First: I Formally Submitted a Complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal

A Document That Brought the Situation into Focus

From August 28 to August 30, I worked on the same tedious task: arranging all the material by date into a single timeline.

The original Chinese text, the English translation, my July 25 response and apology to the Vancouver Sun, four letters to the Mayor and councillors, the July 27 Council motion, and internal City documents obtained through freedom of information (FOI) requests.

It may sound like a minor administrative task. But only when all the documents were placed side by side in chronological order did several questions truly come into focus:

• What material did Council have before it issued its public condemnation?
• Had members read my original Chinese text or a complete English translation?
• Was I given any opportunity to explain or respond?
• After the resolution passed, did the City’s actions match what the resolution said?

The FOI documents answered that last question.

The Resolution Said One Thing; the City Did Another

Consider these two dates:

July 27: the resolution publicly passed by Council expressly stated that the matter would be referred to the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

July 29: the letter actually sent by the City of Richmond was instead addressed to the BC Human Rights Commissioner, asking the Commissioner to consider further action under human rights legislation.

These are not the same body.

This explains the written reply I received on August 11: the Tribunal told me it had received no complaint related to this incident.

What the public saw and what actually happened were therefore two different things:

What the public was told: a serious legal process had begun, and the matter had been referred to the Human Rights Tribunal.

What actually happened: the letter went to a body that does not handle individual cases. No judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding against me had ever been underway.

I draw no conclusions about anyone’s motives. I do not know how this change occurred, who decided on it, or whether Council knew.

So I asked.

On August 31, based on the FOI material already obtained, I submitted a new freedom of information request to the City seeking disclosure on four points:

1. Why the referral to the “Tribunal” specified in the resolution became a letter to the “Commissioner” during implementation;
2. How and when this change was decided;
3. Whether Council was informed;
4. Whether the City considered correcting or clarifying the public record.

Each of these four questions can be answered in a single sentence.

On August 31, I Submitted My Complaint

That same day, I completed a complaint form and formally submitted it by email to the BC Human Rights Tribunal, naming the City of Richmond as the respondent.

I need to make one point absolutely clear:

This is a complaint that has been formally submitted.

It does not mean the Tribunal has decided to accept it.

Still less does it mean the Tribunal has made any finding in the case.

I am spelling this out because, over the past month and more, I have seen too many instances of a process being announced when no such process actually existed.

I will not do the same.

As of today, this is simply a submitted complaint. When there is an outcome, I will disclose it promptly, whether it is favourable to me or not.

Second: The September 4 Press Briefing

Why I Held It

Over the past month and more, I have written four open letters and countless emails, continually trying to explain the full sequence of events.

But I noticed a problem: much of the discussion was based on second-hand accounts rather than original documents.

So I decided to take a different approach—to lay the material out directly for journalists.

I provided the original Chinese text, the complete English translation, the four letters, the Council motion, government documents obtained through FOI, and the full timeline, so that journalists could reach their own judgments with all the material before them.

I did not ask anyone to speak on my behalf. I asked for only one thing: read the material first.

Who Was Invited

We contacted and invited local Chinese-language media and also sent invitations to local mainstream English-language outlets, including CBC and CityNews.

What Happened

The briefing took place as scheduled on the afternoon of September 4.

Several invited Chinese-language outlets attended. They examined the documents and asked questions, which I answered one by one.

Not one of the local mainstream English-language outlets we invited attended.

To be honest, I was disappointed.

In late July, this incident received extensive coverage in the English-language media—the coverage was about the condemnation.

More than a month later, the person concerned presented the complete original documents, internal government records, and evidence of a discrepancy between the resolution and its implementation, and invited those outlets to examine them.

No one came.

I am not accusing anyone. Each outlet has its own editorial judgments and schedule; I understand that.

But I want to record this fact:

The condemnation was reported.

What happened after the condemnation has, as of today, yet to be written about.

Third: I Filed a Complaint with Radio Canada International’s Chinese-Language Service

What Happened

On September 5, I saw a commentary about this incident published on September 3 by Radio Canada International’s Chinese-language service.

After reading it, I concluded that some of its descriptions and comments about the sequence of events and the content of my original article did not match the original material in my possession.

Why I Could Not Accept It

I do not object to criticism. Over the past month and more, I have read many articles criticizing me, and some made valid points.

But I believe that a commentary assessing my article and its contents should begin with a complete reading of the original text and a check of the source material.

That sounds like common sense. But consider this:

This is precisely where the entire incident went wrong from the beginning.

On July 27, eight elected representatives passed a motion characterizing my article as racially discriminatory. To this day, there is no evidence that any of them read the original Chinese text or a complete English translation.

I have asked four times for just one thing: please identify the sentence in my article that supports this conclusion.

One sentence would be enough. More than forty days have passed, and no one has answered.

Now the same thing has happened again in a media commentary.

A conclusion reached without reading the original text.

What I Did

On the afternoon of September 5, I wrote an article responding to the commentary point by point and formally complained to the relevant media organization about the descriptions and comments I considered inaccurate.

My request has been the same throughout:

You may criticize me.

But please read the original text first. Please check the facts first.

This is not an unreasonable request. It is something every person should be afforded before being publicly judged.

What Else I Have Been Doing During These Days

Let me add a personal note.

This incident is not my entire life.

On September 2, I returned to the routine of my regular work—handling client matters as usual and continuing to sell homes for clients.

On September 8, I went back to the office for the morning meeting and arranged the week’s work. Development of OpenDeed’s new features is continuing, with releases to follow.

On September 9, there is also a sharing session to host at Luxmore Realty’s Richmond office.

Over the past month and more, this Richmond incident has taken up a great deal of my time. But my clients are still here, my colleagues are still here, and none of the company’s work stops because of it.

I continue going to work, meeting clients and doing my job.

Why I Keep This Record, Day by Day

By now, one thing has become increasingly clear to me: this may not end quickly.

So, beyond responding, what I need to do is preserve a complete record of every key development, every letter, every government document and every public response.

Not to win anything.

But because—

Opinions may differ.

But the facts should be preserved in full.

The Record So Far

38 days until voting day on October 17

Please vote on October 17.

Look at their platforms. Look at their track records. Look at whether they spoke up when you needed them to.