August 13 – August 14, 2026: I will definitely persevere, no matter the cost, I must seek justice. Not just for myself.

Between August 13th and 14th, there were no dramatic turns of events, but there were a few more things worth recording.

1. At the Mayoral Debate, Someone Said Those Words

The most important thing over the past two days is not what I did, but what others said.

At the mayoral candidates’ debate on August 12, my situation was publicly raised, and five people responded in turn. I have compiled their statements in chronological order into a bilingual English-Chinese record.

It needs to be clarified first: this compilation is based on the automatic voice transcription of the debate, and I only made light corrections. It is not a certified verbatim transcript. When it comes to any legal proceedings, the original video and official records should prevail.

Below are a few key statements.

Henry Yao (1:06:06) proactively brought my matter to the table and asked Sheldon Starrett: If you were sitting on the city council at that time, how would you have voted?

Sheldon Starrett’s (1:06:45) answer was very clear:

“If it were me, I would have voted against sending that letter to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. It is irresponsible for the city council to use a quasi-judicial government legal body to target an ordinary private citizen.”

He went on to say that the AI image was not perfect, that I later took down that image, and that what I really wanted to do was to encourage more Chinese residents to come out and vote. He said that if you believe certain comments involve racism, you can point them out and initiate a dialogue—”rather than threatening them with the Human Rights Tribunal.”

A resident named Steven Quinn (1:26:11) asked the sharpest question of the afternoon:

“Demanding an apology from Jason Liu for encouraging Chinese residents to vote—is this reasonable accountability, or a form of political intimidation against our community?”

The moderator later asked him to clarify, and he asked it again in full. I don’t know this gentleman. He brought this question to the debate after facing frustration over another matter he cares about (the Aster Place public hearing).

This is the first time in these past few days that someone has publicly, in front of all the mayoral candidates, asked this question exactly as it is.

Kash Heed’s (1:26:57) answer was very short:

“This matter is about accountability. It is not political rhetoric, nor is it political posturing; it is accountability. It is that simple. This is also why I voted in favor of that motion at the time.”

I put this statement together with another fact:

• On July 25th, in a Vancouver Sun report, Councillor Heed explicitly stated that he was not seeking an apology, nor was he demanding the post be taken down.
• On July 27th, he voted in favor of a motion demanding a public apology from me.

I won’t guess what happened in between. I am just putting the two dates and the two statements side by side. These two things require an explanation.

Alexa Loo’s (1:27:23) answer was the most important passage I’ve heard these past few days. She first admitted that she voted in favor. Then she said:

“I think it would have been a better approach if the motion could have been postponed at the time, allowing adequate time for review. Normally we require a Notice of Motion to be submitted in advance, so that city councillors have enough time to carefully consider it, and to consider whether the process is fair before passing the motion.”

“I also think it would be fairer if the community were given this extra time, giving everyone an opportunity to further understand what happened and decide whether they wish to speak on it. The kind of procedural safeguards we demand for city councillors themselves should equally be given to the public.”

Later, when asked “What is your biggest mistake?” (1:44:01), she said:

“I realize that when we voted on that incident involving racism at the time, I made a mistake. We should have spent more time. We should have required a formal Notice of Motion and delayed the decision.

But what I am truly sorry for is that, as a city councillor, I gave everyone the impression—as if our job is to police social media. Our job should be to maintain community policing and ensure safety for everyone. I will not go policing social media anymore.”

I want to make the weight of these words clear. An incumbent city councillor who voted in favor said at a public debate: that vote did not follow the proper procedures, did not give me time, and did not give the public time; she believes she made a mistake.

This is exactly what I complained about to the BC Ombudsperson on July 29th. What I raised was: before passing a motion that condemned me by name, the city council did not notify me, nor did they give me an opportunity to make a statement.

Now, a councillor who voted in favor of the motion at the time has said the exact same thing in public. This is not my complaint, nor is it my speculation. This is the record.

Henry Yao’s (1:30:00) response focused on freedom of expression:

“We don’t necessarily have to agree with each other, but we will defend your right to voice your opinion. This is the right of BC residents, and it is a right granted by democracy.”

He also said that the discussion should consider the consequences a decision “might have on a person’s life.” I accept this statement, and I am thankful for it.

2. August 14th, No Response

The deadline for a reply that I previously set for the mayor and all city councillors was August 14th. As of today, there has been no response.

I want to be fair: the city council is on recess for the entire month of August, and all meetings have been canceled. This deadline falls during a period when they are not holding any meetings at all. The deadline I set was never a statutory deadline to begin with, just a marker of my own.

But a letter doesn’t require a meeting to be replied to. And counting from July 28th, seventeen days have already passed. Of the letters I wrote to the mayor and five councillors, there hasn’t been a single reply.

This is the record itself.

3. Letter from the City Inquiring About the August 23rd Event

At 10:33 AM on August 13th, I received an email from the city’s facility rentals office, inquiring about the details of a rally event on August 23rd.

I replied three minutes later: I am not the organizer of this event, and I do not possess the details of the event.

At 10:30 AM on August 14th, they wrote back again, confirming receipt of my reply. I replied once more, reiterating the exact same content.

I am only recording the facts, not making any speculations. What I need to clarify is: this event was not initiated by me, not organized by me, not arranged by me, and I did not participate in any of its preparations. I do not know who is running it, where it is being held, or what its content is.

If in the future any organization, any media, or anyone needs to inquire about this, my answer from today onwards will always be the same sentence: I am not the organizer.

I have saved both of these reply emails, complete with their timestamps.

4. Starting to Organize Evidence

On the afternoon of August 13th, I did two things.

1. Continued looking for a lawyer.
2. Started to systematically organize the evidence.

The materials accumulated over these days are already numerous: correspondence, records of non-replies, media reports, social media screenshots, replies from the Ombudsperson, freedom of information file numbers and deadlines, the response from the Human Rights Tribunal, and now this compilation of the debate.

They are scattered across different email inboxes, different phone screenshots, and different folders. I need to line them up. By date, by source, with every item accompanied by its citation.

Because I am very clear that, in the end, what can speak is not my emotions, but this line of evidence.

5. Reply from MP Chak Au

On August 14th, I received a reply from MP Chak Au. I have written back to express my gratitude.

After seventeen consecutive days without a single city councillor replying, the very act of receiving a reply made me take note of today’s date.

6. Final Thoughts

Over the past two days, I haven’t published any articles, haven’t made any videos, and haven’t argued anywhere.

But these two days might be the first time since July 27th that things have moved a little bit in my direction. Not because of what I said, but because others have started speaking.

A resident asked the question exactly as it is at the debate. A candidate said the city council should not use a quasi-judicial body against a private citizen. An incumbent councillor who voted in favor said the voting process that time was incorrect and she made a mistake.

From beginning to end, all I wanted was for someone to take a serious look at how this incident occurred. Now, people are starting to look.

 

Luxmore Realty | Jason Liu | Author of AI Economics

Infrastructure determines the ceiling; data determines the moat.