If This Image Is Harmful, Why Is It Still on Your Pages?
A Factual Record Concerning Two Sitting City Councillors
August 10, 2026
On July 27–28, Richmond City Council unanimously passed a motion condemning an article and its accompanying image, calling for an apology, and referring the matter to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
I had already removed the image before the City Council meeting and had publicly apologized through the Vancouver Sun. I will not change my position on that, nor do I need anyone to defend me over it.
What I want to address today is not whether that image should have been condemned. The question is: after it was condemned, who continued to circulate it?
Everything below is based on publicly verifiable records, with dates and times provided. I do not speculate about anyone’s motives, nor do I need to. The record itself is clear enough.
1. The Image That Was Condemned by Vote Is Still on the Pages of Those Who Voted to Condemn It
Councillor Carol Day posted on her personal Facebook account at 06:27 on July 28, stating that City Council had unanimously passed the motion, called for an apology, and would refer the matter to the Human Rights Tribunal. The post included the image in full resolution, with the name and logo of my company, Luxmore Realty, clearly visible.
At 06:14 that same day, the same content and the same image were posted on X.
As of today, August 10, both posts remain publicly visible.
Councillor Laura Gillanders posted on X at 08:55 on July 25, commenting that my explanation was “as bad as the poster itself.” She likewise attached the image. The post shows 9,766 views.
As of today, it remains publicly visible.
This raises a question that cannot be avoided:
If the existence and circulation of this image itself constitutes harm, then does its circulation by city councillors on their personal accounts, in full resolution and together with the identifying logo of a named business, constitute the same harm?
If the answer is “no,” please explain what the distinction is.
If the answer is “yes,” then why is the image still there?
It takes three seconds to delete it.
Two weeks have passed.
2. A Comment Asking About the Ethnic Makeup of a Company’s Employees and Customers Still Has Not Been Deleted
Under Councillor Carol Day’s July 28 post, a user named Jack Higgins wrote:
Bravo to City Council. This kind of messaging is unacceptable. Shame on “Luxmore Realty.” By the way, what percentage of their salespeople are non-Chinese? What percentage of their sales comes from non-Chinese customers? It would be good to know, wouldn’t it?
The comment names a private business and publicly asks about the ethnic composition of its employees and customers.
It received likes and appears prominently.
As of today, it has not been deleted, responded to, or accompanied by any clarification of position.
The July 27 motion was intended to state a clear public position “on behalf of all residents” regarding a particular type of messaging.
So does this comment fall into the same category?
When this type of comment appears under a city councillor’s public account, who is responsible for dealing with it?
If it does not fall into the same category, what is the standard?
Please state it, so that every resident of the city knows where that line is drawn.
3. One Councillor’s Public Explanation for Her Vote
At 11:21 on August 3, Councillor Laura Gillanders posted on Facebook explaining that she voted in favour because “this racist incident happened to my colleague,” and said that she hoped anyone experiencing racial discrimination in the workplace would receive support from their colleagues and employer.
I respect the bonds between colleagues.
But can the official authority of a city councillor be exercised because of those bonds between colleagues?
Kash Heed himself had previously told the Vancouver Sun that my article did not violate BC election law. He did not ask for an apology, nor did he ask for the post to be removed.
City councillors are elected by all residents. They exercise public authority.
What is the relationship between citing “this happened to my colleague” as a reason for voting and the motion’s wording that it was acting “on behalf of all residents”?
When a city council passes a motion naming a private resident without notifying that person and without giving that person any opportunity to make representations, what is the procedural basis for doing so?
I have asked this question in three formal letters sent to the Mayor and every member of City Council, with the Chief Administrative Officer copied.
Three letters.
Not one has received a response.
4. One More Question — Asked Three Times, Still No Answer
Seven city councillors voted unanimously to determine that my article was racially discriminatory.
What I am asking for is very small:
Please identify the sentence in my article that supports that conclusion.
One sentence is enough.
Since this incident began, among the people who have cited my writing most frequently are anti-Chinese vanguards such as Sam Cooper and self-media commentators. What they say is problematic is my 2021 article, “The Key Minority Has Made Its Power Felt.”
My article used the term “Chinese” in the sense of Chinese Canadians, not “Chinese nationals.”
The sentence repeatedly quoted by the media is immediately followed by another sentence explaining what it means: it is about lost votes and lost seats — basic electoral politics — not any form of threat.
And in 2021, the candidate I publicly congratulated on winning was an Indo-Canadian.
If any of this is incorrect, point it out.
Identify the sentence.
This is a question that can be answered.
What I Want to Make Clear
I do not speculate about anyone’s motives.
I do not know what anyone is thinking, and I do not intend to guess.
I am stating only facts that can be verified:
An image that was condemned by vote remains on the public pages of those who voted to condemn it two weeks later.
A comment asking about the ethnic composition of a company’s employees remains undeleted a week later.
Three letters have received no response.
And a question asking “which sentence?” has been asked three times without an answer.
Anyone can verify these facts for themselves.
The links are public.
From beginning to end, I have done only one thing:
I have called on Chinese Canadians to vote.
No matter how this matter ultimately ends, I will continue to do so.
On October 17, please vote.
Look at the platforms.
Look at the records.
Look at whether this person spoke when you needed them to speak.
Luxmore Realty | Jason Liu | Author of AI Economics
Infrastructure determines the ceiling; data determines the moat.